John Greenewald: Hey everybody, John Greenewald here with the
black vault Radio. Thank you so much for tuning in and making
this your podcast of choice. This interview is a little bit
different. This happened during what I call a behind the scenes
episode, one that if you have no idea what I'm talking about, on
the black vault originals YouTube channel, what I do are
these behind the scenes shows, these are ones where you can log
in and see kind of the behind the scenes of makings of
segments or interviews or all sorts of things. Well, my guest
today Alejandro Rojas joined me and one of those behind the
scenes and instead of resetting the interview, when he popped
on, we just immediately got into a great conversation. So I just
let it roll. It didn't reset. I didn't try and make it a more
structured introduction like I usually do, because Alejandro
has not only been on the show before, but he's someone that I
always have a lot of fun talking with. And we always have a great
time, so I didn't want to break that momentum. So without
further ado, stay tuned for the black vault radio with Alejandro
Rojas coming up.
Alejandro Rojas, everybody, that I was keeping this big secret on
who my guest was. And I just wanted to out of respect. If you
said, John, sorry, man, I can't do it. I didn't want anybody to
go after you go. Hey, man, you didn't show up? What's going on?
Oh, you're not
Alejandro Rojas: supposed to be saying any of this. You're
supposed to pretend like this is a big reveal
John Greenewald: this. And that. Wait, I gotta get a countdown
going. But for the for the big reveal of who the mystery guest
is. But I was alluding to it. I don't know in the chat, because
the chat has been pretty busy. And we've got about 260 people
watching through a couple sociality there. Yeah, so
there's all sorts of kinds of fun stuff. But I don't know if
they caught on. But the one thing that I'll say before we
get going to the more structured interview, is that I've always
enjoyed speaking with you, because we don't always agree.
But we actually can talk now, we've had rifts in the past, but
those are in the past. We don't have talked about that. Yeah.
But that's why I love talking to you is because you learn from
it, you know, you have
Alejandro Rojas: exactly say have the dialing, you know, once
we talk, and I got to better understand your point of view, I
learned a lot. And I literally went in read back pretty much
all of our conversations. And it's just, it's rough. And I
really felt at the time, that's what was going on, there was
just some kind of like, almost like we were having two
different conversations. And in a way we were, you know, we were
just things that we weren't points of view that we weren't
understanding. And that's the hard part with that text, I
think. And then the other hard part is that we both had our
armies, you know, we both have our followers who feel like they
need to come in and to defend us. So your guys are trashing
me. My eyes are trashing you. And then, you know, and I was
representing kind of the whole team Elizondo people were behind
me, and you had that than that, you know, the other side. And so
that just heightens it when they're in there like you No
kidding. So volatile. And I think I learned from that cool
thing, too, is to not let the emotion to those crowds. I
already felt like I was kind of impervious to it, but obviously
I wasn't, I feel like that really influenced both of us.
That's the other hard part. And I think that UFO Twitter has
gotten so toxic, that the majority of the people talking
are trolls and everybody else either is quietly watching, or
not in there at all anymore. They leave. I mean, we you see
people almost daily like this, it's just too much you guys are
like, just at each other's throats. I'm out of here.
John Greenewald: Yeah, that's what's also very, I would say
frustrating. And instead of doing structured, I'm just going
to cut the interview like this. So hopefully you don't mind.
We'll just continue talking. Yeah. All right. What's
frustrating is seeing that fall off of people that that and I
don't want to name names, and we don't have to, but that had such
a great view came onto the scene, you know, kind of knew
which was great. We need that. And then fast forward a year in
some cases or two years and they're like, I'm out. This is
done. I'm I'm out of this. I hate it. And it's so frustrating
to see them just kind of kind of We'll call rage quit, you know,
for any gamers out there. But rightfully so like I think that
they just get attacked because their views aren't the same or
they feel used or they feel like they're being lied to. And they
just go away and I can't I don't like the whole sign up. You know
me, I don't like that whole SIOP there disinformation to, to sow
this doubt and and create these issues. I'm not I'm not on that
bandwagon. But in the same respect, you can't help but
think like, Okay, is there some kind of part of this to disrupt
that conversation? Because we're losing good people? Like I'm in
it for the long? Yeah. You know, it'll be on etched in my
tombstone that I'm, like, the black vault till the day died?
You know, like, I'm not going anywhere. But I think we're
losing good people. Do you feel that is that? I won't say part
of it. Now, I
Alejandro Rojas: agree with you. But I don't know about part of
the master plan. And I did to your point, and no, I know
exactly. What you're saying is, is? It seems? Well, here's a
couple things. It's, first of all, you and I have been around
for a long time doing this. And we've seen a lot of people come
and go for various reasons, often, because it's kind of the
fighting, even before the internet was that big of a deal,
you know, because you're arguing with our colleagues at
conferences or via email, or remember, what was the big UFO
digest? Or the big UFO email chain that used to go around
before social media that we were all on where people would fight?
John Greenewald: And that was a UFO digest, wasn't it?
Alejandro Rojas: Yeah. So and even there. I remember a guy who
left because he got John Alexander's wife got mad at him,
and said she was going to curse him and he got sick. I can't
remember his name. I don't remember if you remember this
one. And he left you for ology, because he was afraid of her.
John Greenewald: I don't. I don't that doesn't ring a bell.
Alejandro Rojas: Yeah, so funny. So I mean, there's been a lot of
reasons and writing or this has gone on through the years. And,
you know, for me, also, I think we're built a little
differently. And that, you know, a lot of celebrities and
everything, also leave social media because of mental health
issues. And at first, I used to not really understand it,
because I'm like, you know, every time I post an article, I
get tons of hate. That's, that's natural when you're online. And
I think that just, you know, us tackling controversial topics
where we're expecting pushback, until we've grown this really
thick skin, where I almost a little bit, and I know you're
the same get a little bit excited about it, it's like,
Fine, bring it on. Because, you know, we're a couple of reasons.
One is, you know, it's like trying to beat up my work,
that's fine. One, there's a little bit of ego, because it's
like, you're not going to be able to do it. Lots of you. But
the other side is, I hope some of you can do it, because I want
my work to be better, too. And I want to learn and see what I
missed, you know, are there perspectives that like, like you
said, that I'm not getting that I need to relate to? So I think
we're just not as effective. So, yeah, getting into the more
recent people. And, you know, we had a mutual friend, of course,
who left recently. And I don't understand that, I think that
you got to be tough, and you got to be focused, and you got to
move forward no matter what. And this is also to address that
last part, sorry, of anybody coming in and purposely
manipulating in order to get rid of people like that. If you're,
if you're steadfast on what you're doing, and focus on the
work, that's not going to have an effect on you have some of
these people who come after me been trying to get under my skin
to get me to quit, maybe probably, when it comes to, you
know, any kind of sigh up, I don't know. But whether it's a
psyop or not, again, bring it on, because you know, I've
prepared myself and I've been through the wringer. And you're
gonna have a really hard time pulling that kind of stuff on
me, it's just not going to affect me. So with our mutual
friend, who, you know, you kind of outlined a little bit of what
happened to him. I just would not, I kind of had the attitude
of like, I don't get why that's such a big deal because it would
not affect me at all. And that kind of thing has happened to me
and I just don't have that same kind of like fear. So people
have said, What about death threats or blah, blah, blah,
that's the internet. You know, whenever you got more than once
you start getting followers and especially once you put yourself
out there, like we do putting stuff out in the media and
everything. You're just gonna get it too act more and more. So
the more popular the get you get, you're also the more you're
gonna get attacked. And that's just kind of how it works. So
just got to prepare yourself for it. And it's one of the ugly
realities of being a public figure today.
John Greenewald: You've obviously covered this for a
long time, you've worked as a journalist a long time you
you've written tons of articles, you've run quite a quite a few
different projects through the years. Where do you think we are
now? Like, what is your perspective? So away from that,
that social media drama? Yeah, going above that? Where are we?
Do you feel that we are just on the cusp of something? Or do you
feel that conversation may is chant may have changed a little
bit, but we're on the same path?
Alejandro Rojas: I don't know. I think that that. My perspective
is that we, in a way are on the cusp. But you know, I think UFO
it's kind of a turtle inherent type of thing, where UFO Twitter
feels like we're on the cusp, but there's a rabbit. They feel
like, oh, you know, tomorrow, we're gonna find out everything.
I'm like the turtle where it's like, we're on the cuts. But
that means maybe in the next decade, we'll have some or in
the next five years, we'll have some big revelations, that it's
going to take much longer, but that's better than before. You
know, like five years ago, I would have said it's going to
take much longer, where that sort of Revelation. So it's just
a slow move. I think the difference is, and I think this
is what a lot of people don't get a lot of people don't
understand the difference. And I think your audience is a lot
different because you you train them because you are looking for
evidence.
John Greenewald: I call it mind control. Okay. Like I've told
them exactly.
Alejandro Rojas: And you're very good at controlling your your
Oh, P talk
John Greenewald: about conspiracy.
Alejandro Rojas: Your, your cult you've got you've developed a
great quote where you're leaving. No, I'm kidding. But
but the point being that, you know, they're looking for
evidence, you're looking for documents, and you're a stickler
to that. And that's one of the things that you and I argue
about. I am more on that science. And but either way, I
think we'll both agree. What we've had a lot prior to the
last five years is a lot of speculation going on. A lot of
the research was speculation. And then you have groups like
the SEIU scientific Coalition for UAP studies, which I'm a
board member of. That's why I love to welcome. But doing some
science and coming out with some papers like at first with you,
or first was agua dia than doing the Nimitz thing. But those take
a long time, a couple years each. So that kind of work,
which is real, I think research and putting some moving the
needle just takes a very long time. The good thing that we
have now is more resources, more people, there are a lot more
scientists getting involved NASA getting involved, money coming
towards all of these efforts. The good thing about I don't
have a lot of hopes for us necessarily hearing a lot from
the Pentagon. I mean, they've told you, and I quote this
thing, what Susan Goff told you, many times when she told you
like a couple of years ago regarding the UAP Task Force at
that time, that they have no intention of sharing anything
that they find or cases that they're looking into, that all
that work is classified. And they they haven't returned a
tough spot. So I think the information is going to come
from Citizen Science from, you know, more transparent science
that's going to get done. That may be disappointing to a lot of
people, because that takes a lot of time. But that's what it's
going to take. Of course, you and I have talked at length
about the Wilson document, but best case scenario, you know,
let's say that the Wilson documents reel all of that
happen. You've got you know the word of one Admiral and you
still have to crack open that egg, you still have to go in
there somebody has to and say, Hey, here's what he said true.
And they can easily say no, he's we've never had that
conversation, just like he's saying, which i i believe him
actually but you know, and then it's over. So everybody thinks
that somehow that's some kind of smoking gun. It's not at all
it's nothing. It's practically nothing. You still need the
receipts. You always got to bring the receipt. The Wilson
document is not a receipt. It's hearsay. It's speculation. The
time for hearsay and speculation is done. Get over the hearsay
and speculation because that's what we've been doing for
decades. that's gotten us nowhere. We need to serve you in
the tough work.
John Greenewald: Let me jump in because I want to potentially
revisit it depends on we have always so much to talk about.
But I want to stick with the science for a second because you
mentioned FCU. So I want you to give a little bit of a
background to SEIU. But it may be a good time to ask this
question. Christopher bales Christopher, first of all, thank
you for the support of the channel. He has a great question
which I think maybe I'd like for you to address in this answer
with SEIU, folks are leaving because there's no data or
physical evidence. Now, for those who feel like Christopher
does here. Can you tell us a little bit about SEIU? If they
don't know i? I've known Chris for a while. So I think he knows
but for audience members who don't, but then do you agree
with the fact that there's no data or physical evidence,
again, with your being a board member of SEIU and the work that
they're doing?
Alejandro Rojas: Yeah, perfect question. Christopher bale when
I give this up, because, you know, I get a big smile with
that question. He is 100%. Right. That's what we're looking
for is data and physical evidence. I wouldn't say there's
no data or physical evidence there. But there is a limited
amount, that's for sure. However, there's so much of this
speculation. And, and, you know, talk about hearsay and
everything, that that's 99% of what you'll find out there. So
finding the data, and the physical evidence is like a
needle in the haystack, even if you're just looking for articles
or something like that. The reason I'm smiling so big is
because that's exactly what one of the things that I'm working
on with my new job at Enigma labs, essentially, we're a
software company. We are a tech company, we're building an app
and a website with all with data. And when it comes to the
physical evidence side, and we'll get more into that, I'm
sure. But when it comes to the physical evidence side, we're
also, you know, posting today, hopefully, that's our goal,
about, you know, more than 100 articles that I've had some
freelance journalists write that are mostly familiar with this
topic, but either way, great researchers who are writing
unbiased, comprehensive, kind of like a UAP, Wikipedia, but more
comprehensive. And I think, more on bias than anything out there.
So because I really feel a lot of those Wikipedia entries get
taken over by the skeptics, and debunkers. So I'm really excited
about that, because you'll be able to look through those
articles and see what kind of physical evidence there is out
there. So for instance, you know, Jay Paul, of France,
they've got about five or six cases where there's physical
evidence, mostly, most of the physical evidence, though, is
electromagnetic effects on on objects, so which is, you know,
limited and what you can do with that. The other physical
evidence that exists, you know, that people claim and at SVU, we
have a paper on this, the Uber tuba, metal, I personally feel
that the analysis, what it came down to that on the other side
of the planet where that alleged, you know, material was
found, they weren't they had developed that material, they
were working with the same type of aluminum. So if that aluminum
existed on this planet, I don't think that's very strong
physical evidence, but at least you know, an analysis on the
alleged physical evidence that's out there. And you could read
that analysis and make up your own mind. I think that Jacque
valet and some of the former Bigelow OS app guys are more
excited about that Uber tubuh materials and I am, but given
our analysis, but there is a little bit out there. But I
agree with Christopher 1,000%, that the focus on data and
physical evidence is where it needs to be. And when it comes
to the data part, and this is how you can understand what
Galileo especially is doing is that they feel similarly and
they're like, now we need to gather data. The data that has
been gathered thus far has little to no scientific value.
So they are determining how do we gather data that is more
valuable scientifically. In the documentary terror in the sky,
we saw UAP X doing exactly that, where they were collecting a ton
of different devices to collect a lot of different emissions
from a potential UAP so that when a UAP situation happens,
they can record things like frequencies, light, IR light,
including you know, a wider spectrum of light than a normal
camera would have radiation, all of these type of things cosmic,
cosmic something or rather's that I don't even understand
that Kevin Knuth and Matthews idea, guess where we're
collecting? So that's what you have to do is collect data. And
that's the key. Unfortunately, I don't think they really ran
across any UAP incidents, but they're still searching because
when you gather a ton of data, that means there's even more
data to go through. But you know, look, if they had caught a
genuinely mysterious phenomena, then they would have had tons of
data there. Let's say, you know, they caught a UAP or some crap
like the tic tic tac blew by You know, they might have then been
able to get different radiation readings and then had an idea
of, you know what that technology is? So I think he's
right. I think there is a lack of that. And I think he's right
in that people looking for that information. have a hard time
doing that. But I think our website and the Nico Labs is
going to help that I think the website at per se, you helps
that. Otherwise, there's not a lot of resources out there.
You're, you know, the king when it comes to FOIA documents. So
this is where you go for documents.
And those are the few outlets that are out there. There's not
a lot when you're looking for this kind of information. And I
feel like like you probably do, I feel, unfortunately, and I
love the Bigelow and OS app team and what they've done, but they
haven't provided a lot of science or, or data, either.
They've got it, they've only provided us with a lot of
hearsay, and speculation as well. So I think that I'm
hopeful they'll come out with some more data if they've got
it. But that just hasn't been an outlet for the scientific data
that we're all looking for.
John Greenewald: Now with SEIU, I know that the papers are
available, right? So on the website, what's what's the
website for FCU?
Alejandro Rojas: Explore fcu.org.
John Greenewald: So you can download the papers there, in a
nutshell, because then I want to ask you about that Bigelow data
as well. But the analyses that FCU has done thus far. From your
vantage point, what do you feel those conclusions and papers
have brought forward? Are we looking at solving these
mysteries like agua, DIA and so on? Have they only helped
support that there's something completely mysterious about
this, or somewhere in the middle?
Alejandro Rojas: I probably somewhere in the middle? I don't
think I think what they've done especially if you look at the
Aqua dia paper, and the Nimitz paper is they showed that there
was given and they use witness testimony, which of course, is
not scientific data. But it is well, that's arguable, some
people will argue that that it is, but it's limited in use, you
know, scientifically. But what it does, and actually, in the
frame, the way I'm framing it that the anecdotal information
tests hold a little more value in that it analyzes potential
characteristics. And that's really important. So in other
words, we're seeing these objects, we don't know what they
are, they are moving in ways that we can't explain the
scientific community that we have looked at, both of those
papers have largely agreed with the findings. And so it shows
things that seem to be physical moving in ways that are, that
would generate huge amounts of energy, you can't move an object
is quickly, even this mouse, if this mouse was to move at, you
know, half the speed of light, all of a sudden, that takes a
huge amount of energy to make that mass do that. extraordinary
amounts of energy. So those sorts of but we're not seeing
outputs of those sorts of energy. So for example, a jet it
creates, it's pushing, you know, fuel backwards in order to move
forward. And what is the result of that? What is it emitting
heat is a big one photons light. So those are things we can
measure. And if we measure those, even if we didn't know,
hey, there's a light in the sky, what the hell is that? If we,
you know, measure that, you know, scientists can take the,
the video and other telemetry and determine, oh, that's he
caused the light, that's a rocket propulsion, to determine
the type of propulsion that's going on. So these observations
do help in that, then we do have this going on where some of the
theoretical physicists can say, you know, given what we're
seeing, here's what could be going on, you know, here's what
what we know of science, this is possible, that could explain
what's going on. And, you know, so they speculate about things
like the wormholes and how they might work or things like that,
or, you know, multiple dimensions, you know, when
theory is out that that they're popping in between dimensions,
if that so they could be emitting a I think it's a
Hawkins particle, Hawkins radiation, something like that.
So if we measure for Hawkins radiation, that would give us a
clue if we were able to capture that during a UAP event. So
those are the sorts of struggles that scientists are looking at.
I was
John Greenewald: really intrigued the other day, Kurt,
Jai Mangal had posted a message which there was no indicator
like Avi allowed me to share this email, but it was an email.
Seemingly a private one between Dr. Avi Loeb, and Kurt, and I'm
sure it was fine for him to share it because I haven't
Seeing any backlash in that respect, but the revelation that
came from it was that there was coordination of some kind from
the quote unquote director of the new UFO office who I'm sure
that's Shawn Kirkpatrick, although he wasn't named, but
regardless had visited Avi Loeb for essentially writing a paper
about the Ukraine UAP. And we don't have to get into that
part. But my question is about that coordination. I was
intrigued by aero the UFO office now, reaching out to the private
sector saying, Hey, Dr. Lowe, can you look at this either for
us or just look at it? So I'm curious how much is official
there? But let's just say it's official, if I may ask, Has
there been reached out to SEIU for the same reasons?
Alejandro Rojas: Um, I guess I would put it I would say there's
been reached out, we were very public about, you know, Space
Command or and Space Force being at our event. Others also we had
former UAPs and others at our SEO event. So definitely, we're
talking to those people as well. But not to that degree. They're
not at this point. Anecdotally, I can say, I can't say, you
know, well, I can somewhat semi officially say that. Especially
our Nimitz report has gone all over the place. They've all
looked at that. And because it's the only public report, which is
a little bit frustrated, because if the Navy came to the
conclusion that the tic tac and in the Nimitz of that was a true
UAP, what did they use to determine that to come to that
conclusion? We don't know. So at the SAU, we did our own paper.
And actually, Kevin Knuth, the physicists of out of SUNY
Albany, who has his own journal and lab, did wrote a peer review
paper based off of it with the FCU. And that was in his
journal. So and that's done the Rams, and that's gotten people
very excited. So in that sense, you know, it's a private, it's a
report in the public that is being used, as, you know,
research material for people inside the government. I think
that you know, people and I'm familiar with what you're
referring to, are kind of shocked that they would go to
Abbey low, but to me, it makes perfect sense in that the stage
that they're in, right now, they're kind of in a fact
finding stage. They're like, Okay, what is this? You know,
landscape look like? Who are the groups out there investigating
and doing stuff? Are there scientists? Who are those
scientists? What are they doing? Are those scientists nuts or
not? I think that, you know, there there are people who are
concerned with the some of the weirdness that Bigelow has
gotten involved with in that group. So they're like, Okay,
well, maybe do we want to even go there? Maybe we need to be a
little more careful than that. You know, there's no doubt
that's something that NASA or other organizations would wait,
when they're determining who they need to go to. And I think
that's what they're trying to figure out. Is that landscape,
what they're going to come up with, and who they're going to
work with how is still in question. And we do have to
remember at the hearings, and what the Congress people have
been asking for, they've been telling the DOD, we want you to
look at historical information. And we want you to work with
civilian groups. So really, they were tasked to do that. And
that's what they're doing. And we also have to remember that
typically, kind of like we have gotten an education through OS
app. And how a lot of this works is that when a project is
started, you have just a few people inside of the government
agency that are in charge of that project, like put together
the scope and everything, and then those people put out the
request and go find contractors to work on that project. And we
haven't gotten to the stage where the contractors have been
hired or partnerships made to be worked on this project. So it
would make sense that this would be a point where they would want
to go out to experts and say, Hey, what do you think of this?
Because certainly people inside the MCU and in Galileo Project
are not only the type of people, they would want a contract to do
this type of work. Many of them are the people they've
contracted in the past to do that kind of work.
John Greenewald: While they do that, they undoubtedly have to
get into, in my opinion, because of just the sensors not even I'm
not alluding to it being military craft, but get into a
classified arena. And at what point then do they essentially
taint the private sector, whether it be Dr. Avi Loeb, or
whether it'd be FCU or you a PX or whomever that if they tap
that there has to be some kind of either encroachment into a
classified arena, or you're withholding data, there's, in my
opinion, there's, you can't have the best of both worlds. And
that was the biggest issue I had in the beginning with the NASA
program, which they have now, in my opinion changed their answer
on it. Originally, it was going to be fully transparent, some of
the people involved in the effort weren't even going to be
cleared for anything, because they were dealing with purely
unclassified and publicly available data. So going back to
my question, do you feel that there's risk there that they
start tying up intelligent minds that just want the truth into
potentially having to get them into NDAs? Or security
clearances, which could then hinder what they tell the
public?
Alejandro Rojas: I have? I would guess I would say yes and no.
What is, I guess I would put it this way, the information that
is not publicly available, that is too sensitive. There's going
to be sensitive information, no matter who works on it. I think
that, you know, we've seen in the past, I guess, you know,
even through, I think some of your documentation, you probably
know better than I were technologies have been taken
over by the government, and then they go secret. And I think
that's the kind of thing that you're probably referring to,
let's say they got a case that they're working on. Now, all of
a sudden, the government comes in and says, Hey, we want to
work with you on this. But it's got to be classified. And then
that case goes classified. Could that happen? I think certainly,
but I think that, regardless of whether they're talking to them
now or later, it would happen either way. So the good thing I
think about a NASA getting involved, is that NASA
scientists are very, very
committed to transparency. They're hard headed, and they're
stubborn. And so any organization like NASA, or
scientific organization that gets involved, that isn't as
high to, you know, the classified world, I think is a
positive thing, and will always help because those people are
going to be then in the inside. And they're going to be able to
guide them when it comes to public disclosure. And those are
the type of people who are going to be more pro public
disclosure. Scientists are always looking for ways even,
you can ask scientists who work on classified projects, how do
we move this work we're doing into the the whatever, open,
transparent world of science, so that whatever they're working on
can be further developed, you need a lot of heads. And when
you're developing any technologies and not you, it's
really hard to do good science in a classified setting, because
the number of people you're working with is severely
reduced. So I guess that would be the other one looking for
silver linings, because I think that's what we have to do when
we're kind of powerless, as to input on on, you know, that kind
of thing happening is that the good thing is that, you know,
men will have more advocates for public disclosure in there to
get more information out, because they're certainly being
tasked with, you know, sharing information with the public,
which was Chris Mellon, when he originally wrote to the Congress
saying we need to do this, that I realized this stuff is
probably going to have to stay classified. Maybe even, you
know, he said that, because he wrote that around the time that
you got that message from NGO that this will all be
classified. But luckily, the Congress responded that you're
right, we should do this. But we do want public information. And
they've been asking that the public be briefed
John Greenewald: the melon article, I'm putting it on the
list, but we've got like a six hour interview already. So of
topics that we could fill. So that aside, I think, and then we
can move on. To my original question, I think what you're
saying I get your point, but this is my concern in order for
them to deal with that data. And when you encroach into sensitive
systems that have captured that data, that in some instances,
that scientist who may be 150% well intentioned, to be
transparent with the public has to then either get into an NDA
or a security clearance and oath to see that data and the pure
fact that they could capture that data In and of itself could
be classified, ergo, they can't tell you about it. And that's
where I get concerned where, when Dr. Loeb, or, again, I'm
just kind of giving the list of what we've talked about, but
SEIU UAPs, whomever starts getting into that arena, that
they could be very well intentioned for public
transparency. But at the end of the day, if they're seeing data
that encroaches into that classified arena, it's not that
they would be releasing the details of some sensitive
sensor, but rather, they would be releasing the capabilities.
And in some cases, those capabilities would be
classified. And again, ergo, you are locking up the best lines,
scientific minds. So I don't have a right answer for it. But
I'm just curious, your thoughts? Yeah. Are you are you concerned
about that? Are we potentially on a path to coordination
between the government and private sector on the surface?
That sounds good, but when you really dissect it, that's when
you start getting into a really dicey area where and I'll use
Luis Elizondo, as an example, you press him on certain
question, and it's Hey, I can't tell you I've got my NDA. Well,
that same exact scenario will transfer to whomever doctor or
PhD scientist, whomever gets into that conversation I'm
concerned about, but I don't see a lot of people talking about so
am I not, maybe I'm not,
Alejandro Rojas: you're not nuts, but it's kind of yelling
at the scream into the void or something, because it's just the
way the world works. You do. It's just the way the world
works. And when there's not a whole lot to do about it. And,
you know, it's nuanced also, because it comes down to every
individual person. So for example, every scientist like an
Abbe lobe has to determine what their goals are, and what their
priorities are, what they how they want to do this. So for
example, if they approach every lobe and said, We would like you
to help us with some of the classified info, that's when
Abby lobe has to kind of sit down and say, think about the
things that you're asking about right now, do I want to
potentially be limited? Or do I not? And if I am going to limit
myself, I want to outline how, but will that still be too much,
will it still make it too difficult, especially if my
goals are, you know, to be as transparent as possible. But the
other thing is, is you know, Galileo has extremely limited
resources, whereas he's also looking at I can have access to
better cameras, better telemetry, satellite data, you
know, I can have all the data, I need to figure something out.
Whereas if I stick with Galileo, it might take me 510 years to
gather the funds and, and the equipment, I need to get that
kind of data. So it comes down to each scientist and what they
want to do, and what kinds of things or projects are asking
for. So for example, at Enigma labs, you know, I think, you
know, we're building out database with a ton of different
cases, we're collecting databases, digitizing tising
databases, of sighting reports, so they can be analyzed, we're
developing machine learning, that can go in there and analyze
the cases for us to give us the good cases, so we don't bother
with the rest. That's the sort of thing I think the government
is going to want, as well. I think we can do both the public
and government in parallel. In other words, here will work your
dad over here, which is classified and but then we can
also work the public data over here.
John Greenewald: That's Are you hinting there's a government
contract between the Nigma labs, and now I'm
Alejandro Rojas: not at all but I'm, what I'm saying. It's, it's
possible and we'd be open to it. I see. You would be open to it.
A lot of the FCU. Guys, the board were around when we did
this with Bigelow, little did we know, we were doing it with
Well, I didn't know because I didn't sign the NDA. I was the
only one to refuse to you. But you know, and also, you know,
there was only one of our board members, Robert Powell, who I
think signed the NDA. I think the rest of us were, well, I was
asked to but I refused. And everybody else were state
directors. So they weren't asked to do that. But the point being
that we've done it before. And you know, and it was tough. The
whole Bigelow thing is obviously very controversial. To be
honest, I was pro the relationship I was it did not
get executed in the way that I would have preferred at least as
far as transparency. I was definitely advocating for a
little more transparency that happened. But it was it was
really, I think, a net positive because there were a few great
cases that got to be investigated in a much more
sophisticated manner than they would have been otherwise.
John Greenewald: One of the biggest things like away from
the debate on what was official and UFO this or paranormal that
so we won't have that debate. But But I think the story like
the way that it's and we know this part for a fact I'm not
saying story isn't fictional but the way the story goes is that
Bigelow had purchased the the MUFON Case file database, right?
Correct me if I'm just misrepresenting that, like, that
was a big
Alejandro Rojas: that was it wasn't purchasing the database,
it was access? Limited, even it was accessed.
John Greenewald: I thought it was Okay, gotcha. Okay, so I
yeah, I miss worded, but essentially, he was accessing
the MUFON database. So he, he got all that data, though, like
he was able to pull it in. And as far as I know, bass had
created multiple databases, which included MUFON, and all
this other work. So the biggest question that I have, and I want
to throw it out to you, just for audience sake, and conversation
sake, is that $22 million, as we know when to offset? We know
that from the paperwork, the DIA has released that official
paperwork. So there's really no, no question mark about that we
have it all broken down in documents, in addition to
Pentagon statements that have been around for years. So all of
that groundwork, is there. So $22 million goes over there. And
he has collected all this data. I want to preface the question
saying to at least to my audience, but you as well, I
know you're not a spokesperson for Bigelow, this is rather just
a question on what your thoughts are. But with that 22 million
taxpayer dollars goes over there, we get the 38 dirt
reports. So those come back. But the way that it's been reported
in some media outlets is that there's just this massive pile
of data, including these databases and otherwise. And
it's and it's denied, at this point by the Pentagon that they
did that work. So my question is, why doesn't he just release
it if it really was funded by the taxpayer dollars, which is
the story and again, please correct me if I'm wrong. But if
it was funded by taxpayer dollars, then it's not
necessarily Bigelow Aerospace is property. And if the government
wants to deny it, then what stops him from just saying, you
know, minus the personal identifying information? So of
course, you know, those fields, I'm saying, take those away. I
don't I don't want to know anybody's address. But I mean,
the data that's there that data that we've talked about here for
the last 45 minutes or so. It sounds like you and I both paid
for that. So yeah. What do you what do you think the holdup is?
Alejandro Rojas: No, I agree with you. 100%. I think that I
do not agree with the the opaqueness of the Bigelow group.
I completely disagree with it, to be honest,
John Greenewald: I think that disagree with their handling,
just to make sure, yeah, okay, handling
Alejandro Rojas: that they should be more transparent. If
they're truly supposedly a scientific group, or, of course,
they don't exist anymore. But if they were, they would want to be
more transparent, and they've never been transparent. And I
think that's a huge problem. And it's why they've limited their
value to the scientific community for that reason. And I
do not agree with them also. making statements that they're
not ready to substantiate, I don't I, it's a huge pet peeve
of mine, that I can't stand it. Because then it's just hearsay
and speculation. Again, getting back to that, and it's useless.
And I think that's a lot of the criticism I get is that people
are confused. They're like, aren't you a fan of Bigelow and,
and all those guys, I can be a fan, but I could still criticize
them. I mean, we're all colleagues here. And you know
what, I think people don't realize this when we get
together like FCU. And I'm sitting next, Eric Davis, and
we're buddies and everything. We're also all, you know, just
discussing how to do things, and not necessarily agreeing on all
things. But we're calling to work together. And that's how it
is. That's how people work at work. You know, you all discuss
and have ideas the boss decides what to do in this case, the
boss has big love. And that's what you do. That's how the
world works. So, you know, yeah, that is one side that I disagree
with. And it's it I think, why a lot of that stuff is just gonna
get lost to history. If you're not sharing it, who's going to
know how or why you were important. Because you said you
saw you know, big walls and and outside your home after You were
at Skinwalker, where people have seen them too. Great. It's
that's just another paranormal ghost story that you can have on
a TV show, but it does nothing for learning much about what's
going on. So I agree with you on that. This is funny, someone
saying, Well, why aren't you being transparent? Being
involved with deal, which is the stupidest thing? This is the
kind of thing. And it's sad.
John Greenewald: Oh, wait, hold on. Let me let me first off say
thank you to Red Panda koala. I'm not entirely sure what the
root of this question is. So I mean, I'll
Alejandro Rojas: get to that though. Because he's talking
about this topic and transparency and okay. And to
what degree? Now? It's kind of a really stupid question. Mostly
overall, but I'll get to it anyway.
John Greenewald: I don't. Okay, I want to stress, I don't know
why. So you have to help me.
Alejandro Rojas: I will. I'll explain the whole thing. Okay.
So yeah, that's the hard part with the Bigelow stuff. And and
But getting back to your question, $22 million was
taxpayer dollars were spent, we should have access to all of
that. You know, I know you've been looking for the reports
that McCaskey says are out there. He outlined in his book,
all of the reports that they put together, where are those, you
and I both got the alleged group of all the files that the
government can share via FOIA on OS app? And none of those were
in there? Where are they? Why weren't they in there? Or maybe
one was in there. But it wasn't there. It was mostly the
d'oeuvres and, and so yeah, why aren't they sharing that
information, we did pay for that we should have access to that. I
agree with you 1,000% on that, and I don't see any good reason
for not sharing that information. But getting back to
Red Panda, koala, and Nygma. We're just barely starting, we
haven't even got out there. But to this very point, we've, we've
put out a post blog post recently called transparency for
data privacy for people. And the point is that we're going to
share all the data we get, I mean, aren't that's the whole
point of our app. And our website is to share data and
gather data and make that data available for people to do more
research and provide tools for research. So that's what we're
doing. And in that blog post, we've committed to sharing all
the data we gather, which is exactly what we're going to do.
And I think that's a huge service. Because we're grabbing
databases I think people don't even know exists, and we're
going to have them in there, then all of our read all of our
raw data, you're going to be able to download and use it all
you want. Now we're going to have, we're going to be taking
that data and putting it into a database that optimizes it and
then doing other stuff to make that data better for research.
And we will have some paint components, but pure data we're
sharing. And not only that, you can look at everything. Why is
it a stupid question? Because this is kind of it's a fair
question. I want to know. Let me explain why. And it's one of the
pet peeves and maybe you'll you'll agree, because it's it's
it's the type of thing that is sloppy, brainless. Research that
just causes this sort of fighting and ridiculous
conspiracies to happen. And here's what I mean by that. How
is How involved is Thiel? What the heck even kind of question
is, so this is how this came up. Someone identified that Peter
Thiel said he was going to spend money on UAP. Then they saw
there's a company called enigma that starting and they're like,
oh, my gosh, there we go. There's Peter Thiel. That's
ridiculous. There's no connection. That's just a joke.
It's It's just I hate even addressing our answering
question, because it's who
John Greenewald: I want to jump in, because I want to be fair
here. There was no accusation. They just, it is.
Alejandro Rojas: So it's a rumor, right? Yeah, it's a
rumor. So
John Greenewald: Peter Thiel is not involved.
Alejandro Rojas: As far as I know, he's not involved at all.
John Greenewald: And where I want to be fair, is that as you
very well know, the internet world is really not accurate all
the time. So I can't fault anybody for asking that if they
thought that it was true. I don't want to label it a stupid
question. Let's be a little fair.
Alejandro Rojas: I'll be fair, obviously. Well, it's Friday
morning. I'm a little charged up, be honest. But that's okay.
John Greenewald: Caffeine, for crying out loud.
Alejandro Rojas: I'm drinking coffee like crazy. But know the
point. Good point. It's just frustrating because it's just so
stupid. You know,
John Greenewald: half the rumors. And I think
Alejandro Rojas: yeah, and not only that, it's it's the the
intention of the rumor is to defame people right out of the
gate. So it's kind of funny because earlier we're talking
how We have thick skin and we got to not like, let it get
under our skin when these things happen. And I'm sorry, red panda
qualify as being a little too harsh there. I don't mean I
guess what I mean, it's the original kind of assumption was
stupid. Because it is, you know, that's kind of dumb. It's not
research, you wouldn't do that you wouldn't even do you
wouldn't even think of doing that, what you would do is start
to ask questions, request documents, figure out what's
going on, even if you didn't believe me, go try to prove me
wrong. But you wouldn't just go make proclamations like that.
And that's what's really frustrating because it starts
off these rumors and hearsay. And, you know, I don't worry
about it too much anyway, because I think that people are
going to be really excited when we launch because, and
hopefully, like I said, we'll have the articles up in the next
week, which is going to be kind of the first thing we're really
launching. And I think people will see just the huge amount of
value on the all of this free data that we're providing. And I
think people are going to be very grateful for the tools and
information we're providing. Of course, there'll be critics, but
we're listening to critics. In fact, we're plugged in and we
with the scientific community, and we're taking a lot of
feedback from them, and making a lot of changes based on their
feedback. So yeah, we're already very transparent. We've got a
lot of people meeting. But this is the kind of reason why we
wrote that blog in that we do have this privacy for the
people. aspect. All of that, you know, is that? I would say read
the Brock blog, it's not very, you don't have to know who the
people are completely involved. And the reason why is there's a
safety concern for those people. One, when it comes to the SVU,
several of our scientists are anonymous, some of the names
that you might see on papers are not real names. They're pseudo
names, because the scientists can't don't feel comfortable
sharing their names. At this point, there's still too much of
a taboo, and it'll affect their career. Some people will say,
well, that's not being transparent. But what would you
rather have the expertise of this, this scientist so that we
can have this analysis and have this great information and data
to share with people? Or would you have this person's name,
somebody you don't even know. So I think those are kind of the
balances. And the other thing is that, you know, people shouldn't
have to fear losing their jobs or being harassed online, for
getting involved with this topic. You know, none of my
colleagues want the type of online harassment that you and
I, you know, take every day.
John Greenewald: Nobody harasses me even clearer. Yeah.
Alejandro Rojas: Or the type of harassment that, you know, some
of our friends and colleagues who have recently left this
field received in the last couple of years, you know, just
the same topic that we started this whole thing off with. So
yeah, so those are the kind of things
John Greenewald: so bottom line red panda koala, not a stupid
question. Alejandra is just cranky on a Friday morning.
Alejandro Rojas: I guess it was a stupid rumor. Not as stupid.
It was stupid.
John Greenewald: And that I can appreciate so I Yeah, so not a
stupid question. But thank you for that explanation on in
question on both sides. And I
Alejandro Rojas: love red pandas and koalas. I'm, I'm a member of
the San Diego Zoo. And those are the two places I like to visit
the most. So I greatly appreciate
John Greenewald: that. gives some hugs to the to the animals
Alejandro Rojas: kissing it, but a little bit gets a little
harsher.
John Greenewald: timewise How you doing? I know I said to 12
o'clock where I think I forget if you're in Arizona. Are we on
the same? I was forgetting in Arizona. Another friend of mine
I see in the chat is also in Arizona. I've known him for
years and years. And I always wonder like are we on the same
timezone at this point? Or is it that point is I know a
difference?
Alejandro Rojas: I always work together. That's how I remember
it. Like Summer, winter is when we're separate. Ah,
John Greenewald: I see. All right, I'm still confused. Okay,
but timewise Are you out of 12 which is fine.
Alejandro Rojas: Oh, yeah. timewise um, yeah, I shouldn't
spend a whole lot more time I can go past not
John Greenewald: a problem. Not too much. No, because I have
like 87 things more to ask and then
Alejandro Rojas: Okay, so maybe if we could do one,
John Greenewald: that's fine. Next week, you guys are gonna be
I'm so bummed I want to go I'm gonna try and sneak away. I just
don't think I can. But you guys are doing the UFO Congress. For
those I miss live events I know in we were talking about UFO
Twitter livestream that I was doing but people sometimes
really harp on live events. I love them. I miss them so much.
COVID obviously has prohibited a lot and now we're starting to
open up up and, and do these things again. And sadly,
schedule wise, I'm not able to get out there with you guys, but
I missed them for anybody who wants to get away from all that.
UFO Twitter drama. The live events are so much fun because
it's such an eclectic group of people. And you guys run a great
event because there's tons of people, you get great speakers,
a wide variety of speakers to I mean, it's not always everybody
that you're going to sit down and go, I believe 100% of what
they're saying. But rather you get to see the presentations and
decide for yourself what it may mean. So I'm not pitching it.
But I want you to what is the event? It's next weekend? Yeah,
how can or next week I should say, and weekend? Because yeah,
it starts when a Wednesday? Are you guys starting it? When does
it?
Alejandro Rojas: Yeah, so it'll start Wednesday, and this time,
the Wednesday the 12, which I'll be dinner at night. Then the
event goes on with speakers Thursday, Friday, Saturday,
Saturday night, there's an ending banquet, and then Sunday,
there'll be a few workshops. But that's essentially what it is.
Yeah. And back, I was just handed I can give your listeners
a special. So if they go get a ticket, either an online ticket
because it is a hybrid event, so you can buy an online only
ticket. If you use the quote Code, Black vaults, all large
case Black Bolt, you'll get 20% off of Yeah, you'll get 20% off
on lecture ticket or virtual school and single session. So
yeah, you'll get 20% off if you use black bolt. But yeah, we've
got all kinds of speakers. Sorry, I get distracted with all
the questions, lots of great questions, guys. Sorry, I won't
be able to get to all of them. But I'll be at the conference.
So you can ask them there. Or next time I'm on John show,
maybe we need to come back and do some more. But we've got one
of my buddies. And I think someone that you know, not all
of our buddies, our mutual friends. But I think this one is
Brian Bender, of Politico. He's become a very good friend. And
we've worked on some articles together. But what's great about
Brian, he's another incredible writer and researcher, where
there's been times where we haven't coordinated on articles
on this topic, but he still does amazing work like amazing
research. In fact, I know, there was an article you were in. And
I was surprised because I didn't even know till the article came
out. But it was great. I think he's probably mentioned,
John Greenewald: pretty secretive about that stuff, all
the
Alejandro Rojas: behind the scenes. So yeah, that's gonna be
really good talking about his involvement with all of this, he
is trying to still get a special guest speaker, we'll see if that
happens. But regardless, his story is really, really
interesting. And it kind of gives you an idea of the kind of
how it works, how the weirdness and how the taboo still exists.
There were a couple of people saying, I don't know anybody who
wants to government job for getting into this stuff. I know
you don't if you don't ask people in government, if people
have lost their jobs, and even worse, people who haven't been
able to get jobs, were being into this stuff. And I can tell
you this behind the scenes, the involvement of people in this
topic is a factor. Even right now, in as things are
coalescing, and these government agencies are figuring out what
to do. It's a factor. So it is to this day, an issue. Um, but
let's see who else are we going to have? Speaking of government
people, we're going to have John Ramirez who was former CIA guy
who has some really interesting perspectives on stuff. But he's
going to be talking about at first, you know, some of his
perspectives on some of the new legislation which is great
because the insider kind of perspectives always helpful and
a lot of our speakers are going to be talking about that. We're
going to have Bryce Zabel, who of course is doing need to know
with Ross Coltart and he's going to be there talking a lot about
this kind of stuff. Let's see, we will have I'm really excited
about Stacey Wright, who runs Phoenix moved on the Arizona
MUFON. She's going to be speaking about the Phoenix
lights, which is of course the big deal and a popular sighting
out here. And she hasn't done that before. So she'll have some
new and different stuff to share there. We're going to have mean
look at the list. There's so many other
John Greenewald: I've got a month so I was looking. You've
got Ben Hansen, Micah Hanks James Fox, yeah, it's a good
people. So UFO congress.com If you guys are interested, and
yeah, again, I know that the live events in some circles get
a bad name but there's so much fun. I really do recommend them.
I miss live speaking. I'm going to be doing a Yeah, it's
digital, but a presentation to UNLV next week, and just reminds
me how much I love being able to reach out to audiences. And,
look, we all know not all speakers are going to, you know,
appeal to every single audience member. And with you guys
running the conferences, I'm sure you know that too. But it's
a way to like see the names that we sometimes only see on Twitter
or Facebook or on a live stream, you get to see them upfront. And
it offers a different perspective. Sometimes it
reinforces that I think people aren't telling the truth. But
then other times you go, Oh, wow, think that that's a lot
more in depth than what I really thought. So it's, it's a great
way.
Alejandro Rojas: And you probably feel the same, it's a
little cringy, in that. It can be a little uncomfortable for
some of us speakers who are, you know, feel like some of the
other topics are kind of weird and stuff. And again, I don't
choose these speakers for this event, you can blame me more for
the MCU speakers. But if it was up to me, but you know, the
difference is you don't have as many people to those type of
events. So this is the Congress, I've always said it's more
populous, it's more about what people are talking about on this
topic than necessarily, you know, science, strictly science
or hard research. Which is a lot more boring to some people. But,
you know, a lot of this is button people like John Dover.
And of course, we'll be showing James box's film for the first
time. In fact, his official premieres the day after he's
going to be showing it at here in Arizona for the Congress. So
it's a pre premiere showing, and then David MARLAR, who is one of
those hard researchers is going to have a special announcement
at the event as well, that he's really excited about. But yeah,
Marla is absolutely one of my favorite researchers. He's
amazing.
John Greenewald: Yeah, he's, he's a great guy, a great
researcher has a heck of an archive that I've been blessed
to see firsthand. So
Alejandro Rojas: and let me ask you this. Sure. Sorry. How do
you feel about it? There's just so much to talk about how do you
feel about the Aereo case? You know, you and I are both more
conservative when it comes to this kind of stuff. It's a case
that I do find fascinating. What do you think?
John Greenewald: Yeah, well, I interviewed Randall Nickerson on
this channel for those who aren't aware of the videos
there. And, to my surprise, before I and I'll make it quick,
because I don't want to keep you too long. To my surprise, a lot
of people were so surprised I did the show. And that I took
that a little bit to heart. I'm like, why? And because like you
said, it's not necessarily something that, you know, we
jump all over, I was drawn to the way that Randall did the
documentary, and it was about the personal journey of somebody
going back that was one of the school children and the journey
going back. And look, I'm not here to say yes, it was an alien
craft. And I'm not here to say I know exactly what it was. I'm
not here to say anything other than it was so evident that I
don't believe she was acting. And it was so evident that it
affected her in such a way that this was a big deal to not only
her, but others. And I'm drawn to stories like that the the
emotion and the the toll that that experience took whatever it
may be, is so palpable that, you know, who am I to say that that
didn't happen to them? Am I a hardcore evidence guy?
Absolutely. Do I question everything? Absolutely. But am I
going to sit here from my chair and tell the the girl and or the
director that traveled back and re experience some of that and
talk to the people that were there? What they experienced?
No, I'm not going to pretend to do that. So I'm fascinated, I
recommended to my audience, then and I'll do it again. Now see,
Randles documentary and I'd love to meet him in person I never
have I see he's going to be at your event. I just recommend
people look at it. You don't you don't need to walk away thinking
that an alien spaceship landed to these children, but rather
look at the emotional toll, you know, and that's what a lot of
live events showed me also is that there's a different element
here that you don't get on social media, or Twitter or you
know, whatever medium that a lot of us communicate, and you don't
get the human element, right. I mean, it's one thing to just
type on our computer and give our experience out there. It's
another way to do it in a YouTube video get a little bit
more interaction, but to see somebody in person, it gives a
whole new element again, it's not an endorsement and it
doesn't mean it actually happened. But it's a totally
different element that you just don't get elsewhere. So that's
why I love it. And I kicked myself that I'm not able to
travel like I used to be years ago, just with two kids and a
family.
Alejandro Rojas: We've been asking you every year for years
now. I know parents been asking can you get John to come and I
know you're you're busy, you got kids. So we
John Greenewald: please know that it was not for a lack of
interest, it was just being unable to travel. And yeah, and
trust me, it makes me upset because I really do like it.
And, and for those who haven't done it, I'm gonna say it again
go. It is a wide ranging audience you're going to find
everywhere from former military and government personnel
interested in the hardcore facts that likely a majority of this
audience watching right now is and then you also get a more
spiritual aspect to some of the presentations. And I don't mean
that in a bad way, but but rather just a much different
approach, but one that other people will be drawn to. So it's
something I recommend. Absolutely. So I wish you guys
the best of luck next week. I wish I could be there. If I can
sneak away. I will. I don't think I'll be able to, but I'll
be thinking of you guys.
Alejandro Rojas: Yeah, well, thank you very much. Sure. Yeah,
remember black vote for that coupon? It's UFO congress.com.
And a lot of people for some reason want to know what I feel
about Lazar. I do not believe Bob Lazar. I think it's another
topic. But there's a huge amount, I think of evidence that
shows that there is that the story has not been consistent,
or there's major question marks there. But and I seem to come
across more information on a regular basis, even in this last
week that supports that.
John Greenewald: i There's a lot to talk about. So yeah, I you
have to come back on. I appreciate you doing this. For
those who are watching the behind the scenes. This was kind
of a fun addition, in the middle of one of those shows. If you're
watching just the pier interview, just know this was on
the behind the scenes show. So if you haven't seen one of
those, make sure you tune in, they're a lot of fun. And people
get a kick out of that being able to ask a question while I
do these shows live. So thanks for being a good sport with that
you're the first guest that I've ever had do that in show number
12 for for the behind the scenes. So hopefully you didn't
mind just kind of logging in and being live
Alejandro Rojas: now. That's thanks. Thank you so much for
having me. Of course, it's a lot of fun. And, again, apologize
for jumping all over red panda. I'm just so excited about what
we're doing with Enigma net labs. And it's always
disappointing when there's already people trying to spread
some negative when you don't even know what we're up to yet.
John Greenewald: Other people not red panda, I don't think he
was spreading the name. One thing, though, before I let you
go the website for a neighbor labs have not done a nick bell
Alejandro Rojas: labs.io and then S EU is explorer fcu.org.
But yeah, I make my labs that I owe. That's where all the cool
new tech companies are using. And then Congress of course, one
more time UFO congress.com.
John Greenewald: Awesome. So Alejandro, thank you so much for
joining me. I really appreciate it. You guys take care of next
week. Have a great time at the conference. And thank you all
for listening and watching. If you can, if you're watching you
like this show, please give a thumbs up on the YouTube
channel. Make sure you're subscribed. If you're listening
to the audio podcast version. Just know that all of these are
generally broadcast live or in video form at www dot the black
vault.com/live That will get you to the YouTube channel. No
matter how you're watching or listening. Please make sure
again, add those reviews thumbs up Share, like all that good
stuff. It really is a big help. This is John Greenewald Jr
signing off, and we'll see you next time.