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. Some of you are asking in the chat as I kind
of rearranged my windows here. Yes, this is live, originally, I
was going to do what I call a behind the scenes show. And that
was going to entail a couple of different segments. The change,
however, is I decided to go ahead and just do one topic,
make it a regular show, do it live. And have you guys kind of
guide this a little bit? If you haven't really been paying
attention, the reason why I switched, what I wanted to do
was the New York Times published an article today that has got
everybody upset. And I think that there's many different
reasons to be upset with this. But I think that if you had high
expectations with the pending UAP report that we all hope is
coming on Monday, I always have my doubts that the government
does anything in time. On time, I should say. If you had high
hopes for that, then this New York Times article is probably
going to upset you. And here's what I think is going on. It was
written by Julian Barnes from the New York Times. The title is
many military UFO reports are just foreign spying or airborne
trash. I'll get to the article in a minute, we'll go over it,
we'll have some, some dissection of it. And I will try and watch
the chat for your questions, pull in as many as I can. With
but a couple of kind of housecleaning notes here, as I
do with the behind the scenes shows, I decided to broadcast
this to all of my social media. So some of you I know are
watching on Facebook, some of you are on Twitter, the majority
of you, I believe are on YouTube. That's how I always
recommend that you watch these simply because that's going to
be the biggest chat. I know some of you all come here to interact
with others. So if you are watching live, go to www dot the
black vault.com/live That will bounce you directly to the
channel, you'll see the video is live as we speak. And of course,
the chat is already bumping. The other note that I wanted to give
you is I am happy to take as many questions as you'd like I
have a little bit of time today, which is kind of nice. And this
is why I decided to switch. It's because of all of the feedback
that I have seen online on this article. And I'm it it's it's
getting a little bit crazy, where people are clearly upset.
And I wanted to do this video to kind of put into context here
what we're reading. Now, let me preface it all, by saying you're
you're looking at somebody who has made dedicated videos, to
the horrific reporting in the past by the New York Times. So I
am not sitting here trying to defend the New York Times in any
way. But I want to be as fair as possible because so many are
attacking journalist Julian Barnes, who let me just click
here real quick. I forget his exact title. He's a national
security reporter from New York Times covering intelligence
agencies, I thought he had a bigger title. I should have
looked for that. But did not but regardless reporter for the New
York Times, you don't just walk into a job like that. He's
obviously got a very big journalistic background. He's
done quite a bit for quite some time. So I don't go out of the
starting gate just trashing somebody because they don't say
what I like, I want to be fair here and give anybody I don't
care if it's the New York Times or a blog site that no one's
heard of, or anything in between. I give it time to be
right. And I give it time to find the evidence to be right.
But to go back what I said you're looking at a guy who has
made these dedicated videos, essentially trashing previous
reporting. So I'm not here to defend but I'm also not here to
trash it this time. I think the context once we get through it
will give a little bit more of an understanding of where we
should be instead of lashing out. So that said, I am always
surprised at the reaction to these articles. Let me bring it
up, just so you guys can see what I'm talking about. Do my
best to zoom in, collapse this,
I hope that it will stay on for me it goes to a paywall a lot of
times. So I'm hoping that's not going to happen. But here's the
here's the article if you guys haven't seen it yet, that has
created the ruckus. Now on Monday, we are supposed to get a
public UAP report. I have confirmed that there will be a
public version. There's some some question mark about that.
If that gets walked back, I'll be very, very surprised. To some
of you that may not be a surprise, but I wanted to at
least clear that up that there is talk about the public report
and it should be delivered Monday to the general public, I
have been able to also confirm, and this is not a shock to most
including myself, that there will be a classified version
delivered as well on the same day as those frequent watchers
of this channel, you know that the day after that June report
from last year, I had filed a case on a mandatory
declassification review of that classified version it took of it
took until March, I believe, of this year of 2022 to get it but
at least I got it and was able to kind of get a little bit more
of a glimpse into the classified aspects of all of this, of
course, redactions came along with it. But it came with enough
detail that allowed me to kind of again, get that glimpse into
what else was going on. So for those of you who might be
curious, I'll tell you right here, and now I've already
drafted the case, request to once it drops, once the product
is created, it will be filed, and I will go after that
classified version as well. This time around, I would likely
won't be alone. The last time I believe there was only one other
request or that filed a couple of weeks after myself on an MDR
level. I know Brian Bender from Politico had later gone after it
through FOIA, which generated a different version of it, but it
was the same redactions across the board. But anyway, there's a
lot more eyeballs on this. And just again, wanted to address
those questions because I got that asked a lot in the last
couple of days on social media. So what I want to do to at least
lay the groundwork to what this article then entails because I
believe that what I just went over plays into the context of
what we're looking for. So the header again, the headline, many
military UFO reports are just foreign spying, or airborne
trash. Keyword there is many. What what does that mean? We
don't have a report yet. So obviously, Julian Barnes is
getting that from somewhere, does many mean the majority, the
minority, the many that he was allowed to know about? So many
unanswered questions there. But at least he didn't say the
majority, at least I don't recall that word being used in
here. And the headline said many that could very well be true.
Forget space, aliens or hypersonic technology.
Classified assessments show that many episodes have ordinary
explanations. This is what gets interesting about that sub
header. He's hinting that he is now privy to the classified
assessments and what they show. I can tell you just from
experience on the last time around that the classified
version of the report, just the page count, at the time of my
filing was part of a classified document. They wouldn't tell me.
I was able to later get that it didn't take too long. But I was
later able to get that. My whole point with this is now depending
upon Julian Barnes's sources, were getting into a classified
arena. He may not know the classified technology or sensors
or anything like that. But my point is, is that when you deal
with this, from a legal standpoint, just a page count is
considered a classified or a. I don't want to say secret because
that's the wrong word. But it's essentially a exempted piece of
information because it's part of a classified document. So
whatever Julian Barnes is reporting and his anonymous
sources because no one was named in this, except for Susan Goff
the Pentagon spokesperson, they are talking to him about the
classified version of this, this that will become key here as we
go over it.
Government officials believe that surveillance operations by
foreign powers and weather balloons, or other airborne
clutter explain most recent incidents of unidentified aerial
phenomenon Government speak for UFOs as when, as well as many
episode episodes in past years. The sightings have puzzled the
Pentagon and intelligence agencies for yours fueling
theories about visiting space aliens and spying by a hostile
nation using advanced technology. But government
officials say many of the incidents have far more ordinary
explanations. I know a lot of people are upset his word usage
of space aliens, whatever I mean, it is what it is. We can't
really we can't really mince every little vowel here on the
wording. It's clear, though, that he's dismissing that. And
it's clear that that his angle here is that it's not aliens.
It's many of them are explainable, he did say most
appear. Most recent incidents, again, I don't want to get
playing into semantics, semantics and dissecting every
character here. But I'm curious as where this is going. Because
with that caveat of the classified assessments,
I put a prediction out there on Twitter a few days ago that the
public version which will likely reflect the classified one, if
they get into statistics, I would imagine that their their
rate of being able to identify the cases will be much higher.
Prior if you recall, they were only able to identify one, and
they labeled that as a deflating balloon. But this time around
the question mark is what are they going to be? So my guess
and this is, I'm stressing guests speculation. It's not
using anything that I know behind the scenes. It is
literally just a guess. And I put a Twitter thread out there
just for others to have fun as well, like take a guess what,
how many pages? Will there be graphics, so on and so forth.
And one of my one of my guesses was that they would have these
statistics, but a much higher percentage of identified. And I
think the first time around in June of 2021. It was a bit of a
learning curve for them. I think that they saw how the public
reacted. I think they saw how Congress reacted. I think that
what they did by that was going to adjust their public message
for many different reasons. If you want to call that cover up
conspiracy, whatever. That's up to you. But I think that they're
going to learn from that. So that went into my guess that
it's going to be longer. I took a guess and said 14 pages versus
the nine that it was prior. But it'll show more effort. I
believe that the graphics, I said that there'll be four
thumbnails, I didn't say what the thumbnails were. But I think
that there'll be some graphics in there. Reason is, I think,
though, they'll want to show more effort. Because to the
public, I think that it looked rushed. I think that to
Congress, it wasn't adequate enough. So I think that there's
going to be that effort to put in a little bit more to this.
But in the same respect, they can use this. They can say now
that they've done more investigation, they've allocated
more resources, they've allocated more people, they've
allocated much more to the effort to then identify more.
And when you go back to the reporting here by Julian Barnes,
if his sources are legit, which I really don't have reason to
doubt it, but I hate anonymous sources. I don't care what they
add to the UFO conversation. I said that earlier today on
Twitter, I don't care what side of the fence they're on. If it's
an anonymous source, I hate it. It doesn't do us any good. I'm
going to reflect the same sentiment to this. I'm not
saying that I buy it hook line and sinker. But I also say I
don't doubt it. What we're seeing here unfold with the New
York Times reporting, if accurate, is exactly what we
should have expected. I pulled up an article posted that on
Twitter today also that I wrote back in 2020. And obviously,
it's a little dated, it was 2020 August to be exact. But it was
essentially the run up to a UFO or UAP hearing 1960s style. I
even have a video on this channel, I invite you all to
look at. And in essence, what I did was I explored the run up to
the previous late 1960s UFO hearings and congressional
interest and Senate pushes for transparency, and let's get more
people involved. Well, in the end, we were left with the
Condon report, Project Blue Book was cancelled in 1969 officially
closed the door and I think it was January of 1970. And it
wasn't until the last five years or so that UFOs and the
government finally started, you know, essentially coexisting
again. My fear in 2020, I believe is kind of playing out.
And it is this this effort by the US government to finally
have a refreshed ability to tell the general public Well, look,
we looked into it. There was a lot of unknowns, but when we put
more research resources to it, we were able to identify
everything
That is not to say That's right. Or I endorsed that. For those of
you who know me, you might be new to this channel. I know
there's over 330 of you watching on the social medias live right
now, which some of you may be new to this channel. I'm known
in some circles as being pretty skeptical, which I am. But I
also say that there's something to these phenomena plural, that
should be investigated. But I also have to be realistic of
what the US government is going to do. And that article showed
that through the 1960s, late 1960s, and that effort that that
they that they underwent, had the same positivity in the
beginning to come crashing down later, when you fast forward to
the last few years, you can literally match up even the
characters, those that were politicians, the former military
and government personnel that came out, it was like you could
draw a line from the 1960s to the last couple of years. And it
really matched up like a playbook. I'm not insinuating
that it is coming from a playbook. But rather, it's
something to look at. And something to realize that this
is a game. It has been a game for more than 75 years. That
sounds conspiratorial, but I can show you reams of information
that that supports, there is something again to these
phenomena that we cannot explain not the military, not the
government, not the general public. It's just reality.
That's what it is. On top of that I can show you reams of
incidents where numerous government agencies to this day,
consider UFO and UAP information at the highest classification
levels of top secret and secret and will deny you access to
them. I just posted a document today about our nuclear
arsenals, and nuclear reviews and stuff like that, I can tell
you after filing 10,000 requests over the last 26 plus years,
UFOs and UAP has been some of the most elusive and most
difficult topics to to investigate. And on top of that,
I see more games through legal ways of accessing that that
information than I do others. Why is that? I don't know. And
by the way, the majority of the requests that I do by number
overall, is not UFOs. Okay, so some some may think and I think
I saw Mick West here, MC friend of the show, I really do respect
MC. And you should too adds a lot to this conversation. I
don't always agree with him. He's here in the chat, he would
call that a five majority was requesting UFO information,
essentially a bias and the numbers, that essentially I
would see more problems with UFOs, because I request more
about UFOs. And actually, that I wanted to point out is not a
statistical bias. It's the opposite. I don't request UFO
information as much as I do other. So I just wanted to kind
of put that out there for for for our friend, Mick. And hello,
Mick. It's good to Good to see you. Wait, hold on, I
missed it again. There you are. All right, MC. So welcome to the
channel, I don't know how often you poke in. I always like to
think that you watch everything and just can't touch what I have
to say. Because you know, you can't debunk it. But no joking
aside, it's always good to see it. So that being said, you have
all that information. But when you look at the data, you look
at the information, you look at the documentation. It is that
game. And this is what they are doing and what one of the things
I wanted to accomplish with the show, and I'll get back to the
article is to encourage you not to give up. And it doesn't
matter where on the fence you are. There's a lot of you know,
hardcore believers out there. That's not my audience. So
you're likely not here. But rather, if you're kind of on the
fence, and you don't know what to think. And you're getting
more and more frustrated, I had actually a couple private
messages today from people that are like, this is ridiculous.
This is I'm done. Like I am so frustrated. And I'm here to tell
you that I've fired a nickel for every time I had that thought,
you know, I'd be not only rich but retired with a private
island somewhere. But that is exactly I think the effort here.
And in the last couple of months alone, I've seen some very good
people with the best of intention to try and unravel
this mystery gets so fed up with it, that they just go you know
what I'm done, I'm out. And either they literally just go
out, you never hear from them again. Or they turned skeptical
to a point of just attacking anything that comes around,
which isn't good in itself. So there's a lot of mindsets out
there. And I'm here to just say, don't judge it by the New York
Times article here. Because even if it's accurate, even if
everything that you read here and no, I won't read the whole
thing, I invite you all to do so but even if everything that was
printed here is absolute fact, which it's actually provably not
but regardless if it was absolute fact that shouldn't
deter you From from looking into what this topic is all about,
because there is still ample evidence to support that we
should continue to give it attention. One of the things
that I wanted to point out in the article, which again, plays
into everything that we're talking about here is that
attempt to explain. And I think that that goes back to the
project Bluebook days, they wanted to give the impression it
was all an investigation. But when you look at the actual
evidence, the real documents, what they say at a press podium,
is not what the actual evidence says. And even though project
Bluebook was largely a very transparent, quote, unquote,
transparent effort, meaning journalists at the time could
actually call the Air Force and arrange seeing the files, there
was a lot of stuff behind the scenes that was going on. And
that's some of the more fascinating material because you
realize that there wasn't really an investigation. But rather, it
was an effort for an explanation that instead of investigating
the UFOs, if you look at the actual correspondence, so not
necessarily the case files, but some of the correspondence
letters that go along with it, you can see the dripping bias
from the investigators. I have a section on the black vault
called from the desks of project Bluebook. And they are files
from the one of the original project Bluebook military
personnel that was found by a researcher. It's an awesome
story. I won't repeat it again. But I've talked about it quite a
few times. But regardless, the bottom line is all these
documents came from this original member of the Blue Book
team toward towards the end of the effort because they had some
turnover. But again, directly worked on the program took a lot
of the unclassified material with him. And when you look at
that material, you realize that there was much more going on
than an investigation that we were all led to believe, but
rather it was an explanation. And it also showed insight into
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, who, if you don't know, was the lead
scientist that looked into the UFO incidents through the
40s 50s and 60s, he was the go to guy and went from this
hardcore skeptic who explained everything or debunked
everything to someone who later became a believer. Now whether
or not you believe everything that Dr. J. Allen Hynek had to
say that's irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that a
scientist properly trained properly credentialed saw what
the military was doing, went in with essentially a job debunk
and came out a believer. That's pretty interesting. Fast
forward. Look at what we're doing now and an investigation.
Government military says we're looking into it. It's a
potential threat, which by the way, I haven't said the T word.
I don't think yet. That echoes what happened during the project
Bluebook years. And potential threat, we're looking into it,
we go from unknown, unknown unknown, hey, we need more
money. We need more instrumentation, we need more
everything. Now, we come to another UAP report. And if what
the New York Times is saying, well, that shouldn't be a
surprise to any of you, because that is that cover up playbook
that they have played time and time again. Does that mean that
it's right or wrong? Not necessarily. But it does mean
that there is a predictable pattern. So you guys got a lot
of reading material today. But I invite you to go read that
article I wrote in 2020, and then did a video earlier in
2021, about the same exact thing. And it really is
fascinating to see the parallels on how all of this is playing
out. Going back to that article and I skipped quite a bit. But
they talked about the go fast, the gimbal and the FLIR ONE. Now
just a quick preface for those who aren't familiar with this
channel because now there's about 420 of you watching so the
audience is growing. I assume some of you may be new to this
channel. I was my connection to the gimbal, the FLIR and the go
fast after they leaked. People hate me when I call it a leak.
But I think it's it's pretty clear. They were not authorized
to come out when they originally did. When I was pushing the Navy
at the time for answers is going back a couple of years. I had
gotten in writing this was the first time ever that they were
considered unidentified aerial phenomena. That was the tag that
they had on all three videos. They could not identify all
three. So I have paraphrasing there. But I have all of that in
writing. I wrote an article and went wildly viral across the
world. It was a huge deal. Why? Because it was an official word.
Never before that. Had they ever labeled those three videos. We
were just told the narrative from to the stars Academy, and
12 billion media outlets that carry that story. But we never
had word from the Military, I will admit, a million times over
myself. I was floored when I got that I did not expect that at
all. And I expected a explanation of some kind. Keep
in mind documentation internally that Luis Elizondo had
submitted, called them drones and balloons. So you you had all
these kind of weird things going on about it. Military says
they're unidentified. Now back to the article.
Besides the images of green triangles, excuse me, they
obviously go into those green triangles or green pyramids, as
you likely know them as the other recordings released by the
Pentagon have not been categorized as surveillance
incidents, at least so far. But Pentagon officials do not
believe that any of them represent aliens either. So
again, New York Times is really kind of punching this, it's not
aliens, it's not aliens. And we'll we'll deal with that. And
also in a moment, one of the videos referred to as go fast
appears to show an object moving at immense speed. But in that an
analysis by the military says that that is an illusion created
by the angle of observation against water. According to
Pentagon calculations, the object is moving only about 30
miles per hour. So want to deal with that first one of the
videos referred to as go fast. This was one that the US Navy
told me they considered unidentified, they labeled it
UAP, a few years back, and that was a big deal. Now they're
saying the military analyzed that footage directly. And that
it was simply an illusion created by the angle of
observation against water. This is a moment where I wish I could
bring MC in for at least some context on that MC if you're
still here, feel free to type it. My guess is you have a video
on this. As MC knows, and as most of my regular audience
knows, I stay away from all that video analysis. I'm just not
educated enough to get it. I can do you know, some analysis, but
when it gets into math, angles, instrumentation, and some of
those technical things that not only MC but on the opposite end
of this coin as well, in this debate, both sides are when you
talk about, let's say SVU and Robert Powell and his team and
when they're analyzing everything, videos and speed
calculations, hey, I'm here to admit way over my noggin, right,
so I stay out of it. But what's interesting to me is away from
the analysis part of it whether or not that's right or wrong,
this is a clear alter alteration of the military's view they went
from we have this unidentified aerial phenomena video known as
gimbal, a couple years back to military analyzed it, it's an
illusion created by the angle of observation, observation against
water. So very reminiscent to those project Bluebook days,
they take in the report, it's unidentified, and they spin it
and identify, are they wrong? It's quite possible. They're not
wrong. I have no idea. Again, not educated enough to start
battling and duking it out from an analysis standpoint. But
what's interesting is, why couldn't Why couldn't they
figure this out years ago? Why were they willing to put that
label on this at the time? If you believe all the rumors and
stories, and we'll save the eighth tip UFO study for a
different debate for a different day? Let's say for a moment,
yes, a tip was this UFO study? Are you telling me that they
could not have done any analysis at that time? Or is this spin?
And I don't have an answer to that. But I find it interesting
that they have done a 180 on the label, and it doesn't stop at
and I may have I may have misspoke on the gimbal and go
fast. So forgive me if I did. What I just went over was the go
fast video. And that was the illusion created by the angle of
observation against water. So I think I caught myself Miss
speaking there labeling that the gimbal hopefully on the screen
that made sense for you watching this visually. But they also
talked about the gimbal. So it didn't just stop at the go fast.
It is on the gimbal as well. The gimbal shows an object that
appears to be turning or spinning military officials now
believe that is the optics of the classified image sensor
designed to help target weapons make the object appear like it
is moving in a strange way is a joys of live because if I screw
up can't go back. So forgive me on the the misspeak there but
obviously gimble there now explaining as well. Mick would
be the person to kind of again give a little bit of context
from that skeptical point of view. I will let him and those
that have done the analysis on the other end of the spectrum to
Duke that out for the same reason. over my head. They also
talked about the FLIR and I'm just gonna have to do a cheat
here to find it. Least I think they did forgive me here as I
kind of look around, why isn't this I'm not sure what happened
Okay, some of you helped me out here when I was preparing for
the show and I will fully admit I was kind of rushing in the
sense that this is this is all unfolding right now. I'm fairly
confident that they labeled the FLIR ONE as the one that hovers
over the water, and I was going to chat with you guys about the
inaccuracy of that and it appears that FLIR ONE has been
taken out. So TBD I'm not going to do this on the fly with you
guys. Maybe in the chat if you guys want to do this. I'm, I'm
fairly confident I read FLIR ONE in here, but it's not on there
anymore. FLIR does not exist, but it says now. Pentagon
analysts remain puzzled by some of the videos collected by the
military one where an object hovers over the water jumps are
radically then peels away is more difficult to explain
official said But analysts who have studied that video, as well
as ones associated with eyewitness reports from aviators
are convinced it is not a piece of alien technology here. Let me
check something real quick. Let me see if there's corrections
already. Not yet. Okay. Ah, I'm Julian took it out. Thank you,
MC. I. Oh, you're to blame MC. I knew it. Yeah, see, all of this
is happening. All this is happening, kind of as we're
dissecting this, so the New York Times is altering their
description. I was going to point out the inaccuracy about
that Mick obviously tweeted about it, and Julian Barnes took
it out. So okay, there you go. But it's not noted in the bottom
I'm sure there's some journalistic rule that allows
them not to have to list the correction but because that does
create quite a bit of of confusion. So we'll deal with
that in a later video. But thank you Mick. As always, I know
you're on top of a lot of this stuff here. Hold on as we go
here, Midwest also as about the paragraph is basically still
there. Just remove mentioned a FLIR ONE. So I'm curious MC if
if there by the description, it doesn't seem like it would be
the FLIR video, which I was going to point out. But are they
now talking about a different video? Is that something that we
haven't seen yet is that something will potentially see
released with the public report or potentially aired and later
hearing. I mean, who knows? These are all guesses, because
as you can see, the New York Times is changing stuff, as
we're as we're talking. So that's that back on track here.
I invite you to read the whole article. But I think what we're
seeing here is potentially potential potentially accurate
reporting. Bear with me in the context of how it's being
reported, that if the government is going to take this stance,
Julian Barnes shouldn't be crucified by UFO, Twitter or
whomever is going after him. I posted on one thread today. And
I don't want to, you know, talk ill of anybody, so no names
needed, but essentially name calling. Julian Barnes. I don't
know Julian Barnes. And I just find it unfair that we start
attacking the messenger, because if he's reporting on the stance
of, of what the government is going to be saying in this
report, if this is accurate, for the most part, and that was what
I was going to reference was the FLIR reference about accuracy.
But let's just say the core of this as accurate and what the
government is going to say on Monday, or if the report is
late. Why are we crucifying reporter who's who's actually
reporting accurately, you know, go after the government, but go
after them with evidence and let's see what's going to
happen. And that's the bottom line that I think a lot of
people are forgetting on a couple sides of this, those that
I had mentioned earlier, that are just getting so fed up with
this, and they're just kind of piecing out and they don't want
to deal with the conversation anymore.
We have to understand that the government side of this is only
one small piece of the puzzle. And on top of that, what they
say what kind of how I phrase it often is what they say at a
press podium, but we all know that it's not always a press
podium, but whether that be press statements, or public
reports, or even a congressional hearing. That's not the end all
be all. And that's not me, again, being a conspiracy
theorist or conspiratorial, but rather that's being realistic.
That is using a documented history that what the gun
Government and military wants you to believe is not always
necessarily the truth. big shocker there I know, but it is
provable. And we've seen that time and time again. Now does
that prove aliens? Of course not. And I'm not here to say
that nor should anybody, we really truly just don't know
what's going on. But speaking of aliens, and how the this article
essentially poo pooed, that whole idea go on, it's not space
aliens is not aliens. And there's, there's quite a few
references to aliens, there's 12 of them to be exact if you do a
word find. So alien or aliens appear 12 times in this article,
Extra Terrestrial another one, maybe there's other forms of
saying alien. So obviously, they're really pushing this
narrative, meaning the New York Times that, hey, there's no
evidence, this is aliens. And it looks like you know, many of
them are drones, and foreign spying equipment or drones, or
trash. I don't know why trash came out of nowhere. I mean, if
trash was that common, which I'm sure that there's going to be
some type of cases that do that. We would have saw that more in
the in the in the first report, which we didn't, we saw that as
one of the categories, but none of them fit. But who knows,
maybe something they've done in the last year now puts a large
majority, or many or however you want to say it in the trash
category. But that is all kind of a question mark. But here's
kind of one of the issues that I had. And I know another thing
that I had tweeted out today, but just to kind of put it into
context is that you see the New York Times and as I mentioned in
the beginning of the show, do some horrible reporting when it
comes to UAP. And I did then what I do now, and I do try and
be as fair as possible, some of my biggest haters out there will
not agree with me. But truly do try and be as again, as fair as
possible and give it time to either be true or for evidence
to present itself. And when it's clearly not like for example,
the New York Times article that talked about offworld vehicles,
when you have quite a few corrections listed at the bottom
of the article, you know that something kind of went awry,
corrections are going to happen. I don't fault journalists if
they have to correct something. But I do fall journalist for
being careless. And I think that that's one of the things that
happened in that article. But in the effort to be fair, you have
a article that says 15 times combining alien and
extraterrestrial, it's not that but the same masthead, The New
York Times had reported that in July of 2020, Dr. Eric Davis,
who now works for Aerospace Corporation, a defense
contractor said he gave a classified briefing to a defense
department agency as recently as March about retrievals. From off
world vehicles not made on this earth. If you ask me they're
insinuating aliens are extraterrestrial, right? I mean,
you can't have an offworld vehicle that's not made on
planet Earth, and have it be human. So and nor is that a
natural thing. So okay,
so we're talking about aliens, right? That's clearly what this
article was putting so much on. For those who aren't aware in
here. Senator Harry Reid was quoted before he passed away as
essentially confirming the notion that there was retrieved
material of offworld vehicles that was later taken out and
corrected. At the bottom of the article, I have a full video,
dissecting that article, the corrections, the messiness of
it, and I even show you corrections that were made well
after it was published, and not just in the first hour or so.
But well, after it was published that they changed things but
didn't note it. So again, I don't pretend to know every
single journalistic requirement that they have to list
corrections. I just think that that was pretty shady when you
already have a list of corrections. But that being
said, The New York Times reported this. This is I want to
stress the New York Times and not you know, Joe Blows blog
somewhere where an anonymous source comes around and says,
Well, you know, we've retrieved UFO Alien technology. I just
can't tell you where or who I am or how I know that, but trust
me, bro. That's not what this is. They named the person in
this New York Times article. So you know, contrary to what
usually is the fact where you have anonymous sources with
claims like this. You actually have someone and even though
Harry Reid's support, quote was taken out, you still have Dr.
Eric Davis, despite my personal thoughts on the validity of
this, when you write for the New York Times, and it's not an op
ed, I would think that the weight of the masthead that ran
the article comes along with it. The editorial board is there for
a reason that they look at the claims that their paper is
printing and go, Okay, this may be an anonymous source. But can
you back this up? Can you back this up? Can you back this up?
And between the journalist and that board and again, their
their whole process of verifying the information, then they
become comfortable putting their masthead on it. an op ed comes
with a disclaimer. So that's totally different. It's an
opinion editorial. It shows somebody's thoughts or beliefs
about something. And that disclaimer says we don't
necessarily endorse the ideas or beliefs in this article. That's
not what happens with reporting like this. And yet, even though
it was a mess, Dr. Davis's claims stayed in there. So
question is did the New York Times editorial board away from
the journalists that were on the byline, which were Ralph
Blumenthal and Leslie Kane on this particular article? July
23 2020, was when it was published. There's the headline
for if you want to look it up no longer in shadows, Pentagon's
UFO unit will make some findings public. If they published that,
don't you think that that should be referenced in an article like
this? Where now they're saying there's nothing, no evidence to
aliens? There's no, they didn't say offworld vehicles, but
essentially no evidence of any of that. It's okay, if
journalists contradict each other, but the paper itself are,
is publishing these facts. And to me, and this is just an
opinion, again, maybe there's some kind of, you know, written
rule out there that I'm just not aware of. But when, when a
publication like this deals with a topic within 24 months of each
other, and you have wildly different reporting, shouldn't
that contradiction, at the very least be noted? I'm not even
saying correct it. I'm just saying, note it, that all of the
sources that Julian Barnes who he did not name, by the way,
except Susan golf, and her tone was, you know, pretty much the
same of what we're used to just there's classification for a
reason, no evidence of aliens, whatever. If that's what all of
his sources are saying, Should he not have referenced his own
mainstream outlet that he's writing for that contradicted
that with a named source? I would think you'd at least want
to note the contradiction. And this isn't just because I like
UFO is where I think you should do a certain thing. But in 2020,
that was the stance of the New York Times, that if they truly
vetted the information that they published, there was enough for
them to say, You know what, there's likely enough truth to
this, that we feel comfortable putting our masthead above it.
So New York Times published the claim. Again, I'm stressing
regardless of what I feel about it. Fast forward to 2022. Now
we're about to get a second UAP report, that same publication,
prints an article that just completely destroys the hopes
and dreams of everybody who thought offworld vehicles are
being retrieved by the US government.
So doesn't matter who's right or wrong? Wouldn't you note it? And
they didn't have no idea why. So those are some of the things
that I want to kind of point out that we are in a mess of a
situation. And if you think you know what these phenomena are,
and you think you know, what we're gonna get either Monday or
if it's late whenever we get it. You likely probably don't, I
don't. None of us do it. It is an absolute crapshoot of what
this is going to be. But I will say it don't have the, the
outrageous expectations that I'm seeing some circles have. And
and I had seen a post, I don't know if he wants me to, to
spotlight him. So I'm not but his first name is Kyle. And so
he had written that other people were posting that it was going
to be disclosure. And I like to try and stay on top of things,
but you can't always. And I thought oh, come on, like some
people are really saying like, this is disclosure like this, is
it capital D. Aliens are here, type of disclosure. And
essentially, he said yes. And I was like, Oh, come on, that
can't be and sure enough, I started seeing these posts from
people with a small following. So it's not like, you know, one
follower joined this month, and they're making big claims that
people are out there thinking that that aliens are about to be
admitted to in our entire planet, it's going to change.
And I'm here to say that's not going to happen. And I look I
cross my fingers. I'm wrong. But we have to taper our
expectations down to reality and the reality is secrecy and a
Active cover up that has gone on for well more than half a
century. And that is provable. There's evidence to that I don't
think even the biggest debunkers would, would, would hide from
that statement. The cover up doesn't equate to aliens. But
what I'm saying is that that is what they've done. They've
obviously skated this to death. So why would we expect any any
different. And the great thing about though, just to end that
thought on a positive note, is the great thing about all of
this is, regardless of what we get in the public realm, the
public report or a public hearing, which is all great, but
what goes into that is a paper trail that far outweighs what we
hear and see. And that's why I always want to stress to people
don't get discouraged. Just don't this is what they've done
for decades, doesn't mean it's alien, doesn't mean it's not, it
just means this is par for the course. But that paper trail
that's being generated, as they are doing all of this work is
gold, it will keep me and people like me busy, hopefully, for
years to come, simply because they are putting more money into
this effort. And thus far, we are seeing a strengthening of
the secrecy, which a lot of people hate me saying, but
that's just the reality of it. But what does that show you is
that just an instrumentation that's classified, they don't
want to show you? Well, I beg to differ. I've done a video on
this as well, where I think that that argument is, is completely
baseless, you don't, you don't over classify everything, just
because the sensor that took something is classified, there's
a lot of stuff that goes along with that, that would be at an
unclassified level or something that wouldn't be exempt. That,
again, is in a different video have already done and I'm likely
going to talk about that again. But these arguments that it's
all just classified technology, or we don't want to tell our
enemies, in my opinion, is provably bunk. And we can now
prove that by looking at the information they have put
forward already, some of which was like, like pulling teeth.
But look at what they've put forward already that there was
material there for us to see. And that they were able to
release it. So for them to now alter that and go oh, sorry, we
can't show you anything now is ridiculous. And that
I'm I'm highly not shelling a version of that argument. But I
but I want in much more detail in a appeal to the US Navy. So
I'm fighting their decision to withhold all UAP information,
videos, photographs, and so on, which I do know now that exist,
by their own admission, I just don't know how many, but they
have withheld all that. So my argument was, the likelihood
that we've already seen everything that's able to be
released is likely nil. And I, again went into much greater
detail. So don't get discouraged. Bottom line,
whether you're a skeptic believer, or somewhere in
between, this conversation is going to continue, it doesn't
matter what Julian Barnes says, or the New York Times prints or
or whomever posts on Twitter, or, or what you know, whatever
it is, at the end of the day, this conversation is going to
continue and whatever that report says, I can guarantee you
it's not the end, it just isn't I think that there will be
enough question marks still, that will keep the majority of
us interested. If you're looking for disclosure in Aliens, it's
not going to happen if you want to keep pushing forward and
motivate other people to take part in this whether it be more
journalists or more scientists, more investigators, more
researchers, more whomever stick around, because I think that
there's going to be a lot more information that comes out. And
in my opinion, the best evidence to support that was not given to
you or I willingly. It was not in the UAP report from last
year. It was not in the UAP hearing. It was the
documentation and even the photos and videos that have come
out through the Freedom of Information Act that support why
I say that and why I hold that belief. So stick around. I
really want to stress that because it was so discouraging
to see what I've seen just in the last four hours, five hours
or so since this article came out. I think I woke up. Yeah,
I'm not sure what time it was. But regardless, it's so
discouraging to see that because you can't let this get you down.
And that is something that I'm not trying to beat a dead horse
on, but rather tell you there's still Well enough evidence there
that I guarantee will not be in the UAP report because I think
they're just dealing with more recent stuff post, you know,
they'll have the 2004 Nimitz. And then 2014 2015 or so
encounters of gimbal. Go fast. But then, you know, maybe some
of the more recent sightings and so on. And truth be told that
the majority of those, maybe our foreign surveillance systems,
drones, maybe even classified technology, or Sure, I'll accept
trash, whatever, if that's what they want to, you know, claim
that a lot of these are. But I think that history now has shown
us enough that there is something there. And if they
want to go back and start to try and open those case files a
little bit. Great, that would be welcome. Although from an
investigative standpoint, it's probably going to be hard, I can
prove beyond a shadow of a doubt some of the more interesting
documents have been redacted, and the originals, quote,
unquote, last, I've talked about UFO material that was found post
project Bluebook in the CIA files, when I tried to get the
CIA to address that the documents were gone. So the
redactions stay, and will stay in perpetuity forever and ever,
until the doom of the planet Earth. And that's unfortunate.
So maybe the current cases are all we have. And that's
unfortunate. But anybody who's seriously looked at UFOs, knows
darn well, that, that it's not the majority of them, that are
interesting. It's just not, it's a minority, and it's a fraction
of a percent, maybe, arguably. It's a fraction, though, and a
small one at that. But that's what we need to find. That's
what we need to look at. That's what scientists need to look at.
And just because they say many are explained, I don't care. I
mean, I really don't if the government wants to claim all of
them will have that conversation. But if they say
many, we shouldn't be mad at that we should actually already
know that being involved in this conversation. So I'm kind of
surprised at again, that discipline disappointment by
some that are just saying, forget it. Because we shouldn't
be there. We should already know that what Julian Barnes printed
with a couple exceptions here and there. If it's accurate, it
shouldn't surprise us, because that's been par for the course.
Alright, so since we are live, as you guys are watching this on
on, well, I've forgot that I'm broadcasting this everywhere. So
YouTube, Twitter, Facebook Facebook group. Feel free to
post your questions.
The rest of this will be up to you how long you want me to
stick around? I don't mind at all, how long, at least within
some kind of reason. It's Friday. But hey, wait a minute.
Get that out of there. All right. So feel free to post your
questions. I'm gonna do my best here and try and answer them. Or
at least see them and answer them the best that I can. First
one that popped out to me Richard Wolff, why no nga or NRO
data at all? Richard, I actually disagree with that. There is Ng
and NRO data, they're both listed in the classified report.
Let me go ahead. And some of this will be on the fly guy. So
forgive me if I am jumping around, and maybe have to just
kind of put you on hold here as I pull up what I am about to
say. But the classified UAP report. And the agencies that
were involved in that report. Why didn't it jump down? Hold
on. These were all the agencies that were involved in the
classified report. So you'll see the NRO and nga as contributing
to that report. My nga requests are still open. And you've kind
of reminded me, Richard, to look into that. And I will, if I can
find a piece of paper. I'll ask the NGA about the FOIA requests.
But I do have open UAP related requests with them. With the
NRO. You will you will see documents online, I also have
other cases that are that I know for a fact are still ongoing,
because that's unfolding, kind of actually as we speak in the
last couple of weeks. There's been some updates on them. But
I'll I'll publish everything when I actually get it. I just
have nothing to say yet. But things are moving. But with the
NRO, I've already received documents about their
contribution. And in fact, I believe it was the NRO release
through FOIA that actually showed and proved that the UAP
task force so this was prior to arrow. They had a advisory
panel, the NRO had at least one member on it. So that advisory
panel was kind of revelatory in the sense that even though it's
kind of a good then you would think that they would have such
a thing. They they put it in writing. So I've been going
after since the moment I got that for a list of that advisory
panel and who was on it. And sometimes it is a little bit
difficult to pry names loose. What I was hoping for was maybe
positions, expertise, agencies that they that they were from,
and I believe that was denied. And I've appealed it. But
regardless, I just don't have any end result yet. But I've
been going after it. So. So just to go back to your question.
They're definitely involved in the conversation. 100% It's
undeniable. So hopefully, there you go. I see. I'm not sure what
the right answer here is on questions. If you could put them
all caps, that would be great. There's close to 500 people
watching now. So my chat has every social media network. So
every comment and chat goes up. So I apologize if I miss your
question. Feel free to repost it within a reasonable amount of
time. Just try not to flood the channel too much. For the sake
of other people, Black Dread Scotland, thank you so much for
your support of the channel watching on YouTube. What role
do you think electronic warfare plays in UFO sightings? I feel
like it's a good explanation for some of the recent UFOs caught
on radar. If you're talking about electronic warfare, like
essentially spoofing equipment, if I'm understanding what you're
what you're asking correctly, I think it plays a huge role. does
it explain everything? No, I doubt it. But I think that we
have to look at that capability and that ability to essentially
make your enemy think they are seeing something that they
actually aren't. And the end result from that would be
absolute confusion, and chaos. And and and them trying to
figure out what is real, what is not what's really there. Is this
something that is is physically there or just on our
instruments. So yeah, I mean, I think that if I'm understanding
you correctly, there's there's absolutely something to it. So,
great question. I think that these phenomena are explained in
a lot of different ways. I think too many people want a catch all
explanation. Something that goes across the board explains
everything. It's all aliens, I
told you, haha, it's not going to happen. There's no clear,
single explanation. And again, that may be super obvious to
some of you. But it still surprises me that let's just say
and this goes into your question about electronic warfare again,
assuming that I understood you, right. Let's just deal with the
Nimitz. And I was interviewed for the Showtime special JJ
Abrams. Three, I think was three part series called UFO. And in
there talked about the possibility that we were dealing
with classified technology potentially classified
platforms. What if the guys on the Nimitz or whomever thought
that they were seeing something dropped from super high altitude
all the way down at a immense rate of speed? What if it just
wasn't there? Because if I remember correctly, I don't
think that there was a visual sighting on that aspect of the
case. But regardless, right, I mean, we have to have that as
part of the conversation, that if I believe it was PJ Hughes
saying that the Air Force came in and took the, the tapes from
from, from the, from the instrumentation there, why would
they? Why would they do that the Air Force has happened to have
been around. So there's a lot of unanswered questions there. And
even conflicting information that I think that we should look
at that keeps that type of explanation in play. Now, why
did I bring that up? Well, simple because I brought that
up, and then you get attacked from people saying, well, this
case can't be that and this case, can't be that it's like,
Why didn't say this case? Was that or that case? Was that?
That people I think, just operate off the mindset that if
you believe one case has an explanation, then you
immediately address everything. If you say one thing is a drone,
then you immediately are labeled, that you just put a
drone as everything and that you can't have that as part of the
conversation. You literally have to drill down into every case
every document every claim every everything and drill down to a
microscopic level to see what may or may not make sense. But
that doesn't mean that if it works for case A it's gonna work
for case B it did just just there's no connection there. And
we have to keep that in mind and I truly feel like sometimes I
make points like that. Or it's like God, John, like everybody's
going to agree with you. Why do you even waste the time. But
when you get involved with like the social media interactions,
I'm not talking about just twitter or just Facebook, but
rather, I like to communicate on a lot of different platforms,
because I learned a lot. But you see that a lot enough to where I
feel you need to waste the time and pointed out and kind of get
reminded, like, we just can't be in that mindset. So hopefully,
that helped out. Polly Ratterman. What do you think
about the latest leaked videos and photos from Virginia,
Brazil? Thank you. So I'm working on hopefully getting
James Fox on this channel. He's always a busy guy. I know that
so we've we've exchanged some messages. So I'd love to explore
what the claims are. I haven't seen any leaked videos yet. I
saw the leaked photograph that kind of, you know, made its
rounds a little bit on social media. It looked hooky from the
get go. And sure enough, like usually, if you just sit back
for about 20 minutes, the internet takes over and they
rounded it down to a screenshot from like our old older
recreation of the Virginia incident. So if that's the one,
you're referring to the photograph of the alien that
kind of look tied up and you see the big bulging eyes was just
simply from a recreation of an older show, and somebody posted
the screenshots. If there's something else I'm not privy to,
though, Polly feel free to to let me know, because I'm not I'm
not real. I'm not real sure that a video came out, but it could
very well have. I mean, there's so much that happens in this
topic that you can overlook quite a bit. Archangel Reese,
are you John, are you aware of the leaked Homeland Security
FLIR footage of rubber duck? Yeah.
Good question. It goes back. I think what like last year or
something like that, my connection to it was the guy
that brought it out, I had reached out, they were having
trouble disseminating the raw footage, like the uncompressed,
I have been running the black vault for 26 years, I've got
multiple dedicated servers, and whenever I can love to offer
help to those that are kind of struggling, passing around big
files. So I reached out and still host the rubber duck
footage, I think in the closest uncompressed format that I
could. Personally I don't think that it's a anything
extraordinary, sadly. And I mean, no disrespect, the guy
does not like me at all anymore. But I think that the source of
that is is not
not credible. So I don't And again, I always hate saying
stuff like that, because I don't want to come off as
disrespectful. But there's been a couple of videos now that are
just kind of questionable where they came from. They could just
be very explainable. But I just didn't see anything from that.
And the analysis of that from from various people out there
that really showed me Hey, you know, this is this is something
extraordinary. So, regardless, you could still download the
rubber duck footage, I invite anybody to do so offer your two
cents, if you're an Anala. You know, as an analyst, feel free
to post your analysis, if there's something that, you
know, other people missed, I'm always all for it. Chat, I'm a
little behind, obviously. So I'm kind of scrolling through the
all capital letters really helps me a lot. So I'm reading these
on the fly here. Can any underwater info underwater info
be discussed in the report? Or is it all classified? Well, when
the underwater UA, P, which, under underwater UFOs, I don't
know how you would term it because it's they're not flying
and they're not aerial but that phenomena underwater, which
clearly they are seeing, when it came up in the hearing, they
essentially pushed it to a classified or close session. So
will anything be in this report, your guess is as good as mine, I
have no idea. But the precedent that has been set is the detail
any detail for that matter about the underwater phenomena,
whatever that might be, is classified and they could not
say anything in that public hearing. So we'll see on Monday.
It's one of those things that would the way I described it the
other day was essentially anything can happen. And
whatever does happen, I will likely be surprised but have
expected it but can't believe that it happened and will be let
down you know like there's all these range of emotions is
likely all true, but all not. We just shouldn't be surprised at
anything anymore. So if it's in there, the underwater stuff is
in there. I wouldn't be surprised if it's in there
though. Like again, if it's in there, I would still be
surprised. I know that doesn't make sense. But it's like,
again, these things when they happen, it's like surprising,
but not, and then something else will happen. You're really
surprised to happen. But then it's like, Oh, I'm not really
surprised. So it adds to that confusion. And I know it sounds
crazy to say it that way. But it's just kind of the best way
that that I can term it. Sorry, going through the questions
here. Dobby Dazzler thank you for that super sticker. By the
way, for those who are listening on other platforms have no idea
what I'm referring to. On YouTube, there's something
called Super Chat. This is a way to support the channel. I do
point this out every time I do bring up the super chats. 100%
goes to the channel itself. I don't take anything for me
personally. It goes right back into the website. One thing
actually, just so you guys know what, what stuff like this goes
for. I'm going to be doing another video on this. But I
just recently posted the sixth and final release from NASA of
their internal communications about UAP. And there have been
some fascinating revelations that have come out of that,
about the UAP taskforce reaching out to NASA about
NASA Administrator Bill Nelson getting classified briefings
about how the fact that the classified stuff would be the
only stuff that would show Bill Nelson something that the public
material likely wouldn't I believe they they termed it
scratch his itch. So he wanted to know more about all of this.
And they essentially said the public report public material
was not going to be worthwhile. So it was a fascinating internal
look at what was going on through through various NASA
departments and personnel. I had kind of specifically targeted 10
or 12 different people, some of which were more, I don't wanna
say more important, but they were, they were more prevalent,
I guess, as the right word in the UAP conversation. So it was
fascinating to see all of that unfold. Another great fine that
came out of that was a paper by Dr. David Spergel, who all of
you guys have probably heard of by now. He's the chairman of the
UAP study effort by NASA. Well, well, before he was announced or
even became or probably was asked to do such a thing. He had
written a paper that from my view, had never been released
publicly before about UAP. And that also came out in the FOIA
request. So I'm going to be doing more of a deep dive video
in that I've already highlighted some of those documents on this
channel. But to go back to the super chats, that's what it goes
towards that bill for that alone was just shy of about $400. So
it was just one case, the next go around. And I'll have more on
this soon. I expect the bill to be higher. The case only took me
through about June or July of last year. So there has been now
another year and a half, which will include all of the material
on the run up to and then depending upon when some of this
is processed. The NASA UAP effort as it stands right now,
that next case, I envision will likely have more material with a
bigger bill. So the Super Chat, everything that you guys give
goes right to that. So didn't mean to get long winded. But I
also like to show you guys I really appreciate it. And that's
why all of you benefit from it. And I literally do show the
receipts just so you know, I'm not making it up. On the on the
NASA page, you'll see the receipt for the $400. So you
know when they say you show the receipts, I literally do that
for you guys. So thank you for all of those who have done the
super chats. I see some more coming up here in the chat. So
I'll I'll definitely get to those. I just want to get to as
many questions and comments as I can. Richard Wolff Richard,
thank you. Thank you John, for all the info on your hard work.
We really do appreciate it. Thank you Richard. I do
appreciate your support of the channel thank you and forgive
the pauses This is a huge chat with all all the people talking
right now. So try and get through the video or excuse me
get through to the questions how Hi John, where's this
explanation slash video analysis proven go fast was only
traveling at 30 miles an hour? That's a That's a great
question. And hold on. I just shut my window. There it is. I'm
gonna pull this back up. For those who may have joined late,
one of the videos referred to as go fast. That's when you're
asking right because I got a confused before when I was
talking about gimbal and go fast appears to show an object moving
in immense speed but in an analysis by the military says
that it is an illusion created by the angle of observation
against water. According to Pentagon calculations, the
object is moving only about 30 miles per hour. So where is
that? It's a great question, Stephen. We don't know. It. It
insinuates from the New York Times that either in the
classified world in the classified setting, per their
sub headline, or in the public report, let's say that their
sources, the New York Times the sources have some knowledge
about what's going to be in the public report. Maybe they will
publish it, then I'm not saying that it's a they did a video
analysis. And maybe I just misread, so analysis of the
video, not necessarily a video of the analysis. I don't know
what we'll see. But my guess is, if that's what they're gonna do,
they will destroy, you know, what has circulated in the
public realm now for five years or so. And they're just going to
say, you know, this is easily explainable. So if they do
explain it, hopefully, they will have something that is
verifiable, that there's some type of math or some type of
something that got them to that conclusion. Now, for those who
might say, well, it could be classified. So they'll just give
the the summary why I don't believe that that will be true.
And that they'll be able to release everything is, according
to them the go fast video, in how it leaked, but then later
was officially released. It is the only version that exists. So
there is nothing else that they can add, according to them
unless they change that tune. But according to them, we have
what they have. So if they're doing math calculations, visual
imagery, tweaking whatever goes into their analyses, what they
can do, they can show us, I don't believe there's any
classified analysis software that they can put this in where
they can't show us. So that likely won't be a video
breakdown, show and tell. But if they can maybe show some type of
a report, or analysis, I think that that would go a long way.
Doesn't mean all endorse it. But at least we'll have something
that we can verify.
All right. I mean, Michael Harkness if we keep eating the
BS, they've been feeding us, then they will keep feeding it
to us. Everybody always forgets this has been happening for
decades. Hello, before any of us could even fly. You're right,
Michael. I don't think everybody though, buys that hook, line and
sinker. So I don't think that at all. But I think it then is
going to come down to the media, will people like Julian Barnes
go beyond their reporting. And I don't fault him for reporting on
the government stance. I don't claim to be a journalist. I
don't tout to being a journalist. But I like to follow
those standards when I do writing. And that being said, I
like in what he's going through right now. To what I go through,
if I publish a statement by let's say, Susan golf, and I
can't tell you the vitriol that comes along with it. Like how
could you publish? Susan golf? Well, publishing something isn't
an endorsement. And when you're doing a story on something, and
Susan Goff is the voice for the Pentagon, how do you not do
that, then you become just a biased journalist, that you have
to go there. So if his job here was to essentially cover the
stance of the US government leading up to this next UAP
report, I won't fault him for that. If the if the report comes
out, and and and, again, lays the claim that a lot of these
are foreign surveillance systems and trash. I'm not going to
follow Julian Barnes for that, or the New York Times. And I'll
stress again, like I pointed out early on in this broadcast,
you're taught you're looking at somebody who literally has torn
apart some of the New York Times reporting on this very topic,
but in the same respect, if he's accurate here, I'm not blaming
him or the New York Times. It's the US government. So based on
evidence, armed with evidence, let's go back at the US
government in the military and counter what they claim. But if
if you go after the journalist, I mean, that's silly. If they're
just again, reporting on what they're reporting on there,
they're there. They're taking a story and showing you what the
government is essentially gonna say. So is there a bias and
Julian Barnes's reporting sure I'm we can look at some of his
word choices and stuff like that fine. I mean, I that I really
don't care. About because again, facts stand on their own. So you
can have a bias journalist. But as long as they're reporting the
facts, you can at least zero those out with this, if this is
the stance of the US government stopped with the name calling of
Julian Barnes and the New York Times, you know, let's just
figure out what the government is going to say on Monday or
whenever that report comes out, and then go from there. If the
report comes out on Monday, and I want to say this, too, because
I don't think I have. If the report comes out on Monday and
completely contradicts Julian Barnes here, you better believe
that I will absolutely challenge that. And go hey, man, like
what's, what's up with that? Probably not those words or
tone, but I will absolutely reach out and say, hey, you
know, you reported all this stuff based on your your
anonymous sources. The report really doesn't reflect the same
tone, what's up with that and kind of go from there. That's
what I did with Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kane, I got their
feedback on the removal of Senator Harry Reid along with
some of the other corrections in their article. Again, in the
interest of fairness, what happened? What why, well, how
did this happen? Why is it going on? Same here, I'm not going to
trash this until there's reason to trash it. I'm also not going
to endorse it until there's reason to endorse it. It just is
what it is. The New York Times despite horrible having a
horrible track record on some stories. It's still the New York
Times and I wouldn't doubt the Julian Barnes has the sources
that he claims. I hate the fact that they're anonymous, but it
is what it is I got to deal with what's in front of me. So there
you go. Jack O'Neill John now that it is likely to be
confirmed its foreign drones. Do you think the Elizondo melon
flavor graves etc crowd crowd will quiet down. Graves on the
Joe Rogan podcast sounded unconvincing. So, first of all,
I think a lot of those names that you mentioned kind of have
quieted down a little bit. Christopher Mellon, I would
argue, has seen a little bit more in the last month or two,
doing some interviews. But that was likely all stemming from the
appearance that he did overseas at a conference. Louise Elizondo
has largely disappeared, at least from his main Twitter
account.
You know, he said that that was planned. So I'm not really sure.
I mean, he has surfaced a couple of times to address what we'll
just simply label as drama on the social media platform, which
I'm always surprised to see, which is kind of silly. Oh, I'm
seeing some spam in there. Sorry, for the YouTubers that
are seeing that. You know, he's he's largely disappeared from
the conversation, which is too bad. I know that it was reported
he was contracting on classified programs not confirmed to be
UAP. I know that that's the assumption by many. But for us,
SpaceForce that came out. I've been pushing pretty regularly to
try and, you know, find out what what is he doing? But it's not
too surprising. They're just not giving me that or anybody else.
I know that I'm not the only one pushing for that, because
everybody wants to know, is he doing any UAP work for the Space
Force? And we just don't We don't have that answer. So that
said, maybe he's busy doing that, and maybe we'll see him
surface again. I the first part of your what you're saying there
that it's likely to be confirmed as foreign drones? I don't think
that that's the catch all? I really don't I think that that's
part of the conversation. But I don't think that's a catch all.
I don't think that excuse me, I don't think that that what we're
dealing with is primarily going to be foreign drones. And again,
I want to stress like that's absolutely part of the
conversation there likely are going to be cases that are
foreign drones that can be solved with that. There will
probably be cases with classified technology that will
likely be lied to about half. We don't know what this is. But in
reality, they really do. Yes, they lie about stuff like that
area. 51 is a prime example the time hasn't changed when it
comes to national security. So if it's in their best interest
to lie, I truly believe that they will lie. So it's not a
catch all. It's part of the conversation. And depending upon
this report, will will that crowd you know, go quiet down I
just with what I've already said I think I think they'll just
kind of keep pushing forward. I do think Christopher Mellon has
a very genuine I think he has a genuine interest in this and the
transparency to go along with it. But recently saw some
comments by him that made me scratch my head and question
that a little bit but I still want to be a positive outlook on
Christopher Mellon and his interest in transparency when it
comes to this flavor has kind of largely disappeared, I haven't
seen him do something in quite some time. And Ryan Graves,
obviously just on the Joe Rogan podcast, which is probably going
to light up everybody to contact him for interviews. So I think
some of these names you likely may not hear from again, but
we're already seeing that while others will probably stick
around in the conversation and, and continue on. Alright,
scrolling through here. See some repeat questions that I think
I've already answered?
Bruce Wayne, Batman in the house, Bruce, it's always good
to see you. Do you think our government actually knows what
this is? Well, it's a million dollar question, Bruce. And to
be honest with you, I think that there are different answers. And
I believe comfortably, that I could say that the military and
government doesn't have them all. I believe that there still
is a mystery to some of this. So with that, does that instantly
mean it's alien? No. Again, I just always say that in case
some people want to misconstrue what I say not you, Bruce, but
others that may not be familiar with with kind of my stance on a
lot of things. But I think that there's there's mystery enough
for the government and military to put money into this, I think
that there is a level of of mystery, I think in the same
respect, there is a counter intelligence value. So they do
know what it is they do know what the bottom line is, but
they're going to use it, they're going to use it to their
advantage. They're going to use it for counterintelligence
purposes against their enemies. And I think that they will use
it against the American people. That doesn't mean it's a
malicious use, but rather have it as a tool to shield other
things, because I think those classified platforms would be
involved in a part of this conversation. So long winded way
of saying I think it's a little bit of yes in and know that,
that they do to a point know what part of this is, but they
also have an aspect of it that they don't. So hopefully that
answered your question there Batman.
Project Monarch, Monarch truth seeker. Have you ever gotten
anything on Project Monarch? Give me one second here. And let
me before I misspeak.
So on quick glance at the site, because I use that site, just
like everyone else does for reference. Monarch is ringing a
bell in my head, but I don't want to take a guess because I
don't know off the top of my head. I looked for a page on it.
I don't have one specifically. But let me get back to you Mark.
And, and see. Writing it down. So I don't forget. And let me
see. I again, don't want to take a guess. I think I know what
you're talking about. But it quick glance on my side. I don't
see that I've posted anything publicly on it. Wolfie 250 Thank
you. Would you encourage prior service members to reach out to
you about potential FOIA ideas, ie people who are part of the
2015 tr Strike Group? Yes, absolutely. I'm not interested
in classified information, those in the past that have reached
out to me know that. And I always make that clear, when
people do reach out. I'm an advocate for transparency, but
respect secrecy. So I don't want anybody spilling that. But
absolutely, the reason why people should reach out and even
if it's not me, just anybody that can help is that getting
that verifiable information, whether it be from a tip, or
whether it be to support a pub public story, so if they wanted
to come out, or they already came out, if they have certain
details that potentially can be utilized for a FOIA request?
Absolutely, I support that 150,000% I have always tried to
pay attention. This is why I communicate on a lot of
different social media platforms to kind of pick up on people
that do have inside knowledge to appoint I think there's majority
of people that have quote unquote, inside knowledge have
nothing of the sort that that we call them LARPers la RP, live
action role players or role playing games that they kind of
LARP this that that they go on there and pretend to know things
and you'll see that I in my opinion, most prevalent on
Twitter, so you have that aspect to try and weed through all of
the BS when it comes along with those types that are involved in
this conversation. cuz they're just, you know, they're playing
a game they want to have people think that they're someone that
they're not. I think this has been proven quite a few times.
But in the same respect, there are a select few that actually
do have knowledge. They're not here to tell you about aliens,
and that Roswell was real, and they're blown over blown open
some huge, you know, secret, but rather, they have inside
knowledge enough to kind of tip Give, give tips or give
pointers, and I always try and pay attention for stuff like
that. And stuff has periodically panned out over the years. This
isn't somebody with, like, inside knowledge, insider
knowledge in the way that I think a lot of people think of
it, but rather on Reddit. I think it was about a year ago,
somebody had posted an FAA UFO sighting. And there was a
connection there. Well, if anything to do with the FAA,
something's FOIA bowls, and I went after it. And sure enough,
got the cockpit recordings, air traffic control log stuff like
that verified. Yeah, something was actually seen, it later
turned out to be Starlink. But but the entire point here is
that when you pay attention, you can start going after things
that has now happened a few other times, where I have cases
that I don't believe are Starlink, with the FAA, and
hopefully those will, we'll come out with something. So you
always try and pay attention to stuff like that, that are posted
not necessarily directly at you, but are out there. It's just
unfortunate that the majority of what's out there is just bunk
and people essentially playing a game and wanting others to think
hey, you know, I'm at the Department of Defense, I work in
intelligence. I'm this I'm that. And it's literally not anything
close to that. And it's just, I'm sorry, most of the people
and I think I would comfortably say most all of them. Very few
very few. There are a couple but very few would come out and
start using social media and start saying I'm why work in
counterintelligence I, I'm, I'm in the Pentagon as we speak. I
don't think that that's how that works. I think that some are out
there. And again, I know there are it's, yeah, there's some,
but the majority of people making those claims now it's,
it's all bunk. So going back to your question, yeah, please
reach out. I'm happy to help when it comes to the
unclassified stuff. Forgive me just going through, man, I think
I'm way behind. So forgive me guys. I'm doing my best here.
And Brian, with super sticker support. Thank you. I truly
appreciate that.
Why do you think this is from div D IV? Why do you think the
do E or Department of Energy hasn't been asked to provide
information. And I'll be honest with you and say, I believe that
they have and I believe that that they are going to be part
of the conversation to a point I think they're going to pull
quite a bit. In their resources reach out to everybody, the DOE
in different offices has UAP related information, some of
which were were connected to a nuclear installation, Cooper
nuclear facility is one that sticks out off the top of my
head, that that was a brand new case never been revealed before.
Security Guard saw multiple UFOs, two different nights,
multiple witnesses, visual observations, all sorts of stuff
on into this. So I'm looking at the report, I pulled it off
screen for you guys. But even though the DoD is not
contributing to the report last year, I think enough has
transpired since then, to probably get them involved in
the conversation. If after Monday, if the report comes out,
and they have a page like this that lists all of the
contributors to the report. If if it has that and DOE is still
not in it. Then I then I'd love to revisit your question. If
it's in there, though. I wouldn't be surprised because
again, I think they're really trying to give the optics that
they are reaching out to everybody. But it was yeah, it
was a little bit surprising that last year, it was not it was not
something that they that they contributed to, meaning the DOE
Oh, I see there's some repeats so Okay, so I'm probably wildly
behind to 12 Alright, so I'm getting there. 15 minutes or so
hopefully I'm not skipping too many here. Kay cage Snyder.
John, did you get the follow up on the UFO logo taken down? Kate
I'm going to be honest with you off the top of my head that
doesn't sound familiar, but I will definitely look for For
those who don't know what Kate's talking about, I did a video
breaking down the UFO that appeared on the on the seal for
the NIMH aviation, and then later disappeared. Kind of a
cool story, I don't really have a full answer to advocate, I'll
look for the follow up, feel free to email me all the contact
forms on the blackbaud.com go directly to me. Let me block
this spammer if I haven't already. Sorry, guys, it's how
you know you're getting somewhere when you get
completely obliterated with spam on there. I do have a couple of
moderators on YouTube, I'm not sure if they're here today. I
don't coordinate with them. So it's kind of a crapshoot on if
they can help me out. And I always always, I'm so thankful
when they do. B Jones, thank you for a balanced report and
presentation, why aren't the pilots engaging the drones?
Well, thank you for the kind words, I'm glad you enjoyed it,
why aren't they engaging the drones? To be honest with you, I
don't know if we can comfortably say that yet. There's a lot of
things that go into when a pilot engages, there are rules of
engagement, especially when you're in a training. You know,
like a training program, if you're on US soil, you know, you
don't necessarily start engaging everything, you got to wait for
orders. And again, it kind of all ties back to a rules of
engagement, that there are certain rules for them to arm a
missile to fire back to engage to chase to, to alter course,
and so on. But I can't say that we have or have not, I think
that there's a lot of cases here that have not seen the light of
day, we've brushed over a couple for the public report last year.
Obviously, we're aware of a couple others in the hearing.
But those were like, you know, quick food past a cockpit. And
then the most humorous part of that UFO UAP hearing was them
trying to like stop the frame that the UAP object was, you
know, captured on on video. But again, they you know, they
struggled and they were doing this for a couple of minutes
from what I remember. But my whole point with that is a lot
of these encounters, they're not sitting there watching them for
20 minutes to engage. But rather, they're just very quick.
But I'm going to again, stress that we have not seen
everything.
So we can't really say they have or have not engaged until they
start opening up those files. But I would likely say that that
may not happen. And the reason is, is when you get into
engagement, you now are potentially getting into a
situation with an act of war. So if you have a Chinese drone, F
18 sees it engages it even fires at it. If that's Chinese
technology, you're talking about firing on another country that
we're not at war at war with. So there's a lot of factors, again,
that go into these these types of things, and very, very hard
to answer that simply because we don't have all of the all of the
files, nor will we likely. Oh, I love comments like these. I have
to pull it up, resonate. The FOIA is not going to tell you
much blacked out pages are often misleading. Oh, man, I'm the
wrong person to say this too. And here's why. Even though I
profiled the blacked out redacted pages, I can tell you
some of the biggest discoveries to support that UAP are
something that we should investigate come from FOIA. It
didn't come from the UAP hearing. It didn't come from the
public report, but rather through FOIA and the MDR
process. When you look at the classified version of the UAP
report. There was much more to show there. Now granted, there
were redactions. But when you start looking at the revelations
that you can sometimes get from those redactions and the
information that's not redacted. That all is thanks to FOIA. All
of the documents through decades of documents not allegedly
existing about UAP, it was FOIA that showed us they do. It was
also FOIA that showed that there is technology here being
displayed by both instrumentation and visual
observation, that defy explanation at this point. That
doesn't mean alien, but it does mean that that we have no
explanation for it. That's thanks to FOIA. Those didn't get
handed out by the CIA, but rather it was it was FOIA that
showed us that I can only speak for myself obviously here but
when you talk about interest that doesn't go away with with
irrefutable evidence, it was FOIA that brought me that
interest. It wasn't books by people. It wasn't somebody
claiming an experience. It wasn't Luis Elizondo, no offense
to his fans out there, but rather it was the documentation
and the evidence that came out through FOIA. And it wasn't
blacked out across the board, you look at the 1976 arann
incident, and the fact that it wasn't blacked out at all. And
you look at that case, and you realize how extraordinary that
event really was, again, not to beat the dead horse, not saying
it's alien, but rather whatever it was, was something that to
this day, has no adequate explanation, that to this day,
no one can definitively identify. And it was the NSA
that produced additional information that was at one time
classified, showing that the United States Air Force captain
saw that case and said, This is something pretty rare in in a
pilot's life, but it's something that we should look at. It was
FOIA that brought that out. So you look at what FOIA really has
done. And it's not just the redactions that tell the story.
It's an extraordinary tool that is highly underrated,
to people out there. And I think that the underrated label comes
from and I'm not speaking at you directly, but sometimes comes
from people that in the same breath of trashing FOIA, are
waiting for the government to hand them the answers, that
they're saying that the politicians that somehow are
always honest, are the ones pushing for answers. And that
will get us what we what we are looking for, and FOIA will not.
But when you look at how the politicians operate outside of
the UAP arena, what's really fascinating, and I just saw this
a couple of weeks ago, again, reinforcing this belief that
Rand Paul, Senator Rand Paul was trying to get information. This
is unrelated to UAP. But trying to get information on something
and could not as a sitting US senator, what do you think he
turned to when the agency he was trying to get information was
stonewalling him? FOIA. So the sitting senator couldn't get
what he needed, he turned to FOIA to get it. That is not
indicative. The FOIA is not going to tell you something
that's indicative that it is a incredibly powerful tool that
even a sitting senator with the power that they have, when they
cannot extract information because they are a sitting
senator, if they can't, FOIA is what they turn to. So my whole
point, don't trash it, because history and evidence shows you
should. So hopefully, that gave you a little bit. All right,
hold on. I'm catching up here. I'm catching up.
All right, RJ W el Singa. Are there factions in US Intel
organizations fighting over disclosure slash secrecy? That's
the rumor. I think that that always with any topic, you're
going to have some kind of difference of opinion on what
should or should not be classified or declassified. So
in that respect, I think that you you will have that
infighting and those factions involved. So no disagreement
there. But that's just conjecture. There's nothing
verifiable that we can see like, this team is fighting this team
to try and get UFO information out there while the other is
trying to hold it back. No real evidence of that. Or at least
not yet. Just rumors so won't be surprising that you have that
level of debate but not necessarily proof that there's
these warring factions on the inside. Alright, so good.
Finally some blocked spammers. And sorry about that guys.
Oh, I don't want to put you on the spot. But Aaron, you have
nothing to worry about. Thank you for your help by the way of
moderating the channel now we all have work and jobs.
Hopefully you didn't get offended by me saying that
sometimes you guys aren't here. Please I never tell you when I'm
doing this. I just trust you guys and gave you the mod
privileges whenever you are here. So you guys are the best
that to help out so thank you for that all these comments I
was getting a kick out of Justin I assume you're asking about
what comments from Elon the ones that are making me scratch my my
head a little bit. There was one let me see if I can find it real
quick. Again, these live shows sometimes again, I'm kind of
flipping around trying to find certain things so let me see if
I can find none. We're gonna have to cut it a little bit
short.
All no Missy depends on how much he posts on. I believe it was
Grant Cameron that posted this. And I'm not finding a quick
glance. Tell you what, I will find it.
Yeah. Try one more thing. And for those of you who can hear
sonar dog back there, she is still kicking. Here it is. Oh,
come on. Alright, let me share this. Sure I'm not sharing
anything, man. I have to use what's called knitter.net. For
those of you who don't know what this is, I just want to make
sure no, nothing popped up on this. I use this because it
allows me to search a little bit easier if you're not familiar
with with knitter dotnet. So it's kind of like a way to
search across Twitter, you could do it on Twitter itself. But
this is a little bit easier interface. Okay, so grant
Cameron, everybody thinks it's about disclosure. So here is I
don't think I can get it to zoom in. But let me see. It's a
little bit better. So this is from Mellon's. Real recent
interview, I think it's called exopolitics. Forgive me, I
forget exactly the the name of the show. But he asks, so all
the information that will be collected will be classified.
What's the benefit for the rest of the world besides the US,
Christopher Mellon, it's not being done for the benefit of
the world. Follow up, it's being done for the benefit of the
United States. He says it's been done for national security of
the United States. So for me, it didn't, I want to pull the full
interview and see the context. But this is what I was talking
about earlier that there were some kind of veering away from
that transparency, because, again, there could be additional
context here that I'm just kind of missing. But even grant
Cameron thinks like, oh, a lot of this is about disclosure. And
I think that we're seeing this from not only Christopher
Mellon, but a couple of others, that we assume that that's what
they've been going for transparency, leading to a
disclosure of some kind. But I've long argued it doesn't seem
like that it doesn't seem like that at all, actually. And in
these types of comments, this was just it was just weird the
way that it was worded. So that's what I was briefly
alluding to, but at least here's a little bit more of that. But
in, in full fairness to Christopher Mellon, maybe there
is more context in the broader scope. So I definitely want to,
you know, get in and dissect that a little bit. I just think
that there's some things involved in this conversation
that are unanswered. And I think that certain people are viewed
in certain ways, and are given a label that isn't accurate. But
the internet kind of takes over and creates a character out of a
real person. And the character isn't accurate. And so I hope
that makes sense. But I think that certain people, again, are
just kind of viewed as doing certain things or having certain
views. But when you really like look into it, and really dissect
what's going on, and what they say and what they've done in the
past. It doesn't really bear that out. So yeah, I hope that
makes sense. Like sometimes it's hard to explain, I just think
that there's different faces for people out there. And I think
that sometimes it's not even that they're trying to have the
different face. But rather, the internet just kind of takes over
and creates the hero. And I think that that whole LARP thing
that I was talking about about it being a game, when you look
at that conversation, I'm not saying this is true for
everybody. But when you look at the conversation, it's very true
that there are characters here that there are good guys and bad
guys, that there are the true heroes in the story. But
sometimes, maybe those those labels aren't deserved. And I
think that that that it's the creation of those kind of alter
egos, that doesn't help the conversation either. And I'm not
saying that that is by the fault of either Christopher Mellon or
Luis Elizondo, whomever that's been mentioned here, but rather,
it just happens and people assume certain parts of the
puzzle, and then to them, it becomes true. And then they'll
assume other certain parts of the puzzle and then to them, it
becomes true. And in the end, you have somebody that is highly
regarded, and even though they may ish, and should be highly
regarded. The reason why the regarded isn't really accurate.
So you have kind of that, again, multiple characters, multiple
faces for multiple people. And that's nothing new by the way.
Do you think there could be a new propulsion system that
requires weapons grade uranium and plutonium? And without
these, you can't reproduce the required energy? Wow. pugger 21?
That's a killer question. You know, I
will be honest, I don't have the background to start talking
about advanced propulsion systems. I've received quite a
few documents through FOIA. Even Dr. Eric Davis wrote some on
advanced propulsion systems that I've got on the black vault,
that you're more than welcome to read. But I just would not be
qualified to start getting into that. I only laugh because I
just don't have that background. So there's no way I can even
pretend to answer that.
Pressing, I'm not a LARPer. I've certainly had real things
happen. And Preston, I wasn't likely referring to you in this.
And that's what's hard. That's what gets uncomfortable about
certain aspects of these conversations. And I'm glad I
stumbled on your comment. No way do I want people to walk away
from from this channel or the show thinking that I think
everybody's playing a game? I don't? Sadly, there are people
that are some do it for self gratification that they want to
sit there and pretend that you know that they're some kind of,
you know, secret government person that knows a lot. You
don't but I'll tweet about it. There are others that Yeah, I
think may claim experiences that they know they didn't have. And
then there are ones that actually have had experiences.
And that's where the conversation gets uncomfortable,
because it's the same thing about labeling UAP and trying to
define what it is. There's no across the board answer. So the
across the board answer with go into the LARPer. That doesn't
describe everybody. The problem, though, is that it describes
enough people that make it an issue, it makes it part of the
conversation, something that we have to deal with. And, and so
again, to your comments, I hope you didn't think that that's
what I meant. But on the contrary, it is stories that
likely I don't know your backstory, and I don't know you,
but it's likely what you've experienced, that I'm more
interested in rather that person who wants to sell you something,
because somebody is telepathically sending them
messages about something, they can't tell you details of it.
But if you buy their book for three easy installments of 3999,
you too can unlock the secrets, or pay $6,000 to go camping. And
I'll show you the secrets of the universe. So you can communicate
with aliens. Those are the people that I think are
problematic to the conversation, which hurts people like yourself
that have had genuine experiences that are not here
for fame and fortune. But rather you want to understand, and
that's where I get fired up about it simply because the
drowning out of the important voices is happening. And I
believe that the and that's when it comes to experiences in the
same respect. The genuine interest from a lot of people in
the public is starting to be drowned out in a different way.
People getting discouraged is exactly in my opinion, if there
is this massive cover up, which I believe if they create such a
muddy pit of mess, it will get a lot of people to just give up
and quit and go away and forget the conversation because they're
so frustrated that in a way is drowning out them as well. And
that's where I get fired up because we don't need that we
need those voices involved we need the people that have the
genuine interest that want to know more, we shouldn't get to a
point where we get so frustrated we just say forget it and go
away. And also we need those that have had the genuine
experiences that aren't trying to put a price tag on it that
aren't trying to you know sell you something in exchange for
for cosmic changing information. But rather they should be a part
of this and not be hindered in the process. So hopefully that
explained a little bit more I'm glad I saw your comment because
it gave me a chance to clarify Alright give me I'm still
catching up here
all right, RJ W L singer again do you feel Do you feel you are
really getting closer to the truth over the years hope so.
I'm not sure if that was directed to me. But if it was
I'll take a stab at it anyway. Yes, I believe I believe
whatever the truth may be I'm not here to pretend that I that
I know it. But every document every photograph, every video,
every letter, every experience, every redaction every phone call
that I get it all gets us closer. I don't think there's
there's The ability for me to one day ever tell you what the
truth is, I think a lot of people have to understand that
the truth sometimes is, is something that they're going to
have to figure out for themselves. I'm not here to tell
you what to believe, or what the truth is, I can just tell you
what the evidence is. At the end, it's kind of up to you all,
but it's to decide for yourselves. But when it comes to
getting closer to whatever that is, absolutely, I mean, I
honestly think every step you take, you get closer to it.
Where we go backwards is when people give up, where we go
backwards is where people are drowned out. And that's that's
one thing that I always advocate to stay away from. But we are
getting there. Hopefully. Something big is coming. Yes. I
have a hurtin if I've had a nickel for every time I heard
something big is coming. Some more tweets just today, like oh,
just wait, guys, big things are coming. I have no idea. Robert
George, Ugh, why am I never notified until the end of John's
live content. So frustrating? Robert? Well, I'm frustrated
too, for you. Just make sure that the notifications are
turned on. If you guys are watching on other social media
platforms, just know YouTube is definitely the way to watch
this, simply because that is 100%, the busiest chat part of
this, which is I know what a lot of the draw is for these live
streams. So just go to the black vault.com/live, that'll bounce
you to the YouTube channel and make sure you turn the
notifications on that way you guys can get notified. The
minute I click the camera on, it sends, you know, sends a message
to you guys that I'm that I'm live. Let me see. Do is
indicated in the con Congress annual bill of UA PTF. Yeah, I
off the top of my head I I can't really keep all the
congressional language, you know, verbatim in my head. But I
know that as they reform a lot of their processes, especially
since the June report of last year, you know, I'd be surprised
if DoD wasn't in the conversation. Mars, first off,
thank you for the support of the channel, I am surprised that
people are not worried about the thought of one of these hidden
programs making a breakthrough and using this newfound
technology for themselves. The amount of power if real can
corrupt the best person? That's true.
So when you say so I'm not entirely sure what you mean by
this where the classified program finds a breakthrough and
they use it for themselves? Are you talking about a rogue group
of people using that technology for themselves? Are you talking
about America as a whole that find something and utilizes it
for themselves? If it's the latter, I mean, I think that
that is a part of this conversation that if they are
reverse engineering, something, whatever that may be whomever
made the technology, but if they have this mystery, this this
technology that they capture, it's unidentified, but then
later, reverse engineer it and exploit it. That is something
that I think they will do. And I think that it's something that
they will likely exploit. And I'll show you what I mean by
that, to kind of prove the point. This is a security
classification guide. It's something I've talked about this
on this channel quite a bit. But when we talk about the
technology, and what is there, let me bring it up on the
screen. This is essentially what defines the secrecy behind UAP.
This was a big score. I've said it before I'll say it again, I
think this is one of the more important documents that I've
gotten Mars, I'm going to go ahead and take your comments off
screen just so it can. So I can view it here. Oh, come on. Here
we go. This defines the secrecy behind UAP. And you can see here
intelligence collection, exploitation, analysis and
products, this word exploitation is up for interpretation. But
why I wanted to pull this up is that whatever exploitation means
in the context of this, it is being attributed to UAP. So they
are exploiting it to some level what that is, I don't know, to
your question about using the technology for themselves.
Again, that's where I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that, but
at least I wanted to show you that when it comes to
exploitation and UAP they are doing so and then how they kind
of break all that down as all classified. Be one is now
Shanell security. So they don't want to tell you how they're
exploiting it. But they are. And that is something that we have
to remember that no matter what the root of this is, they are
exploiting this technology somewhere, some somehow and in
some way, how that is I'm not sure. When we find out Monday, I
highly doubt it. Oh, this is always a fun topic. I won't go
into it too much here. If there's one species of aliens,
there must be many, many. Yep. Absolutely. It's always fun to,
to talk about stuff like that. Alien science must be far, far
beyond all ours. Yeah, if if they're coming to our neck of
the woods, they've got to be a million plus Headstart, which
then brings up that question, would they care about talking to
us, but we'll save that for another day. We'll be
interesting to see how Leslie Kane react to this. Absolutely.
Obviously, this video was more of a hot take and kind of a
quick put together of what's going on with the New York
Times. But yeah, I'd love for her to comment. I mean, I think
it's important, although I again, feel that there were a
lot of holes in that story. And it was kind of a mess. If she
truly feels that they vetted it. And the editorial board at New
York Times, essentially endorsed the publishing of it. I know,
from a journalistic standpoint, they are putting the claim on
the claimant. So it's Dr. Eric Davis. But I mean, you can't
just go the New York Times and say whatever without them going.
Okay, well, we need to verify something, regardless of if them
if they print that they have to verify it in some way for them
to feel comfortable to put their masthead above it. So what's
going on here? You know, was there any type of vetting did
they have free? Free ranges do whatever they want? I don't
know. But I think that that the hopefully that they will
comment, party boy Patti name checks out based on your on your
comment, John's drinking straight vodka. Just kidding. I
wish. But no, I don't drink on the air because I'll say
something stupid. Or I should say stupid earlier than what I
always say. I'm always flooding up something. But as you can
probably tell by that, not a vodka drinker. Oh, I thought
somebody was gonna come into my door.
That is sometimes the joys of the black vault live streaming
is that you never know what's gonna bus oops, bus through that
door right there. One of the first times I did a live stream
my wife came busting through she thought I was dead. Because she
was texting. I didn't text back. I didn't have my phone. Now I
learned to keep my phone near me. But I was doing a live
stream on the first behind the scenes. I think it was. And long
story short. She kept texting. I wasn't texting back. She thought
something happened. She comes busting through that door. Are
you okay? And I was live on the air and there was quite a few
people watching. So one of those things you never know. But
anyway, no vodka. That's that's a Scotch bottle right there. But
I don't drink it on there. Let me see. We're gonna have to wind
this up. Pretty quick here. But I'll take some more. Frank's
legato. Thank you so much for that. I think the key question
on this topic that to my knowledge hasn't yet been
addressed? Have UAP been detected in space? So from?
Okay, so there's a couple of ways to address this when it
comes to an official version of giving an answer to that. I
don't think that there's been any kind of Yes, UAP have been
detected in space. But there have been numerous cases of NASA
film footage and stuff like that, that have been that have
been captured. Sorry about that. This is another joy of life.
Okay, so I'm gonna have to wrap this up pretty quick. Sorry, we
have a sick kid, sadly. So I'm gonna have to break it. She's
okay. My daughter, though four had to come home early from
school yesterday. So forgive me for that. Little sidetrack.
Daddy emergency. So, let me go back to your question. So
there's no official version of that UAP in space. But I can say
that there have been those numerous videos and NASA
encounters that lack any explanation whatsoever. So that
is something that arguably to your question, you can say yes,
I mean, it's unidentified, there are objects that are obscene
flying around, you know, STS 48 is one of them. STS 75 is
another 48 Were the ones with everything was going all over
the place. And arguably some people argue there was a space
weapon that was fired. 75 was the tether incident where these
allegedly big big objects were seen by going passing behind
this long tether that broke. So all of those types of cases you
know, they stack up. And of course, you can dissect them one
by one, and try and get to it. But when it comes to an official
word not yet, will that be in the next one? Is that why NASA
is involved? Will they come out with something? I you know, who
knows? I'm not really sure. But but we will definitely see Gary
for the vodka fund. Great job, John. Thank you. I appreciate
that. I really do appreciate it, Gary. Thank you. And with that,
I do have to I do have to end this. Red Panda. Thank you for
this. Cheers, John. Hopefully the report is better than the
New York Times article, any recommendations on how to
prevent Condon committee to? That's a great question. And we
are going to have to probably shelve that for when the report
is out. Let's see the tone of it. Let's see where we're going
to go with it, and see if that's where we're headed. I do
recommend if you missed it to go check out the article I wrote in
2020. And then the video that I did early in 2021, where I
talked about that road to the Condon committee, so I hope not.
But is there anything we can do? Probably not. John, is there any
way for you to reach out to Lou Elizondo, and make him part of
your team as you work to make the government more transparent
on the UFO topic? Sadly, some stuff happened behind the scenes
that that likely would not happen. I generally don't have a
team, in fact, ever. You're looking at the entire black
vault. I don't have anything personally against Lou Elizondo,
in fact, I liked the guy. But sadly, some stuff was said
behind the scenes that he decided to make public that
we're, you know, not entirely the the team in the team spirit,
I guess, you can say. But anyway, the ball is in his
court. And, you know, he wants to chat. I'm always here. But
some stuff was said that isn't cool. And done.
All right. I think that that caught me up. But guys, I'm so
sorry that I can't believe how many messages were on here. So I
apologize. I know I missed something. Well, over 500 At the
peak, we're watching at any given time during the stream.
That's awesome. I love seeing those numbers. Hopefully, I came
through with you guys for the information, y'all learned at
least one or two things. But I do appreciate it. And that said,
I will update you guys, when that report drops. I'm thinking
about doing if the timing works, a live stream when that happens.
And we'll go go from there. Just kind of see what happens. I'm
sure there's going to be a lot that goes down from all sorts of
corners once that thing drops. But I guess time will tell. That
said Have a wonderful weekend, everybody. Thank you so much for
joining me on a Friday afternoon. little over two
hours, actually. So for those who have been here through the
whole the whole two hours, thank you for that. For those who
joined thereafter, really do appreciate your support. Of
course, all of the super chats, as I mentioned, go right back
into the channel. And if you watch the post version, and it's
not live, there are comments in order the I forget what they
call it, but like a comment where you can support the
channel as well. So I try and find those and answer any more
questions that I have. Feel free to put the questions that I that
I missed in the comments below. And of course, the biggest,
biggest help is to just liking and sharing these videos,
spreading the word. let other people know this channel exists.
That's it. Thank you guys. I really do appreciate it. And you
have a wonderful weekend.