Kirsten Gillibrand: I will come to order. I first like to thank
our witness Dr. Shawn Kirkpatrick.
John Greenewald: Some will call this event historic.
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: You'll see it come through the top of the
screen. There it goes.
John Greenewald: Others will call it a charade, leading to a
major letdown.
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: I should also state clearly for the
record that in our research arrow has found no credible
evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity
offworld technology or objects that defy the known laws of
physics,
John Greenewald: me. While I just see numerous paper trails
to follow and uncover where those paper trails lead is
anyone's guess. But I will be here to bring it to you. Join me
as I dissect last week's hearing to the Subcommittee on emerging
threats and capabilities of the US Senate Committee on ARM
services. We will hear the highs, the lows, and maybe
what's next. Stay tuned, you're about to journey inside the
black vault.
That's right, everybody. As always, thank you so much for
tuning in. And taking this journey inside the black vault
with me. I am John Greenewald, Jr, creator of the black
vault.com. And today we are dissecting last week's UAP
hearing, many of you are probably let down because you
wanted to have some kind of unbelievable evidence presented
to us there was a lot of hype about this hearing. A lot of
YouTubers and social media personalities, they were all
hyping it up. Some were saying that well, here we are taking
another step to disclosure, while other ones were on the
opposite end of the scale. They were saying, Look, don't get
your hopes up. Because you're probably not going to see much
wherever you were on the spectrum. At the end of the day,
of course, it's going to be a letdown anybody that has
interest in UFOs. Even if you're a genuine skeptic, but care
about the evidence, you're going to be let down. The problem with
the hearing is there wasn't a whole lot that we didn't know
with few exceptions. And that's what I'm going to go through in
this deep dive. These deep dives I know are not for everybody.
They can be long. In fact, I don't know how long this video
will end up. But more likely than not, it will be longer than
the actual hearing itself. So what's the point? For me, I've
noticed that a lot of you not everybody, but a lot of you like
to not necessarily watch that raw hearing, because let's face
it, it can get tedious and boring. But also, it's a way for
all of us to just talk about it. I love your comments that you
put in the channel. Anything that I say in these videos, when
I label it an opinion or obviously speculate. I don't
claim to be right, I never have. I don't have all the answers.
But what I like to do is throw stuff out there for you guys in
these deep dives, those that like to sit through them. And
then hear that feedback in return because I always learned
something from all of you as well. So hopefully I can offer
you kind of my perspective based on dealing with the government
for so many years. But also, I'm interested to hear from you. So
if you're watching on YouTube, there's obviously the comments
section. So make sure that you place your comments. And while
you're down there, a pretty big help to this channel is to make
sure you click on the thumbs up button if you feel that it's
worth it. And make sure you're subscribed to the channel. If
you're watching on any other platform, I stream behind the
scenes shows, Facebook, Twitter, they all kind of get the stream.
If you're watching on those platforms, great. I'll do this
in the future. But it's definitely not getting all of
the content. So make sure you go to www dot the black
vault.com/live That will bounce you to the channel that will
make sure that you're notified when you turn the notifications
on that is of all the future streams. And yeah, we'll we'll
have a lot of fun in the future. So let's go ahead and bring up
some visuals here. And let's just kind of get started. What I
again I'm going to do is this deep dive analysis into the UAP
hearing from my perspective, again, a lot of opinion and pure
speculation. I'll try and label those parts as such, but also
play a bunch of clips for you as well. So we'll just kind of go
through and hear from Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, the one witness, if
you want to call him that the expert that came in he heads
arrow that UFO office within the Pentagon that's investigating
and identified a anomalous phenomena. At least that's the
acronym of the day. Maybe a change this morning again, who
knows? But one thought before we really get rolling Something
that I posted immediately on social media if you didn't
notice it. And that is quite simply the attendance. The
attendance was, I would say an embarrassment when it comes to
this type of an issue, not because we all love UFOs. But
rather we know that the root of whatever this, this is, whatever
you want to call it, foreign technology, Spy equipment, you
want to call it aliens, or whatever in between, there is a
national security aspect that Congress in the Senate should
should worry about, like these politicians that represent us in
care about our safety should have packed this room. Now, to
be fair, there was a classified version of the same hearing,
just prior to the public hearing. Now, I've heard rumors,
I didn't speak to the committee or staffers myself, but the
rumor was that logistically, it was just better for everybody to
do that, in that way. For me, I'll throw this thought out
there. I think stuff like that is strategic. And here's why
when you watch the last hearing, with Scott Bray and Ronald
Moultrie, when they touched on things that were too sensitive.
The responses were well, we can deal with that, but more in a
closed session or the classified setting. Even though we don't
get the answer to the question, we know what the question was
that tip that off that says, hey, wait a minute, we can't
talk about this aspect. We can talk about it more in a closed
session. Well, that stinks. Because we can't hear anything
about it. However, we can understand what was getting into
a classified territory, what was sensitive enough for them to
say, hey, we can't talk about this because everybody's
listening. So we got to go in behind closed doors, with only
people that have clearance. Well, sadly, we didn't have that
this time. Not a single question from those senators that did
show up had really anything that was sensitive, meaning
Kirkpatrick didn't have to say, we have to do this in a
classified setting. So that's the downside to that and whether
or not that was strategic. Look, if you asked me I bet you it was
because we, meaning people like me that go after that
information, know what's pushing that sensitive area. And we
didn't get that in this hearing, which is an absolute letdown.
But regardless, whatever the reason is, you look at all of
this, let me turn a laser pointer on that. You can't see
the empty seats here. Yeah, there we go. All those empty
seats, all those members of the committee that didn't even
bother to show up and this, these two here, Kirsten
Gillibrand and Joni Ernst, don't look too incredibly thrilled in
the shot. So I mean, I only giggled because it was a little
bit tedious at times to listen to the opposite end, you have
the audience itself, not a whole lot of chairs in the room. And
yet a lot of chairs were empty. On top of that you had people
that were not from the mainstream media. There's
nothing wrong with that. By the way, I want to point out my
buddy over here, Dan Warren, who runs a great Tik Tok channel,
he's also on Twitter and, and so on. Great individual awesome
human being kudos to him for showing up a color other a
couple other people as well, that we're not part of the
mainstream media. But we're there to essentially take part
in this. Let's let's call it a historic event. But I don't see
this back row lined with cameras. Why not? There was some
cameras floating but But where's the attention? This is a pretty
important event here, a very important topic. Again,
regardless of where you fall on the spectrum of what this is,
but where is everybody? And that to me, is absent when you
juxtapose that with the first hearing is a lot different. I
saw a lot more cameras, I saw a lot more bodies, I saw a lot
more attention. Now, we heard a little bit about this in
mainstream media, but not a whole lot. And I got into a lot
of heat, which you know, happens a lot in my, in my neck of the
woods on social media, but got a lot of heat for saying that
maybe congressional interest is waning in this topic. I said
this, I don't know, mid to late last year, simply because of the
lack of push to get that report that was supposed to be out in
2022. Didn't come out till 2023. There was really like, no, no
one cared. And in fairness, maybe they were talking behind
the scenes, but nobody came out and said, Hey, look, we know
it's late. XYZ is going on. It's fine. We're familiar with the
delay. On the contrary, it was just like no one cared. And
that's what was the very frustrating thing. So is this
evidence now that that statement is becoming more true? That not
only from the other shot you have, you know, that lack of of
congressional interest and the lack of senators that showed up,
but also the other side? That kudos to those two that had
shown up in the room, but the mainstream media was not there.
And that That's a shame, given the importance of what we're
talking about and the implications behind it. One of
the other broad stroke, things that I'll point out is the tone
itself. I think if you're like me, it was kind of brutal and
part. And I'm fascinated by this kind of stuff. And I am one of
those geeks that actually watches these types of hearings.
But it felt forced to me. Now I know, scripted isn't the right
word, because it literally was scripted in the beginning with
opening statements, and so on and so forth. So that's not
really the right way to phrase it. But forced is a way to say
it for me, that he just seemed uncomfortable being there. Maybe
he doesn't like cameras, maybe he doesn't like public settings.
So I'm not bashing Dr. Kirkpatrick in any way
whatsoever. But all I'm saying is when you watch it, it was
like, Oh, my goodness, like there was a couple parts,
putting these clips together, that I would drift off, and oh,
God, I didn't, I missed that. And I'd go back and I'd listen
to it again. And I drift off again, going, why do you just
say, go back again, and listen to it, because it was tough.
Now, again, that's not meant to be insulting. But when somebody
is
essentially forced to be there and forced to essentially say
certain things. It's not as passionate, it's not as
exciting. And that's what, sadly, was the outcome of all of
this. Now, what if that was also strategic, make it just so got
awfully boring, who would want to cover it? I worked in
television for many years, as many of you know. And when
you're working for companies like the History Channel, and
Discovery Channel, and all those guys, every single soundbite
needs to work, right, you don't have fluff, you don't have extra
stuff in there, you clip it and edit it to make it exciting
every step of the way. Because if you lose your audience, what
happens? So you change the channel. So you look for sound
bites in the interviews, you go through transcripts first, then
you go to the video, and you see how exciting it really is. If
it's dull, it, the words could be pretty cool. But sadly, the
video will lose the viewer. This was hard to pick out those sound
bites because you didn't have any anything really, when it
came to the tone. It was just kind of monotone. And in my
opinion forced is the best way to explain it. But when you get
through all those kind of broad strokes, characteristics. In my
mind, there were certain things that had come out that were
pretty interesting. First and foremost, the fact that Dr.
Kirkpatrick had said that there is now as of the week of April
17, which happened to be my birthday. There were total of
650 cases 650. So those 650 are what arrow has collected in and
essentially numbered and are in their system. So to speak.
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: This week, we are tracking over a total of
650 cases.
John Greenewald: So 650 cases. Now how does that stack up?
Well, for those of you who read the articles that I published, I
think I did a video about this as well. I had received a list
of the cases with nothing but the serial numbers, which yes,
in large part is kind of useless. Unless you utilize the
FOIA or are keeping track of how aro is putting all of this
together behind the scenes, it's going to be a puzzle, we're not
going to get the whole picture up front, we got to piece it all
together. So this was a very important list of material that
I got through FOIA listing all the case numbers, because number
one, it showed us how they were doing it. Number two, it showed
us what serial numbers we could request. But then on top of
that, it told us a number. And that number as of December 6 of
2022 was 511. Now to put that, in comparison with what we knew
previous, that report that was published in 2023, had data
through August 30 2020 to 2022. And that number was 510. Only
one case, had been added to Arrow's database that they felt
worthy one case, from October or excuse me, August 30, through
December 6 of 2022. Now go from that date to the week of April
17. Now we're at over 650 Not sure why there was a lack of a
jump towards the end of 2022. And, in my opinion, a bigger
jump in the beginning of 2023. But regardless, that's where we
have. So that's kind of an outline of how faster growing
and taking cases in only adding one case, by the way was really
intriguing to me. It wasn't a letdown. It was actually an
encouragement that maybe they are vetting these things, and
truly only going for the real anomalous cases, or they just
went on vacation and didn't care one of the two, but that turns
out to be about 139 cases. From December 6 of last year to April
17 of this year. Another interesting thing gleamed from
the interview was the fact that arrow has conducted nearly two
dozen interviews. I'll play the clip later because there's a
little bit more context that I'll deal with later on in this
deep dive, but essentially what what he had stated was that
there were two about tier two dozen people that had been
brought in. And from what we understand from his testimony,
they were largely if not all, brought in by the recommendation
of either senators that were in the room. Maybe Kirsten
Gillibrand, or others that had referred them over to aro quite
intriguing. Now, because others have posted online being
interviewed, namely Robert solace, which is public record,
he put that out there on social media. He was interviewed by
Eero that they were taking his testimony in about his
experiences through the UFO encounters over nuclear bases
and his firsthand account of what he experienced. I used that
and when, okay, if they interviewed one, they
interviewed more. So when solace had posted that online, I had
filed a FOIA request for the transcript of every single
interview that they had done up until that point, I'm also going
for videos and stuff like that if they took it. But usually,
transcripts are going to be one of the easier things to get a
quick reference to pass times that I've done that I got Luis
Elizondo his transcript when he was interviewed by the
Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General. And you
can read pretty much the whole thing. There's redactions,
obviously, but you can, but you can read through that. So what
they do is when they do these interviews, sometimes it's
audio, sometimes it's video, but then they transcribe it. And
then that's generally what they what they have behind the
scenes, more than all else. So that is something that I've been
been going for. So now I know, through this congressional
testimony, there's at least two dozen that I could potentially
get my my hands on.
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: I should also state clearly for the
record that in our research arrow has found no credible
evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity
offworld technology or objects that defy the known laws of
physics.
John Greenewald: Oh, you know that that upset a lot of people
when he said when he said that, because the verbiage that he
used, the types of wording that he used off world vehicles?
Well, that's what we heard through the New York Times,
namely sourced to Dr. Eric Davis, defying the known laws of
physics, we know that there's a couple people that have been
hinting and outright saying that type of stuff, making these big
claims and podcasts on YouTube channels, even on mainstream
media, not citing specific cases or specifics, but rather just
either alluding to it or saying, Oh, these things are defying
known laws of physics, or they are evidence of offworld
vehicles or legacy programs or whatever. And yet he uses that
same wording and says there's no credible evidence of that. Now,
do we take him at his word? I'll let you guys decide. He could
absolutely be lying. All of the aforementioned people that are
out there making those types of claims could absolutely be
telling the truth. Here's the issue, though. In my opinion,
that testimony goes against those that we know who have been
interviewed, those that we hope have been interviewed, and those
that have been rumored to have been interviewed. Bob Lazar,
Robert Bigelow, head of the all SAP program that kind of started
this whole mess allegedly. How put off one of the main guys who
worked with bass and Robert Bigelow on Allsop Luis Elizondo,
who says that he headed the program for years investigating
UAP and he called his program a tip. Dr. Eric Davis, while his
notes, I put it in air quotes, because I don't think they're
genuine, or depict real events, I should say, his notes are
brought up in the last UAP hearing. Now, if his notes are
true about his meeting with Admiral will, Thomas Wilson, if
all of that is true, it goes against everything that we have
been taught as humans, full stop, right? It would change the
world. There's not a single politician who would not want
their name attached to changing the world. You would think that
if they put that into congressional record and ask
Ronald Moultrie and Scott Bray and put it out there, even if
they didn't know what that story was, you would think by then to
now, they would have done something to try and cooperate
it, right. I mean, I would think so. So did they interview Eric
Davis, how about James McCaskey? who again was part of OSS, AP,
and so on and so forth. Jay Stratton, any of these
individuals, did they interview them? And were they not
credible? If not, why not? So I think at this point, if they
haven't been interviewed, all of these individuals who have been
alluding to some very, let's say far out there material, even
though they're not encroaching on their security oaths, if they
know that Kirkpatrick is lying, or Kirkpatrick is not getting
his proper access to what needs to be known, then things need to
be done. Right? I mean, I would think that they would scream to
the high heavens, and yet I haven't seen any of them come
out and say, You know what, I will not violate my oath. But I
will say with the whistleblower protection, and if Kyrsten
Gillibrand really wants to know, and so on and so forth, I will
testify under oath. And although some of those things may have
been said, in a YouTube podcast or whatever, then let's do it.
Get a message to Kirsten Gillibrand, and say, he lied to
all of you, your committee, to the Senate, to the American
people, or to be fair to him to Sean, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, if
he does not have the access. But any of these individuals do or
did then say he is not getting the right information. But where
is that we don't, we're getting books. Right? We're getting some
podcasts here and there. And of course, we get the anonymous
sources. Did arrow track down any of these classified leaks
that all of these YouTubers are talking about? I remember this
one from the release of the UAP report, the first one I think in
was it 2021. And around the same time, Richard Dolan had put a
slide up what was leaked to him that day. And to him, it was a
very credible source, which I think was his way of describing
it. And essentially, might be hard to see on your screen. But
was talking about EA T related or extra terrestrial related
items, alien technology, stuff that goes well beyond what was
really in the classified report. Now, when this was posted and
broadcast out there, the classified report had not been
released. In Part, I started fighting for it that the morning
after the 2021 report, was published to the public, I went
after the classified version, and a lot of people mocked that
that effort, they said, You're never going to get anything.
Now, although I didn't get everything. I did get a lot of
it. And it was pretty clear that the message overall, was pretty
much echoing what the public was being told in the public report
lots of redactions, including the shapes of UAP, and so on,
and so forth. So don't get me wrong, there was still a lot
hidden. But there was no way that ET technology was in the
classified report. When in the public report. It wasn't
there's, I'm sorry, there's just not right. Like nobody's been
able to say that. And this has kind of gone away. I haven't
heard really any anybody talk about this. This kind of stuff
needs to be called out. This kind of stuff needs to be dealt
with. It doesn't help people like her Kirkpatrick who's
trying to let's just take him at his word, trying to make sense
of all of this and trying to do a scientific effort effort. But
it doesn't help with any of us either. It doesn't help
anywhere. So to just blast out, oh, look what was leaked to me
by these anonymous sources. No. And the fact that nobody's
getting arrested and nobody's being investigated. First
Amendment is pretty powerful, even when it comes to
fabrication. So a lot of
rebuttals that I see out there that he's that certain people
are not being investigated or anything like that. Look, you go
down a rabbit hole when it comes to those types of
investigations. But in my opinion, all of this type of
stuff is bunk, all those social media accounts, citing their
anonymous sources, and my source told me this great, well, now's
the time to put up if any of these anonymous people that are
helping either YouTubers or social media accounts, it's time
to step up. You can do so without telling the public your
identity, but go directly to the Senate. If Kirkpatrick does not
have access himself, or he is lying, the now's the time to
either put up or shut up. Because as anybody knows on this
on this channel, I do not care for anonymous sources at all,
because most of the time it's all bunk anyway, and provable,
but most of the time when it's not provable, per se, it's
highly unlikely any of it is true. But that brings me to the
small percentage of leaks that actually does intrigued me. And
yet for whatever reason, we don't see any evidence at this
point of invest instigation on why UAP previous leaks are not
being investigated. Now. Did arrow look into these? Do they
echo what the public is being told through anonymous sources
and we're talking about flying triangles and this Baghdad
Phantom is, is unexplained? I don't know I don't have the the
answer to that. But I've hinted at this in past videos, and I
think now's the time to just come out with this particular
quote, because this is where it's getting really interesting.
I may not always agree with Jeremy Korbel. But he's
intrigued me for quite a few years now, because he's
obviously getting material that is legitimate, that the Pentagon
has commented on with now a couple of exceptions, but in the
beginning, they were commenting on it. So I was always intrigued
by that. But the most recent was the most intriguing not because
of the object. But because the fact that an MQ nine Reaper
drone, a highly classified piece of equipment, it's video I knew
was classified now that what they call the security
classification guy, there is one for the MQ nine. I'm going after
that document. But I knew just from research that the MQ nine
footage, anything that's taken on that platform is inherently
classified. And what that means is is that per that security
classification guide, it is automatically classified, so
they can't release anything unless there was a specific
mission to go out. Take a video for released to the public after
Santa sanitisation. I finally got proof of that, that comes
from the Air Combat Command public affairs. Here's the exact
quote that was given to me. In accordance with general
operational security practices and the MQ nine security
classification guide. All imagery captured by the MQ nine
is typically classified unless mission requirements dictate the
need to sanitize any video footage for lower classification
or public release purposes. The MQ nine security classification
guide and the details within is not releasable or available to
the public in accordance with its own level of security
classification. Well, to that last part challenge accepted, I
will go or I have already filed the case. But we'll continue to
go after that security classification guide likely be
highly redacted, but at least I'm going to try and get that
regardless of if I do. The point remains. The Baghdad phantom
shot by an MQ nine was obviously not a PR mission for them to
shoot that object for release to the public. So their generic
statement of if that is the case, then yes, footage can be
released. It's classified. You can't take still frames of a
classified video call it a unclassified image. I don't know
if Jeremy Korbel thinks that way. But just for anybody who
does, you can't do that classified as classified,
whether it's moving images or not. It's all the same when it
comes to the security behind all of this. So where is the
investigation, especially after the recent leaks of the from the
Department of Defense, and our situation over in Ukraine,
obviously nothing to do with UAP. But those leaks have
created an uproar. The Pentagon had to do damage control, the
guy was led out in cuffs, obviously, leaks of classified
material are important. But with UAP we don't know why. But it
just seems like nothing ever happens to anybody. Nor does it
even become an investigation. I'm still searching it. I here's
my personal opinion based on nothing but that I believe this
is being or quickly was or will be investigated. Plain and
simple. I think that there's too much now that the DoD is going
to go Oh, MQ nine Reaper footage, not a problem, let's
let that go. And yet they go after all this other stuff. That
doesn't mean Jeremy Corbyn did anything wrong? I won't make a
whole diatribe here on journalists publishing
classified information, so on and so forth. That's a whole
legal area I'm not even going to bother you or bore you with. But
rather I think the overall situation and the fact that it
got out in the first place is going to be investigated if it's
not being already. And yes, I am trying to pursue that story
more. I've sat on that quote for about a month or so. On its own,
it's like you're saying Why did you sit on it? Well, because it
fits into a much bigger story. And that bigger story, I think
is the investigation in that the past leaks, like some of what
you see here, were all taken by fairly, you know, not sensitive
platforms. So you've got the Snoopy team. I put some pictures
of the actual Snoopy teams for the US Navy down here. And the
cameras they use they're not they're not a Reaper, drone
level classified piece of technology. These are likely you
know, maybe just the In cellphone photo videos, or
excuse me, still frames from the pilot, there's obviously taken
by f 18. I think you're the gimbal. And then the the Omaha
footage that leaked out obviously not a highly
classified piece of equipment either. So so it kind of ramped
up to this MQ nine release. And to me that was more intriguing
than this Baghdad Phantom. And what's also interesting is the
fact that that got like the least amount of coverage. Why I
don't know, waning interest, I'm not sure. But there wasn't
really a whole lot of coverage to that latest leak. So for me
what's going to happen, and I'm super intrigued by that, because
I really have no idea. But I just believe deep down there is
no way that they're going to let that stuff out and into the open
and not look into why
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: arrow is leading a focused effort to
better characterize, understand and attribute UAP with priority
given to UAP reports by DOD and IC personnel in or near areas of
national security importance. DOD fully appreciates the
eagerness from many quarters, especially here in Congress and
in the American public to quickly resolve every UAP
encountered across the globe. From the distant past through
today. It's important to note however, arrow is the
culmination of decades of DOD intelligence community and
congressionally directed efforts to successfully resolve UAP
encountered first and foremost by US military personnel,
specifically navy and air force pilots.
John Greenewald: Decades, what's he talking about? I mean, if
he's really laying the groundwork of decades, okay,
let's accept that the those that have come out about OSS happen a
tip and it's all UFO and UAP. Related, that decades of
material and investigation that they've done, where is it? I
can't find any. Right? And people like me, I'm not I'm not
saying I'm the standalone person trying to go after information.
But where is it? That's what I don't understand. But yet he
drops the decades. thing here. So what are they what have they
investigated for decades? And where is it? And what did they
learn? Put a pin in that because I think that that'll be more
important here. As we go on. I
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: want to underscore today that only a
very small percentage of UAP reports display signatures that
could reasonably be described as anomalous. The majority of
unidentified objects reported to arrow demonstrate mundane
characteristics of balloons, unmanned aerial systems,
clutter, natural phenomena or other readily explainable
sources,
John Greenewald: a small percentage, and that makes sense
for anybody who's been involved in UFO research, even prior to
this present day conversation knows that it's a very small
percentage of UFO encounters, that are truly UFOs. What's
interesting, just a little bit of historical perspective, it
actually lines up going back to 1955. And the statistics back
then, from Project Bluebook. You can see here that it broke down
balloons, aircraft, other not enough data, and the true
unknowns, single digits. So obviously, it coincides with
what was in the past. So that's not a surprise to anybody. But I
think those types of things are used, because it makes it less,
less impressive, less interesting to the general
public. Oh, it's a very small percentage. So maybe if they had
more data, they would, you know, be able to solve those to
Kirkpatrick and I'll play the video in a little bit said
exactly that. And interestingly enough, so did they in 1955, as
the study of the current cases progressed, it became
increasingly obvious that if reporting and investigative
investigating procedures could be further improved, the
percentages of those cases cases, which contains
insufficient information, and those remaining unexplained
would be greatly reduced. That's fine, though, even I'll take a
couple of percent, because that's weeding out all of the
explained information. But what also concerns me is we're on the
same exact path that we were in the 1950s. That's what is
playing out here. And if you go back to a video on this very
channel, here on YouTube, and if you're not watching on YouTube,
just look for the black vaults, originals channel. And you will
find a full breakdown about how what's what was unfolding today.
And what is unfolding today is almost exactly what unfolded
through the late 1950s and 60s, and how this whole thing
progressed, congressional hearings and all whistleblowers
and all former government personnel and all and it's a
really interesting juxtaposition. When you look at
the two I did that, what, two years ago now, probably some
somewhere in the last two years. Then when you look at this,
we're seeing the exact same thing again, right down to the
single percentage points and The thirst for more data, the need
for more data. Well, what have they done for the last 60 plus
years since the last time they said it.
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: Arrow is member of the department's
support to the administration's tiger team effort to deal with
stratospheric objects such as the PRC, high altitude balloon?
Well, when previously unknown objects are successfully
identified, it is Arrow's role to quickly and efficiently hand
off such readily explainable objects to the intelligence law
enforcement or operational safety communities for further
analysis and appropriate action. In other words, arrows mission
is to turn UAP into SCP, somebody else's problem.
John Greenewald: He just seems so proud of that joke. So I had
to put it in there somebody else's problem or S E. P. I love
to smirk after. So if that's what they're trying to do,
they're just trying to explain and move it to the appropriate
intelligence agencies. What's really concerning as an overall
kind of broad stroke note on that is why wasn't stuff like
this in place before? It doesn't matter about UFOs or UAP talk
anymore? But from a national security perspective, are you
telling me that they weren't really looking into anything
that they couldn't identify NORAD, or the NRO, or NASA or
anybody that they were, they didn't have any type of
investigation process. That, to me is incredibly concerning.
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: Meanwhile, for the few cases in all
domains, space, air and sea, that do demonstrate potentially
anomalous characteristics, Arrow exists to help the DoD IC and
interagency resolve those anomalous cases. In doing so,
arrow is approaching these cases with the highest level of
objectivity, and analytic rigor. This includes physically testing
and employing modeling and simulation validate our analyses
and underlying theories, then peer reviewing those results
within US government, industry partners and appropriately
cleared academic institutions before reaching any conclusions,
John Greenewald: space, air and sea, all the domains that we
knew they were looking at. But I took the way that he just said
that is they have confirmed anomalous cases in space as
well. Now, why is that surprising, because we don't
really hear about that a lot. We see the ground based ones, we
see the ones where the Navy is out at sea. And that was at the
first hearing and then explaining that one, they Erawan
is obvious, everything we see is pretty much within close
proximity to us. We're not talking about space based
objects and what we've seen. So what's there, and that has
intrigued me. And yes, I am going after those cases as well,
specifically, from that domain to see if arrow will release
anything that they have from that, again, targeted domain.
Because when you go for all 650 cases, through FOIA, a quick
FOIA note for the FOIA users out there, that is an example of
what will likely be too burdensome of a request, that's
too much work for them to go through and declassify 650. Why
a lot of them are in draft form, they haven't been touched, yet
they haven't been analyzed. And you're going to have to then
review all of that information for declassification. They'll
reject it and kick it back. So you have to go through specific
cases with a specific target in mind. So that particular case
that I filed was all of the space domain to try and get
those. Another part of that clip that was really interesting to
me, was industry partners and appropriate cleared academic
institutions appropriately cleared. What does that mean,
classified information is my guess. Now, I'm not insinuating
any of the logos that I have on screen here are involved at all.
But I do know that there has been a lot of talk, and that
there's been a lot of rumor and speculation about those that you
see on the screen. So I want to stress that again, I am not
saying that any one of these organizations have classified
clearances, and they're looking into these UAP sightings not
telling you or I they preach transparency, but essentially,
you're siding with secrecy. I'm not saying that. But what I am
saying is it's incredibly concerning to hear that we're
going down the same path yet again, that we did in the late
50s 1960s The ramp up to the essentially the closing of
project Bluebook where certain academic and institutions got
involved that they looked at that information and said nope,
UAP isn't worthwhile. It's not a threat to national security.
Let's move on that we are on that path again. On top of that
appropriately clearing private institutions. We should know who
that is why? Because a lot of organizations are out there
preaching transparency, but I also believe that they would be
interested in taking that government contract or
consulting gig, if given the opportunity. So where do you
draw the line? Do you take that just so you can go ahead and see
that information but keep it within a private entity or
organization? I hope not. And again, I'm not saying that
anything that you see on screen here, including the Galileo
Project, UAP, X and sigma labs are radiants technologies for
those listening to the audio version. I'm not saying that
they're involved in that, but that's where it gets concerning.
Let's look at the Galileo Project for a minute. I
interviewed Dr. Avi Loeb, when he first announced the project,
and I was incredibly encouraged by it, but since he started, you
now have a lot of former government people that have a
lot of rumor attached to them, and a lot of speculation
attached to them. So with them being involved, could it get to
a point where Dr. lobes team does find something, if they're
appropriately cleared, that means that they may have some
security clearances that go along with their ability to work
with Aero. And to put the icing on the cake on that hypothetical
scenario, is that would the government say sorry, Dr. Loeb,
or sorry, UAPs, or sorry, Nigma labs or sorry, radiants
technologies. You can't talk about this. We have to classify
it and your security oath takes over your security clearance
applies here. And that's what I'm concerned about as we're
doing full circle, right back to where we started decades ago.
And that is secrecy. We see it with the US government. But now
they're pulling in industry partners, and appropriately
cleared academic institutions. Who exactly is that I'll let you
guys decide.
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: In the event, sufficient scientific
data wherever obtained, that a UAP encountered can only be
explained by extraterrestrial origin. We are committed to
working with our interagency partners at NASA, to
appropriately inform us government's leadership of its
findings. For those few cases that have leaked to the public
previously, and subsequently commented on by the US
government, I encourage those who hold alternative theories or
views as submit your research to credible peer reviewed
scientific journals. Arrow is working very hard to do the
same. That is how science works, not by blog or social media,
John Greenewald: not by blog, or social media. The first call is
NASA that in interested me more than all else. So if arrow finds
anything that's even remotely close to or confirmed as
extraterrestrial, they pick up the phone they call NASA. NASA
then in turn informs all the government heads and agencies.
Where's the general public? Now? Maybe that's just you know, I'm
reading into that too much. But nowhere did he say the public
had any right to know any of that information. But rather, he
laid the groundwork to inform NASA, which I'm kind of
surprised that that arrow being part of the Department of
Defense would essentially call NASA first. So that part didn't
make sense to me. And maybe I'm just misreading this. So you
know, if I am, I'll apologize in advance. But I took aero gets
that evidence, they pick up the phone, they call NASA, NASA
picks up the phone, they call all the agency heads and, and
government agencies, but nowhere in there was the general public
and any type of effort to transparency.
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: But one of the things that arrow does is
high integrity analysis. As I've said, This chart represents the
trend analysis of all the cases in arrows holdings right to
date. What you'll see on the left is a histogram of all of
our reported sightings as a function of altitude. So most of
our sightings occur in the 15 to 25,000 foot range. And that is
ultimately because that's where a lot of our aircraft are. On
the far right upper corner, you'll see a breakout of the
morphologies of all of the UAP that are reported. Over half
about 52% of what's been reported to us are round, or
spheres. The rest of those break out into all kinds of different
other shapes. The gray box is essentially there is no data on
what its shape is either it wasn't reported or the sensor
did not collect it. The bottom map is a heat map of all
reporting areas across the globe that we have available to us.
What you'll notice is that there is a heavy what we call
collection bias both in altitude and in geographic location.
That's where all of our sensors exist. That's where our training
ranges are. That's where our operational ranges are that's
where all of our platforms are. In the middle, what we have done
is reduce the most typically reported UAV characteristics to
these fields, mostly round mostly one to four meters, white
silver, translucent metallic 10,000 30,000 feet. With
apparent velocities from stationary to Mach two, no
thermal exhausts usually detected, we get intermittent
radar returns, we get intermittent radio returns, and
we get intermittent thermal signatures. That's what we're
looking for. And trying to understand what that is.
John Greenewald: That's what they're looking for. That's what
they're trying to understand. So I'll let most of that speak for
itself. But the one thing that I will point out is this graph
here, which are the shapes. For those of you who have watched
this channel or watch my work when I got that classified UAP
report from 2021 finally released, one of the biggest
things that stuck out not only to me, but I think everyone was
the fact that they wouldn't even tell us the shapes or the common
shapes of UAP. It was all blacked out. Now, I appealed
that that appeal is still open. But I specifically targeted that
section in my appeal, as a ridiculous redaction. I found a
much more legal sound way to put it but fought that specifically
amongst all the other redactions. But that one, again,
was kind of the most, I would say, controversial one and the
most frustrating one for not only myself, but for everybody.
And now we have a pie chart breakdown of all the different
shapes that they're collecting. A couple ways to look at it,
we've now gotten to a point where they have declassified,
the shapes why it was classified in the first place, I'm not sure
the UAP security classification guide may potentially play a
role in that, since all of that is primarily redacted. It's kind
of hard to tell. But they may have decided to declassified
that aspect of UAP. Because remember, security
classification guides can morph over time. That's why they have
different versions. That's why they published newer, again,
versions of of these types of guides and so on. So I think
that that's an explanation. They're going back to my appeal,
what will happen? Well, I'm hoping at this point, they will
declassify that part. So we will be able to see some of the
information. Will that happen? Who knows? Did that appeal and
argument that's happening through FOIA? And yes, those are
legal challenges. It's not like we write emails and go for
information, because a lot of people I think, minimize the
importance of FOIA or the power of FOIA, because they don't
truly understand FOIA. Those arguments are legally sound. So
when you have certain decisions made through FOIA, things are
altered. In some cases, things are declassified in other cases.
So and I've got lots of of examples to show that. But
that's essentially the power of the FOIA. And that will
sometimes dictate what public affairs offices can say, or what
those experts say in an open hearing, such as this. So how
all that plays out, I'm not really sure, but it was pretty
exciting to see because I think that once my appeal is finally
done, somewhere in the year 2092, then we'll be able to go
ahead and get a glimpse of what it was like in 2021.
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: So I'm going to walk you through two
cases that we've declassified recently. This first one is an
MQ nine in the Middle East, observing that blow up which is
an apparent spherical object, VO e o centers, those are not IR
you'll see it come through the top of the screen, there it
goes. And then the camera will slew to follow it. You'll see it
pop in and out of the screen field of view there. This is
essentially all of the data we have associated with this event
from some years ago.
John Greenewald: So why did it stop there? I published the
entire video released by the Department of Defense it pretty
much echoes this or maybe some more frames I didn't clock and
it wasn't important. But why there clearly the MQ nine was
tracking this object whatever it was, call it a balloon call it
an alien spacecraft for all I care. It was tracking it. So
where's the rest? And that has been a question that has been
asked on a lot of these UAP related imageries that have been
released. Why is that it? And when you look at going backwards
when you look at some of the other clips, same deal, just
kind of like stop abruptly. Well, going back to the FLIR,
the gimbal and the go fast. They claim meaning the US Navy that's
it frame for frame. That's all they got. Well, now they're
There's more of a structured way to collect UAP related evidence.
So why does this one stop? Or did it is arrow showing us
everything? To reiterate the point, this is truly a
unidentified object. Now the general public was pretty much
led to believe that all this is all the data we have. And that's
it. Well, I guarantee that's not all the data you have, because I
bet you that video is longer. And if it's not, I'd love to
know why I hope somebody who gets to ask further questions
asks that specific one. Why did this particular video and or is
what happened after these frames here. And this object was
captured and tracked is that classified. And I hope that
somebody asks that
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: this particular event, South Asia, MQ
nine, looking at another MQ nine, and what's highlighted
there in that red circle is an object that flies through the
screen. Unlike the previous one, this one actually shows some
really interesting things that everyone thought was truly
anomalous to start with. First of all, it's a high speed object
that's flying in the field of regard of to MQ nines. Second
appears to have this trail behind it. Alright, which, at
first blush, you would think that looks like a propulsion
trail. In reality, if you want to play, the first slide will
show you what that looks like in real time, first video. So we're
looking at that there it goes. Once you play it again, and then
pause it halfway through, right there. Alright, if you might be
able to see that trail there behind it. That's actually not a
real trail that is a sensor artifact. Each one of those
little blobs is actually a representation of the object as
it's moving through. And later in the video as the as the
camera slews, that trail actually follows the direction
of the camera, not the direction of the object. We pulled these
apart frame by frame, we were able to demonstrate that that is
essentially a readout. overlap of the image it's a it's a
shadow image, right? It's not real. Further, if you later
follow this all the way to end, it starts to resolve itself into
that blob that's in that picture in the top, right. And if you
squint, it looks like an aircraft because it actually
turns out to be an aircraft go
John Greenewald: ahead and gotta squint remember to squint.
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: So you'll see the tail sort of pop out
there. And so what you're looking at is this is in the
infrared. This is the heat signature off of the engines of
a commuter aircraft that happened to be flying in the
vicinity of where those two MQ nines were at.
John Greenewald: When you look at those videos, and you compare
them to the most recent UAP leaks, namely the Baghdad
Phantom, and the most muzzle orb Mozu Orebro sphere arm, I forget
which one he always chooses. But the Mozilla one. When you look
at those, it's pretty much exactly what we're looking at
here. But they're just different videos from different incidents.
I don't know if there's a connection there. But it's an
interesting, I would say point to point out, because when it
comes to this one that we're looking at the explained one,
the Phantom objects that we'll call them, like the Baghdad
Phantom, I had did a post on social media, because everybody
was saying that was an exhaust plume, or a lot of people, not
everybody, but an exhaust plume. And I had recognized that the
pixel length was almost identical. It was like a ghost
image, whether or not that played a role in calling it the
Baghdad Phantom, I have no idea. But regardless, what I did was I
just layered every frame on top of each other, or excuse me,
layered every frame but showed that the actual object and the
frame, when put on the ghost like image was exactly the same
length. So it was like repeating data in each particular frame as
it streaked across with the human eye, you put all that
together kind of looks like a trail of some kind or propulsion
system. But it actually isn't. So it was interesting to see
this explanation, because now here he is pulling in an
identical characteristic to what leaked out. But this is not the
leak. This is not the Baghdad Phantom. Same with the one
that's unidentified, and I'm not sure what, if any strategy there
would be to do that. But obviously from that pie chart,
there was a lot of different objects that they've seen shape
wise. So what are the odds that he just chose another sphere
could just be by chance could be that that's the majority of what
they have. Add or could declassify who knows. But it was
pretty close to the Missoula one that Jeremy Korbel had put out.
And for those who do think it's the same, it is not. Jeremy also
had posted on social media because he was being asked that
it is not the same. So that being said, we've got two
different videos nearly identical to the leaks, one
explained one not coincidence. Who knows just one of those
weird things?
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: How are we going to get more data? We are
working with the joint staff to issue guidance to all the
services and commands that will then establish what are the
reporting requirements, the timeliness, and all of the data
that is required to be delivered to us and retained from all the
associated sensors. That historically hasn't been the
case. And it's been happenstance that data has been collected,
John Greenewald: happenstance that data was collected. What's
interesting is remember that slide before that I showed you
guys back from 1955? They were saying the exact same thing
about fine tuning or data collection this that and the
other thing, have they not learned anything from 1955
Especially with all these other UFO programs and efforts to
research UAP? I'll ask the question, then what have they
been doing? Here's a list of them the advanced aerospace
weapon system application program, or you hear me say all
sap that was, again, controversial 2008 But we'll
call it 2007 based on reporting to 2012 more likely again, 2008
the advanced aerospace threat Identification Program, some say
2007 Some say 2008 Some say it's not a program at all. That's a
whole different video in itself. But regardless, that lasted till
about 2012. But wait, Louise Elizondo claimed 2017 Hoda
believe I'll let you guys decide. But we're talking about
a UAP program, according to Luis Elizondo, and so on. So what
were they doing the UAP Task Force? I put 2017 as a question
mark, because there was, it wasn't the task force per se,
but there was some kind of unofficial effort. The Pentagon
has spoken to this before. So whether or not that had a name,
or they were calling it a task force or whatever, there was
clearly something going on around that timeframe,
officially established August 14 2220 21, the airborne object
identification and management synchronization group, or AOA,
MSG, that was 2021 to 22. Then we got the all domain anomaly
resolution office or arrow. That's what Dr. Shawn
Kirkpatrick has heads right now. That's 2022 to present, look at
all those years, and all those program efforts and all of those
claims from past individuals. What were they doing? Did they
not have any type of official anything to make sense of all of
this over the years? Let's just settle on the fact they were
doing this in their free time. And it was 5% of what they did.
Okay, let's let's just say we believe everybody at their word,
but it was a minor part of their work in the government. All of
that's fine. But still over all that time, we don't have any
structured program. And that's what bothers me about this is
that that doesn't make sense. It just doesn't. Nothing makes
sense about this timeline. And all of these efforts when put on
a timeline, and the claims that people have said, nothing. Now,
that doesn't mean they're lying, or Kirkpatrick is lying, or they
all could be lying for all I know. But regardless, it just
doesn't make sense. efforts can be fine tuned efforts can be
misdirected. You can have change of direction, that's fine. But
these are basic things that go back to 1955, at least, and
they're saying the exact same thing. Doesn't anybody else
think that that's just bizarre? It doesn't make any sense to me
yet. That's the reality of what's put in front of us. Now,
there's a lot of other things too, that if you pay attention
and put it on the timeline doesn't make sense. This was an
article I wrote in 2019. And I first want to give a shout out
and credit to Brian Bender than at politico magazine, who had
reported on a UFO Reporting guideline that was was issued by
the US Navy. And then he reported around the 2019
timeframe, maybe 2018, that that guideline was being kind of
updated and re issued. It was currently and it was at that
time in draft form. I went after it and found out it went from
draft to issued. So again, this is a quick note for FOIA people
draft documents are incredibly hard to get through FOIA. It's
not impossible, but they hide behind FOIA exemption be five a
lot. So the minute I got in writing a statement that it was
no longer draft. I went and filed a case for it. And it was
100% classified So again, I wrote that story in 2019. But
what are these guidelines? What did that stipulate? Were the
guidelines on how to collect the data report the data? If not,
why not? Because this was around the timeframe when it was
reissued. And again, that 2019 timeframe, you go backwards to
this slide. You're in the middle of the unofficial effort that
led into the UAP task force around this time. So obviously,
there was an effort that we can that we can kind of fall back on
here, when arrow takes over, that they could look at and pull
information from pull guidelines, pull structure, pull
procedure pull, protocol pull something that US taxpayers,
paid for, but nothing. It's like they're starting fresh. Now
maybe that was needed, who knows? And if so, why? Why after
all these years of investigating through all SAP and a tip and
UAP, TF all getting money and having certain individuals
heading those programs that we have nothing that we could give
the arrow and go, Okay, here's the head start. We spent X
amount of millions of dollars, here you go, nothing. One of my
favorite stories and in my history of looking into UFOs is
the story of the airforce manual instruction. 10 Dash 206. You
can see this one was in 2008. So we're going back and this was
one of the latter versions. I found this back in about 1999 to
2000. I think it was and watched it be revised from about 2002.
Again 2008. And chapter five was talking about the survey's
reports, and how they reported unidentified flying objects or
UFOs. This was essentially a mandated instruction. Not
essentially it was a mandated instruction that all US Air
Force pilots were to follow all of those UFO reports went to
NORAD. So this essentially predated all SAP eight tip UAP,
TF aero AOA, MSG, whatever the acronym predated all of that. So
what happened to all of this policy procedure and all of the
service reports that went to NORAD. Now NORAD, by the way, is
not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. So I can't
touch what was made under this. But are you telling me
throughout everything that they got through this, there was
nothing that they could use for Arrow? None of that makes sense.
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: Now, the report in January basically said
about half of the ones at that time, about 150 were balloon
were likely balloon like or something like that. That
doesn't mean they're resolved. Oh, I see. So what let me when
we walk everyone through what our analytic process looks like,
we have essentially a five step process, right? So we have we
get our cases and with all the data, we create a case for that
event. My team does a preliminary scrub of all of
those cases, as they come in just to sort out, do we have any
information that says this is in one of those likely categories?
It's likely a balloon, it's likely a balloon? Bird, it's
likely some other object? Or we don't know. Then we prioritize
those based off of where they are? Are they attached to a
national security area? Does it show some anomalous
phenomenology that is of interest, if it's just if it's
just a spherical thing that's floating around with the, with
the wind and it has no payload on it, that's going to be less
important than something that has a payload on it, which will
be less important than something that's maneuvering. Right. So
there's, there's sort of a hierarchy of just binning the
priorities because we can't do all of them at once. Once we do
that, and we prioritize them when we take that package of
data in that case, and I have set up two teams, think of this
as a Red Team Blue Team or competitive analysis. I have an
intelligence community team made up of intelligence analysts. And
I have an s&t team made up of scientists and engineers, and
the people that actually build a lot of these sensors are
physicists, because you know, if you're a physicist, you can do
anything, right. And, but they're not associated with the
intel community. There. They're not Intel officers. So they they
look at this through the lens of the sensor of that what the data
says we give that package to both teams. The intelligence
community is going to look at it through the lens of the
intelligence record and what they assess, and their intel
tradecraft, which they have very specific rules and regulations
on how they do that. scientific community technical community is
going to look at it through the lens of what is the data telling
me what is the sensor doing? What would I expect a sensor
response to be? And back that out? Those two groups give us
their answers. We then adjudicate. If they agree, then
I am more likely to close that case, if they agree on what it
is, if they disagree, we will have an adjudication will bring
them together, we'll take a look at the differences. What would
you dedicate What Why do you say one thing and you say another,
we will then come to a case recommendation that will get
written up by my team. That then goes to a Senior Technical
Advisory Group, which is outside of all of those people, made up
of senior technical folks and Intel analysts and operators
from retired out of the community. And they, they
essentially peer review what that case recommendation is,
they write their recommendations that comes back to me, I review
it, we make a determination, and I'll sign off one way or the
other. And then that will go out as the case determination. Once
we have an approved web portal to hang the unclassified stuff,
we will do, you know, we would downgrade and declassify things
and put it out there. In the meantime, we're putting a lot of
these on our classified web portal, where we can then
collaborate with the rest of the community so they can see what's
going on.
John Greenewald: You know, I'm going after a screenshot of that
classified web portal, they have plans on doing a public one.
Cool. And you'll learn here, I think I got the clip. Now, I'm
second guessing myself. But you'll learn that they've have
tried to do a public one and submitted drafts for that. But
again, that that stone wall is for me through FOIA is going to
be the draft part of it. But he just confirmed as a classified
one. And a lot of times, as long as there's no classified data
being shown within that portal, you can actually get copies of
the portal itself. So I'm actually going for that, as
well. It was a longer clip to show a little bit tedious at
times. But I think it's important because to his credit,
he's at least got a structure, he's at least trying to figure
out ways to solve these cases. So I wanted to put that clip in
there as credit to him, that there is this process that seems
I'm not a scientist, but seems very scientifically structured,
with a lot of minds involved, although he didn't say this
specifically. But when you have one mind involved, investigating
a case, you may have a bias within it. But what he has set
up is this team A versus Team B B scenario, where you
potentially have the inability to be biased, where you have two
different backgrounds, if they agree, then you know, you're on
the right track, if they disagree, they collectively come
together and talk it out. That That seems pretty structured to
me. So to his credit, I think that that was very much worth
pointing out.
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: So of those over 650. You know, we've
prioritized about half of them to be of of anomalous,
interesting value. And now we have to go through those and go,
How much do I have actual data for? Because if I all I have is,
is a operator report that says I saw X, Y or Z, my assessment is
A, B or C, that's not really sufficient. That's a good place
to start. But I have to have data, I have to have radar data,
I have to have EU data, I have to have thermal data, I have to
have overhead data. And we need to look at all that.
John Greenewald: Yes, you do. So hopefully he's getting that. But
for me, the key part of this was over half of them exhibited some
type of, you know, piqued interest here for either him or
his team. That's still a sizable number half of 650 is 325. My
math correct. But you're talking about a sizable number. I
understand his essentially concern about the lack of data
for some, but at least that gives us some kind of indicator
on what is peeking his interest
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: of the of the cases that are showing, you
know, some sort of advanced technical signature of which
we're talking single percentages of the entire population of
cases we have. I am concerned about what that nexus is, and I
have indicators that some are related to foreign capabilities.
We have to investigate that with our IC partners. And as we get
evidence to support that, that gets then handed off to the
appropriate ice agency to investigate Again, it becomes an
SCP at that point.
John Greenewald: There's that SCP again. But this is again, a
broad stroke note, why wasn't this kind of stuff set up
already, I saw the news headlines that their
instrumentation wasn't calibrated for certain types of
objects, which is why they missed those balloons. But come
on, you're telling me that all the NRO satellites, all of the
NASA instrumentation all of nor adds capabilities, they weren't
seeing unknown objects, whatever that unknown is, and there
wasn't a procedure to make it somebody else's problem or make
it their own problem. This is kind of like concerning, if you
really look into it. It doesn't really make sense that all of a
sudden this and again, not to demean Dr. Kirk Patrick's effort
here. But a very small effort at this point, a very new effort is
trying to make sense of what they consider unknown objects,
which very well may be earth based, and unexplainable. But my
whole point is, it's like he's starting from scratch to figure
this all out and essentially make it somebody else's problem.
No wonder they're saying it's a huge national security risk,
because it is, that's ridiculous that those types of things
aren't worked out. He threw in the single percentages again. So
just to throw back to this screen here, the unknown 9%
Obviously echoes the exact same conclusions that they were
seeing statistically, in 1955. But somebody is dropping the
ball.
Kirsten Gillibrand: As you know, Dr. Kirkpatrick, Congress has
mandated that your office establish a discoverable and
accessible electronic method for potential witnesses of UAP
incidents and potential participants in government UAP
related activities to contact your office and tell their
stories. Congress also set up a process whereby people subject
to non disclosure agreements preventing them from disclosing
what they may have witnessed or participated in could tell you
what they know that risk of retribution from the or
violation of their NDAs. Have you submitted a public facing
website product for approval to your superiors? And how long has
it been under review?
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: I have we submitted the first version of
that before Christmas?
Kirsten Gillibrand: And do you have an estimate from them when
they will respond? Or when you'll have feedback on that?
No, I don't. Okay, we will offer a letter asking for that timely
response.
John Greenewald: He definitely didn't seem happy about that.
But before Christmas, he submits that essential draft template
for them in this public facing website, and nothing is approved
here by late April of the next year. I know the government
takes a lot of time. But if this was a priority of any kind, it
would you would think become a priority to just get it
approved. The Classified version obviously already was. So why
not a public version?
Kirsten Gillibrand: Tears appears? When When do you expect
that you will establish a public facing discoverable and access
portal for people to use to contact your office as the law
requires?
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: So I would like to first say thank you all
very much for referring the witnesses that you have thus far
to us. I appreciate that we've brought in nearly two dozen. So
far, it's been it's been very helpful. I'd ask that you
continue to do that until we have an approved plan. We have a
multi phased approach for doing that, that we've been
socializing, I have submitted for approval, some time. And
once that happens, then we should be able to push all that
out and get get this a little more automated. Great. What I
would ask though, is as you all continue to refer to us and
refer witnesses to us, I'd appreciate if you do that.
Please try to prioritize the ones that you want to do,
because we do have a small research staff.
John Greenewald: So small research staff. And they can't
obviously interview or do everything that is put on their
desk. So he's asking, essentially the senators to
prioritize the witnesses that they should interview. But I'm
curious who's going to the senators. And I'm curious, after
they've gone to the net, now, nearly two dozen. So you would
think that the ones that are the highest priority at this point,
jello brand or whomever else would have thrown them arrows
direction by now that none of them were credible to support
any of these more outlandish, and I say outlandish. But and I
don't really mean it to sound as disrespectful as that. But those
stories that we have seen being alluded to and some claims
actually being made all of the above. I would think that
senators, if they're intrigued enough to say arrow, you should
look at this Dr. Eric Davis guy because he allegedly met with
Thomas Wilson. This was submitted to the Congressional
Record. So you know, tick tock, let's let's get on it, you would
think that that would be done by now, you would think that if, in
the first hearing, Jeremy cor bells name came up, you would
think that Bob Lazar would kind of come along with that, because
not only did core Bell have the leaks that were mentioned, even
though Bob Lazar was not, you know, somehow, if somebody is
talking to core Bell, and he really thinks that Bob Lazar is
telling the truth, that that's gonna go across their desk, too.
So with that be thrown arrows direction. Again, some of that
is just speculation and assumptions. But I would think
so, because the senators aren't going to do the research,
they're going to hear the stories by in some cases, what
they consider credit by credible people, they think anyway, and
then it goes to arrow for research. So does arrow have
transcripts of any of those guys? Who knows? But I'm going
for it.
Kirsten Gillibrand: Do you have any plans for public engagement
that you want to share now that you think it's important that
the public knows what the plan is?
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: So we have a a number of public engagement
recommendations, according to our strategic plan, all of those
have been submitted for approval, they have to be
approved by USDA ins. We are waiting for approval to go do
that.
Kirsten Gillibrand: Okay, I will follow up on that.
John Greenewald: So it seems like he's waiting for a lot for
approvals, and so on and so forth. So we'll see what the
senators do, namely Gillibrand, who will write these letters by
the way, congressional correspondence is FOIA double.
So I will be going for all of the correspondence, obviously,
you don't file the day after, gotta give her some time. She's
obviously got a lot on her plate, but you give it some kind
of lead time for her to actually write the letter, then go after
it. And I have done that in the past. You can go for
congressional correspondence logs, see what other senators
may have written letters in regards to UAP to try and get
the DOD to do XYZ, whatever that might be. So obviously, all of
these things that are talked about, become paper trails, or
future paper trails like this one, that will hopefully be a
paper trail sooner rather than later. There was a question here
from the chat room for those watching live. Black Dread
Scotland. Always good to see you here. Thank you for that
support. Do you think that many of the unknowns are US recon
platforms such as airships, balloons, drones, and E, WC. And
the reason why they're unknown is because they are classified
US assets? I'm taking your question that maybe Dr.
Kirkpatrick doesn't have access to everything that could very
well be true. But it really does sound like what they're focusing
on when it comes to the unknowns or things that they have
verified to essentially not be our own. Again, that's a little
bit of speculation. So I'm not saying that he said that
outright. But I'm kind of leaning towards that, that I
would think that there's some kind of filter before it's sent
for Arrow because I don't envision arrow just searching
the entire catalog for the US military infrastructure, looking
for UAP. I would imagine that when it comes to those
classified platforms that may be connected to UAP. You know, that
they wouldn't cross his desk. But if that plot platform is
seen by someone else who hasn't read in, they're not clear to
pilots seems to see something. Sure. And that begs the
question, Does Kirkpatrick have access to everything? That's a
purely speculative area of all of this. So if I understood your
right, I'm sorry, I don't have a better answer from that, or for
that, I should say, but sadly, we just don't know, we have no
idea what he does and does not have access to. I would also
imagine, too, that they may instruct him to, let's say, not
release a certain video. And again, this is also speculation,
but let's say his office says this particular video is
unidentified. So they're going to declassify it release it as
an example, like they have in the past. But it turns out that
it's some classified platform from some other military branch
or so on. I would think before he got approval to release that
material, they would shut that down, because he obviously has a
clearance himself. So they may read him in and go, that's not
something we're letting out in the open, the approval wouldn't
go in. And then it may even just disappear in his databases and
books. I think that that's a possibility too. So then it's
not even a consideration for Arrow. So a lot of speculation
there. Don't get me wrong. I don't know the right answer,
because obviously, we're getting into a classified territory. But
what my impression was from what he said that we're not dealing
with the classified US assets that he's deeming as
unidentified
Kirsten Gillibrand: And then my last question is about the
integration of departments UAP operations research, analysis
and strategic communications. During the recent UAP incidents
over North America, it didn't appear that you were allowed to
play that role. Do you agree that the public perception is
generally that you and your office did not appear to play a
major role in the department's response to the detection of
objects over North America? What can you tell us? That's going on
behind the scenes from your perspective? Div. And in the
after action assessment process? Is there awareness that there is
a need to operate differently the future and a commitment to
doing so
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: when the when the objects were first
detected, I got called by joint staff leadership to come in late
one night to review events as they were unfolding unfolding,
and to give them an assessment based on what we knew at that
time. I did that worked with the director, Joint Staff, the j two
and the J. Three. That night and over the couple of following
days on? What are the types of things that we are tracking from
a unidentified object perspective, what databases do
we use those sorts of things for, for normal for known
objects known tracking. Beyond that, the response I would have
to, I would have to refer you back to the White House for the
decision on how they did the response, we did not play a role
in what you would respond. Other than that initial, you know,
advice on what we are seeing and how we are seeing.
John Greenewald: You yet again, it kind of was concerning to
hear that arrow was the office, they called once these these
objects that from what we were told is the general public, they
knew about prior these balloons, that arrow was who they went to.
That's not to demean arrow as an office. But why were there no
other policies or procedures to take over for when they saw
known foreign technology, spy or otherwise, but any type of
foreign technology coming in, if I recall, where we told that
they had known about this days, or weeks prior to it becoming
public knowledge, and US tracking these balloons, and so
on, there's nothing so then they call the arrow office, I think
it's great that they were called in as maybe a consultant role,
but I kind of got the impression that they were the ones that
everyone call it call arrow with these balloon objects. And it
just surprised me that there was no other effort that had been
well established at this point, to have policy and procedure on
what to do. The other weird thing is the fact that we
started shooting these things down, starting with the Chinese
spy balloon. But then within days, you had multiple objects
shot down all rumor to be, you know, balloons or whatever. And
then like nothing, like it all just stopped. So what are the
odds that all of a sudden we we see the balloon, the first one,
then we shoot that down, and then there's these beautiful
photographs, they really were cool. I think that they were
awesome nighttime shots of them collecting the wreckage and
essentially posing with it. There was that, then nothing on
the other objects that were shot down, we just heard about him.
So in the course of days, you had all these objects shot down.
And then all of a sudden, nothing, no new stories, no
additional shutdowns that we're aware of know anything. What
happened? You know, and that's what's what's really fascinating
to me, because I don't have an answer. I'm not going to pretend
I do. But But at what point does some of this become strategic?
Because, in my view, those incidents were tied into the UFO
UAP topic. So some of the stories that I saw, were tying
it into arrows effort and UAP and, and so on and so forth,
essentially, taking the mystery out and putting an explanation
in. So the general public doesn't that doesn't do what you
or I do make these videos or watch these videos or really
stay involved in the conversation. They see that mere
mention of Yeah, the UAP conversation while it looks like
a lot of it is balloons think the New York Times had a very
similar similar tone to their most recent, all of a sudden the
majority of the general public what do they do? They lose
interest. And consequently, who else loses interest? The
senators go back to that, you know, empty room that we saw
when it came to the interest from the Senate side that nobody
was there? Sure people want to think oh, well, you know what?
They were all at the classified setting. So there were really no
reasons for them to go to the public hearing because they
heard everything. Well, if that's true, read into that
because then they're not there. For you, they're there for them.
They're not there to inform you of anything. They're in what a
meeting and they move on. They don't care about what you and I
have to say. Why? Because I think the general public is
starting to lose interest. And that's the result. I think we
need to have efforts that keep senators in the understanding
that the general public wants to know, they do, they really do.
But the problem is they hear too much BS, full stop. From the
mainstream media, it is ridiculous. There was a
mainstream outlet that ran a story on the UFO video that we
already went through from the hearing. And it was this fear,
right, so that was the one that was truly unknown. The other one
was an aircraft. And so they had this flashy headline about
releasing a new UFO, video, so on and so forth. They showed the
wrong video. There's like nothing serious about the
coverage when it comes to mainstream media on this topic
anymore. And that's the problem. So the public is hearing BS,
they really are. And I think that that's what we need to
ensure, is not how we all end up, that people that are making
claims out there have leaked classified information and alien
tech and people with these outlandish claims. As I said, In
the beginning of this deep dive, it is important to either put up
or shut up. And I really, truly believe we need to get into that
mindset that people shouldn't be afraid to call others out, when
they aren't taking the care that they can. I think that that I
want to be careful here because I don't want to be
disrespectful. But at the end of the hearing, there's a video
that had surfaced where Senator Gillibrand, I think was given
ancient alien pamphlets, or something to that effect. Now, I
want to stress I'm not trying to sound disrespectful here, but is
that what she needs to see? Show up to the hearing? I'm gonna get
hate mail for saying that. But is that what we are going to
present her with? Is that the voice of the people? And and I
would say no, I would say that, that convincing someone to put
the Wilson Davis document in there was not the right path.
But you know what, throw him under oath and put them in
there. Now. I changed my mind. I thought that was a biggest
facepalm moment from that first hearing. But you know what it's
done and over. So put them under oath. See what happens. See if
Dr. Eric Davis will sit in there with protection under oath? And
tell everybody on the committee? Yes, I wrote those notes. And
everything I wrote actually happened. I'd love to see it.
And if Thomas Wilson denies it under oath, are you guys going
to believe it? And that's obviously asked towards those
that believe that the Wilson documents depict actual events.
So you have, I think, a certain angle of information that should
be presented to senators. I don't believe the Wilson Davis
documents and the Bob Lazar like stories are the way to go or
ancient aliens. I just don't. And that's unfortunate, but
that's where we're going. And in that process, we're now seeing
the degradation of this topic. I'll get some hate mail for that
too. I'm sure I will. But we're seeing heavily classified
blankets being put over all of this. But as a result, you have
an influx of people claiming they know what's going on and
there's so much bunk out there, the general public loses
interest trying to keep track of it all because that's what the
few now mainstream media outlets that are doing stories are hard
highlighting the ridiculously outlandish claims that hold no
evidence whatsoever that they'll quote 72 anonymous sources in
one particular article and back that up with absolutely nothing.
And that's what gets some headlines on some British
tabloid papers. Well, you and I, we can sit here and talk about
it and and have fun doing so and respectfully disagree. I always
dig that. But sadly to the general public, they're gonna
lose interest if they haven't started already. And I think
we're seeing that the Baghdad Phantom. Remember when I when I
said that there was just a surprisingly lack of coverage to
that. I think that's a repercussion of all this. That's
actually a really interesting story. Whether or not it's an
alien probe, who knows but regardless MQ nine Reaper
footage is being leaked. That's classified, which I can prove is
a classified video in nature inherently, because it was shot
by the MQ nine regardless of what the object is, and it's
leaked out. That to me is the story who is on the inside
leaking classified information and seemingly getting way with
it and doing it for years, just in the last 60 days, 45 days of
that a DOD leak sparked a huge investigation, major public
affairs outreach and damage control. And I believe the guy
was already arrested and charged. What's going on with
the UAP? world? No one cares. Come on. So this is what's weird
and intriguing to me is there's all these unanswered questions.
But it seems like the focus is way over here, when it actually
should be right here. People are missing all of these major
things. And in the end, senators are handed ancient alien things.
And Wilson Davis somehow gets traction within a congressional
hearing. And that's what's unfortunate, because there's so
much more, I think, evidence to be presented. And and I still
don't know if Kirkpatrick has the access that he needs. If you
were to ask me to bet $1 I would bet $1 He does not. I believe
that arrow is too much in the spotlight to have access to
everything. I believe that the secrecy proves there is much
more to this than clutter and balloons, and UAS is liked or
Dr. Kirkpatrick had stated. So when I go back to the very
beginning of this deep dive and say that it seemed forced, was
it really forced? Was he is he the guy to go out there and
explain this? Not investigated? No, I'm not making that
conspiracy claim. And no, I'm not saying he's lying. But we do
have to question whether or not he has access to all of the
information.
Now throughout this video presentation, I kept slowly
showing you slides from 1955 of the same document, but just
different sections of it showing how it compares to present day.
So I'll close with this thought. Dr. J. Allen Hynek, the main
Chief Consultant scientist for Project Bluebook started in very
much a similar way. The majority of everything was explainable.
He was the swamp gas guy. And Dr. Hynek was very much the
skeptic slash debunker of project Bluebook very similar to
what we're seeing today. Go back to the clips of Dr. Kirkpatrick
saying the majority of everything is all explainable.
clutter. Balloons UAS is very similar to Dr. J. Allen Hynek.
But as time went on, Hynek was really a scientist. And he
looked at all of that evidence. And he looked at those cases,
and there is documented proof that he wanted to actually
reopen some of the cases that were solved. I have the letters
on the blackbaud.com. They're fascinating. And just search for
a section called from the desk of project Bluebook. It's a
fascinating story, including actual written letters, with
from Dr. J. Allen Hynek to Hector Cainta. Nia, head of
project Bluebook at the time, and essentially arguing that
some cases should be reopened and the US Air Force with the
direction of kin tinea said, no, they're going to stay closed. So
at what point does Kirkpatrick have access? And how much does
he not? How much is he forced to do something? Or how much is he
not? These are all juxtapositions that are
absolutely fascinating. When you when you look and compare how
strikingly similar it really is. So where does John, Sean
Kirkpatrick go from here? I don't know. But it'll be
fascinating to see. Because if there is, and this was
speculation on whether or not he was really kind of forced to
explain these things, that is exactly what happened during
project Bluebook. Now we're talking about academic
institutions coming along. That is exactly what happened in
Project Bluebook. And when you're talking about these peer
reviewed processes, that's kind of kind of what happened during
project Bluebook. But in the end, the academic community
looked at the evidence that were brought in and appropriately
cleared, and they said shut it all down. It's not worth it. So
are we on the same path or not? Your guess is as good as mine.
As always, these deep dives I understand are not for
everybody, but if you're still here, A for effort on your
dedication, I'd love to hear from you. The YouTube channel
obviously has a big comment section please feel free to post
your comments below. A thumbs up is definitely a help to me. Make
sure you're subscribed to the channel and above all else,
sharing the channel name and link to the channel is the
biggest help of all if you feel so inclined to support the
channel you want to throw in $1 or $5 or whatever. I have a
patreon you can do either the super chats if you're watching
live, or there are ways to do comments on YouTube, where you
can tip as well. I'm not looking to take Make Your Money 100% of
what you submit goes to the Freedom of Information Act cases
that I file and the costs to run the black vault.com. Now
totaling more than 3.2 million pages over the course of 26
years that I've added, which are housed on three dedicated
servers. And so sadly, it's just not cheap. So 100% of what you
guys send in goes to that I don't buy myself a steak dinner
or coffee or anything like that. That said, Thank you so much for
listening and watching. This is John Greenewald, Jr, signing
off, and we'll see you next time.