John Greenewald: For nearly five years, we've heard the story of
Luis Elizondo. After retiring as a senior intelligence officer
within the Department of Defense, and after being a
former counter intelligence agent within the US Army, his
efforts and his story have played a crucial role in the
change in global conversation about UFOs and UAP. His actions
and his story may have even played a role in motivating
Congress to create legislation and pursue answers to a pressing
mystery. But according to Elizondo, his actions didn't
come without a cost. According to him, he was faced with
retribution, false information to the public abuse by
government authority, and the illegal destruction of
information all by people within the very department he wants
worked for. So to clear his name, he filed a 64 page
complaint to the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector
General. This video is a deep dive into that very document, as
published in redacted form by the New York Post it did, what's
in it, what exactly is being alleged? And does the evidence
that we can get access to support or contradict the rather
pointed allegations about certain individuals stay tuned,
you're about to journey inside the blackboard.
That's right, everybody. As always, thank you so much for
tuning in and making this your podcast or your live stream of
choice. I'm your host, John Greenewald, Jr, Owner, founder,
creator of the black vault.com. And today we're doing a show
that has been heavily requested. And I will warn you right now I
have no idea how long it's going to end up. Obviously, you will
be able to see this now lengthwise in the description.
And if you're watching on YouTube or your podcast
streaming, you'll be able to see the length of it. But as of
right now, I have no idea where we're going to end up but likely
a couple of hours. This is a deep dive into the Luis Elizondo
IG complaint. Now a lot of you have seen this it was released
by the New York Post not too long ago, but it's been long
enough to where some of you may have even forgotten about it.
But also some of you may not know what I'm talking about. And
what we're going to do is dive into the complaint that finally
came out into the public realm. That explains Luis Elizondo is
essentially complaint but his his gripe if you will, with the
Department of Defense and certain people within now, I'm
not here to tell you who's guilty, who's not who should be
fired or anything like that, that that's not what I'm going
to do with this video. But rather, I will go through this
complaint, page by page and yes, we will read it together. I
understand this video may not be for everybody. So if you're
cringing at the fact that we're going to read something
together, no worries, you don't have to go ahead and sit through
this. But know that I'm not going to sit here and read word
for word. Rather, I will read the complaint word for word. But
in addition to giving additional information, additional context,
and posing questions that I think need to be asked, and
ultimately answered, but I have no idea if they ever will. So I
want to just dive into this. And likely, I'll make a mistake here
or there. I'll try and edit out the the big ones. But rather,
there's a lot of slides to go through in this deck. There's a
lot of pages of the complaint, some of which we can go through
rather quickly. Others take a little bit more time. As you can
imagine, I've created a slide deck for you guys, which is
going to break down the entire complaint, page by page and then
again, in addition to other information, but I also want to
point out that this has been rearranged a little bit when it
comes to the page. At first I wanted to just have you guys
download from the New York Post's drop dropbox account, and
that way you could follow along. It didn't work out great because
in Luis Elizondo his complaint, he references a bunch of
attachments. And in the copy that came out to the general
public, they were not numbered as they were in his letter and
in his outline of his complaint, so to match them up took a
little bit more work then just going, Oh, attachment four.
Okay, let's go to attachment four, they weren't numbered that
way, and in my opinion weren't in that order without numbers.
So it's not like you could just go and figure it out. Rather,
they were a little bit jumbled. The emails also were in
different chronological order. There was also a repeated page
in the copy that I downloaded anyway. So I took that out, but
rearranged the emails in chronological order, that way,
it makes more sense. So that's the difference. But if you
haven't seen the IG complaint, look in the description below if
you're watching on YouTube, or if you're streaming the podcast,
just know it is in the show notes version, as well. So you
can go to the New York Post's YouTube account, and the video
that Stephen Green Street did on the basement office breaking
down quite a few things about Luis Elizondo story, but the
complaint popped up shortly after that video first aired,
and they, meaning the New York Post released it. So kudos to
them. I want to start there for taking a very important document
and putting it out there. I did try and get this in two
different ways and failed in both attempts. Once with Luis
Elizondo that failed, that did not work. He did.
It was private communication. So I'm not going to say anything
other than they said, no, they meaning Luis Elizondo, and he
obviously works with some PR people. The second way I tried
to get it was through the Freedom of Information Act, he
submitted it to the Department of Defense Office of the
Inspector General, filing his complaint against certain
people, we'll go over those people in a moment. I tried
through FOIA. It was also denied that the FOIA process exempts
something like this for a couple of different reasons, which I
won't go into. But rather it's just exempted, and I was unable
to get it. Whether or not there will be a final report whether
or not that they were even doing an investigation, whether or not
they're even doing an evaluation on this specific complaint has
not been confirmed. I know Louise Elizondo is and his
attorney Daniel Sheehan, and podcasts and so on have said
quite a bit about this whole thing. And it could very well be
true. All I am saying and adding here is that the DoD IG, the
Office of the Inspector General will not comment. And I tried as
recent as in the last week of the airing for the first airing
of this video. So in the last week, I tried to get the DoD IG
to say, hey, yes, we're doing an investigation, hey, we're not
doing an investigation, hey, we're doing an eval something,
and they will not do it. So I tried again, I did hear back. So
that was not a a ignoring of the requests, they did respond. But
it is their policy not to comment on any type of complaint
like this, or what the outcome would be. That being said, let's
go ahead and jump into it. Now, let me get my laser pointer
here, because I'm gonna always point around here if you're
watching the visuals, I'm just going to start from the top.
This is the first page the top of the PDF. This obviously is
the what they call the DoD hotline, how Mr. Elizondo filed
his complaint and all of the information that he filled out.
You can see here under Part One, your information he had checked,
I choose to identify myself for the complaint, meaning he wasn't
going to be anonymous. And the second thing he checked, I give
permission for DOD hotline to release my identity outside the
DoD hotline on a need to know basis. All right, so he wasn't
afraid to make the complaint and be named in the process. Not
checked was I don't get permission meaning a anonymous
complaint. Going through these pages. You can see Mr. Luis
Daniel Elizondo, this is something that I want to point
out that I don't believe has been addressed. And I know that
he's come out since I believe in podcasts and said that he was a
government contractor. However, the employees status, he would
think that from the DOD, he would be a retiree or a
contractor employee. You can see those two options here. When he
filed this, I don't believe it was public knowledge. I did not
try and figure out that timeline because it's irrelevant. But
regardless, for quite some time, we just thought he was a
retiree. He talked about living in a trailer in Southern
California for quite some time and then moved to another state.
It came out later that he was working as a government
contractor and maintained his security clearance. So whichever
one is right, neither one was checked. You can see here he
checked other so I'm not entirely sure why he would do
that. What that means. But you can see here assigned DoD branch
Department of Defense. This was filed after He retired. So if he
was a contractor employee meaning working for a government
contractor, he technically would be a contractor working for
somebody else. And technically not a DOD employer, or excuse me
employee, because the DoD is not as employer. It may seem like
I'm playing a little bit of like, nitpicking here. But it's
important at this level, that if he's going to be submitting
complaints about people and talking about himself, we, I
think, can nitpick. So if he was that contractor, why isn't a
checked, but it says other department of defense. Now
there's a lot of rumor about him working for I've seen Space
Force and I've seen Space Command. And yes, I do believe
those would be two technically different things. I've seen
statements that he's working for both meaning somebody messed up,
I doubt he's working for all of them. So maybe that plays a role
in this. But regardless, something that I wanted to point
out there, that kind of stuck out as odd going through the
pages. These redactions I want to point out are likely done by
the New York Post when they released this. However, I do not
know what in the original
version, let's say to the DOD, if anything, likely this was not
redacted. But later on, if anything was redacted. I don't
know what the DoD IG got. But rather, what I'm showing you is
what the New York Post got and released. And that's what we're
looking at. So I think it's safe to assume these redactions are
for privacy reasons, as done by the New York Post. So those are
all personally identifying information. You can see here he
was willing to be interviewed. And here's where we're going to
start breaking down the people. These are the allegations that
Luis Elizondo is making and who he is making them to. First up
on the list on the form Gary Reed. Now if you don't know who
Gary Reed is, he might ring a bell you can see here as a
retiree, I don't believe that was accurate either. A civilian
employee likely was accurate, worked for the US the office of
the other Undersecretary of Defense, for intelligence, now
named and security. And Gary Reed is the guy that you likely
heard about, as I hate to use the word but essentially kind of
a scumbag was accused of multiple inappropriate
relationships inside the Pentagon. You can see here in
April of 2002, Brian Bender, from Politico outlined the fact
that and I'll quote here top Intel official had inappropriate
relationship, misused email, Pentagon probe found Gary Reed
still oversaw a series of sensitive portfolios after the
2020 investigation, concluded he violated policy. This here is
Gary Reed in all his glory. Now, I don't want to be accusatory of
the guy. I don't know him. I've never talked to him don't care,
too. I read enough in the complaint that he kind of sounds
like a sleazebag. So sorry, that just kind of is what it is. And
he was found in violation of certain things. They could not
substantiate other things, and was eventually moved. We'll get
to that in a moment. But I want to stick with Gary Reed for a
minute. Because this is kind of the tip of the iceberg when it
comes to this complaint. And the overall narrative around Luis
Elizondo, and the problems that he's had, and the the opposition
that he's had, that essentially here we are setting up good guys
and bad guys. And Gary Reed has obviously become a bad guy, and
it very well could be warranted. But this will make a little bit
more sense as we go through here, because you'll see certain
names being set up as essentially those bad guys. And
the question mark really has to become, are they really, are
they truly the root of this problem? And have they targeted
Mr. Elizondo? And will they be found? Essentially liable,
guilty, whatever the the wording will be in a complaint like
this, but
will they be found to be in violation of policy or so on and
so forth. But what's weird about the Gary Reed story is how awful
the reporting really was. Now, again, I want to repeat this a
million times. I'm not defending the guy, that guy likely is, you
know, scummy from what I've read, but if that's true, it
should be pretty easy to craft a narrative about the guy who's
being ousted from the Department of Defense, because that's
essentially the story that we got from the debrief. Now, this
is credit to the original person that that broke the story. So
the debrief was the one that that did break this Tim McMillan
was the author, Sex, Lies and UFOs Pentagon's head of Counter
Intelligence and Security out stated that was April 14 2022.
Now essentially everybody who read this article, the majority
of people that read it, essentially walked away that he
was fired. Even Tim McMillan used the word fired in one of
his tweets. So I'm pretty confident that that's what they
were trying to convey with the article that he was just gone.
But there was a couple of people that started making some phone
calls, one of which I know jazz Shaw was, was tweeting out. He
is a journalist with the online publication, hot air, myself had
heard the same thing that Harry Reid was actually still showing
up to work. And then when he wasn't ousted, so what was odd
was there was this whole narrative that was crafted about
this guy being fired. And he was still showing up at the
Pentagon. So I was pushing for official statements to confirm
that jazz was pushing through through, you know, his his means
to get official statements. He was also tweeting about this and
getting a lot of heat for it. Because everybody said, well,
the scumbags fired was anybody, you know, challenging this, but
it turned out to not be true that he was still showing up. So
then the story shifted a little bit. I think that the phrasing
that was used was that he was floating a desk, so he was still
there, but he didn't have any duties. Okay. Well, that part
didn't make sense. But who knows, maybe that was true, but
then the Daily Mail jumped in on it. And they had a quote unquote
exclusive sex Spats and UFOs. Top Pentagon Intel official
under investigation for having an affair with staffer and
interfering with secret aerospace program is dismissed
and replaced with his mistress. So one of the people that he was
accused of having this inappropriate relationship with
which they've now labeled his mistress was taking his spot.
The problem was, is that that wasn't true, either. There was
no evidence to support that whatsoever. But here is one of
the tweets that went out. This is the Tim McMillan tweet that I
had referenced to you using the word fired. There were some
anonymous officials who gave their opinion as to why Reid was
fired. However, it was repeatedly made abundantly clear
by me, them God and country that the official explanation was has
not been made public. So it's unknown. This was in a longer
thread, explaining, essentially some people kind of throwing
some questions his way of some of the facts not lining up, but
you can see that the word fired was being used. So eventually,
right, the Daily Mail comes out and they said what they did. Tim
McMillan saying he's fired, then it kind of changed to floating
his desk. So there was all sorts of things that were that were
not correct. While on April 24 of this year, I got in so did
many others who were pushing for answers. John Kirby, who's the
Pentagon press secretary was at the time, he stated we can
confirm that Undersecretary of Defense for intelligence, and
Secretary Ron Moultrie has directed the reassignment of Mr.
Gary Reed to the Defense Intelligence Agency. It should
be noted, the DIA is an arm of the DOD. So if you're fired from
the DOD, especially if you're slimy and sleazy. My guess is
they're not going to move you to some other office within the
DOD, you're gone. It's like working for a major corporation
and somebody accuses you of sexual harassment. And
essentially, you're found to be that slummy guy. Chances are you
probably won't just get a promotion or move somewhere else
in the same company, you're going to be gone. So it was just
weird, right? I mean, that like the whole story was was just
weird. In fact, it got weirder in the Daily Mail because Luis
Luis Elizondo then began to make direct accusations and
connecting the ousting of Gary Reed. So regardless of him, you
know, being fired or transferred to the DIA, it was Elizondo who
decided to take credit for that outstaying some of the quotes
from the Daily Mail quote, he claims that Reid was under
investigation for his treatment of Elizondo as well as alleged
sexual harassment of one of Elizondo subordinates and
several other sexual misconduct claims. He again meaning
Elizondo.
Lou Elizondo, a former senior staffer claims in an exclusive
interview with dailymail.com and the counter intelligence, excuse
me, that the counter intelligence chief is in the
process of being dismissed for a spat over UFOs and that his
replacement is his alleged mistress. So obviously Elizondo
is the one that floated the mistress was taking a hold of
the position. So it was just a weird claim to make but one that
Elizondo felt that he could be quoted on in the top of the
article but Elizondo claims that wasn't until the IG investigated
his complaint of Reid's alleged vendetta and smear campaign
against him that Reid was dismissed. So now Elizondo just
goes for it. He says, It's My complaint, the one that I
submitted in 2021. It's not until I did that, that read was
dismissed and it was all about UFOs. Well, that's fascinating
to me. If that is true, the problem is, no one can back that
up. Not even Mr. Elizondo. Now we can say until our face turns
blue, that it was about UFOs. And it was Elizondo is
complaint. And that very well, may be true. But there's one
problem here. And that is the Department of Defense Office of
the Inspector General will not openly comment that they've done
in in an investigation on this on Elizondo his complaint. So we
are stuck with a very important unanswered question. Was there
an investigation? And has it completed?
Yes, that's one question, but two parts. So that is
unanswered. They, in my opinion, I'd love to see an example and I
will admit being wrong. If an accusation is made against
somebody, and the IG decides to investigate it, I highly doubt
they will take action until the investigation or evaluation or
inquiry or whatever you want to call it is done. I think we can
all agree on that. Right? If you say so and so is inappropriate
with me. The boss is not going to go You're fired. And let's go
ahead and investigate. No, that's not going to happen. be
put on leave without paying sure with paid Sure. Lots of things
can happen but not ousted, not fired, like everybody's talking
about. So what's going on? Why can't anybody be clear on if
this investigation even took place? Let alone is it done? And
that's why they took action? Sadly, no one has come forward
to prove that yet. I did ask the journalist who wrote that for
the Daily Mail. That was not pretty one didn't respond at all
the other did not appreciate me questioning their reporting. So
no proof was given. I will say they said Elizondo said it so so
when I kind of went back and forth on social media saying
Look can you can you guys back it up. They essentially meaning
the the one journalist that did respond Christopher sharp said
well Elizondo said that it's attributed to him. I'm
paraphrasing there but essentially saying that you're
that you're, you know, printed source. So fine. It's going to
fall on Elizondo, we have not seen any proof yet. Brian Bender
chimed into the conversation. He's obviously been following
this since day one, namely because he's been around since
day one when it came to the Lewis Elizondo story. And even
he fired back and said, and Tara Jones does not have Gary Reed's
job, Tara Jones would be the mistress. Will they correct
their story, meaning the Daily Mail? I'd felt fall out of my
chair. If they do. Essentially he knows it's bunk. It's
exaggerated, it's untrue, and they won't correct it. It's a
mess. Yet the source was Luis Elizondo, we know that by the
journalist and the writing so why why are we setting up this
entire narrative but can't prove it guys likely a scumbag but
that's not what we're talking about. We need to actually prove
that UFOs and Elizondo is complaint led to his ousting. If
it didn't, why are we making claims that we can't back up
when we can back it up? I'll be the first to bring it to you.
Back to the complaint. The next person that Elizondo mentioned
is Susan golf. Now Susan golf, if you're not aware, is one of
the Pentagon spokespeople. But the sole Pentagon spokesperson
who comments on UAP slash UFO slash Luis Elizondo issues and a
tip and OS AP and all that that goes along with it. I've said it
a million times on this channel, but if you're not aware, she
literally is the sole person. Everything gets routed from the
DIA from the Navy from the Department of Defense. If it has
something to do with UAP UFOs or Luis Elizondo are a tip, right,
it goes right to Susan golf. I'm not gonna say that's a good or
bad thing. It's bad because a lot of times you can't get a
response. But sometimes it's also good it may add to being
able to just go to one source, but again, it's a question mark
on if you get the answer, but she has become the poster child
of evil when it comes to the Pentagon. I mean, if anybody
looks on Twitter, you know, I'm not exaggerating there. Because
there are literally a pile of memes that have been created by
some very nasty people. Now, you may not like Susan golf. You may
not care for her. You may think she's lying through her teeth,
but there are some vicious things going around about
people. You including Susan golf that I think shouldn't be
involved in this conversation. But that in turn has created
this aura around her that she is the one that is spearheading
this movement against Luis Elizondo, I don't believe that
is founded. I don't think it's a warranted accusation, but a lot
of people will fall back that she is the linchpin to this
entire cover up, we have to remember being a spokesperson is
her job. And she is conveying a message on behalf of the
Department of Defense. That's not me defending Susan as a
person, but rather the position that I've understood for quite a
long time, what a spokesperson does, and you don't have to care
about Susan golf. But you do have to care about the fact that
she is speaking for the department, not herself. So
that's an important distinction that I think a lot of people
forget, if it turns out that she is to be blamed for some of this
cool, I will bring that to you as well. But until then, she's
just the spokesperson. She's the messenger.
The status here military reserves, some civilian
employee, very well could be true. I know that she was I
think a colonel Lieutenant Colonel. Regardless, you know, I
know she that she served in the military, likely as a civilian
employee, the rest was blank. Here's her LinkedIn page. This
is all public information. I've never had the intention to
Doc's, anybody. This is all again, public. So that so she's
easily found in that regard. But I want to stop before I get to
the third person named and accused in the complaint, and
talk about somebody who's not accused and named in the
complaint as somebody who's filing and that is the guy who
made the original statement that started this entire avalanche of
accusations against the Pentagon that they were smearing Luis
Elizondo, I am still open to the fact that they are doing that.
But this brings up a very important question that nobody
has been able to answer when the since this IG complaint
surfaced. Where is the accusation against Christopher
Sherwood? Now I would imagine a lot of you are going Who's that?
Well, if you've paid attention, he's the original guy that said
Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to
the A tip program. While he worked in Oh Usdi, the Office of
Undersecretary of Defense for intelligence up until the time
he resigned, effective 10 for 2017. That was first printed by
the intercept and journalist Keith klore. Now, where is he in
this complaint? You'll notice he's mentioned and we'll go over
that. So he's in it, but he's not accused of any wrongdoing?
Why not? There's no evidence that Susan golf who later
surfaced by the way, she was not around when that when that
comment first surface, at least not publicly, I am open to her
playing a role in it, but never has that been attributed to her.
What was attributed to her is when she softened it. She later
came out in a statement that was first printed by myself, then
picked up by the New York Post, quote, Mr. Elizondo had no
assigned responsibilities for a tip while he was in Oh Usdi, the
Office of Undersecretary of Defense for intelligence so she
softened it by adding the word assigned to responsibilities
essentially opening the door that maybe Luis Elizondo did
work on it, but he was never assigned slash it was never
official. That changes obviously, a lot of that
narrative, but it was her that inserted that word and was later
attributed that quote, but again, Christopher Sherwood was
the first to ever have been attributed that particular we'll
call it shot across the bow. And when that first surfaced, I was
shocked. I was really truly was. There was already a lot of red
flags at play. But when they took that direct, pardon the
expression but just shot across the bow, naming Luis Elizondo,
stating that he did not do what he was claiming to have done.
Where is Christopher Sherwood on the list of those being accused
of wrongdoing, and he's absent. Going back to the complaint, the
third and final of who was mentioned is Neil Tipton, likely
a lot of you have not heard of him either. He was a civilian
employee as tagged here. Here's his official DoD bio. Mr. Neal
Tipton serves as the director for defense intelligence
collection and special program his office of the Undersecretary
of Defense for intelligence, I'm not gonna read the whole bio,
but just I mean, listen to this. It's just impressive when you
read anybody's bio that has all this. Mr. Tipton has been with
the office of the Undersecretary of Defense. Since 2007, he has
held a broad range of leadership positions for the office
director clandestine operations, Global Access, Mission
Integration and director GEOINT and cygan support director
information sharing and partnership engagement, and IPT
lead for information sharing and collaboration for the SEC defs,
ISR Task Force, Deputy Director SIGINT and cyber and as a Usdi,
Senior Advisor for technical collection and it goes on for
there from there. So I always like to read those just to kind
of give some background like we're talking about some pretty
heavy hitters within the Pentagon within the DOD and
within these offices that are being accused of wrongdoing. And
in fact, I will let Luis Elizondo tell you what the
accused I don't wanna say charges, but essentially what
the accusations are. In here, what did the persons do or
failed to do? That was wrong?
And in Mr. Elizondo, his words conducted retribution and
provided false information to the public. Abusing government
authority, illegal destruction of information. When did the
incidents occur? 2018 To present when were you a made aware of
the problems 2017 Obviously a mistake, because the problems
didn't occur until a year after he was made aware of them. That
doesn't make sense. I'm not trying to nitpick, but these are
serious accusations to make. So we should nitpick. How can you
find out a year prior? Where did the incidents take place?
Pentagon? What rule regulation or law do you believe to have
been violated Whistleblower Protection Act, multiple DoD
directives, instructions and the Freedom of Information Act.
briefly summarize how you believe our office can assist
you regarding your matter. IG should conduct a comprehensive
review, inquiry investigation into abuse of power, lying to
the public destruction of evidence, conspiracy. So those
are his words. Mr. Elizondo also said have you reported this
matter to any other organization or agencies, Mr. Elizondo check?
No. I want to read these certifications to you because
this speaks volumes to a lot of people. So I'll read to you this
just to make sure that you are aware. Under the certifications.
All three check boxes were checked by Mr. Elizondo, and he
said the following, I certify that all the statements made in
this complaint are true, complete and correct. To the
best of my knowledge, I understand that a false
statement or concealment of a material fact is a criminal
offense 18, US Code section 1001 Inspector General Act of 1978 as
amended. Section seven, I've put next checkbox I have provided my
election concerning my filing status in part one of this form,
release of identity non release of identity or anonymous. If I
did not provide my release election, I understand that this
will cause a delay in the processing of my complaint. I
further understand that if I have elected either confidential
or anonymous status, it may impact the ability of the DoD
hotline to either conduct an inquiry, if warranted, and or to
appropriately address my issues. I also understand that if I
elect anonymity without providing any contact
information, I will be unable to request confirmation of receipt
of this complaint to the DoD hotline or to receive
advisements as to open or closed status. Last, I understand that
if the director DoD hotline to terms determines the allegations
in my complaint cannot be investigated without disclosing
my identity on a need to know basis to organizations outside
the DoD hotline. My lack of permission to release my
identity may prevent further action from being taken on my
complaint. I further understand that even if I let confidential
status, my identity may be disclosed if required by
appropriate legal authority, or if the director DoD hotline
determines that such disclosure is other ways unavoidable. So he
checked all those boxes that certifies what he's saying,
obviously, no penalty under perjury or anything like that.
But it would be a violation of the US code up here. So
obviously a no no. So that goes a long way with a lot of people.
So I wanted to make sure that I really did highlight that in his
defense.
going on in the complaint, this was obviously submitted three
may 2021. If I haven't mentioned that yet, you can see this is
essentially the cover letter On top of the complaint itself,
what we just went over were the DoD hotline forms that needed to
be filled out. Here is his cover letter from top to bottom. My
name is Luis de Elizondo. And the purpose of this letter is to
request an official US Department of Defense inspector
general inquiry slash investigation into malicious
activities coordinated disinformation, professional
misconduct, whistleblower reprisal and explicit threats
perpetrated by certain senior level Pentagon officials,
including the director of Defense Intelligence for
intelligence and security, Gary Reed, public affairs officer
Susan golf, and other officials who were complicit in these
acts. And close with this letter are details of the complaint for
your review. The first portion is a comprehensive chronological
listing of events that substantiate my involvement in
the advanced aerospace threat identification program or a tip.
The second portion is a detailed listing of events and actions to
substantiate this complaint along with evidence would
suggest a coordinated effort to obfuscate the truth from the
American people. Why impugning my reputation as a former
intelligence officer at the Pentagon. These negative actions
against me have resulted in great personal and professional
challenges to me and my family. Over the last three years.
Attempts to clear the record by some senior officials, serving
as witnesses to this abuse have been ignored by certain elements
within the Office of the Secretary of Defense staff,
namely within the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for
intelligence. Furthermore, evidence exists that
substantiates my claim that there may be deeper conspiracy
within the OSD staff to circumvent DoD policy rules and
regulations and perhaps even law. at a very minimum actions
have been taken against me that directly erode the very
foundation of our national security, ethos, and the public
trust instilled by the American people. I'm fully aware of the
magnitude of my allegation against certain individuals in
the department. And I am able to substantiate these claims, as
reprisals continued to be leveled towards me. I
respectfully request DoD IG conduct, conduct a comprehensive
review of all related activities against me over the last three
years and correct the record of my involvement in the advanced
aerospace threat Identification Program. sincerest regards very
respectively, Luis de Elizondo enclosures see attached. So
let's get into now, his complaint and the meat of it.
This, as he stated was, first the chronological outline
proving what he has essentially claimed. Now you have to keep in
mind, this is him putting on paper, what he has conveyed,
sometimes in part, but there's also a lot of new information as
well, but sometimes in part and podcasts and interviews and so
on. This doesn't necessarily lock it into stone. Now, I know
some of you may cringe at me saying that, but one of the
biggest reactions I saw when people read through this
chronology was ah, See, I told you, you know, this is he's
telling the truth. Well, no, this is just putting into
writing with some names that have been
stated here, with also other names being redacted. My
question is, where are those other names if they can
essentially backup, what Mr. Elizondo is stating, I know some
people fireback with Harry Reid, but Harry Reid stated he was
never briefed ever on a tip. So how can he really speak on
authority? I know that we have others that have backed him up
also people that were not directly involved. I want to
know from these people, what's going on the people again, the
names that we can see, and the names we can't let's get them on
the record. Where have they been for the last five years, even
though some of them have worked? Since for the DOD, and I
understand if they can't come out yet. Others we know though,
have retired and yet they have remained mum. I want to know
why. There could be a very good explanation for it. But I think
it should be pointed out that we have a lot of information here
with a lot of names, but where are they? And that's what I what
I essentially want to know. Let's get into it. This document
is unclassified. Additional classified details slash
information which provides specific critical context can be
provided over an appropriate ly secure and accredited means and
with a demonstrated need to know this portion is provided for the
purposes of establishing the facts, dates and points of
contact that can verify and validate my involvement with a
tip. June 2008. While assigned as chief to the information
sharing and foreign intelligence relationships or is Fitr Office,
Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for intelligence, I was
approached by representatives from the advanced aerospace
weapon system applications program or OSS app, to provide
counter intelligence and security expertise to their
office. The two individuals whom I engaged with were identified
as both being part of the RCEP. Effort, Mr. J. Stratton and
redacted. Both these individuals were so in. We're in I'm sorry,
this, the blackout is a little bit over the words here. Both
these individuals were an integral part of the OS app
effort. Our initial meeting occurred in my office at
redacted contact info, Mr. J. Stratton. Contact Info, a
redacted name, contact info a redacted name. Jay Stratton,
you'll remember who is now retired made headlines as being
the head of the UAP Task Force. I long suspected that got
documented proof from NASA quite some time ago. And then it was
also named, I believe in the mainstream media. But I think
Brendan mckernon was was the other one that was that was
named, and you'll see his name coming up too. But that if
you're not familiar with John F. Stratton, that's who that is.
And in fact, for you fans of skinwalkers at the Pentagon out
there a lot of people believe that to be Axelrod I have no
evidence to support or, or go against it. I have no idea but
just kind of throwing that out that that's who our people are
talking about. Back to the complaint for approximately two
weeks three meetings were held in my office. During the
meetings, it was revealed to me that OSS app was in need of
specific counterintelligence, and security support, and that
my background as a credential CI Special Agent was a necessary
skill set. Furthermore, they indicated they required the
required they required expertise in specific aerospace
technology. At the time, neither Mr. Stratton nor redacted,
elaborated on the purpose or mission of OS app, but they
indicated that upon a successful evaluation, I'd be referred to
the director of the program for further vetting and
consideration.
A month later, July 2008, after several personal meetings in my
office based Mr. Stratton and redacted invited me to meet with
the OS app director, Dr. James McCaskey. I was subsequently
provided directions to an undisclosed Defense Intelligence
Agency facility in the Rosalyn area. I'm surprised that's in
there to be honest with you. That's not to the fault of the
New York Post when they published this but rather Mr
Elizondo, putting it in a unclassified document about a
undisclosed dia facility in Roslyn. That's maybe another
video for another time. Classified details can be
provided over secure means, and with a demonstrated need to
know. During the meeting, I met with Dr. McCaskey and I was
asked to address him as Jim, Dr. McCaskey introduced himself as
an expert in missile technology and as the director for the
offset program. It was during this meeting that Dr. McCaskey
provided me the full name of the OSS app portfolio and the focus
of the mission. Dr. Luke Caskey explained to me my background in
the counterintelligence field, along with my expertise, excuse
me experience, working with advanced aviation technology
from a tech protect perspective, made me uniquely qualified to
support him. He further explained that offset was part
of a very sensitive effort that was sponsored by very senior
level officials at both the legislative and executive
branches. He further indicated to me that all personnel were
hand selected. During our discussion, Dr. McCaskey asked
me what I think about UFOs my response was sincere and that I
quote, I don't think about UFOs not because I don't believe in
them, but because I simply do not have the luxury to think
about them given my mission up tempo or operations, tempo or
operational tempo, whichever acronym you want to go with, and
mission focus. Also July 2008, after one additional follow on
meeting with Dr. McCaskey at his office space and Roslyn, I was
officially asked by Dr. McCaskey to assume the role of OSS apps
chief of counterintelligence and security. He explained to me
that this effort was fully endorsed by senior dia
leadership, and he had already received approval by the
program's sponsors. former Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid, Senator Ted Stevens, and Senator Daniel Inouye. What's
odd about this is the insertion and endorsement of a DIA
decision by Senators. The DIA is a military intelligence arm. You
generally don't have senators wielding their power and calling
the shots once the programs are underway. Of course, they play a
role in the funding. Of course, they may play a role, I guess,
and kind of the execution in the beginning. But their senators
they're not directors they're not program managers, and they
don't wield the power of a military intelligence arm. So
why they would be essentially named here? Maybe they were
being briefed. But keep in mind that Harry Reid already told New
York Magazine in the last couple of years prior to his passing,
that he was never briefed on a tip or, or essentially all SAP.
So where are we getting the endorsement from if he's not
being briefed? And according to him, in his own words, none of
that was his style. So he stayed out of it. These are all things
that just don't make sense when you look at what people say. And
then you look at this complaint and what is being claimed. Now,
I'm not saying Mr. Elizondo is making this up. But rather maybe
he was hearing false information like Yeah, Senator Harry Reid's
all over this, when in reality, Harry Reid had nothing to do
with it. Well, that was according to Harry Reid. But
then now he's an authority before his passing, being asked
to endorse Mr. Elizondo his role in this, it's kind of a mess
again, you know, you can beat these dead horses. But you have
to nitpick at this level, because we're making accusations
against people. And we're making claims that just don't make
sense when you look at the totality of the evidence, and
testimony that's available to us. I also want to point out one
tweet that in May of 2021, Luis Elizondo made about all SAP.
Now, apparently, there was
some frustration, or at least that's how I read his tweet
here, that he felt the need to go to Twitter, and to squash the
myth that he was involved with OS app. And he says, and I'll
quote, it's been brought to my attention that despite my
constant assertion in the media, about my non involvement in all
SAP, some are under the false impression that I was a part of
it for the record again, and again, I was not part of all
SAP. That's strange, because that was May 10 2021, within a
week of him submitting all these chronological details on his
involvement with us app. Now, for those of you who have
watched even green streets documentary on the New York Post
channel in the basement office, he did a great job breaking all
of this down. But I think the point needs to be looked at
again, as we go through this complaint, word by word, and and
see that that is not necessarily the case. Now, before some of
you throw bad comments my way, I'll get to Mr. Elizondo
response to the response when he addressed those allegations, but
sit tight for that. August 2008. While supporting the RCEP
effort, I was informed by Dr. Le Caskey, and other offset
personnel about a specific effort within the portfolio,
known as the advanced aerospace threat Identification Program,
and that most of my efforts would be focused on that aspect
of the project. I was informed that this effort involved
collecting data and evidence from military personnel who came
into contact with unidentified aerial phenomena, a term that
was then explained to me as the government nomenclature for
unidentified flying objects. Furthermore, I was asked to
develop a comprehensive counterintelligence and security
plan for this effort to protect the program from possible
Foreign Intelligence Service penetrations. That part makes
sense? And yes, he even said I'm gonna focus on the ATM aspect of
this. We can also throw in the fact that a couple people said
that a tip was just a nickname for ASA. So now we are playing
semantics a little bit, but the people that were involved in
these programs can't agree with the structure of the programs
themselves. Dr. McCaskey and Dr. Hal put off have both said, a
tip was just a nickname for the OS app effort here. Clearly, Mr.
Elizondo is trying to differentiate the two. What's
right, what's wrong? I'll let you decide. But it's still a
mess. And it's an important mess. Just again, I won't go
into why I've done that quite a few times on this channel. But
there's some of you, you're scratching your head going,
well, who cares? From a standpoint of trying to unravel
all of this? It is absolutely critical to figure out the
difference between OSS AP and a tip. Was it a nickname? Was it
not? Were they two different programs? And depending upon who
you listen to, you get multiple answers. And that's what makes
it very difficult to try and figure out especially when
you're trying to find evidence, what really is going on
September 2008 to June 2009. During this time, I created a
counterintelligence and security posture for both OSS, AP and a
tip. Furthermore, I attended senior level debriefings,
including In one with a foreign, a former foreign military member
with a general officer rank that was arranged by Dr. McCaskey. I
was also present for numerous written updates by Dr. McCaskey
to the director of DIA and other senior dia officials regarding
OSS AP, a tip, which were well received. Ample correspondence
exists between dia senior staff and Dr. Le Caskey. That
substantiates dia leadership was not only supportive, but also in
favor of the OS app a tiff efforts being expanded efforts
to be expanded. I am personally aware of both meetings and
briefings in which OS app and a tip were discussed. And I was
privy to several classified emails that substantiate this
fact. Those emails still exist within a specific office of the
Pentagon in both electronic and hard copies. Details on
specifics as to this information can be provided separately over
a secure means. It was during this time we also conducted a
review over a draft 10 month report executed by one of the
prime contractors, Bigelow Aerospace details and specifics
as to this information can be provided separately over a
secure means. Let me just interject here. This is the 10
month report that a lot of people talk about that's talked
about in skinwalkers, at the Pentagon, that the cover page
was leaked and was reviewed by a journalist if we're alluding to
the 10 month report and details within being classified, hence
why he can't discuss it more meaning Mr. Elizondo in this
unclassified document,
then there's something wrong, because there was no indicator
that that 10 month report was even a government document, let
alone classified. Would it be exempt? Maybe we can argue that
in a different video, and that just kind of gets into legal
mumbo jumbo, but no indicator that it was classified. There's
even no indicator again that it was a government document. So
why the reference to the needed to be under secure means, I
don't know, maybe maybe that's less about classification more
about what was going on with a government contractor that can't
be in a unclassified document. And that would be exempt but not
classified under FOIA. Sure, I can buy that. But that's just
like there's a couple things that just don't make sense
there. June 2009, it was brought to my attention that a request
was sent by former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to
DOD senior leadership leadership to further protect a tip by
requesting the effort be transitioned into a protected
Special Access Program. Furthermore, I was informed that
key individuals that were associated with a tip were
included slash listed as part of the request for SAP protection,
my name being one of those individuals. The request was
sent from Senator Harry Reid to the Deputy Secretary of Defense
through official correspondence channels. That's the Harry Reid
letter, which I've done videos on. Interesting story, but
that's what he's referring to there. July 2009, to January
2010. New Leadership at DIA began to create challenges for
Dr. McCaskey despite the previous leadership fully
endorsing the efforts. redacted was the redacted of DIA and
began attempts to shut down the effort. As was explained to me
by colleagues, there was a religious aversion to the
subject matter by certain members of DIA and the OSD
staff. In September 2009, I was privy to an internal email
between redacted and oh Usdi Congressional Affairs, redacted.
We're both were both were lamenting the existence of the
programs. And we're attempting to, quote kill the effort,
because it involves that crazy UFO topic again. In October
2009, I was asked to attend a meeting within the OS Oh Usdi
sabko spaces in which I was told specifically, that this effort
should be discontinued, and that although this topic was real, it
had supernatural origins, and not consistent with certain
religious views of specific senior leadership. I reported
the results of this meeting to Dr. McCaskey. February 2010 to
April 2010. Dr. McCaskey indicated to me that he was
facing increased pressure by dia leadership and he would be
forced to resign from his duties as the director of OSS, AP and a
tip and returned to headquarters dia Dr. McCaskey was in poor
spirits at the time because he believed he was being unfairly
persecuted for his role and an authorized mission. April 2010,
Dr. McCaskey approached me and asked if I would consider
assuming the role of OSS AP and a tip director. I reminded Dr
McCaskey that most of my experience concern the ATEP
portfolio and then I only worked on SAP from 10 Dead tangential
position perspective. Dr. The cat skis response to me was that
he already had my name floated as the new director of
leadership and that it was unanimously agreed by all that I
should be the new director. He also suggested that I managed
the manage the effort under my authorities as a member of the
OSD staff, and not keep it within dia due to hostile
environment he was experiencing. After a day of considering his
offer, I accepted the responsibility provided that all
stakeholders supported this decision. I also informed Dr.
McCaskey that I would begin to engage with select o Usdi.
Senior staff members to gain additional mission support.
May 10 to May 10, excuse me, May 2010. To August 2012. In my new
role as director for a tip and OS app, I made the decision to
begin minimizing existing efforts within the OS app
portfolio given the negative attention that was receiving by
dia leadership, a reminder again, that for more than two
years, in his chronological breakdown, he was the director
of OSS, AP, and even though he states that he was essentially
minimizing that part of the effort, he obviously still
played a role. To what extent we don't know according to him,
absolutely none. Then all of a sudden, for more than two years.
He's listing himself as the director of both programs. But
keep in mind, the director, the former director of OSS app,
including Dr. Hal put off said they were the exact same thing,
but a nickname. Go figure. I want to get to his tweets,
because after the New York Post, aired their video, and pointed
some of these things out. Mr. Elizondo got a little frustrated
again, and fired back. This was his tweet thread. He doesn't do
them in tweet threads the way you normally do tweet threads,
you kind of tweets out a bunch of numbers, and sometimes kind
of skips numbers. So you have to go back to his timeline. This is
it pieced together. This is what he said on May 12. Against my
better judgment, I'm climbing down into the morass to address
yet another mischaracterization based on cherry picking of
information. I've always maintained that I was only 10.
Jen, Chile can never pronounce that word right involved in OS
app. And my focus was on standing up a CI and security
capability for a tip in 2010. When asked to take over a tip,
the OS app portfolio came with it even though I had no
problematic or operational involvement and OS app. within
24 hours, my deputy and myself decided we would only focus on
the ATF portion of the effort, which is precisely what
happened. In the future. I encourage folks to be cognizant
of individuals with agendas. This is a complex issue. People
who were not there or part of the effort at the time simply
don't know. Fortunately, the DoD IG is aware of the relevant
details. And as I have maintained, the truth will be
proven in the end. Be cautious of people bearing false witness.
My involvement in SAP was only a name as a matter of proforma
because it was the broader effort initially. Remember, just
because you work on the Corvette assembly line doesn't mean you
are involved in all Chevy products. I don't believe that
that last statement is relevant as as kind of a comparison. You
can see here when he posted this on Twitter. The conversation,
again was about his words versus his words. And what doesn't make
sense here is he obviously went into detail about creating
security plans and all this stuff for OS app that's being
part of it. So why then in the previous year, was he so adamant
about saying I had no involvement whatsoever? Here he
says DoD IG is aware and they are aware in his own
chronological breakdown, being the director for more than two
years, granted, saying that he then waited his attention to the
A tip side versus OS app. But what's interesting is he says
people who were not there or part of the effort at the time
simply don't know. We'll find we can take them out of the
equation me Stephen Green Street, Mick West, whomever
wants to be labeled as a evil skeptic to some of these claims.
That's all well and good. Problem is the people that were
there. Dr. James McCaskey Dr. How put off I believe Dr. Even
Dr. Eric Davis had said that it was a nickname. They all
disagree about the hierarchy and release kinship between OSS AP
and a tip as a program and as an overall effort? Yes, it's
important to the story. Because if he is completely drilling
home that people were not there, they just don't know. Why can't
we address the people that were there? Do they not know? There's
a lot of other questions that go along with that posed by those
who were there like the funding, for example, when, in
skinwalkers, at the Pentagon, the former director of OSS AP
said, a tip didn't have any funding. Then Luis Elizondo
comes around and says, Yes, we did. A tip was said to have $22
million, as published by The New York Times, right. Luis Elizondo
stood up in front of the MUFON audience that was taped by to
the stars Academy and sent out as as kind of a history of the A
tip program, talking about the $22 million, what it bought, and
he outlined all the objectives. It echoed all SAP, almost
verbatim, pretty much verbatim. Yet he didn't have any role in
it. So where did that money come from? That he was talking about,
again, it's a mess. So the people that were involved, and
you look at what was said, you look at what was in the
complaint, none of it matches up. To continue on from page
three to four in that. First part of the chronology it was my
observation that key elements within dia were attempting to
hide anything related to OS app simply due to perceived sense of
stigma. As such, I focused on our remaining I focused our
remaining efforts on a tip given that there was ample
information, data and evidence, which we continued to receive
that indicated continued incursion into controlled us
airspace, both continental United States and outside the
continental United States. details and specifics as to this
information can be provided separately over a secure means.
During this time period, my office had multiple meetings
with eyewitnesses to to include pilots, radar operators, and
ship's crew. Furthermore, emails were being sent to my office at
the classified level over the secure Internet Protocol router
network or sipper net, and joint worldwide intelligence
communications J works concerning incidents involving
unidentified aerial phenomena activity. There were numerous
emails from senior military service members and leadership
that substantiate the fact that the threat was real. The email
still exist with an O Usdi. details and specifics as to this
information can be provided separately over secure means.
September 2012. As initial funding was exhausted for the A
tip program, we successfully secured an additional $10
million through Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. This funding
was to be used for fiscal years 13 and 14. However, the verbiage
used in the appropriations was sufficiently vague, wherein
another office with an O Usdi, managed by redacted use the
funding to support academic studies involving intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance October 2013, while also working
as chief for the newly formed intelligence sharing and partner
engagement office, under the Oh Usdi I have the opportunity to
brief a tip to the director of foreign material, oh Usdi,
redacted. During 2013. I introduced him to other members
of a tip and it scientists redacted attended numerous a tip
meetings where we discussed the role of DOD FMA efforts to
support a tip along with logistics and facilities,
details and specifics as to this information can provided
separately over secure means. It was at this time I informed my
supervisor Mr. Neal Tipton of my work in a parallel portfolio.
And my need to gain experience from the ISR task force given
the nuanced nature of analysis we were conducting. Mr. Tipton
indicated he had no issue with me working other efforts, as
long as my duties were not neglected at ISP details and
specifics as to this information can be provided separately over
a secure means. So his supervisor Neil Tipton
was being told about a parallel portfolio. To me, that just
sounds like something that he was doing on the side. Sorry.
That's what that means. And as long as it did not interfere
with his duties of what he was supposed to do, which was
working as the chief of the newly formed intelligence
sharing and partner engagement office, then he had no problems
with it. So that's wildly different than the stories that
were printed in the media and what we've been told, but there
you have it, in his own words, that his direct supervisor was
told, Hey, I'm doing this other thing over here. But I want to
interfere with my essentially real job here. And the
supervisor says Yeah, as long as it doesn't interfere, go right
in yet, again, different. I know he said that a supervisor didn't
know what he was doing. But that, for me is a different
context on how he always said it. Now we have it in writing.
Early 2014, my office received a very compelling video in 2011.
Send to us on Jay wicks that was collected by a sensitive us
platform operating in a denied area. The video was
approximately 18 to 20 minutes in duration, and appeared to
show three UAPs flying in a distinct triangle formation. I'm
going to stop right there. This is such a common. And I was
really surprised to see this, this is such a common mistake
when talking about UFOs. And they're flying in a triangle.
Whenever you have three points in the sky, unless they were
parallel and make a line, you get a triangle each and every
way you put it three dots, if not align, make a triangle. So
what is a distinct triangle? I'm not really sure. But regardless,
it will always be a triangle. So for the guy who has been
studying UFOs for years now through a tip, the fact that he
has to say that is just weird to me, because that is always
something that people and I'm not trying to harp on UFO
witnesses, but those that will see three lights in the sky and
go look, it's a triangle, where you can't have three lights in
the sky and have it not be a triangle. It's just going to be
different types of triangles. So that's what I don't understand
about him, stating this. Regardless, let's move on. After
vetting the video through several intelligence community
experts, I decided to share it with Mr. Tipton, and 2014 to see
if he was aware of any Blue Force technology that can
explain what was being witnessed on the video. Mr. Tipton, his
response to me was that the video was quote, weird and
compelling, and that he had no idea what the object was.
details and specifics as to this information can be provided
separately over secure means. I don't know if this is the same
as the quote unquote famed 23 minute video. I mean, it sounds
different where that's either a triangle coming out of the water
or I can't keep all these legends and rumors straight. But
regardless here now we have a 20 ish minute video being
referenced by Mr. Elizondo. I don't know. I don't know what to
add, other than when he talks about Blue Force technology. I
wanted to throw this in here because there was a lot of
questions on what exactly did that mean some people pulled up.
There's actually a company named Blue Force. That is not it. You
have to keep in mind, Luis Elizondo is United States Army
or former United States Army. So he uses a lot of US Army
phraseology in this blue force being one of them because their
tracking network called the Blue Force tracking or BF T is all in
army program. You can see it here. It started in 2002 bfhi,
excuse me, BF T, provides friendly force tracking
information as integrated on more than 98,000 platforms
across the army and joint services. So essentially, it's
for tracking friendly forces. So I believe what Mr. Elizondo was
alluding to here to his supervisor was, hey, do we have
anything to kind of support that that this was potentially
friendly forces or something that we can track using that
network? I believe it's likely one of those two, two
possibilities there. But that's why he brought that up. That's
what the Blue Force tracking is. 2015 I briefed the ATF portfolio
to redacted who was at the time senior executive US Air Force
detail li two Oh Usdi. At the time, his staff in mind shared
office space at redacted and he was instrumental in providing me
advice and assistance. My hope was to use redacted as an
interlock.
interlobular with the US Air Force, redacted in order to
understand the UAP issue from an Air Force perspective, redacted
and I collaborated frequently and have lunch over the matter.
I introduced him to several members of a tip and he was
genuinely interested in the topic. He was also aware that
redacted was briefed into a tip and there were a select few
individuals who would receive briefings from my staff and me.
Upon his departure from O Usdi. I provided redacted a small
token of our appreciation for his support by providing a one
of a kind original photograph of an Apollo astronaut on the moon
with a handwritten note. This photo was later shown to Brit
Mr. Brendan mckernon, the current UAP Task Force director
by redacted as evidence he was aware of our effort and a
supporter. An odd note there But there's Brendan mckernon. 's
name. I believe politico was the first one to publicly post that
he was a name I was watching for quite some time and have had
open FOIA requests also for a couple years to try and track
down what his role with the UAP task force was what he
discovered and so on. 2014 to 2016, my office was routinely
engaged with other members of the intelligence community in a
formal working group, specifically organized for the
purposes of discussing and assessing UAP activity. This not
only included older incidents, the 2004 USS Nimitz, but recent
incidents being reported by US naval ship captains and theatres
of engagement. These incidents were often accompanied by video
evidence taken from us weapon platforms. And one such instance
a senior member of the US Navy sent an email pleading for
guidance as to what he slash she should do if they encounter more
UAPs. This documentation still exists with Oh Usdi details and
specifics as to this information can be provided separately over
a secure means. It was at this time I also assumed the new role
as the Director of National Programs special management
staff, a National Security Council effort involving
Guantanamo Bay
2015 to 2017. On a regular basis, Mr. Stratton, who was
assigned at the time as a STRATCOM, liaison officer and
Mr. Brennan mckernon. Current UAP Task Force director and I
would discuss new reports that were received and engaged in a
larger working group discussion with other elements within the
IC. These meetings were conducted in designated OSD and
navy sensitive comparte Compartmented Information
facilities or Skiff spaces within the Pentagon or Suitland,
Naval Air Station. I've looked up Suitland, Naval Air Station.
I believe that is a mistake. I don't believe that there is a
Suitland Naval Air Station, not then not now. I'm a little
confused at that. I think that this is a reference to, I
believe, Oh, and I, the Office of Naval Intelligence. And I
believe Suitland is the street it's on. I tried to see if there
was maybe some historical reference. I didn't find one
that doesn't mean that it's not there. It's just kind of a weird
error to make. I checked with and expert more than me on these
types of things. They had never heard of Suitland, Naval Air
Station either. They also believed it was a mistake. So
just a weird kind of thing to throw in there and be mistaken
on what the Naval Air Station that you're meeting at is
expertise ranging from and I apologize for sometimes
squinting and being tongue tied here. The way that I have to
read this while I'm broadcasting to you guys, it does get a
little bit blurry on the monitor as I go through the
presentation. So I apologize. Expertise ranging from a electro
optical experts to radar engineers, would be utilized to
try and ascertain some of the observations and what models of
physics would be required to explain UAP performance. It was
also suggested that a joint operational plan be developed
through the joint staff to potentially elicit a behavior
slash response to UAP activity. In 2016, a formal audit plan was
drafted and submitted through alternate alternative
compensatory control measure accm channels. The audit plan
was significant in detail, including the frequency of
incursions by UAP location and type at one point, a
comprehensive listing of UAP activity was included for the
entire month. details and specifics as to this information
can be provided separately over a secure means. I'm not going to
say this everywhere. I filed a ton of cases based on the
information within this. Obviously that op plan was one
of them. What I cringe jet is it said it was drafted if it's
considered a draft. It's a question mark, and a crapshoot
on whether or not I'll be able to get it under FOIA. As draft
documents are exempt. Hopefully it got finalized. But I do have
open cases for pretty much anything that we're going over I
went through this with a fine tooth comb that I likely have a
request for it 2016. During this time, my former supervisor Mr.
Tipton had returned to the O Usdi. After completing an IC
joint duty assignment at the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence. In his new role he was assigned under
the redacted for redacted in his new role, I believe Mr. tympanic
Mr. Tipton could be a continued value to our ATF efforts. In
late 2016. I sent Mr. Tipton an email on Jay works well
welcoming him back to Oh Usdi Mr. Tipton responded with an
email with subject line that UFO video. In his email to me Mr.
Tipton asked How my efforts were going at a tip. And if we were
able to gain additional fidelity on a specific UAP video, I
shared with him the prior year while he was my supervisor and I
s p e. So that was that 18 to 20 minute video. My response was
negative during the time I also asked Mr. Tipton if his new
office could be helpful in our endeavors involving UAPs.
He suggested I speak directly with redacted in December 2016.
I briefly spoke to redacted unexplained that are funding for
fiscal year 13 And 14 was taken by another office and our
resources were very slim, but that the mission was very
viable. He shared with me his support for our effort, but
indicated he would be leaving for another position soon, and
that I should keep Mr. Tipton in the loop. I also shared with my
redacted my frustration for not being able to brief other senior
leadership due to restrictive stovepiping. But I had received
exceptional support from one of his subordinates redacted in the
past, redacted appreciated the compliment 2016. During this
time, I continually attempted to gain additional senior level
leadership involvement. my direct supervisor redacted was
informed by me that I was also involved in another sensitive
effort besides and PSMS redacted indicated he was fine with my
involvement in other government endeavors provided it did not
interfere with my performance as a director of the NPS. Ms. It
was during this time I introduced redacted to other
members of the A tip staff including Mr. Brennan mckernon.
Although we never specified a tip involved UAP he was aware of
the sensitive nature of the effort and the strict need to
know aspects of the program, which he respected, redacted was
later asked to provide information on a 2013 FBI
investigation called redacted for which the sworn statements
or three Oh twos would be useful for our efforts. The
investigation involved potential UAP activity near a sensitive US
government facility. details and specifics as to this information
can be provided separately over a secure means there is the
second time that bosses or people in power within this DoD
structure are informed of kind of this side effort, hey, we're
doing this potentially utilizing clearances and so on to access
whatever information and I am not minimizing that effort. My
whole point in pointing this out. Is this is what people like
me were lambasted for, for even even giving the idea out that
potentially, this was something that was done on the side, that
this was not their effort as kind of indicated and and what
so many people said in interviews and so on, and what
was printed in the media and so on about this Government UFO
program, investigating UAP rather, we're talking about
group chats, meetings and skiffs which again, are secured areas
and great, but multiple supervisors. And again, people
in power are being told, Hey, this is my job. And I know this
and it's not a tip. But over here I on my own time, it won't
interfere. I'm doing this other effort. And they're like, Yeah,
as long as your normal effort is not, you know, affected at all,
go ahead and do it. These are all important because this goes
into what we've been fed for years about this government
program, when in reality, it likely was not that all of this
information is being talked about all of it, photos, videos,
naval captains, and ship captains all calling and sending
all this stuff to a tip. Yet there were only three videos
that Mr. Elizondo requested. And we'll get into this in a couple
of minutes with the videos, but only three videos that he was
going to utilize for his internal use only database. None
of that makes sense. If there was all that information, if he
wanted to use that for his internal effort, which he told
me, I'll play it play you the clip. But what he told me why
only three? And why those three? And I don't I don't have the
answer to that. But what you look at what's publicly
available and what we've been told you look at what's in this
complaint, it yet again, does not match up.
It was during this time I grew increasingly frustrated by the
lack of resources and interest by senior leadership. UAP
reporting to our office was increasing, yet our resources
were minimal and leadership involvement was almost non
existent. In 2016, we succeeded in having an unclassified
academic study performed by a local university and Washington
DC regarding signatures of space threats and capabilities,
including intercontinental ballistic missiles, and hopes
that this information could be used to determine the various
capabilities and domains in which technical assets could be
used to better detect UAP activity. The author of the
study was only told that our interest was threats from space.
The study resides on the A tip shared drive known as why
project on the J Wix. So obviously a top secret level
folder, I went after it. Sadly, you can see on the sidebar here
after I filed the case. No records of any kind, you
described could be identified. I did ask for any backups because
likely since this time, it's been moved. I asked for backups
to be searched. I asked for all sorts of different ways to find
it. They could not. I have appealed, we'll see what
happens. But according to this, this wide project folder no
longer exists. It'd be great if somebody would break down what
was on it because then if that was moved somewhere else, we can
start trying to specifically asked for those things. Sadly,
the folder itself is gone. Late 2016. After increased
frustration, I became alarmed by the frequency and duration of
UAP activity in and around controlled us airspace. The
instances seemed more provocative and during one
instance, they came within feet of a US fighter aircraft. The
video of this encounter still exists on the A tip shared drive
known as y project within the USDA J WIC shared drive. Out of
desperation I was willing to break protocol and seek the
guidance of the DDI for intelligence and security. Mr.
Gary Reed, Mr. Gary Reed replaced redacted as the new DDI
ns. However, prior to informing Mr. Gary Reed, I was warned by
several individuals, the Mr. Gary Reed could not be trusted.
It was not told to me at the time why he was not trusted
among his peers, other than he had an unusual relationship with
his subordinate, redacted. I was also told that this relationship
is widely known with an O Usdi and the both redacted and Mr.
Gary Reed occupied positions of significant influence within the
counter intelligence, security and law enforcement communities.
For this reason, I hesitated on briefing Mr. Gary Reed on a tip
efforts. At the time a third party allegation of sexual
harassment was reported to me, involving Mr. Gary Reed by one
of my office subordinates redacted G G 14. During one of
the meetings he referred to redacted as bunny and made her
feel uncomfortable in the presence of other females,
including a Usdi attorney and counsel redacted. I later
learned that a formal IG investigation was initiated, to
which I was called as a witness 2016 to 2017. During this time
period, my colleagues within a tip and I grew increasingly
frustrated with the lack of senior level awareness and
apathy towards a tip, it was decided that an effort to have
more analytic expertise be made, in order that some of the less
sensitive videos be made available to broader audiences
of expertise. Initially, the idea was to include members of
the defense industrial base, and other experts to have access to
unclassified UAP videos to help determine and assess performance
and design characteristics. In 2017, I executed a DOD form 1910
and submitted through the Defense Office of pre
publication and Security Review or dotser. For a security review
of three videos FLIR go fast and gimbal. Furthermore, I requested
through Washington headquarters services that this review be
coordinated through the original classification authority or oca.
Although I wanted to limit the distribution of the three
unclassified videos to only certain parties WHS indicated to
me it was easier for them to simply authorize unlimited
distribution. A few days later, my request via the 1910 was
officially stamped by dotser for unrestricted dissemination.
This, in my opinion, is untrue. And this is proved by Mr.
Elizondo his own words as released through the Freedom of
Information Act and his own filing of that DD Form 1910 That
would be this.
Now I have a full breakdown video of this, so I'm not going
to do it again. But through the Freedom of Information Act, I
was able to extract the actual form Now granted, it had already
leaked before, but this was the official release of it. What was
not stated by Mr Elizondo was the reality behind it was not
considered open for public dissemination, but rather it was
cleared for what he asked for. And this was another case where
in the very beginning when all this leaked, and all this
started coming out, and this was couple years ago, again, me and
people like me were getting just obliterated by people saying,
How dare you say anything other than what Mr. Elizondo said,
because what he said is how it went down. It was legitimate, it
was this it was that fine, that all could very well be true.
Problem was, the evidence just wasn't there to support it. And
in my opinion, it was provably wrong, what happened fast
forward, it was proven wrong. He needed to use this as he kind of
noted in the IG complaint for internal use only. And that he
was not going to be disseminating it outside of
that, and there is no indicator in the paperwork, that they gave
a unlimited distribution at all, and when the Air Force Office of
Special Investigation came aboard, they also concluded the
exact same thing. In fact, they said here, I won't read the full
document. But the DD Form 1910 is used for the public release
of DoD Information. The request for release was no indication
the videos would be released to any news outlet. The reason for
publication was listed as not applicable, not for publication,
research and analysis only and info sharing with other US
government and industry partners for the purposes of developing a
database to help identify, analyze, and ultimately defeat
UAS or drone threats. That's unmanned aerial systems.
redacted, stated he would not have approved the videos for
release to the media, additionally redacted, never
received confirmation, the videos were declassified. This
redaction here I believe was the guy who ultimately reviewed it
at the Navy that would be the OCA or original classifying
authority. This I believe would be Elizondo that he never
received confirmation, the videos were declassified,
essentially, being able to be released to the world. Even if
they were considered unclassified, which they were,
that does not authorize a public release of inflammation. This
here proved that everything that we, myself included, brought up
in the very beginning was proved right. This isn't because Gary
Reed instigated this and had some power over the
investigation. This isn't because all the skeptics said it
so many times that the afosr goes, Okay, let's just go with
that. No, this was a formal investigation into the matter.
And they said that it was wrong. And so therefore, all of that
explanation that we were given about all this proper release,
and so on. So it just doesn't seem accurate. The way that it
was told to us through Coast to Coast AM and that first
breakdown of how we if you were paying attention learned about
the DD Form 1910, myself included. It wasn't set in there
that Luis Elizondo didn't want it for widespread distribution
that he only wanted it internally. No, the impression
was given that it was all done to be released to the public.
That was untrue.
2017, I was invited by several direct reports to Secretary of
Defense James Mattis to provide an official at a briefing within
the SEC def suite, redacted SES senior representative to the SEC
def. My additional meeting, my initial meeting with redacted
was a result of a direct request by redacted staff at the SEC
defs front office, I received a notice on supernet and a
telephone call asking if I would be available to provide a
briefing on a tip during the initial meeting. redacted was
provided detailed classified information regarding UAP
incursions into controlled us airspace, along with
photographs, videos, and classified reports from the
field. A week later, I was asked to return and provide a follow
on briefing to the same individual. During the meeting,
I was asked for my personal assessment of the situation in
which I expressed my frustration of a lack of senior level
visibility and excessive stovepiping within the
department, redacted was sympathetic to our situation and
a tip and asked if we provide a briefing to his colleague
redacted. I want to know where all these redacted names are,
again, it's been five years. If the DoD is denying this, if any
of these people are gone, we know of at least one and they're
no longer with the DOD. Let's get some names out there. Let's
get some testimony. I'm so open to hear it. So these are all
great stories, but if we can't verify any of it, they're just
stories redacted to the side. Contrary of defense, I received
several telephone calls on my personal cell phone voice
messages saved and available from redacted requesting a
briefing on a tip. As with redacted, my meetings were
arranged by sector front office personnel, official calendar
invites were executed and took place in the secretary suite.
During the initial briefing with redacted a tip data and findings
were shared. This meeting lasted for over 60 minutes. At the
conclusion of the meeting, a follow on meeting was requested
by redacted during the second meeting redacted, expressed
consternation about how to inform the secretary of ATF
findings given that there is no permanent USDA in place that the
SecDef was relatively new, redacted was sympathetic to our
programs challenges. After several meetings redacted asked
me to arrange a briefing from several of the eyewitnesses from
the 2004 USS Nimitz investigation, namely the F 18.
Pilots and the E two Hawkeye radar operator that were on
station at the time. As a result of his request, I successfully
brought in several pilots and the radar operator, along with
Mr. mckernon To provide a full description of the encounter.
redacted was concerned due to his previous experience being an
F 18. Pilot himself. After the meeting redacted asked for us to
return and brief his colleagues redacted. Electronic voicemails
are available to confirm meetings with redacted in the
SecDef suite. redacted line here after several meetings with
redacted I was introduced to redacted who was the secretary
senior liaison to one of the members of the IC details and
specifics as to this information can be provided separately over
secure means redacted expressed her concerns briefing the SecDef
until she had more information from other members of the IC.
She indicated that she would reach out to her colleagues and
return them with additional guidance. After several weeks of
briefings redacted indicated that her colleagues and other
government agencies are also taking this topic seriously but
did not know how to proceed at the time. redacted indicated her
concern about briefing the SecDef until they had a better
understanding of the topic and the threat. I explained to
redacted at the time that was not on our side and that action
must be taken to inform the secretary. I informed them of my
previous interaction with the secretary when he was the Marine
Expeditionary Unit meu commander in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in my
experience with the Secretary is that he would prefer to be
informed sooner rather than later.
July three October 2017, based upon meetings with SecDef suite,
redacted and redacted agreed that the A to portfolio should
be handled by a senior member of O Usdi preferably with the
ranked rank of seasoned SCS. The reason for this was to ensure
sufficient authority could be used to leverage internal
resources within the department to gain additional fidelity on
the UAP threat to control military airspace. It was at
this point redacted and redacted agreed that Mr. mckernon and I
briefed Mr. Tipton about the decision by the front office
from July to late September Mr. mckernon, and I had several
personal meetings with Mr. Tipton. to brief him on the
nuances of a tip. Mr. Tipton agreed to assume the management
role of a tip under the condition that I remained an
advisor and part of the A tip construct. emails were exchanged
between Mr. Tipton, Mr. mckernon and myself that substantiate Mr.
Tipton is awareness of the A tip program and his new leadership
role per guidance from redacted and redacted I drafted an
official memorandum assigning my ATEP responsibilities to Mr.
Tipton for SecDef approval and signature. Mr. Tipton received
the memorandum and voiced his approval. Alright, so I'm going
to jump to the actual emails. They are there are four pages.
They're in chronological order. So I rearranged them from what
was in the actual complaint itself. And I'm going to try and
make the best sense of this, that I can so you can see here,
Luis Elizondo email to Brennan mckernon and CC to Neil Tipton.
Greetings Brenda and I briefly spoke to Mr. Neal Tipton CC
above about our collective efforts and the interest
expressed by the front office. upon your return I recommend we
meet with Mr. Tipton briefly in person. He is amicable for a
discussion and is aware of redacted previous portfolio. My
Mr. Tipton is now the acting director, Defense Intelligence
for technical collection and special programs. Neil as soon
as Brennan returns from leave, we can schedule a quick meeting
as promised Brennan is our Navy counterpart up here August 23.
So next day thanks, Lou added redacted to help with scheduling
so likely a Secretary of State unkind. August 25 10:35am from
Luis Elizondo to Neil Tipton, Neil, as discussed, thanks for
your time with this as the principal SCS and your
directorate, I think you're certainly the appropriate
representative to help take our effort to a new level. I think
by now you probably already know I have been managed, I have been
managing another nuanced effort within the department for some
time. In fact, even when I worked for you years ago, you
probably guessed I was also working another effort for the
department given some of our discussion and raw video, I
can't overstate how important I believe this portfolio is with
respect to our collective national security. So you are
aware I have already laid the foundation with SecDef front
office and they support it to transfer the portfolio under you
given your new focus on special programs for the department and
Usdi. The front office will also brief up the new Usdi once he
arrives, but it has I had but I be hesitant to brief anyone else
at this point. So please keep this at our level for now.
Initially I was going to approach redacted but when he
handed over the reins to you I figured you would be the perfect
fit. In the coming weeks I asked you to attend a few meetings
with me at the front office in order that you can meet the rest
of the players within the building. Later I will also
introduce you to some of our partners in industry and other
agencies who are helping lead the charge. Ultimately I will
need your help analyzing and exploiting material this was the
area redacted was particularly helpful with I have a facility I
need to show you that you will be able to use I always I
sincerely appreciate your help with this and look forward to
working with you slash for you once again. I can't think of a
better guy to be involved with this best LW PS let me know when
you want to go kill some fish. I have access to an awesome 35
Trojan that is a serious fishing machine in the bay all by the
bait. The response sent within the hour. No mention about fish.
But Neil Timpson says thanks, Lou. All good. Although at some
point, I need to know what this actually quote is. Unquote.
Thanks, Neil. So it's clear that Neil Tipton had no idea at this
point, like what was going on?
I was surprised to see that especially with the date and I
thought that he was like showing being shown UFO videos and, you
know, sending emails and stuff like that. But anyway, hard to
kind of keep the chronology of all this straight, but it was
clear that Neil tips and just was like, Yeah, sure, all good,
but I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Hate to
put it that way. But that's exactly how I take that
particular email. Here's another one September 11. So fast
forward a little bit. Greetings, Dale, a couple a couple quick
items for you. Front Office is aware that you are now part of
this endeavor and they are happy with the decision. We will plan
on meeting redacted next week. How does this Wednesday look for
an hour discussion. Lastly redacted as a friend of the
program. I believe you may be speaking with him tomorrow. He
is a good man. Just thought you should know. I knew that
phrasing friend of the program would be used. I mentioned that
in a Latin video. And I had a feeling that that was going to
be phraseology that would come up in this and sure enough,
there it is. Thanks, Lou. I'm around next week but then gone.
The week of the 25th on for a specific date time just worked
with redacted I'm not allowed to muck around with my calendar,
but I am in the building all day the 20th Yep, have a discussion
with Elizondo or excuse me with redacted tomorrow. Thanks, Neil.
So, you know, just kind of administrative stuff. September
25. Greetings, Neil perspectives front office guidance to you and
me, I took the liberty of drafting a memo at the
unclassified level that helps you better assume the new
responsibilities for a tip at your convenience. Please review
it's very short on purpose. And let me know if you want me to
put more meat on it. Brennan, same with you please no pride
and authorship. Just want to make sure we answer the mail for
the front office standing by Lew. Here's you know tips and
getting spun back up. We'll read and get thoughts back today or
tomorrow at Fort Meade half of the day today. I've had FOIA
requests for this you guys may recognize this. This was
published in leaked form, it was a little cloak and dagger ish.
It was kind of like this odd angle and you know just kind of
zoned in on that one particular area. In a Popular Mechanics
article authored by Tim McMillan. I filed requests. Once
I kind of pieced together Neil Tipton, I forget the date of it,
but it's irrelevant. But anyway, I've had it for a couple years
now trying to track down this email. You guys might find it
interesting how this all plays out because it is not playing
out. Easy. And until I've gotten More I'm not trying to tease
you. All I'm saying is this is much more problematic than it
should be. So here we have the emails listed in the IG
complaint. But the DoD is having a little trouble finding this
material. But again, that's not a tease. I don't know more than
that, other than this request is taking much, much longer than it
should. I have open appeals in some, and we'll see how that
plays out. Going back to the complaint, finishing it up here.
Three October 2017, after nearly a decade of working with the ATF
portfolio decided decided to resign my position within the
Pentagon and submit my resignation letter, I
deliberately addressed my resignation letter to the
Secretary himself knowing my senior supervisor Mr. Gary Reed,
would not be able to hide it from him. The remaining portion
of this document relates to negative actions taken against
me to discredit, obfuscate and misconstrue the truth resulting
in attacks on my credibility and my government responsibilities
in which were a matter of public record. This was that undated
resignation letter that was submitted. I won't read it all
to you but this is has been readily available for some time.
That was Luis Elizondo has a resignation letter. And here's
the portion of the complaint. So now we've gone through the whole
timeline. And we've seen a lot of kinds of issues and confusion
they're in my opinion, discrepancies between what
people that who that were there and and who were directly
involved in OS app versus what was in this complaint and what
Elizondo has said in public broadcasts a lot of that kind of
discrepancy stuff we've gone over. But now let's get into Mr.
Elizondo has pointed allegations to the three people that I
mentioned to you and see where we end up.
Five October 2017, I received a telephone call on my personal
cellular telephone from Mr. Gary Reid's executive assistant, in
which she said Mr. Gary Reed wanted to speak with me. I
reminded her that I was now a civilian and that I was under no
obligation to speak with Mr. Gary Reed. But in the spirit of
transparency, I would do so. She acknowledged my comment and
transferred me to Mr. Gary Reed. Directly during the
conversation, Mr. Gary Reed asked me what he should do with
the letter. And I told him he should do whatever he thinks is
prudent. But the letter was intended for the Secretary of
Defense. Mr. Reid was clearly upset with me and indicated that
he wanted to see me in his office. He also said that he
would tell people you are crazy, and it might impact your
security clearance. I responded to Mr. Gary Reed by telling him
that he can take any action he thinks is prudently necessary,
but that I was not mentally impaired, nor have I ever
violated my security oath. I did not meet personally with Mr.
Gary Reed after our discussion, as I feared he would take
retribution against me. Note, the fact that Mr. Guerin Mr.
Reid told me directly, he would make efforts to undermine our
credibility and clearance by threatening to officially
question my mental health shows his personal targeted vendetta
and abuse of power against me from the outset of my departure
from DOD. The fact is consistent with continued falsehoods
repeated by the department statements concerning me and
shows a repeated pattern of abuse the question mark that I
had in this particular section was this was the day after he
resigned his official resignation date was for October
2017. According to Luis Elizondo, Mr. Gary Reed within
24 hours was already calling him saying I'm gonna make you look
crazy. I'm gonna make you look like a fool. I'm going to make
you this. I'm gonna make you that. But what I don't
understand is where in this resignation letter and I invite
you to read it. Was there any indicator that Mr. Elizondo was
going to go public and start sharing his information to where
Gary Reid would have to target him that way? I personally I
can't really find the connection of of what he's saying is Gary
Reed is going to make the guy look crazy internally so that
way if on the off chance Mr. Elizondo is trying to get some
other government contractor position he'll lose his
clearance it can't get it. I don't know. I interviewed Mr.
Elizondo in January of 2021. Did Then did you know that he tell
you about to the stars before you,
Luis Elizondo: Jim semi van who, who, who actually said, Hey, why
don't you consider jumping on board with us if I regret that?
Don't hold me to it, but I know we're going back three years
now. I'm pretty certain it was Jim who actually was wanting to
offer me a position,
John Greenewald: pre resignation or post Just for chronological
post post post, I got you. So you
Luis Elizondo: Yeah, cuz I think they knew that I was gonna wind
up working at I gotta be careful though, I want to put a plug in
for it. I was gonna wind up working, you know, probably at a
supermarket just to just to pay my bills afterwards because, you
know, even though I had left the department, I'm not the age of
retirement yet I can't collect my pension. So, you know, I
still I still needed employment.
John Greenewald: So why are we setting up Gary Reed? Is this
vendetta planning person within 24 hours saying, I'm gonna make
you look crazy, but make them look crazy to who? The checker
at the supermarket he was about to work with? No. So that also
doesn't make sense with what he was saying. If you don't know
what Luis Elizondo said in relation to joining TTSA and
what his original plans were, again, working in a supermarket,
you might read that and go aha, see? So this was the plan all
along, Mr. Evil scumbag, Gary Reed is going to come along. And
when he comes public with TTSA he's going to make them look
crazy. And that's the the origin of this whole story. But that's
not the story, at least according to Mr. Elizondo. So to
make them look crazy, according to Mr. Elizondo, he was out he
was like I'm done. I'm gonna go bag groceries and I'm going to
support my family in a very again honorable American Way and
hold a job but away from government away from security
clearance, and I'm gonna work at a supermarket. And yet, there's
a different story being crafted here within 24 hours of his
resignation letter that Gary read, set it all up, that he was
going to make him look crazy. Maybe he was going to but why
what motivation Woody, it just kind of comes out of left field
in the story. November 2017. Back to the complaint, after
several telephone calls from former colleagues redacted,
redacted, redacted, and others with no Usdi warning that Mr.
Gary Reed and redacted were coming after me and insinuating
I was a fabricator, I decided to obtain private legal counsel to
ensure my security clearance would not be in jeopardy. I was
informed that redacted was doing the dirty work for Mr. Gary
Reed, and they were trying to destroy my reputation at the
Pentagon. Knowing that both Gary Reed and redacted were actively
working to hurt my security clearance was and is extremely
concerning. On December 17 2017, both the New York Times and
politico broke the story about the a tip program. In both these
stories. Pentagon spokesperson Dana White validated the
existence of the program, and my role is lead. Here's what's
interesting about that, because that specifically is more so the
politico pro politico article, there were no attributable
quotes to Dana White, she was mentioned. However,
she never had an attributable attributable quote. So why isn't
this stuff ever black and white the one time that we could solve
this whole mystery and have an official statement on the record
about Luis Elizondo from a Pentagon spokesperson, it
happens to have two aspects to the story that we can't get away
from number one, there is no attributable quote. So it's not
that I don't trust Brian bender. But whenever you're putting
something on the DOD, in my opinion, we should have some
kind of backup quote, or an email. So maybe you could
paraphrase it in the article. But if something starts to get
challenged like this, we can share that email. It's public
record their public statements, not off the record yet, Mr.
Bender, Politico, and no one attached to the story has been
able to do that. Second thing that's often forgotten about is
Dana White left with a big controversy hanging over her
back she was led out the door with a with a controversy that
that she was abusing her staff and having them go pick up her
dry cleaning and stuff like that. So she was not a prime
character witness here, just simply because she was kind of
she left in disgrace from the DOD. So nothing is ever black
and white in the story. 18 December 2017. During an
interview at CNN headquarters in Washington, DC, former
Undersecretary of Defense for intelligence and former Director
of National Intelligence General James Clapper, indicated to me
and my spouse that he was very happy. We had a UFO program at
the Pentagon and was proud that I ran it. No idea. I mean, okay,
so away from the fact that that's hearsay. Let's talk about
James clapper. Why would he say the proud that he ran it? Well,
it's just because they had a backdoor meeting at CNN because
they were being interviewed on the same program at different
times. Did clapper know about like There should be some kind
of context here. And yet there is none. And you'll see quite a
few slides from now but one of the attachments is a photo back
back stage on CNNs. You know, back back green rooms or
wherever they were of James Clapper and Luis Elizondo posing
for a photo. But why why was he proud? Like, did he just hear
the story and say, Yeah, well, I'm glad that aerial threats, we
should look into it. Well, that's not surprising at all. So
again, these kinds of things are thrown out there that sound
really good, but when you start digging in at the context of it,
it doesn't necessarily really play out the way that it was
intended. February 2018, after the publishing of New York Times
article about a tip and my role, I received several more
telephone calls from former associates, who stated that Mr.
Reid had launched an investigation against me through
the US Air Force Office of Special Investigations in the
hopes of finding derogatory information about me, and or to
substantiate his claim of mental instability. I was also notified
that my DoD computer systems were confiscated in an attempt
to determine if I had taken any information with me in an
unauthorized manner. That's not too surprising, given the fact
that those videos that he wanted for internal use, were now
blasted on the New York Times politico and pretty much every
news outlet imaginable. So in Mr. Elizondo his own words, he
who is attached to the internal process to get them reviewed for
what he calls a internal database. Why wouldn't you
investigate that? If these things all of a sudden ended up
smashed all over the media? So to give this type of context to
the story, it now makes sense why afosr would investigate? Was
it instigated by Gary Reed? I don't know. It's quite possible.
Who cares? The reality is that perm Mr. Elizondo, those words?
Those videos were never supposed to be out in the open. He
intended them to be used internally. What happened? They
get blasted all over the place. So of course they're going to
take it seriously. It doesn't matter if the biggest scumbag
within the DOD is out to get anybody. It does not matter. The
context of the story actually shows why they would do the
investigation. So was it instigated by Gary Reed? It's
irrelevant. The truth behind it is videos were blasted that
should not have been out March 2018.
I was informed by a member of the DoD IG that Mr. Gary Reed
was under a formal inspector general investigation for
inappropriate relations, with redacted and an additional
accusation of possible sexual harassment against one of my
former subordinates redacted. Later that year, I was
interviewed by two representatives from DOD IG
regarding the conduct of Mr. Gary Reed. I explained that I
did not trust Mr. Gary Reed based upon personal observations
while employed as a DOD civilian. I also indicated that
there was a strong likelihood of Mr. Gary Reed seeking
retribution against me for leaving the department in the
manner I did results available within controlled DoD IG
channels. I was assured by DOD IG personnel that this threat
was unconscionable. 2019 under a Freedom of Information Act
request by a member of the media it was revealed that an official
US afosr investigation was conducted regarding three
unclassified videos that were authorized for release in this
investigation. There were no findings of me conducting any
kind of unauthorized disclosure. Note I was contacted on April
21 2021, by defense countering Intelligence and Security Agency
Special Agent redacted advising, I was required to submit a new
interview for my security clearance even though it was
just ad adjudicated, approved in January 2021. I engaged with
redacted twice, April 26 2021 and April 27 2021. In this new
interview, one of the inaccurate allegations redacted stated was
that three videos were released inappropriately by me. She was
unaware of the previous afosr investigation that concluded no
wrongdoing on my part related to this specific matter, in my
opinion, also untrue. Why the actual evidence? If you look at
it, it didn't say that he didn't do any wrongdoing. It clearly if
you read the redactions between the lines, I mean, it's no
secret he filed the DD Form 1910 It's no secret that he didn't
want them to be distributed to the media, but rather he wanted
them for internal use only. But a reminder, the guy who reviewed
the information stated he would not have approved the videos for
release to the media. So if this was done properly, and they were
properly described what they would be used for they wouldn't
have gotten the approval. So that doesn't equate to you
didn't do anything wrong. That just means that it wasn't framed
correctly. So mistakes were made. Additionally, we I think
we can safely say that Elizondo never received confirmation that
the videos were declassified. So what's going on here? And that's
what I want to know is why are we making certain claims that
just aren't backed up? This breaks down more of that AF OSI
investigation to prove my point. It was not about wrongdoing by
Luis Elizondo, but rather it was about and look at the subject,
Air Force Office of Special Investigation detachment 334
case law number December 2017. unauthorized disclosure of
potential classified DoD videos. This wasn't an investigation
into Elizondo himself but rather an investigation on whether or
not classified videos were currently being disseminated sit
tight because I think you'll see the differentiation between this
investigation and another one which clearly upset Elizondo,
but I think in my personal opinion, is actually warranted
and make sense. You can see here that number six that was checked
attached is forwarded for action. This is key the AF OSI
report, which again outlined I didn't go through it word for
word I invite you to do so but I highlighted the key parts that
this wasn't just for information purposes, meaning Elizondo was
cleared. You don't have to do anything. Here's the
information. There you go. Rather, they said, Here you go
DOD, or OSD. This is our investigation submitted to you
for action.
Jumping down here to this section of the investigation,
the requests were released, there was no indication the
videos would be released to any news media outlet. The reason
for publication was listed as not applicable not for
publication research and analysis only an info sharing
with other US government and industry partners for the
purposes of developing a database to help identify,
analyze and ultimately defeat UAS threats. Blank stated he
would not have approved the video for release to the media.
Additionally, blank never received confirmation the videos
were declassified. I know I already read that to you. But
it's important to read again, because this I believe plays
into the action that they submitted in April of 2018 on
the 21st to be exact.
Now look at this as of May of 2021. According to Elizondo, I
am now under increased scrutiny regarding my security clearance.
The investigative body is the defense counterintelligence
security agency or dcsa. Despite a previous favorable as OSI
investigation, I am under accusation of releasing the
videos in an unauthorized manner. In addition, other false
allegations have been made against me including statements
I never made on the History Channel television show
unidentified inside America's UFO investigation. It should be
noted that the dcsa falls directly under the cognizance of
Mr. Gary Reed. At one point during my conversation with the
investigator redacted, the discussion involved my role in a
tip as I explained my former leadership role, redacted
interrupted me and stated no one is arguing the fact he ran a
tip. This issue is regarding the videos. I was shocked and
surprised to hear this given the current public stance of MS
golf. If the investigators at dcsa are aware of my role in a
tip, why is the Pentagon taking a different stance publicly?
Furthermore, why am I able? Excuse me? Furthermore, why am I
being reinvestigated over an issue after already being
exonerated? Here's the problem. Also, I believe in my opinion,
untrue. Let's dissect it. This was submitted for action.
They're now looking at Mr Elizondo why the action is based
on the fact that Mr Elizondo stated one thing on the form,
never received confirmation that the videos were declassified.
And it was clear that the OCA said nope, if I knew that they
were going to be winding up in the media, I would not have done
it would not have approved them for public release. So of
course, naturally, that action is going to be okay. At least
AFS I determined that the videos were unclassified, which was the
end of their report. So when it came to the video subject of the
investigation, and that portion, it was determined that
classified information was not floating around. But that did
not mean that there was not miss handling of that information,
potentially, by Mr. Elizondo who was tied to The whole story,
hence the action by dcsa. They now look into the person behind
all of it. But does it make sense that it would take this
long to do an investigation? Well, keep in mind afosr stopped
in 2018 Luis Elizondo was already out of government at
that point. So why in 2021, did all of a sudden he start getting
the scrutiny? We can only speculate at this point. But it
is quite possible that everything that I just outlined,
plays into why they started to do it. And maybe another part of
this is that he was going to start utilizing his security
clearance again. So dcsa decides, based on this previous
report investigation by AFL Si, there was no need to do it in
2018. Because Luis Elizondo was still with T TSA didn't need a
security clearance. But now let's say with all these rumors
that Luis Elizondo is consulting for Space Force or Space
Command, whatever it might be. Now, all of a sudden, maybe when
he did start getting this extra scrutiny, he needed his
clearance again, he needed that to utilize that security
clearance that although was sitting there, now it's being
utilized. So quite possibly, they look back and say, Hey, we
had this pending 2018 action now that he's going back to work as
a contractor. We need to pursue it. Of course, I will make sure
you guys know that there's speculation in there. But it
does make sense based on the evidence that that's put forth,
that they would look into this. I don't know what exactly he's
referring to about the statements made in unidentified,
I have a guest but I don't want to speculate too much there. So
I'm not entirely sure without seeing any paperwork from dcsa.
So I'm just going by what I see here, and if he's saying that
he's being reinvestigated, that is untrue. afosr was looking at
the videos, dcsa was looking at the person. This was submitted
for action based on this, this all makes sense. So this
narrative, I believe, is wrong.
The second part of this interrupted me and stating no
one is arguing the fact that you ran a tip, this issue is
regarding the videos, yet again, crafting a narrative that isn't
true. He's trying to play off of this stating Aha, well, nobody's
questioning it, ergo, it's true, and you believe it. So why is
Susan Goff stating otherwise. But to an investigator, it
doesn't matter if he ran a tip or not like none of that was
part of the scope of the investigation, not part of the
stated scope of afosr eyes investigation, and not part of
the implied scope that Mr. Elizondo describes the dcsa
investigation, but rather the fact that they go look, we're
not investigating whether or not you ran a tip. Essentially, they
wouldn't care that that's irrelevant to the investigation.
What is relevant is the handling of classified information. So a
lot of people come after me go now you're playing semantics.
This is a clear indicator of semantics and twisting, what is
what is said, to benefit you? And yes, I do believe that,
because you have to look at all of this in its totality. Because
the evidence goes against the crafted narrative. That's what
we have to do hone in on just that it makes it look like
Elizondo is a target. Look at the totality of the evidence
tells you a different story. I often say documents don't lie,
even though there can be lies on them. This is what I mean by it.
You look at something and what people say. But then when you
take all of the evidence and then look at it, it could
potentially tell you a different story. And that's what I mean by
all of this. Let me give you Mr. Elizondo his own words here in a
port in an in an important part of my interview with him, and
I'll let you determine on whether or not any of this is
truly how you feel it played out. According to the DoD
anyway, those videos had to adhere to what was on that what
they call the DD Form 1910, which we didn't label it yet.
But the DD Form 1910 was for that private, US government use
only and when Christopher Mellon had come out recently, he had
said that he supplied those videos to the New York Times.
Then in the James Fox, his great documentary in that Christopher
Mellon came out and said somebody didn't name them but
somebody bent the rules. That was, what his wording was. Which
I want to juxtapose that with how we were shown the videos
from to the stars. Anatomy, I don't expect you to speak for to
the stars. I'm not asking you to. But I do want to ask about
what they call the chain of custody, because that's another
one of those disconnects where paperwork says internal use only
cleared for that, then we see the videos. And they were kind
of advertised at well not kind of they were advertised as going
through the declassification process through DOD. Is that
accurate? So what is that study?
Luis Elizondo: You know, I can't speak for Chris Mellon. And
quite frankly, I've never asked Chris, I don't want to know, you
know, there's a just a plausible deniability is sometimes a good
thing. But out of respect to Chris, I never asked him this
source. And I don't really plan to to be honest with you. That's
between Chris and whoever he talked to, you know, the, how
TTSA wound up putting them forward? I will tell you, if you
were to ask me, you know, I probably would have been more
hesitant to do that. But, you know, it happened. And it
happened without me knowing. That really wasn't you. I
John Greenewald: had no idea that they that they were going
to release those videos.
Luis Elizondo: Not until the New York Times article. Yeah. That
was not I was not I was not aware.
John Greenewald: Were you aware they had them? If I can ask
that?
Luis Elizondo: Now, actually, let me think. John, I don't
recall I really don't I don't think because I remember being
very surprised. Because the intent originally was for a
community of interest and unclassified. But for official
use only, if you will, community of interest. And I didn't, I
wasn't the one who provided them. So I really don't know
what TTSA was thinking you probably want to talk to them as
you know, I no longer publicly affiliated with with TTSA.
They're, they're great people. Great guy, you know, you still
talk. But I, I can't speak for TTS I
John Greenewald: got you know, and I understand that and
respect that. So that is my interview with him. And he had
no idea according to him couldn't couldn't think that he
found out kinda with the rest of us. Remember, he's the one that
filed the paperwork internally. And he doesn't know who
Christopher Mellon's source is. So let's operate off the
assumption that that is correct. And that he had no idea and he
didn't even want to want to ask Chris for plausible deniability
reasons. Yet, this photograph here came from what is kind of
known in this conversation as the Chris Mellon leak, and I
don't like leaks. But it's important here because number
one, it's not classified. And we know exactly what it is now. And
I'll show you Chris melons, own words. But on top of that, it
gives a very important piece of the puzzle that goes against the
context and claim made in the IG complaint that I've been reading
you guys. And also the clip that I just showed, you have what Mr.
Elizondo told to me. These were DVDs or CDs, I think DVDs of the
videos. There's four, I know there's three videos, a lot of
question marks there. I would actually venture to guess that
the DD Form 1910 is potentially on the fourth disk, why would
they spread them over four discs and not just put them on one is
likely this is a guess, and a little speculation, but I think
that it's it's potentially an educated guess that each medium,
each file could potentially be classified different. So you're
not going to put an unclassified a secret and a top secret file
generally, on the same disk when being released out into the
public. This is potentially they burned one at a time, ensuring
that each particular media on each particular disk was
unclassified. Okay, the fourth so 123 would be the videos for
potentially is that paperwork to go along with it that they said
in the very beginning was that chain of custody that no one was
able to show? So then that chain of custody turned into the DD
Form 1910 as talked about on coast to coast, then that turned
into Wait, I never wanted this to be out in the open. And I
have no idea how it got out in the open. Yet. The Chris Mellon
leak shows us exactly how it got out into the open. This was the
envelope that was given to Luis Elizondo I haven't seen who are
Essex is likely somebody internally that works for, you
know, a department in the DoD that makes whether we IT
department I don't know. Again, lots of guesses here again,
irrelevant, but rather this is the person burned these discs
for Luis Elizondo. What's interesting here though, is the
date Christopher Mellon for 1600 hours. So that's four o'clock on
the seventh of September 2017, the DD Form 1910 was stamped,
only about a week or so, week and a half or so prior to this
for the internal use. So only in about 10 days. Did these discs
get sent to Luis Elizondo after he got approved for that
internal release. And again, I'm punching this point because it's
important, only internal use as intended by Luis Elizondo, it
only took about 10 days for him to lose that data. regardless of
it being listed as unclassified. That does not mean you can give
it to anybody. There is things called controlled unclassified
information. But there's also unclassified information that's
exempt from disclosure, all different things, and he is not
a release authority. So it took within 10 or so days to lose
this information to wind up in the hands of somebody who wanted
to leak it. To Christopher Mellon. They did so on the
seventh of September of 2017. And here in Christopher Mellon
zone words, is that story.
Unknown: I knew this was breaking news for the front page
of The New York Times, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for intelligence, Christopher Mellon managed to
obtain the tapes from the Pentagon, and chose the New York
Times to break the story. I received the videos, the now
famous videos in the Pentagon parking lot. From the Defense
Department official, I still have the originals in the
packaging. This is a case where somebody bent the rules a little
bit. And they did so for the larger good. And we're
absolutely all better off because of the
John Greenewald: credit to James Fox in his excellent
documentary, The phenomenon for that clip, obviously, all
copyrights given to him. But I wanted to show that clip because
clearly, rules were bent. This came out from a Department of
Defense official, he still has the wrapping. So clearly, what
we are looking at is the the UFO videos that he took a picture of
and put it on his web server. I didn't tell this part of the
story. But in short, that leak was not necessarily a hack or
anything bad. Mr. Mellon had put all of this data on his web
server. And it was at this public web server that somebody
stumbled on it. I believe they refer to him as Twitter user J.
Still around I believe in kind of UFO Twitter, but stumbled
upon it released it kind of the rest was history. So now we kind
of put all this together. Do we really believe that Mr. Elizondo
had zero idea? And again, if we do, which is fine. I'm not here
to say the man is lying. But if we do, then that means within 10
days, he was careless with the information. It got out into the
open rules were bent, which ended up in Christopher Mellon's
hands. He later admitted in that documentary that he was the
source for the New York Times. So it went to the media and
boom, media frenzy ensued. Why wouldn't you look into that? Why
would Mr. Elizondo challenge that, if he didn't know then he
lost the material, that that envelope had his name on it, it
was delivered to him. So he lost it if we believe Him to His
Word, and that's fine. Then he lost it, and was careless with
the information. afosr says, Look, we determined the videos
are unclassified. But the way they got out is kind of suspect.
So we're going to pass this back for action. DOD looks at it says
yep. Let's start questioning Mr. Elizondo and the potential the
possibility of the mishandling of information. None of that
sticks out to me as a targeted effort. I don't care if Gary
Reed, the scummiest of scumbags of the DOD, that we all want to
hate had any role in it. All of that makes sense. The fact that
they wouldn't do it would be more concerning than the fact
that they did. Here's an extra tidbit of information for you.
Remember that day that was passed off that September 7 2017
date, you know what else happened that day? This document
also part of the leak was the interview the interview of Alex
Dietrich, and this was done at the sky dome restaurant
DoubleTree Hotel, Arlington, Virginia, I believe, and this is
just speculation, this spelling error we should look at there is
somebody involved in this conversation God bless him who
pretty much misspelled a lot of words. Sorry, Mr. Elizondo, but
you do that quite often. So did he typed this not sure. But that
is something to look at because this if typed by him, if he was
there or had any role in this, whatever, this could have been
the handoff or part of the handoff and that that happened
on the same day that they were doing this also around this
time. You can see Luis Elizondo reached out to Alex Dietrich at
the US Naval Academy. This was August so just a week prior,
Alex Dietrich was sending copies of her logbook this came out
through the FOIA to Luis Elizondo, why likely setting up
this meeting here. Again, a lot of that is speculation, but it
all kind of makes sense that that's when either the pass off
happened and Mr. Elizondo did it. But again, I'll let you guys
decide but evidence sure speaks volumes with those documents. So
I want to go back to this slide here and finish up this page
before we got into a little bit of a sidebar there. This is back
to 2019. Several internet bloggers were notified by the
new public affairs officer Mr. Sherwood, that I had no duties
regarding a tip and that a tip did not involve the study of
UAPs. As a result, the bloggers began to disseminate reporting
accusing me of being a fabricator. At this point, I
initiated a telephone call with Mr. Sherwood directly directly,
in which he indicated that he was not happy with the way this
was being handled internally within the department, and that
he was aware I ran a tip but forces within the building were
telling him not to admit it. He also indicated that he is trying
to write a new statement because the Navy substantiated my claims
of working with a tip and redacted had called him
personally to express his disappointment about the false
claims by the department.
Without 2020 Without any resolution, a new public affairs
office was assigned to respond to media inquiries regarding a
tip, Miss Susan golf, Miss golf is also a US Army Reservist and
psychological operations. During this Gough's tenure, the Public
Affairs Officer statements became increasingly inaccurate
and continue to change on a daily basis. As a result of the
blatantly inaccurate and repeated false statements by
Miss golf. I wrote an email directly to her on June 3 2020,
where I addressed the specific issues and provided ample
sources in which she could verify my position. Despite
several attempts to correct the record, Miss golf never
responded to my email, refuse to address the issue and has
continuously provided false statements to the press, even as
recently as this week.
Steven Greenstreet: 2020 Well, let me stop there. So let me go
back before I get too far ahead. Several internet bloggers were
notified by the new public affairs officer Mr. Sherwood,
that paragraph there in 2019, fast forward in it where he says
that he was, quote, not happy with the way this was being
handled internally within the department. Here's the problem
with that. I heard that story before. So basically, you know,
he had PIOs have like a stack of previously approved statements.
Yeah, they look through their stack. They have no comment
that's been crafted. So they gotta go out and reach out to
the right people to get the right information to craft a
statement. He was talking to me how he was with communicating
with Oh, USD, EUR USD, I back and forth, trying to craft
something. And I got semi frustrated. And I think he got
semi frustrated because I was just like, Come on, man. Like,
what is going on over there? Like this should be a slam dunk
question. He did, or he didn't know. And he said, I'll never
forget this. He sighed and said, You know what, I'm not really
happy with the way they're handling the story. And I was
like,
John Greenewald: wow, what is going on behind the scenes here?
almost verbatim. From Stephen Green Street. When I did an
interview with him. He's the New York Post, journalist, host the
basement office on the New York Post YouTube channel, and has
joined me on this channel a couple times himself. My
interview where he recollected that story was on June 23 2021.
And he said that Sherwood told him that I confirmed with
Stephen Green Street that he first told Elizondo that story
on April 20 2021. And that exact quote, then ended up in the DoD
IG complaint that Elizondo submitted on May 3 May 2019. I
was doing my show for the New York Post basement office and
just nonchalantly reached out to the Pentagon for boilerplate
statement on a tip, because I just wanted my own statement.
And in there, they said that you had nothing. No, they said you
had no responsibilities with ATF.
Steven Greenstreet: And then I followed up with the spokesman
at the at the time Chris Sherwood. What do you mean? He
had nothing to do with a tip. Chris said to me on the phone,
I'm not really happy with the way they're handling the story.
They internally at the Pentagon, he was frustrated with that
statement. CHRIS goes away. Suga golf comes in there. And then
the sheet issues a new statement saying Lou had no assigned
responsibilities with regards to hate. Yes. Why would the
Pentagon consistently be saying this?
Luis Elizondo: Well, because my assigned duties were through the
read on document from 2009. That substantiates what I was doing
and of course, thankfully, Senator Harry Reid has set that
record straight and many times for the record of what my role
was. And my name is clearly on that documentation and other
documentation. This is this goes back to what I told you. There's
some people in the Pentagon that still don't like me very much.
And unfortunately, Colonel golf, by the way, interesting
background of around was not being well served. She was
getting information from from people there that were formally
my chain of command that really did not like me coming out.
John Greenewald: Is it possible that Sherwood gave Elizondo the
exact same quote? Absolutely. The problem was this was 2019.
You would think that if a public affairs officer is doing two
things, one, saying that he is not happy with the way that the
situation is being handled, but also to I know and let me let me
quote that Sherwood the public affairs officer was aware that
Elizondo ran a tip, but forces within the building were telling
him not to admit it. If Elizondo heard that in 2019, why isn't
this anywhere that I've seen anyway, and please correct me if
I'm wrong, I'm happy to update this. Where has Elizondo said
that in any interview that he has done in the 1000s of
podcasts and interviews, you would think that that would lead
the charge on stating, hey, I don't You don't have to take my
word for it. I have my story. I'm sticking to it. But you
don't have to take my word. This is what the public affairs
officer told me. And yet, that's nowhere to be found that I've
seen. And it wasn't until Stephen Green Street told
Elizondo the story that all of a sudden Elizondo goes, Oh, I'll
put that into my complaint, like Sherwood told him. So did he? I
don't have the answer to that. But is it strange that the exact
same story now that Elizondo is putting in his IG complaint was
already told publicly by a journalist almost verbatim. And
that's the issue here is that there's so many kind of weird
things. Now, if Elizondo wants to come out and say, Yes, he
told me that in addition to him, telling Steven Green Street, and
he told us all in the exact same way, cool. We can we can have
that conversation. But I think that my first question to that,
and I hope others would ask him as well, is why did you not tell
anybody this story? And that's what I don't understand about
this. And it kind of makes you scratch your head and go, did he
just falsely attribute this story to himself in order to
make the IG complaint look better? I don't have the answer
to that. But sadly, there's not a whole lot forthcoming. So
that's why I reached out to Stephen Green Street and
confirmed the dates. I will let Stephen Green Street talk about
his own opinion I will not convey nor do I speak for him or
anybody else, but rather wanted to confirm the dates. That's
when he told Elizondo that's when it ended up in Elizondo is
complaint then attributed to Elizondo and nobody can can
confirm if Sherwood actually did tell Elizondo that story. And to
be honest with you, that's
I would say intriguing to say the least because I want to know
if that story shifted, or not. Moving on in January of this
year, a FOIA response by the Pentagon confirmed the fact that
Miss Goff has sidestepped Pentagon protocol, and inserted
herself into the official FOIA processes that have been
established to protect the American people and the
integrity of information being provided to them. FOIA requests
and responses are to be submitted to trained and
designated FOIA personnel and not a public affairs office, or
officer. The fact that Miss Golf has inserted herself into this
process preemptively further emphasizes that the FOIA process
enacted in US law is being subject worded this ties into
emails, which I'll show you in a little bit when we get to the
attachments. But essentially, what the line is being drawn
here is, is that Susan golf is essentially injecting herself
into the FOIA process, and controlling the narrative of
what is being released, I can tell you that the emails that
I'll show you in a little bit, in my personal opinion, are
being overblown to a point, it makes sense that a public
affairs officer wants to maintain some kind of knowledge
about what's being out there. Because if they're blind about
what people like me are getting legally, then what happens is,
is that when they make a statement, that I'll be it may
not be untrue. But if it differs enough, or uses different
verbiage or different language or different context, but again,
maybe not necessarily a lie, but it just kind of differs a little
bit. Then the internet just takes over. The rumor mill
starts, the tabloids takeover, sensationalism takes over,
horrible reporting takes over. And so I think that to a point,
that's understandable, and as I go through this in this
presentation, I can see the negative feedback. Jon's just
taking the side of the government. It's not that, but
we have to understand the process, we have to remove
ourselves from the interest and passion that we have in this
myself included and look at it from the outside and go, Okay.
Should the Public Affairs people be in the know about what is
being released so they can properly address certain
questions, and make sure that there is some uniformity there?
My answer would be yes. Some may say John's defending Susan golf,
or Gary Reed or whomever? No, it's not about the person or the
people. I'm not defending that. But rather, I'm defending the
situation, defending their job and what they do or what they're
supposed to do. And defending the evidence that we have. That
in a lot of cases, and even most cases actually differs from
these paraphrased versions of the story. A lot of people took
this complaint and said, Gary read bad Susan golf bad Neal
Tipton, bad so they're bad. Lou Elizondo good telling the truth.
This proves it. Not really. Because again, when you look at
it from the outside, in, look at what should be done, look at
what's logical, what look at what's common sense. And over
all else. Look at the evidence. It's it's sometimes a different
story. Not in every case. But sometimes. And in this
particular document, I'm sorry, there are a lot of cases where
when you look at the evidence, and you look at other context
and testimony, it contradicts. So I want to make that point.
And I want to make it strongly because I can see the feedback,
the negative, the haters coming out, saying John's just
defending the government.
And that's not true. Because this is not about the people.
This isn't about Lou Elizondo, as a person, Susan golf as a
person, or Gary Reed as a person, even though he could be
a really bad dude. It's not about that in this conversation,
but rather, it's not what you believe. It's what you can
prove. And in this matter, and beyond in this complaint, you
have to match up the evidence and in this case, and again,
beyond. It just isn't there. And we have to make that point.
Let's move on May 2021. I was recently informed by a member of
the media who is conducting a formal Freedom of Information
Act request, that upon clarifying my roles in a tip,
DOD Public Affairs Office, Miss golf, indicated in writing that
all my records have been destroyed due to lack of
historical significance and could not be reproduced. I was
informed that DOD took this action in 2019, despite portions
of my work involving legal discovery, and evidence as it
relates to the upcoming military commissions trial, Guantanamo
Bay, in essence, destroying evidence. If this is true, and
my records were indeed destroyed, I'm unclear how Miss
golf can manage maintain, I had no assigned duties, when in
fact, no records exist. I remain dually concerned that this
statement is not only false, but maliciously deceitful and
intended to mislead the American people. As of today, the
Pentagon public affairs officer Miss Goff continues to assert to
the media that I had no involvement in a pentagon
program. Fortunately, the original ATF sponsor has
provided official documentation contradicting this obvious
attempt to deceive the public. This is what he's referring to
the Harry Reid letter. I can tell you the Pentagon or He
addressed this they said it does not change anything. You couple
that with again, Harry Reid's interviews. He was never briefed
on OS app or a tip. What does he know? I mean, like, there's a
lot of questions there. So the fact that this letter exists
does not prove much. But let me back up to all of this here.
This yet again, my opinion, untrue. Why? Because I am the
guy that actually broke this story. So I've got a personal
connection to this paragraph here. I researched it for
months, there was absolutely no involvement by Susan golf. None.
I never reported that. I tried to get her to comment on it. But
none of this is true as attributed to Susan golf. In
addition, the story was not about all of his files. The
story was about his emails, there's a huge difference. Now
even though I truly believe that DOD messed up, and I truly
believe that's a huge story. And I truly believe it's important.
The problem here is this is completely misconstrued not only
putting an accusation on the wrong person, but on top of
that, embellishing the story to make it seem like every file
that Louise Elizondo ever made, is gone, including all the ones
in Guantanamo Bay, or regarding Guantanamo Bay. None of that was
ever reported. None of that was ever claimed. None of that ever
was ever told to me. And Susan golf did not play a role in it.
In fact, here is the breakdown of it. In December of 2019,
specifically my case 19 F 1903. When I asked for certain
records, emails from Luis Elizondo, I was told there was
no records. This specific request, I believe, was for a
keyword search on the word unidentified. So essentially, we
should have something that really clued me in to something
was wrong, that I knew something here was a miss. I appealed, and
I want to fast forward to April 2021. Not only did they
reinforce there were no records. But they said please note that
emails of former Department of Defense employees are not
retained unless they are considered historical records
and retained by the national record center. There are
currently no existing email accounts for Mr. Elizondo, we
believe that search methods were appropriate and could reasonably
be expected to produce the requested records if they
existed throughout multiple attempts, and I mean, through
months of trying to figure this out. I was told that again, his
emails were destroyed with further clarification, stating
If the user left OSD in 2017, but it's still working in the
DOD, meaning they're still using their@mail.mi l email that
there's a chance those emails still exist. If they left the
DoD entirely in 2017 and haven't used it use their mail dot m l e
mail since they since then they emails would be gone unless the
user was journaled. A journal account is an optional DoD
enterprise email service that provides mission partners the
ability to retain all messages and their attachments sent to
and from selected journaled mailboxes. While not required
for all end users. It is recommended for high ranking and
other designated individuals whose email may contain official
records, which are subject to legal and regulatory
requirements, messages and journal accounts are preserved
for 10 years.
All that right, took months to get on top of yours of the FOIA.
Each and every single time I communicated with the Department
of Defense, it was not signed by Susan golf. Susan golf had
nothing to do with this legal process that I worked incredibly
hard over. My whole point here is that we have created various
narratives about people that aren't necessarily true. And
when you look at the just the claim, it really does resonate
with a lot of people. I've seen the reactions to this complaint.
Wow, Carrie Reid's out to get them, Susan Gough's evil, she's
out to get them. I'm not here to defend any of them. All I'm here
is to show you that if you look at all the pieces of the puzzle,
if you look at all the pieces of the evidence, if you look at the
totality of the story, it is something different. We cannot
get away with that. Ignore my personal opinion or your
personal thoughts about me if you hate me, but you're stuck
and glued, watching this. Take all that out of the equation and
just look at the stories. Look at the evidence and look at what
is being said and how it cannot be backed up. This is important.
This is the time to nitpick people hate when I do it, but we
are accusing people inside the Pentagon of some pretty Serious
stuff, and stuff that connects to a topic. That's pretty
serious for a lot of us. Some of it may be personal curiosity,
some of it may be for national security concerns, some of it,
fill in the blank, it doesn't matter. But it's an important
topic. So we should nitpick. We should look at these claims and
understand when the evidence is not there to back it up. We
shouldn't try and make the claim. Yet we've gone so far now
that the DoD IG is looking at these stories. What are they
going to do? What are they going to think? And that's why I'm
always concerned when people are putting so much into the fact
that Mr. Elizondo is claiming his complaint did something when
we don't even know if the DoD IG took any of this seriously.
Maybe they did. But the evidence just really isn't strong to
support the strongest accusations in the complaint.
Moving on. Please note additional information
substantiating the above can be provided it is my sincere
concern that I'm being unfairly targeted, along with other
others formally associated with a tip for retribution and may
even fall under whistleblower protection. There exists a
severe conflict of interest and I am being persecuted by having
my reputation and credibility constantly challenged and
attacked by elements within the Pentagon. The result has
impacted me professionally, financially and personally.
Furthermore, the hardship endured by my family has caused
us unimaginable pain and suffering. As a final thought
the US government is enjoined and must remain committed to
serving the interests of the public. This includes being
truthful and transparent in all interfaces. I am certain it
would be a surprise to many that Miss Goff has already publicly
stated her position. Regarding this interface. Equally
fallacious in today's world of instant worldwide communication,
is the notion that you can separate military psychological
activities from public affairs and public diplomacy. PAGE 36.
The evolution of strategic influence by Lieutenant Colonel
Susan L. Goff US Army. I sincerely hope that my
government does not believe that psychological manipulation of
the public is in the best interest of our government and
our country. Yes, that's a real quote from a paper that Susan
golf rock wrote, and something that you can find on the black
vault as well. I'll put all those links and stuff in the in
the show notes. So you have all sorts of stuff to read. But that
is that is real, that that's something she said. But yet
again, at this point, we have a couple elements of being drilled
that Susan Goff is the bad the bad guy. And again, I'm, this
may come off to some as that I'm defending her and it's not about
that. But rather look at what we've looked at at the complaint
thus far, because this is the end prior to the attachments
that Susan Goff has named, but not Christopher Sherwood.
Sherwood was the one the one that made that original shot
across the bow comment, Susan golf, essentially softened it.
If there's additional information that I'm not aware
of that golf was involved before she was ever attributed
anything, then let's see that. But until then, that's
seemingly, a misdirected accusation, because it wasn't
her that made that statement, but rather, it was someone else
who has no accusation made against him in this claim.
What is made here is that again, Susan Goff was the one that made
it. But then when you start looking at more of the
information, it seems like she has worked to support that. But
it's still the word of the DOD, not Susan golf. So why is she
targeted here? When then there's another part of what's thrown
her direction as completely fabricated accusations. That
ties into my story. So again, that's why I get a little bit
passionate about this section of it. Because again, it's not
about defending anybody, but my own reporting, that he's
utilizing to craft a narrative that isn't right. It's not, it's
not real. It's not anything anybody ever said. And it was
being put on somebody who didn't even play a role in the story.
So it is so frustrating to see that, because again, when you
look at it on the surface, it's believable. Look at the
evidence. It is a completely different story. Going through
some of the attachments here. And there's quite a few of them,
but we can go through these. This was the Harry Reid letter,
which were quite a few pages. I'm just going to kind of flip
through here I've done a whole video breakdown. But this
obviously was Harry Reid's letter that you can read in full
that was one of the attachments I also attach where Luis
Elizondo has performance evaluations. So you'll see here
that, again, I invite you to read the, the documents in full,
I'm not going to go over every single line, because we're
already quite a bit into this. But what I think really sticks
out is there's no mention of a tip, there's no mention of
anything that he was doing as that parallel portfolio. What is
in here were his duties that in multiple times in the complaint,
were essentially alluded to by him stating that the supervisors
who learned about his parallel portfolio or the a tip effort
was just don't let it affect your normal job. So in other
words, this does support that this was just a side effort.
That doesn't negate the result if there were any. The problem
is, is that completely goes against what we were told for
years. And it completely reinforces that people like me
that had every right to question the story. In the end, it looks
like it was a legitimate question to ask. I want to note
because I'm not trying to to just skip this. He was getting
excellent reviews. And I want to point that out, because I'm not
I'm not skipping over this to try and hide that. But rather,
there's just a lot of information to cover. So read
it, but but I want to point out, he was getting excellent
reviews, there was nothing that was bad, or said against him in
these reviews. So you'll be able to go through all of this. Also
in there with a DD Form 1910s, which we've already gone over
also those emails that were back and forth. In my opinion, the
emails do not support the claims that were made in the complaint,
I invite you also to read them more in depth. There was never
any talk about a unlimited distribution to the general
public. So all of that is a complete contradiction to the
evidence. Lots of different emails here. I do have a video
breakdown of these from a couple years ago when I first got them.
The New York Times article was repeated in full Politico's
first article in December of 2017 repeated in full so we'll
just obviously thumb through those. This is that Luis
Elizondo James Clapper obviously backstage in a green room or
something like that at CNN, not really sure what clappers
connection is I mean, there's there's always rumors but you
know if Cliff clapper knew and he was so proud of Luis Elizondo
heading this program, because he had direct knowledge, hey, I'd
love to hear it. Love to see it. The AFS AI investigation we
already went over that, but that was attached to this. Oddly, a
off the record and confidential email from Tim McMillan. It was
chopped off in what was posted online. But you can see here it
was a essentially Tim was working on a story about their
esteemed backgrounds. So obviously this was going to be a
very favorable piece on whatever he was working, you know,
working towards. Another thing here was the email that he wrote
on June 3 2020, to Susan golf. So that is in there, as well
that came out through FOIA. What I want to point out, however, is
what not was in what was not in the complaint.
And what was not in the complaint was an email I also
turned up in FOIA. That talked about his description of a tip
as an activity versus a program. My question mark, is why
wouldn't you include all the evidence unless you didn't want
to negate what you were doing? When the first FOIA release went
out? It was posted by Alejandro Rojas. This was not included.
Now, I did verify. But I will let all of you ask Alejandro, I
verified that what Alejandro posted was the totality of what
he got. So I believe that he requested this specific email.
I'll go back to the slide. So this one came out through FOIA
and then later republished here. So I think he specifically
requested that one likely because maybe Mr. Elizondo told
him. But what Mr. Elizondo didn't tell the IG didn't tell,
Alejandro Rojas, or anybody else was this second email that was
sent in 2019 essentially giving a different perception of what a
tip really was just an activity versus a program that was widely
reported in 2017 2018 and 2019. But clearly here it was
something different. These were the emails that were around this
was obviously highlight did in the complaint, but I believe
that it was highlighted online and Mr. Elizondo took that this
was showing that Susan golf let me see here. This was this was
essentially showing that Susan Golf was going to be in the loop
on any FOIA requests and FOIA releases. Generally speaking, we
let the normal FOIA process work as it is supposed to. But we
have been requesting the FOIA officers coordinate with us on
UAP focused foi responses before they hit reply, so that new
terms language, language, etc, aren't introduced that
complicate the overall messaging. At the top here is
where the Susan golf mentioned is Megan is correct. From a
public affairs perspective. All media inquiries on a UAP go to
public affairs, Susan golf. I think that there was a bigger
case may and I think that there was a bigger deal made about
this than should have been. I know that this kind of reads
that Susan Goff is like the ringleader and she's watching
every FOIA that goes out. My guess is she's likely in the
loop of the FOIA that goes out. But I've seen no evidence that
she has been directly involved in being a release authority.
The FOIA offices have their own internal release authorities on
who reviews documents, and and essentially decides what is
released to the general public. That is not a spokespersons job.
And so for them to make that accusation against Susan golf
again. If there's evidence, I'd love to see it. This however,
just doesn't prove that to me. I mean, I, I, I don't see it. And
I think that it makes sense that they would want to see what goes
out and the language of FOIA letters, just to ensure that
nothing is being said that shouldn't that would make
someone like me, make someone like The Daily Mail, the New
York Post, whomever's writing a story misconstrue something and
create a narrative that isn't true, because God knows we've
got enough of that going on. Here's some more emails that
were used to kind of essentially prove that that there was a lot
of shenanigans going on on the release of information. This was
written by Susan Goff, one other thing you need to do is reach
out to the Air Force's FOIA office, we need to keep a very,
very close eye on FOIA requests for release of UAP videos to
ensure consistency of what does or doesn't get released.
Generally, so far, at least with Navy vids, we're not releasing
them. This totally makes sense as well. I mean, we're not it
for me, this doesn't read that they're circumventing
themselves. They're circumventing the FOIA process
and injecting themselves into the review. But rather, they
want to make sure that whatever does come out, they're aware of
it. So let's say they put out a statement and go, Well, this is
classified, we're not going to talk about it, or it's not being
released, or it is being released. But then another
office says, Wait a minute, we haven't made that decision. All
that makes sense that there's going to be a coordinated
effort, because look what happens, a story comes out, it
goes viral, quick when it's about UAP. So you have to be
able to look at those.
Those occurrences, those events that are happening through the
legal channels, stay on top of it, because if you're speaking
for the agency, you're not going to do a blind, you're going to
have to be informed about what the FOIA is releasing. So again,
a lot of that makes sense. The FOIA release to mark Zuccotti
for those emails was in there. The Harry Reid letter was also
attached. One thing I want to point out about all these
attachments is the date all printed on the same day. Now
that may not seem too significant. But the Tim
McMillan letter that I talked about another Susan Gough email
that I referenced, all from his Gmail account, the political
story, The New York Times story, another printout, when you
sometimes print, they obviously date in the top corner when you
print it, the date of print 532 1021. And why is this
relevant? Because you may just kind of skim right past it. I
haven't seen a lot of people talk about that. It's the same
date that the evaluation or the DoD is actions regarding the
unidentified aerial phenomena. Notice went out from the
Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General, the same
exact day. Now some may think, Oh, ha, and they actually
believe it that it was Luis Elizondo, his complaint that
sparked this, it was not, and I believe this is proof of that.
This was released on the same day that he printed all that
material. So for the likelihood, the likelihood of him putting
all that stuff together after he prints it out, upload uploads it
to the DoD hotline. The DoD IG looks at it reads 84 pages,
whatever it is, goes through, the whole thing goes off Hot we
need to do a evaluation. They all internally make that
decision. They craft this memo, they send out the release all
within like 12 hours. Not a chance. What happened here? And
was this announcement what sparked them? Meaning Luis
Elizondo and his attorney or attorneys or whomever was
involved in this to go, hey, just just speculation, but maybe
we can piggyback on this because I believe that I have heard that
that their IG complaint sparked this. I couldn't find an exact
quote. So I'll let you guys decide all of that there are 12
million interviews to go through. But I can tell you just
from online chatter, that a lot of people do believe whether it
was said directly or not, it doesn't doesn't really matter to
me, but I'm here to dispel the myth. There's no possible way
that that was submitted on the Third of May 2021, to the DoD
IG, and they turned around a announcement to the general
public that they looked at it decided to have a evaluation
done, and they were moving forward. So here are some
closing thoughts. I know we just went through a big rundown a
huge deep dive into the IG complaint. I was apprehensive to
do this video in this rundown. Because when I first read the
complaint, certain things stuck out that we've already gone
over. And even some that I decided not to put in this
presentation that I knew was wrong. Now, whether that's human
error, whether that's malicious, whether that's just a
misunderstanding. Or maybe we just don't have all of the
story. It to me doesn't matter.
I was apprehensive to do this because I just didn't want yet
another video to have a seemingly attack against Mr.
Luis Elizondo. I said recently, in a radio show that I did, that
I really liked the man and like the man, I have no problem with
him. From, from a personal standpoint, I felt we get along,
I felt that we talked similar language. I'm not military, but
rather have investigated a lot of stuff. And can kind of talk
that talk a little bit where I understand secrecy, I understand
some of the stuff the ins and outs of what he was talking
about. And I felt a certain click. And I felt a certain
understanding about him. But in the same respect, I can't just
let my personal feelings cloud what I've done for more than 25
years, and that is look at stories, look at claims, look at
evidence, look at documents, seek out documents, seek out
evidence and apply it to this situation. I can't tell you how
much heat I have gotten from people, including some vicious
heat over the years. And it's not fun. If I don't do this to
be popular, clearly, it would behoove me to just essentially
lay down and go, Hey, he's telling the truth. And how dare
all of you say anything, but he is speaking gospel, that would
get me more friends, that would have me get a much easier time
on social media. And I wouldn't have most of the quote unquote
haters that will do tweet thread after tweet thread or meme after
meme because that is their only contribution of attacking me on
a personal level. Or on a we'll leave it at vicious. There were
people that doxxed my business, my personal income, like my real
job, away from the black ball has nothing to do with it doxed
that with posting an address, which thankfully, I think far
ahead. That's a public address. So it's not that big of a deal.
But they thought that they were Daxing that I know for a fact
that they were trying to create issues for my business online. I
won't give details because I don't want to give any more
people ideas. But all of this was well talked about on social
media, they put it out there on Twitter. So all of that would go
away. I'm not trying to play a victim here, but rather putting
into context, why I'm saying what I'm saying. But if I just
fell down and said, Hey, this is all gospel, I'd be lying to you,
because it clearly isn't. The evidence doesn't match up to the
claims. The testimony doesn't match up to the evidence. And as
you can see here, the testimony doesn't even add up to the
testimony. These are all important questions we need to
ask Some may have easy answers. I've said that a million times.
But until we get the answers we should continue to ask. But
clearly we have discrepancies here and, and issues that are
now being put into complaints and accusations being made about
other people. And as I've proven accusations being made that are
unfounded, and accusation made against somebody that had
nothing to do with the story, I spent probably the most time I
didn't time it on that, because that was personal to me. Not
because of the people involved. But because accuracy means
something to me. And when somebody uses my work, and uses
it to accuse somebody of something that they didn't do,
that they had no role in that they had no part in that I'm
going to say it. And that's what's frustrating about this,
because some people will equate that to not Jon's just a
government stooge. He's going ahead and defending X, Y and Z.
And he's, he shouldn't be doing that. But in reality, it's about
the truth, right? Isn't that what we all want?
What I've been lambasted for and so many other people, for asking
certain questions about the videos about the story about a
tip about the origin about OS app, the nickname The this the
that as if you look back, you can actually see what we were
lambasted for years ago, is actually widely accepted now
that even Christopher Mellon says yes, rules were bent,
getting those videos out. A couple years back, I said that
they weren't coming out through kosher means. And I was
viciously attacked for that. Yet here we are, where one of the
main players involved goes, Yeah, rules were bent. And
everybody says, well, that's no big deal. Well, wait a minute,
it was a big deal when I said it. And yet, we've changed,
we've altered course, that worries me the ends do not
justify the means. If you build a story on a weak foundation,
you build that house of cards on something weak, what happens?
It's going to fall down. I've done a video on this channel
about history repeating itself, that if you look at the mid and
late 60s and the work of Gerald Ford and congressional interest
in UFOs, and the push for further, not only transparency,
but inquiry into a potential national security threat, what
happened, we got the Condon report. And for decades, the US
government and US military lied through their teeth based on
that to all of us. As we sit right now, man, there's some
awesome promising things going on. But people thought that in
1967 1968, as well, people thought, hey, this is it.
Finally, for decades of investigating UFOs they're
taking it seriously. They're having that conversation.
Scientists are looking at the data. And in the end, the house
of cards fell. Will that happen? Now I'm not trying to be a
pessimist, but rather realistic. And going back to this
complaint, in my opinion, and that's why I kept stressing
opinion. This isn't going to help. Because as we can clearly
see in many examples, the evidence just isn't there. But
to the mainstream media or UFO, Twitter or wherever. If you
don't know the proper context, or have the time to look at it,
you may look at this on the surface and go, Aha gospel, they
are unfairly targeting this man. And they should be punished. But
what if the evidence isn't there? What if things are
wrongly attributed to someone else that shouldn't be? What if
somebody's taking credit for hearing something they didn't
necessarily hear?
Is all of that just an acceptable Miss truth? Is all of
that just okay, because we have congressional hearings? I don't
know the answer. I'm here for the ride. And I'll keep bringing
you these types of developments. But that said, I had to give you
some of those closing thoughts. Because I just don't understand
the lack of evidence and the ability to make accusations like
this without evidence. And on top of that, have some of the
people out there, just believe it? Because he said it. We have
to look at the evidence and I hope that that's what I've done
here in the last couple of hours to go through this. And to show
you guys. We need to ask those important questions. including,
why the root the person who although was brought up in the
IG complaint, the person that started what I called that shot
across the bow against Luis Elizondo no accusation was made.
Why not? That's a huge question for me. If there's evidence to
show that Susan golf at that time, made sure would say it.
Okay, let's talk about that. I see no evidence of it. Am I
hunting for it? Yes. If I find what I've just said is, is a
wrong assumption. I will bring that to not a problem. But as of
right now, there is nothing to support it. Sherwood was the guy
that led the charge by name against Luis Elizondo, and he's
nowhere to be found, as in the list of the accused. It does not
matter if Susan Goff then carry that torch, if you are are
really accusing the DoD of creating these falsehoods
against you, then name them all, not just the cherry picking. And
that's what's frustrating about this and seeing this, that there
are good guys and gals, and bad guys and gals. And this story
that has played out is pitting the good versus the bad. Gary
Reed, Susan golf, Neil Tipton, bad by the way. What did you see
that Neil Tipton did that was bad. We went through the whole
thing. That's another one. Hey, maybe he did do something bad
because he didn't run out and endorse Elizondo? Well on paper.
Sherwood did a lot more than Tipton Tipton was just around.
So I don't get that one. But probably more to the story.
Until we get those pieces of the puzzle, we just have to try and
fill in the blanks the best that we can. I'm always curious to
your thoughts. If you're watching here on YouTube, please
look below, see the comments already add your own. If you
disagree with me, I'm glad I don't expect all of you to agree
with all of my points. Give me your feedback. Give me your
reaction to some of this. If you're learning something new,
awesome, put it down there. Let us know if you're listening,
listening on the audio podcast version. Thank you for doing
that. You can stream all of these types of presentations in
audio podcast form, if you're not aware, by going to any
podcast aggregator and looking for the black vault, radio, a
lot of these presentations get dropped there sometimes a few
days after the presentation first airs on YouTube, but you
can stream them there as well. If you do listen on the audio
version, please, it's a big help. To give a review, I shoot
for five stars, but I would never tell you what to put. But
please leave your comments and your review there because it is
a big help. And same with YouTube. Thumbs up, make sure
you're Subscribe, subscribe to the channel and turn those
notifications on. I'm always interested in your questions.
I'm considering doing a live show. Not tonight, because this
was a big thing for all of you to digest. But maybe in the next
week or so to take some calls to take some of your questions. And
to kind of dive into stuff that maybe I missed or overlooked or
maybe didn't explain clearly enough, which in a video that
goes a couple hours is definitely easy to do. So the
comments on that asking for that really does serve as motivation
for me why this video is proof of that I was not going to do it
until I saw the overwhelming reaction to me mentioning a
maybe. And then you guys kind of flooded me with DMS and public
posts and here we are. So thank you for that. Thank you for your
support of this channel. And I'm really looking forward to seeing
your feedback. And for now, this is John Greenewald Jr signing
off. And I'll see you next time