John Greenewald: Hello to you all, John Greenewald here with
the black vault.com. I'm posting this video as a response to the
avalanche of dialogue that started after my last video.
That dialogue was in part good, but also in part bad. But I
wanted to speak to all of you to give you an update and
hopefully, maybe even answer a question or two that you have
had since I posted my breakdown of Luis Elizondo, his IG
complaint. As that video was playing for the first time, I
was spending the day with my son at the arcade. I never liked
missing my YouTube premieres that way I can spend a lot of
time with you guys. But time with my son means more than
anything, so I left my office and checked in a few times when
I could just to say hi. But while at the arcade, I got a
text message on my cell phone from a friend. I was told Mr
Elizondo was retweeting a lawyer. And that lawyer was
seemingly warning me directly about my video and defaming Mr.
Elizondo. Let me read his exact words. Surely hope you Don't
defame Lou Elizondo. It is well documented that he was the
director of a tip and any participation in a plan to cast
doubt on that hashtag truth is a knowing effort to defame and sow
disinformation. It's legally actionable. Mr. Elizondo
retweeted that not once, but twice. Mr. Elizondo, stated
first, it's nice working with professionals. Thank you, Todd.
And then a second tweet 14 minutes later, I was the
director of a tip. It has been well documented, and I've been
the subject of a campaign of defamatory disinformation by
multiple parties. Again, my thanks to Todd McMurtry. Now,
one thing to note, my video was still premiering and what that
means is it was playing for the first time checking the
timestamp, it appears my video was only about 37 minutes into
playing the admittedly long three hour total runtime. In
other words, it seemed coordinated. This all seems
strategic, and it seemed planned, all of which is fine
and not an indicator of wrongdoing on the part of the
attorney or Mr. Elizondo, but they had no idea what I was even
saying the video wasn't even done yet. Their rebuttals about
Mr. Elizondo running a tip pretty much had nothing to do
with my video, dissecting the claims that he made in his IG
complaint. But they floated the D word anyway, numerous times
worked in the word disinformation as well. And then
Mr. Elizondo retweeted it to his 93,000 plus followers twice,
which resulted in quite the Firestorm. Now, let me say I can
take the heat and insults from that crowd thrown at me in tweet
form. I've done it for a long time. So there's no problem
there. But that wasn't the part that bothered me about this
entire situation. In my view, I did not defame anyone. And to
float those words is not only telling, but incredibly damaging
to the entire investigative process for someone like me, and
for people like all of us, we are all on an individual
journey, our own each of us to discover the truth, whatever
that may be. My path took me to vet the claims of a former
taxpayer paid government employee who made claims about a
taxpayer funded program or effort, whatever he wants to now
call it. In his complaint, he utilized my work, and in my
view, altered it to make accusations against other
taxpayer paid employees with within the Pentagon, and the
Department of Defense. I'll be at my work was a very small part
of his IG complaint, it was still a very big claim to make.
And in my personal opinion, the story was altered. If it was
not, I think that we should ask for more evidence. Am I not
allowed to question any of that? What country do I live in? If I
can't question all those claims not only made in the complaint,
but others made in tweets and podcasts by Mr. Elizondo? What
country do I live in where it is wrong to use verifiable
evidence, vetting the claims of someone I once paid for through
my taxpayer dollars to even have a job? What country do I live
in? Were my efforts to bring as much verifiable evidence to the
table along with properly labeling and expressing my
opinion is legal threat worthy, veiled or otherwise, to be
thrown at me on Twitter in tweet form.
The tweets from an attorney and Mr Elizondo posted online riled
up a digital mob before my video was even done playing. The
result was a digital lynching by a small but noisy group of Mr.
Elizondo his biggest supporters. Anyone that has a following and
has followers should be careful when posting such legal jargon
and veiled accusations. The result is much more damaging
than one might think. But sadly, I'm starting to think that was
the intent. Although Mr. Elizondo is attorney has every
right to tweet at me, and Mr. Elizondo has every right to do
the same. In this process, they are revealing an enormous
problem in today's world. And that is not everything should be
met with a lawyer veiled legal threats, or post that I am sure
all parties involved would know, would rile up a digital mob of
supporters. Rather just attack my information. If you choose to
make public claims than expect feedback from the public. It's
up to you to respond or not. If you feel the desire answer the
questions I posed, show evidence to the contrary of what I
showed, prove me wrong. Heck, I'll let Mr. Elizondo or anyone
do it on my own show, as I've already proven in the past, not
only with Mr. Elizondo, but others who I have spoken out
against as well. I'm not afraid of being proven wrong,
especially on my own show, or having a pressing a pressing
question answered adequately. But if he chooses not to do it,
then don't all of which is everyone's right to do. But
nothing I did warranted the flashing of an attorney or
dropping words like defame defamation and disinformation.
Especially when a digital mom is clearly foaming at the mouth for
more digital ammunition, ammunition to use. The flashing
of his attorney gave them all just that. The bottom line, I
did nothing wrong. I exercised my freedom to information. I
exercise my right to express my opinion. I vetted taxpayer paid
people and taxpayer funded programs and posed questions
that I would 100% Defend under oath in a courtroom. None of
this none of what I did is in the legal definition of
deformation or Sue worthy, it's not even legal threat worthy.
Anyone who decides to talk the definition talk about what I
did, is telling the general public more about themselves
than they are about me. I know Mr. Elizondo, his biggest
supporters out there won't watch this video. And if they do, they
will continue to throw rocks and sling mud and the name of
disclosure as they won't actually listen to what I have
to say. They just think I'm out to get them. But I made this
explanation to tell all of you, in case you had any reservation
about what in the world Jon's doing. So I could tell you this
is not about Luis Elizondo the man. It never has been. As I've
said numerous times, I actually like the guy. But what this is
about the claims of a former DoD intelligence agent, one that
Americans paid for to have a job. And it's about his claims,
doing taxpayer funded research, or running taxpayer funded
programs, and creating taxpayer funded property. That is that of
the people. We own these programs they create, and if
somebody who was on the inside and running it all for nearly a
decade, and let me add someone who kept it all secret, a secret
from us. For all that time. We have a right to question it.
Once the information is out in the open. We paid for it. Just
because someone tells us they will always tell us the truth.
Newsflash, it doesn't actually mean, they still will. It
doesn't mean that we shouldn't challenge them, or the stories
or the claims. The Absolute Truth will not be harmed by
anything anyone throws at it. Not a question. Not an opinion.
Not anything. The Absolute Truth will survive it all. I will not
be intimidated from doing what I have done for 26 years. I have a
long history of questioning claims by the government claims
from politicians, claims of FOIA offices, claims of former DOD
personnel and the list goes on. That is what the black vault is
all about. And despite what some noisy haters on Twitter say,
I will continue to do it. I will continue to show you all a
glimpse into my journey trying to figure this all out with you.
And I won't apologize for pushing for answers or asking
for more evidence. We should all be doing that even if we think
150% Of what Mr. Elizondo claims is 150%. Legit. Keep pushing for
answers. Because I assure you, we don't have them all.
Especially not about this. I've always said, and I'll say it
again, I don't claim to always be right. I don't want you to
agree with everything I say. Because the black vault is not
an echo chamber, nor do I want it to be. It's a place to see,
share, and reflect on ideas, evidence, theories, and data on
all sorts of issues. And nothing, and no one will keep me
from running the black vault for the next 26 years, and hopefully
far beyond to give you all a place where you won't be
intimidated to share your ideas, or learn from others or
challenge your own beliefs. But most of all, and I mean this,
most of all, I want you all to have a place where you are
motivated to ask questions, and never be afraid to do so. No
matter how many attorneys they have to tweet at you. It's your
right. It's our right. And I hope none of us are met with
enough opposition to forget that