John Greenewald: 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. and today
we're talking about a brand new story, or at least as of last
week that I wrote that has received a avalanche of media
coverage. Now, what I had reported last week was something
that although may upset some of you was a very important story,
as we continue to unfold this saga about learning more on UAP,
UFO, whatever acronym you want to use, and how Congress is
approaching this topic? And Will their language in these bills
that they've been passing around and then passing in the chamber
and so on and so forth? Will they help us? And I'm not so
sure if the general public really grasps the importance of
a national security denial, because generally, you're not
going to see Congress or congressional language, Trump
that I won't get into it in this video. But you've seen in the
past, where I've talked about how Congress has been very
accepting of the quote, unquote, we can talk more about that in a
closed session, which means we're encroaching on territory
that's classified. We can't do this in a public hearing. And
all the congressman, as I said in the previous video, kind of
sit back and go, Yeah, all right, no problem. And they
don't fight it. But it will be interesting to see how all of
this unfolds, because it leads into this story, and how the
appeal, which I'll get into later, can potentially fight it.
Now, here's the nutshell version. About two and a half
years ago, I went after all other UFO and UAP related
videos, videos only that the US Navy held in their their
holdings. And essentially what I was requesting was every video
that holds a degs designation of unidentified aerial phenomena.
What I did was I filed it the day after the Navy released the
three videos that we've all seen a million times now in the last
four and a half, five years, the FLIR, the gimbal and go fast, I
was excited to be the one to bring to you all back in. I
think it was now 2019 The designator of unidentified
aerial phenomena and the Navy admitting that those three
videos depicted UAP. That was a huge story back then when I
first wrote that, and that as well had received quite a bit of
media coverage. So it's nice to see the progression that the
media is sticking with this, and watching as we all learn more as
we go. Now fast forward to again, about two and a half
years ago, I don't have the exact dates in front of me. But
regardless, it's in the article, if you'd like to click on the
links, they're all time stamped and so on. But about two and a
half years ago, when they officially released the video,
so they had already said what the designation was, they
officially released them the moment that happens in my world,
in my view, in my personal opinion. When that happens, they
essentially set a precedent that I can call on to say you have
UAP related videos, and you've released them. So even though
there are likely more, and on top of that there probably are
classified videos that aren't as as I guess, low quality as the
FLIR was because obviously, that didn't show a whole lot of
detail. It was more of the story that went along with it. So when
as your technology progresses from 2004, you're getting clear
images, you can see identifying markings if there are any. So
obviously, you're encroaching on a much more sensitive piece of
material. But there are ways to safeguard the sensitive material
and still have a little bit of transparency to go along with
it. So when I filed the case, I had said you guys are now
releasing these videos. So there's got to be more and that
had started a what I didn't know at the time would ultimately be
roughly a two and a half year journey that resulted in me
having to file numerous FOIA cases. It wasn't just one and
finally in the end, the Navy said nope, so Sorry, we are not
releasing any of them, because they will will harm national
security. Let
me go ahead and pull up some visuals here so you can kind of
see what I'm talking about. I'll come back to the screen. This is
all the media coverage. This is the story that I originally
wrote dropped it on September 8. Let me scroll down here. I won't
read it to you. But I Please welcome you to visit the link in
the show notes below. That way you guys can see all the anchor
links, all the timestamp articles I wrote prior to this,
kind of leading up to this to this story. But I go through all
the different cases that I filed, I list all the case
numbers, for all of you that love to take notes and challenge
what I may or may not be saying what I do is make sure that you
guys have a paper trail to track as well. But let me go ahead and
jump down to the denial letter. Hopefully you can see this good
on your screens, if I can maybe zoom in and a little bit more
there. So what they do in this appeal, let me go to the right
language. So this is essentially just more boilerplate stuff, you
know that they searched for what I have requested, and it says
the UAP Task Force has responded back to DNS 36, and have stated
that the requested videos contain sensitive information
pertaining to unidentified aerial phenomena, or UAP, and
are classified and are exempt from disclosure in their
entirety. Under exemption B five, US Code section 552. B one
in accordance with executive order 13526, and the UAP
security classification guide. The release of this information
will harm national security as it may provide adversaries
valuable information regarding Department of Defense slash Navy
operations, vulnerabilities and our capabilities. No portions of
the videos can be segregated for release, while three UAP videos
were released in the past, the facts specific to those three
videos are unique in that the those videos were initially
released via unofficial channels. Before official
release. Those events were discussed extensively in the
public domain. In fact, major news outlets conducted specials
on these events. Given the amount of information in the
public domain regarding these encounters, it was possible to
release the files without further damage to national
security. The rest is kind of boilerplate. So I want to kind
of drill down on a few things here. So again, to kind of
summarize that nutshell part. They said no. And they said
everything is classified and everything would harm national
security, if released. So diving a little bit deeper and breaking
this down. That last line stuck out to me without further damage
to national security. As far as we're aware, the videos were
deemed as unclassified. I had written a story where I got a
statement from the Navy, I even looked back to verify, and I go
over it in the story. But essentially, they were
confirming that the videos were and are unclassified. And so
what they were confirming was there was no such sensitivity
that resulted in classification. Rather, they were unclassified.
Now, one point that I will make is that even though stuff is
unclassified, that does not mean that it can be released to the
public, unclassified for official use only is a
designator they use, it requires a review to make sure that
although something may not be classified, it could still
potentially be exempt from release for a multitude of
reasons. That's a story for another day. But just know that
that that just doesn't automatically allow it to go out
into the open, but harming national security if information
harms national security. That's essentially when you get into
classified territory. So how much harm it can do. And there
are definitions for this, which are quite fascinating. Maybe
I'll go over them in another video. But essentially, a breaks
down the level of harm, which then essentially defines the
level of classification. So going back to this further
damage to national security, are they implying that there was
damage to national security from the beginning? I have seen no
evidence of that in my appeal, which I'll go over in a little
bit.
I break that down even more, so we'll go over it then. But in
short here, there's no there's no sign that there was a damage
to national security now, whether they were their concerns
over the leaks. I would say yes. The Air Force Office of Special
Investigations did a The investigation into the leaked of
the leak of the material and essentially determined they were
unclassified. And that there was there was no, I guess, reason to
continue, you know, I mean, like, what were they going to
do? Essentially, the information was unclassified. So there was
no classified information that was out in the public. So there
was nothing ultimately to do. Arguably, there may have been a
concern about the person that leaked them. And I think that
that may have been the DISA di s a investigation that was
referenced by Luis Elizondo that he said he was being interviewed
and kind of scrutinized over. So there may have been a concern
about how the protocols weren't followed correctly, and how
people with security clearances that are supposed to safeguard
information. Again, even though these were unclassified, it
wound up in the open, how did that happen? And who was
essentially responsible. So there were subsequent
investigations, in my opinion, that tie into the AF OSI
investigation, but to kind of close that part of it. It was
unclassified. There was no classified information in the in
the open, and they didn't have a concern beyond that. So what is
that further damage to national security, and we don't really
know. The other part that I want to quickly mention before we get
on to the appeal is that it's an in accordance with executive
order 13526. This is an executive order that kind of
essentially, defines national security, classified
information. So on a lot of legal jargon in there, there's
been a couple executive orders that kind of get overwritten as
new protocols are put into place signed by the President. Before
this, it was Executive Order 12958, if I remember correctly,
so they do a lot of these kind of revisions and updates to how
they handle classified information. But in addition to
135 to six, it also mentions UAP security classification guide.
If you're new to this channel, just know I did a full video
breakdown. Ironically, there's no connection to this about a
week prior to me writing the story. Now, why is that
important? Well, I profiled the security classification guide as
proof of again, my opinion. But what I felt was proof that UAP
and UFO secrecy is deepening, not lessening, everybody thinks
that we're in this era of transparency. And even though we
hear about UAP, and UFOs, a lot more, I feel that it is
deepening. So I've said that a lot publicly and people have
always asked me, well, what are you talking about, like,
Congress is getting involved, and there's hearings, and so on,
and so forth. So without, again, doubling that video, please know
that I have done a full breakdown of that guide. But why
I wanted to bring it up here is to punch the note. That is the
authority along with that executive order. But that is the
authority which allows the Navy to say, John, through FOIA, you
can't access a single video nope, done over with your app.
Now. I'm appealing. So we'll get to that now. But that authority,
they call it the the authority to classify something came from
that UAP security classification guide. So we are now seeing the
repercussions of that guide of that security that was put in
place by that document. And in that previous video, I go over
some other examples. Well, here is the prime example. The prime
example that they won't even release a small portion of the
video, a redacted frame a screengrab nothing, they 100%
classify it due to that guide. So that I think really drives
the point home that this is the major roadblock the problem with
today's secrecy and the proof that it's not getting any
better. Now, let me go ahead and go over a few things on the
appeal.
I'm reading a little bit more on this channel, as some of you
guys that have followed me for a while, never huge fan of reading
to you. But I think for the audio version, it's important.
But on top of that, I want you to see how i Not that it's right
or wrong. But how I approach appeals, especially in cases
like this, and what I said to them, If I tried to paraphrase
it, I may like completely change the meaning of something. And I
didn't mean to so i want to make sure that you guys see how I
approached it. But on top of that this is something I don't
normally do. I may mention an appeal. If I write a story and I
say I'm appealing the decision. I very rarely, I think if ever
have published a full appeal prior to a decision. There's no
real reason Why it's just kind of a quirk of mine. I I'm a
little superstitious. So I don't like jinxing things like putting
it out there going, Hey, look, what's going to win this appeal.
I don't like doing that. I just like to kind of let it ride. But
in this one with the popularity of the story, and in fact, maybe
that's a good segue to this page. This is Google News that
shows the mainstream coverage, pretty much every article here,
not all, a couple other snuck in but this is the national
security concern over the release of video stories, and
quite a few mainstream outlets picked it up the independent
life science. Some of the other ones here you've got a lot of
the British papers that are always an on UFO stuff, but they
obviously get a lot of traffic to them. You'll see them like
the sun, the Daily Mail is in their salon just wrote a big
one. VICE News, I want to take a moment to recognize them, they
were the first to write the story. And so they saw what I
had written felt it was newsworthy, and wrote that so my
my special thanks to Vice News who has covered the black vault
before but on this one was first yet again, to cover it, see the
value of a cover it and then all of this other coverage. So the
reason why I like to show you guys this is to show that there
is a huge public interest to this. It's not just like a
hashtag, UFO, Twitter or some Facebook groups. Rather, this is
a major worldwide focal point, and concern and interest that
people are watching. So it is really nice to see that my
appeal ended up being four pages long, I'm not going to read the
whole thing to you. I've highlighted some sections, I
again, invite you to download the whole thing if you're
curious about the language. But what I want to kind of go
through here is how I approached it, and what the government is
getting from me. Now will this automatically get my appeal
granted, I don't know. And before I start reading some of
these sections, a granted appeal is a big win, I call it a win.
However, it does not mean that the Navy then is required to
release those videos, what they what they do, meaning the
appellate authority those that got my letter here at the US
Navy and the Department of Defense, it is a want to say
higher office, another set of eyes from the Freedom of
Information Act, personnel that denied me originally, they take
a look at this. And the case that I put up which I'm going to
go over, and then they make a decision, we grant it or we deny
it if we deny it pretty obvious. Sorry, John, you can go seek a
judge in a judicial review, which is the third step in a
FOIA process. Or they granted, if they granted, it goes back to
that FOIA office for another review, again, doesn't guarantee
that I'll get anything. But generally, you're not going to
get the same response. Because you've already got a granted
appeal on that original response. So they can't go back
and go, Oh, just give John the same exact response. Because
then you're in a legal loop. And then I would just appeal again,
because I once you're granted appeal rights, they are granted
back to you. So then you maintain them for them that next
response. So hopefully, I'm not getting too much in the legal
weeds, but for your for your people out there who are just
experimenting with maybe appeals. That's how that works.
So with that granted appeal, I will maintain rights to appeal
again, and then we'll see what they give me. Now, here's the
reasoning that I came up with.
And this is more of an introduction to the breakdown of
the reasons but I want to read this to you. I believe the
decision to withhold all responsive records is a gross
violation of the true nature of the Freedom of Information Act,
along with the public promises made under oath by
Undersecretary of Defense for intelligence and security Ronald
Moultrie, and Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence slash
director naval intelligence activity Scott Bray. During the
UAP hearing held on May 17 2022, Mr. Moultrie stated, quote, with
regard to the importance of transparency, the department is
fully committed to the principle of openness and accountability
to the American people. This four year response and the full
denial of all responsive records goes completely against the
commitment stated by Mr. Moultrie in the hearing. During
that same hearing, Bray stated quote, what I will commit to is
this, at least for that material, that's under my
authority as the deputy director of Naval Intelligence for
information that we have, when it does not involve sources and
methods and when We can, with a reasonable degree of confidence,
determined that it does not pose a foreign intelligence or
national security threat. And it's within my authority to do
so I commit to declassifying that. This for your response,
and the full denial of all responsive records goes
completely against the commitment stated by Mr. Bray at
this hearing. So essentially, what I'm doing there, if you
guys are gonna start crafting appeals, as I'm setting up the
commitment that the gentleman made at the UAP hearing for
transparency and declassification that if the
FOIA offices want to counter that, then they they kind of
have a little bit of a tight road to weave around, because we
have these public commitments to Congress and the American
people. And then the FOIA guys go up that Sorry, can't have
anything. So does it fit into the national security as Bray,
kind of set up, maybe. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't
try to set it up with that commitment, and then tear down
their decision. With my breakdown here. Let me go back
to reading to you. These are the bullet point lists. This is the
bullet point list that I made, to show them why I felt their
decision was wrong. And why I felt the appeal should be
granted, and at least a portion of the videos released. So let
me read. Number one, metadata can be stripped likely
information within this metadata embedded within each video would
contain sensitive information and likely be exempt from
release. However, this data can be stripped and removed from the
video files, thus removing the need for secrecy when it comes
to the information that metadata could reveal. This is a
interesting note because obviously, the FLIR the gimbal
and the go fast were not redacted visually, the metadata
was stripped. Once the metadata was stripped, that sensitivity
went to nothing and they were released to the general public.
Hu D or heads up display or HUD information can be redacted, as
indicated by numerous DoD videos released in the past should any
videos that are within the responsive records for this case
have sensitive information displayed on screen, it can be
redacted. Also, as indicated by numerous releases by the DoD
have videos containing sensitive info information that had
information being redacted, allowed for the public release
of the video, along with it being downgraded to an
unclassified level, please reference released videos housed
on dividends, to see more to see numerous examples of redactions
within videos. I didn't list them for the Department of
Defense in the Navy, because I don't have to, there's so many
of them that have come out where the heads up display, or
whatever that information is that they want to call it. If
it's burned onto the screen, they can redact it. And that has
been a practice, like, I found videos from the Iraq War, the
first Iraq war where they were releasing videos but you know,
in that old school tech kind of way, finding a way to obscure
the information that was burned on screen. So any of that type
of information I was using HUD is a little bit more generic and
broad. But regardless, whatever is burned in Data Wise, from a
FLIR video or whatever can be removed, and the DOD has
numerous examples of that.
Number three, a precedent has been set over the course of the
past couple of years where in numerous UAP related videos were
either released officially or leaked but confirmed as real by
the Department of Defense. As my four year case with the Navy and
less than the case number shows, the FLIR gimbal and go fast
videos were released officially after a review. Although
previously leaked, that fact does not automatically
declassified or mark them at an unclassified slash unrestricted
release status. Rather, a review needed to be done, and they were
released in full after that security review. This fact shows
that once metadata is removed UAP videos can absolutely not be
a threat to national security if released, the likelihood that
those three leaked UAP videos referenced are the only UAP
videos in the Navy's holdings that can be released in full or
even just in part is likely nil. What I'm trying to say is the
FLIR the gimbal and the go fast just by chance are the only ones
that they could release in full or in part and their entire
holdings. The likelihood of that is No. So that was my point with
this, which leads into the next. The Navy has also released other
UAP related videos as they connected to mysterious drone
swarms that appeared off the coast of California. Although
identified as drones, it is my belief that these videos still
hold a UAP designation, and would likely be a part or
something similar to this, the responsive records denied in my
case, as chronicled here, and that's the drive article that
has profiled this. So shout out to all those guys over there
covering this, they've done a great job. The Navy's release of
such a video proves yet again, that UAP visual imagery, once
sensitive metadata is removed, can be released in full. That
point is pretty obvious. But just to clarify, for those who
don't quite understand objects that that are like a quadcopter
can absolutely hold the label unidentified aerial phenomena.
We know this for a fact. Because one case in particular, I've
written about it on the black vault.com. You don't have to
take my word for it though. If you go to the Freedom of
Information Act Reading Room for the US Navy, and you go into
their UFO information and UAP information folders, you will
find a clear photograph of a quadcopter. Although it was
origin identified, if I recall, this thing was was labeled UAP.
So that designation even though we can see oh, that's a drone or
a quadcopter or whatever, not an alien spaceship, that designator
can still be there. And so what I was trying to say with this
was, Look, you guys are releasing this you have set a
precedent, so you can't tell me with my request. Sorry, John,
you're all done. But they have released other videos like this
before. So that was my argument with that point. Next point
during the UAP hearing, Bray revealed numerous UAP related
videos previously unseen by the general public. These videos
were later published by dividends and archived here and
I offered the link. This yet again proves that UAP related
visuals in the form of videos, can one sensitive metadata is
stripped be released to the public. I would like to state
again that out of the hundreds and likely by now well over 1000
cases collected by the US Navy, the likelihood that out of
everything collected these videos referenced above are the
only releasable videos is nil. Again, another obvious point, I
don't think that every UFO case that they have is going to have
a video attached. But what I was trying to say was that the
likelihood that they have such a number of them likely, and that
these are the only ones that can be released either in full or in
part is likely nil. So I'm just trying to drive those points
home. In April of 2021, multiple leaks of UAP related information
appeared online, as released by investigative filmmaker Jeremy
Korbel.
I reached out to the Pentagon which quickly confirmed that the
video and photos published by Mr. Core Bell were quote taken
by Navy personnel. Susan golf Pentagon spokesperson added
quote, The UAP ATF has included these incidents in their ongoing
examinations. I believe this confirmation of leaked material
shows the lack of sensitivity and classification for UAP
related material. I would think as indicated by the Edward
Snowden leaks of classified material, that the DoD would
maintain a Glomar approach, and neither confirm or deny the
authenticity very much like the NSA did when the Snowden leaks
happened. However, that did not happen. Rather, they confirmed
the material as authentic and stated that they were utilizing
material and their investigative efforts. I believe what that
said, it shows that a blanket classification laid over all UAP
videos is not warranted. As yet again, in this example, it is
shown that the information is not as sensitive as the US Navy
is claiming in my four year response letter, which led the
way to the responsive records being denied and Toto meaning in
total, all of them. So what I'm showing here is even leaked
information, stuff that come came out years after the FLIR
gimbal and go fast, much clearer, and clearly, in my
opinion would show a kind of a threat to national security
where these things are encroaching on naval training
exercises. They quickly said Yep, those are taken by Navy
personnel. Yep, we have them utilized by the UAP Task Force.
Well That's not very sensitive. And I use the Edward Snowden
example as proof of what really is sensitive. And that Glomar
response, we can neither confirm nor deny. I saw that and saw
that used for many, many years. And in fact, with some stuff, it
is still utilized. So they Glomar stuff that's already out
in the open, which seems silly, but that's what they do yet with
UAP stuff. It was very quick, that confirmation came
incredibly quick. And for those of you who have followed my work
for a while, you'll recall I made a deal out of that. I was
shocked that they were just like, within a day, I forget how
many there was one that was a couple hours or within same day
or something like that. Ridiculous. So Something's fishy
about that. But regardless, that's the precedent set and in
an in an appeal, what may seem silly to us, you know, and we
banter about on Twitter, social media, whatever, the minute they
make those actions, the minute they do stuff like that on an
official level, you can use it so that's why I'm using it in my
in my appeal here to show why I think they made that wrong
decision. Almost done here. Although the four year release
letter signed by Mr. Case, and I believe is how you pronounce it,
Mr. Case, and stated the justification for the release of
the three leaked you UAP videos, and he said that by the Navy
doing so it would be done quote, without further damage to
national security, unquote. I believe this is entirely
inaccurate, and not a justified statement. I also link to the
Air Force Office of Special Investigation file, I referenced
the file number so they can look it up themselves. And the fact
that there was really kind of no damage because there was no
sensitive or discernible imagery. Let me go back to
reading with the with the appeal set. I believe based on Air
Force Office investigation file number so on, as archived here
and being released to be a FOIA it was determined that there
were was no damage given. Forgive me I kind of miss worded
this, but it was determined that there was no damage given the
there was no damage. Given the fact that the videos were
unclassified and held no sensitive slash discernible
imagery. Sorry, forgot to comment there. So essentially,
that that statement given to me in the FOIA letter just isn't
justified, and that was proof. So I referenced that
investigation file as proof of that. This conclusion by Air
Force Office of Special Investigations coincides with a
September 9 2019 statement by the US Navy, as given to the
black vault by Navy spokesperson, Joseph grant
Usher,
he stated, quote, the three videos were slash are designated
as unclassified. This statement was given after being asked what
classification the three videos were When originally requested
for release, in other words, their original classification
and what they were at the time meaning at the time that I asked
Joseph grad Usher. In both cases, he stated unclassified, I
believe these facts beyond a doubt prove that just because
videos are designated UAP, this should not put a blanket
classification on them. Despite the UAP security classification
guide, likely giving authority to do so. I believe that five US
Code section 552 mandates that a proper review is conducted. And
although a blanket classification may be justified
on the onset of archiving such a video by the Navy, I believe the
FOIA will trump that should no reason to keep the videos
classified be presented. With reason stated through my appeal
here, I believe it shows that there are no reasons to keep the
videos classified, once sensitive information is
stripped, blurred, or redacted. And then I go on to sign the
letter. Don't worry, everybody always freaks out when I show my
address. It's a public address. It's just a Private Mailbox.
That said that is the appeal. That's how I did it. That's how
I approached it Forgive the reading, but I wanted to at
least have you guys see and hear how I approached it with the
Department of Defense. What happens from here, I have no
idea how long it will take. I have no idea. So I will see what
happens. And I will keep you guys absolutely informed of the
process. Now one thing I really want to stress to you guys is
something that I've seen thrown at me on Twitter and social
media chatter, but also into the conversation as a whole. And
that was based on the letter the fact that it would and I'll go
to the language here. The release of this information will
harm national security as it may provide adversaries valuable
information ation regarding Department of Defense Navy
operations, vulnerabilities and or capabilities. A lot of
people, or at least a strong number of them read that and
just automatically said, aha, we're dealing with our own tech,
this is Black tech, our own capabilities. You guys know me
where I nitpick every word. And I laugh because you have to, you
have to do it in every case, it doesn't matter if it goes to
support your theory, or if it goes to crush your theory, you
have to nitpick. And in this case, I do not agree with the
automatic dismissal that this is now black tech, even though I
get a lot of heat for bringing up the fact that that's part of
the conversation. And that it's possible that some of these
cases absolutely are our black budget programs, technology that
we don't know about yet, that even maybe certain people high
ranking in the military don't even know yet and are
encountering them on training ranges. I think all that's a
possibility. But I can't just look at this and go, I told you
guys, because I don't think that it just fully supports my
approach here.
And by breaking down the sentence, and nitpicking, I
believe it is incredibly broad, even though some people think,
wow, it's clear as day John, they're telling you it's their
own capabilities. No. Why? Because you break it down word
by word. The release of this information will harm national
security as it may, not will but may so legal jargon is like
them, maybe, maybe not. That's the way to look at it from a non
legal jargon way. And that's truly what legal verbiage does
is that it just leaves it all wide open that may be could, so
we have to do the blanket denial. So it may provide
adversaries adversaries valuable information regarding Department
of Defense, Navy operations, vulnerabilities and or meaning
not all of the above, not some, but maybe one if not two, if not
three of the three capabilities. Now why am I making such a big
deal out of that? Well, you have to nitpick that and realize that
the true root cause of these UAP cases and pick your explanation
of choice, a balloon, a seagull I posted on Twitter. And this is
actually true, a turtle can be what's called a range valor. And
then by definition, they're including range valor reports
and UAP cases. So hey, maybe even a turtle underwater, who
knows. But joking aside, pick your explanation all the way to
aliens, right. And you have a wide range of causes for
potential UAP. This explanation, you can fill in the variable of
your choice. And this will make sense. Meaning a vulnerability
can be exposed by a balloon, it just can for if it's encroaching
onto a training exercise. And it makes them divert for whatever
reason, then that shows the vulnerability of what they have
to do when an object goes into their particular region. And
they have to adjust. And they have to make changes, course
corrections, so on and so forth, that that's a vulnerability, or
drones. Lots of people like to say why UAP are just the
advanced drones of the world. And they're able to encroach on
naval training exercises. That's a vulnerability as well. But
also capturing those drones on camera shows our capability. So
obviously, that is something that is exposed as well if they
were to release everything. What about aliens? People love that
theory, too. Now, I'm not here to argue that it's alien. But
let's just say that it is a extraterrestrial craft of some
kind. Could that expose our capabilities to track or to not
track such advanced technology? Absolutely. Could it expose our
vulnerability, wherein they are able to come in? Why could they
come in because we have no certain defenses when they come
in at a certain angle, or a certain altitude or a certain
altitude way above? There are so many explanations on how it can
maybe expose our vulnerabilities, our
capabilities or operations.
So whatever variable you want, and I'm not here to tell you
which one to choose, personally, I think I'm undecided. But
everything is on the table of what I just went over and I
think it's a mix of, of everything with aliens being
that big kind of question mark, does it go that far. But let's
say again, for this little thought exercise, if it did
every variable from a balloon, Seagull or turtle to an alien
spaceship from Zetta, particularly, it will fit into
that statement as the potential cause maybe, and or the cause to
expose to our adversaries, our operations, our vulnerabilities,
and our capabilities. So I respectfully disagree to all of
those who say, this letter proves that it's all black tech,
because I hope my little thought exercise there proves that it
does not matter the root cause of UAP, it could be any one of
those things, this will apply in the broad scope, that it was
written. And that, for me, is why you nitpick. And you take,
try to, you take your personal bias out of it, you stop looking
for support of your statement, you stop looking to tear other
people down, you just look for what it says. And that's what
this says. So those who are arguing about this is Black
tech. Now based on this, I think it's a lost cause, because it
just isn't proven based on that breakdown. But I'm always
interested in your thoughts, especially if you disagree with
me, not a problem. Just keep it respectful. That's all I asked.
Lots of voices come into these channels. If you're watching on
YouTube, thank you for doing that. A thumbs up is absolutely
the biggest help that you can do. Make sure that you're
subscribed to the channel. And of course, turn the
notifications on. But if you want to voice your opinion, or
disagreement with my own, put that in the comments below,
always a big help share the videos as one of the biggest
helps that you can give me and in those comments. Make sure you
tell everybody what you think, and how you disagree. But again,
please keep respectful. If you're watching on the audio, or
excuse me, if you're listening on the audio podcast version, or
don't know that I have one. A lot of these presentations, not
all but a lot on YouTube dropped, get dropped to an audio
podcast form. It's pretty much on any podcast aggregator from
Spotify, iTunes, whatever you listen to, under the black vault
radio, make sure you subscribe to the feeds there as well. And
if you can take a few seconds, please give the show a rating.
It's a huge help, I won't tell you what to put. But as you
know, I aim for five stars. That's always my aim. But please
be honest in the review, but just add one if you could,
because I really do appreciate it. Other than that there are
other ways to support the black vault should you decide to do so
those links are also below or in the show notes. You can go to
www dot the black vault.com/live to go to the YouTube channel or
the black vault.com. There's a podcast link at the top. And
lastly, I have to put in there I've got all sorts of social
media, depending upon what you use. I know a lot of you here on
YouTube, if you're watching, you don't even use social media
always surprises me. But just know that by popular request, it
sounds like it's being revived a little bit parlor. I've decided
to rejoin that a lot of you were asking me was I going to go over
there. They've changed a lot. I know that there was some
controversy there in the beginning a few years back, but
it seems like they've changed a lot tried to re scope their
their angle and stuff. So I've decided to rejoin over there.
Make sure you join me on parler link below. Also on Twitter,
Facebook, most active probably on Twitter, just simply because
that is the easiest way to blast out the messages to kind of keep
you guys updated. And for those who do follow me on social
media. You found out about this story already. So there are
there are values to connecting with me on there. And if you
don't use social media, all the more power to you. You guys are
awesome. Because sometimes it can get toxic out there may come
as a shock to some of you but yes, it's pretty awful in some
corners of the discussion. So keep it clean on this channel,
especially in those comments, but post them really big help.
This is John Greenewald Jr signing off. And I'll see you
next time