Dan Warren: So
John Greenewald: in my mind, there were certain things that
had come out that were pretty interesting. Last week, the
black vault did a deep dive into the highlights and the lowlights
of the recent hearing on unidentified anomalous
phenomena, or UAP. will come to order. For some that hearing was
quite the left down.
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: Arrow has found no credible evidence thus
far of extraterrestrial activity offworld technology or objects
that the FBI, the known laws of physics.
John Greenewald: Others hang on to the hope that the hearing
represents an important step towards all of us knowing the
absolute truth behind the UAP mystery icon, at least, maybe
one day, you'll see
Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: it, come through to the top of the
screen. There it goes. And then the camera will smooth to
follow.
John Greenewald: But my guest today was actually there.
Dan Warren: Reporting live from the US Capitol, I'm getting
ready to go to the congressional hearing on UFO with the Russell
building. Just want to check in and say hi to everybody, good
morning from Washington,
John Greenewald: in the audience, listening intently to
every word we all heard. But also, he was privy to what
happened when the cameras weren't rolling. both before and
after the hearing itself. Dan Warren, who runs the fifth
pillar of emphasis Tiktok channel, updating and educating
more than a quarter of a million of his subscribers on the UFO
issue, steps into the vault to talk to us about what he learned
at the hearing what he took away from his one on one interaction
with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. And where does he feel we might
be going 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'm your host, John Greenewald, Jr, creator and
founder of the black vault.com. But also the janitor, the
scanner and pretty much everything else that you can
fill in the blank with I am the entire team here at the black
vault.com. So thanks for tuning in. I've been looking forward to
this, this conversation with Dan Warren. Dan. First off, thank
you so much for taking some time and talking to me and my
audience today.
Dan Warren: No problem. Thanks for having me. And you need to
update your intro because you're everything but the gardener?
John Greenewald: That's right. Yes, for those who don't know,
Dan, and I had to delay a few minutes because on announced my
gardeners who show up on Tuesday, showed up on a Monday
when we're recording this and they were outside my window for
quite some time. But But yes, other than the gardener. That's
true. I do everything else but the grass. So I've been looking
forward to this conversation with you because I've talked
about you before on this channel. You do some very
entertaining pieces. Anybody that uses social media when it
comes to Twitter, I've seen your lot in but most notably your Tik
Tok following, you have really and rightfully so kind of
garnered this, this following this movement of looking to you
for updates. For information, you do some great pieces. So I
want to start there because people see these pieces online.
You're the man who creates them, you're the you're the host of
them, and you you produce these things. Tell me how you got
started doing that.
Dan Warren: So I basically was looking for the easiest path to
success that I could find when it comes to quality because it's
hard to make documentaries. Setting up a podcast is also
difficult. I didn't know anything about AV or recording.
So I started tinkering around with what can I do and I found
out that tick tock had all the tools necessary for you to be
able to use your phone to start making content, as poor as it
was at the time that I started. So it's definitely allowed me to
learn and hone my craft as I've progressed and I've actually
learned different software packages along the way. But it
was me wanting to start to contribute to the conversation
in a meaningful way instead of just consuming content and
consuming information, which I would with my videos I always
have to thank the people that are providing the research that
allows me to more or less have a backbone for what I'm covering
in my videos. I always like to add context context to the info
Meishan on presenting that, but someone is always providing me
an article that I'm covering. And I try to contextualize it
and add background information to it. And also just make it
easier for people that are not familiar, that are not deep into
the UFO topic like we are with why this information is
particularly significant to me. And so people tend to enjoy that
it gives them a little bit more of an insight from a UFO nerds
perspective on the situation. And it's also been a nice
interesting way to document my learning journey and my
experience as things have kind of then unfolding in front of
us. So it's nice to look back at what I thought was significant
at the time, and how it related to the moment that it was being
released and why it was significant. And it also
prevents me from having to remember every single detail
about that moment, and that article, and that information
that came out, I can go back and use it as a reference document
more or less. But that's what that's what got me started, I
wanted to be, I wanted to become more involved, I wanted to be a
contributor instead of solely a consumer. And that's why I
started making these videos. And now I consider myself the fast
food version of youth Balaji, I've just a quick, easy to
consume hit of information.
John Greenewald: That's where I think you and I connect very
much when it comes to this because it was quite a few years
ago, I realized I don't do tic TOCs. As much as I want. I did
join, I've got a couple of videos on there, you've
obviously mastered that, that craft and really kind of
connected with the audience. But your views on kind of that
power, that it's not just about making content and getting a
couple of views, or in your case, you know, like hundreds of
1000s of people following you. But rather, it's a timeline of
our journey that we're all trying to figure this out. And
that's kind of how I treat some Twitter threads that I do that a
lot of times I write I find myself writing them for me,
because I need to document it, I need to figure out that in April
of 2023, this happened might change next year. But there's
this this literal timeline of our journey figuring it out. And
that's what I've always appreciated with you. I don't
know where I heard that it might have been just a one on one
conversation with us. or quite possibly you posted that. But
I've always admired that about you because you understand the
power of it. Let me ask you the why UFO is what drew you to
making a difference in that world versus let's say any other
that you could be making content on?
Dan Warren: Well, it's it's been my dirty little secret to be
fascinated with UFO since forever. Basically, my first
love was megalithic structures, the pyramids drew me in. But
then I started looking at more mysteries in the world that we
live in. And I mean, it's it doesn't take long for you to go
well are we alone and start looking elsewhere for
information about that. So I started delving into when I was
young without letting people know and it's been something
that I that's kind of come and gone over the course of my life
where I've been convinced it's there's something there and then
I'll the pendulum will swing to the other side. And I'll be
convinced that we're all alone and I'll quit paying attention
to it. So I've come left and I've gone come back several
times over my life. But I do feel like it is the most
historical moment that could happen in our lifetimes would be
this. I always tell people like it's any event that has occurred
in your past is going to be considered noise 1000 years in
the future like they might not they're not going to remember
911 in 1000 years, unfortunately. So there's only a
few things that would last the test of time. And I think if we
find out that we're not alone, that's going to be one that's
going to be remembered forever. And it's not going to be
repeatable. So I've got attracted to it for that reason.
And I just think it's a very fascinating story. I've I tell
people that this is my hobby this is what I'm into and it has
basically replaced the the hole that sports filled for me for a
long time in my life like it's it's got all the behind the
scenes drama it's got all the peaks and valleys like these
hearings are kind of like our Super Bowls are NBA Finals
things comparable. But I don't pay attention to sports anymore
because this is in my opinion, more of a interest. There's a
lot more interest in this like watching people play sports is
great, wonderful entertainment, but this can be just as
entertaining if you know how to look what to look for. And I
always tell people that when I first got on UFO Twitter, I was
I went with an avatar. I was kudos from The Simpsons like, I
didn't want anyone to see my face. And then after a while, I
said, Why am I Hidin on Twitter. So I put my face on there. And
I'll tell you right now, it was like a weight lifted off my
shoulders, I felt like I wasn't living a lie. And that that gave
me a little bit of an after a while, like people just kind of
accept you for who you are what you bring to the conversation.
And so then I started thinking about it elsewhere, go on to
that next step I could I put my face in recording in front of
people. And I started out on Tik Tok, learning how to do it, and
not posting anything on Twitter, because I consider tick tock my
target audience. And I consider Twitter my peer review process,
because there's just as many UFO nerds or equal if not better UFO
nerds on Twitter than I am. So that was a very big step for me
to take to start posting stuff on Twitter, because I was afraid
I was going to get something wrong and get annihilated. And
every now and then I do make mistakes everybody does. But
it's it's grown, it's actually when the feedback is positive or
constructive, is a big benefit to the process of improvement.
And so I started posting on Twitter, and it's just grown
from there.
John Greenewald: The there's, there's a couple things I want
to unwrap there. But first I want to deal with something the
audience is probably thinking about. And when I had joined,
tick tock myself motivated by someone like you, not as a not
as, you know, a competitor, like I'm trying to compete with you,
but rather I saw what you were, what you were doing and what you
were looking to accomplish. And it was very motivating to say
hey, there's a whole different type of audience hear there's a
different audience here. But I remember the reaction and I want
to get your thoughts on this. There's a lot of people
apprehensive to use tick tock, and they're like, oh, you know,
my information. It's all being stolen now. I've led a fairly
public life for for quite a couple decades now. So to me, I
kind of don't really think a lot about that. You know, I mean, I
hate to say it, but it's just like, Look, if they want to spy
on me, if they've got spyware on my phone, I guarantee I'm
probably being spied on anyway, not to sound paranoid. But if
that kind of stuff happens, then it's probably already happening.
So why do I care at this point? I safeguard what I need to
safeguard and go from there. What are your thoughts on those
concerns? Or have you even heard them? I mean, do you do you get
that apprehension to to join tick tock from other people that
may find out about you from this show? Or on social media other
than tick tock? Do you see it and what are your thoughts on
it?
Dan Warren: So I guess there's that's two different there's two
different parts to the answer for that question. One is
there's absolutely as a 40 plus year old man stigma associated
with telling people I'm on tick tock, right. That is that
usually is met with laughter and what do you do dances? So that's
one aspect of the answer.
John Greenewald: As far as like, just to clear that up. Damn, do
you do dance?
Dan Warren: I've done one with a had my kids. It was the one when
the preliminary assessment on UAPs came out. I did a little
scuffle, I did the old bathroom, the old white man point point
squat squat type of video. So yeah, nothing, nothing to music,
but it was just a moment of expression. But as far as the
safety aspects of it, I'm like you. I'm not a cybersecurity
expert. I have multiple devices. I have vulnerabilities that
could be exploited. I'm sure. I don't know how to stop that I am
not going to be able to do so if like you said, if someone's
going to come for me, they're gonna probably succeed if they
are good at it. Do I think that tick tock is particularly
concerning? I don't I don't have that concern with them
collecting information that's critical to me. Do I think tick
tock has the ability to influence the American
population in ways that they see fit that the United States would
prefer not to influence their youth? Yeah, that's where I
think the concern for tick tock is is the algorithms that put
certain content in front of the manipulatable minds of our youth
so that's to me a bigger concern than them seeing whatever they
want to see on my phone. Which I don't have a lot to hide, so I'm
like if they did hit me, it'd be very boring.
John Greenewald: Yeah. I kind of am in the mindset as I'm I'm I'm
not that important for anybody to really care. You know, like
if they want to log what I'm searching for, or whatever it is
what it is, you know, that there's a point where you have
to relinquish some of your privacy I hate to be in that
mindset, but in some of this, you do other other other things.
I just think like like the conspiracy See takes a hold in
some of these privacy issues. So what really is a concern is like
here, and then people turn it into this. And at the end of the
day, I just feel like for me personally, I'm just not that
important. Nobody really cares. You know,
Dan Warren: I'll say this. If if I get hacked by tick tock and
they say, Hey, this UFO guy got, we're going to expose this UFO
guy is going to be like the biggest street cred on UFO
Twitter ever, because they're going to be like, he
John Greenewald: must be close to the truth. Yeah. And then
they're going to put you at the top of the algorithm. So you'll
be you'll be dancing away to all sorts of people.
Dan Warren: No such thing as bad press.
John Greenewald: That's right. That's right. You said earlier,
there was kind of when it comes to your thoughts on UFOs. You
obviously follow this a lot. Doing the different stories, you
were talking about people's either sending you articles or
you discovering other things, doing these pieces on it. So you
you pay attention. But you're on a pendulum, you know, sometimes
you believe sometimes you don't believe just to kind of quickly
summarize it like that. Where are you right now, on that
pendulum swing?
Dan Warren: In my last video, I went to Washington. So I guess
it wasn't my last video exactly. But I basically laid out where
I'm at. I said, I have UFO disease. I want to know, but I
don't know, I suspect there's something to it. I think there's
something to it. The black vault has convinced me that there's a
US government cover up of something that we can't quite
put our finger on. So there's something there what it is, I
don't know. I'm hoping that this isn't all one big SIOP that's
been going on for 70 plus years. I don't see how that's possible.
Personally, I, I believe there's something but I just can't I
mean, I think there's something I suspect there's something but
it is hard for me to say I believe that it is factual
because I know that I can be wrong. And that's one thing that
I wish that more people would bring with them to the
conversation about UFO topic is, I could be completely wrong. I
got to keep that in the back of my head. Whenever I make a
statement or I listen to someone else's statement. They could be
right. They could be wrong. I could be right, I could be
wrong. So if I felt like the conversation would have been
more beneficial to everyone, if we could all just admit that we
could be wrong.
John Greenewald: Does some of your motivation come from any
experience that you've had?
Dan Warren: No. Unfortunately, I'm curious. I feel like I'm one
of Yeah. I feel like I'm one of those people that they're not
interested in. Like there's nothing. There's nothing special
about me. I'm just a regular dude. I'm just a mechanical
engineer mindset my entire life. I've never seen anything
paranormal or supernatural. I just don't think I have, if that
is a trait that some people have, and others don't. I'm in
the other category that doesn't have it is what I would suspect.
It's only until proven otherwise. Yeah. The catch all
other thing.
John Greenewald: Yeah, I'm in the catch all other bin also.
But I'm also surprised to hear when somebody is so motivated,
they don't have an experience to share. I'm in that bin. But it's
always surprising, you know, to hear that you had mentioned that
you went to Washington. For those who didn't see it, I did a
deep dive on the most recent April 2023 UAP hearing. And
during the course of that deep dive, I went into the highlights
the low lights, you know, some speculation, it was a lot of fun
to do. But when the camera flipped, I had pointed you out
actually in that video, simply because you went there and
wanted to take part. So let's switch gears to that what drove
you to I guess both literally and figuratively, but drove you
to make that drive go to Washington DC and take part.
Dan Warren: It's similar. It's just a organic growth in my
journey into researching this topic. So I started out
consuming content, I decided to take that step forward and start
making content and I basically make content about other
people's work other people's research I do I do my own and
try to pepper it in. But primarily I'm Pete, there's
people that are making news and I'm reporting on today. So I
felt like this was an opportunity for me to actually
become someone that starts making the news witnessing the
news. And so that's what pushed me to do it. I'd like to do more
stuff like that where I'm not just at my house, making videos
and editing for hours. I'd like to be more actively involved in
and I've had people reach out to me and ask if they can help me
along the way. And the thing I've said to every single one of
them is I don't know where this is going, I don't know what I'm
doing. But I just want to be involved in what's going on in
the conversation and anything that is happening that I could
become a part of, and witnessed firsthand and, and help, I would
be happy to do so. So that was what motivated me to go to
Washington is I knew I could do it. I've kind of been planning
this for telling myself that I could do this for quite a while.
And then the moment finally came, and I was able to actually
jump on it and take advantage of the situations. So that's what
sent me to Washington.
John Greenewald: Really briefly, how does that work? I mean, do
you like have to register? Do you just show up at the door? Do
you go to Ticketmaster? I mean, how does it? How does it work if
you want to attend one of these hearings?
Dan Warren: So first thing I learned is there isn't a dress
code. So that's one thing you don't have to worry about. I
dressed up in like a blazer and slacks and a tie. And people
showed up in shorts and sweaters so you don't have to worry about
that. But when they posted the hearing, if you look at the
bottom of it, they do post a location and room number. I
think there's four different four different congressional
buildings that surround the main Capitol building. And there's a
key that will tell you which building is going to be in and
you just show up in the morning, I think they open at seven or
730 Go through the metal detectors. And you're in like
you just get up. So
John Greenewald: there was no like, hey, just a heads up. My
name is Dan Warren. Here's my driver's license number I'm
coming, you just literally physically show up. And that was
it.
Dan Warren: That's it, you just go through security, and then
you wait in line. And what I read in the Frequently Asked
Questions section of the Capitol Building visitor's guide is that
they were going to make you check anything that had
batteries before you entered the hearing room. That didn't even
happen. We were allowed to bring our phones, our computers,
everything in with us. So I was shocked by that aspect of it, I
thought it would have been much more restrictive. And I thought
they would tell us like, here's what we expect from you, as a
member of the audience, Be quiet, be polite, and none of
that they just said, come on in and take a seat. There'll be in
in a minute. And it shocked me that it was that easy. And it
shocked me that there weren't as there were as few people as
their work because it's so easy. But that's one of the reasons
why I wanted to go to show so I can turn around and show people.
This isn't as difficult as it appears. You can do this too.
John Greenewald: So I want to talk about the audience size in
a second. But what if there was a line so long? You didn't get
in? Did that thought cross your mind? Like there's only X amount
of seats? You're making this drive? How long did you drive?
It was a nine hour truck, a nine, nine hour drive kudos to
you, by the way. And so you show up? Did did that thought go
through your mind? Like, oh God, if I don't get a seat? I mean,
you'd think that a UAP would be busting out the door.
Dan Warren: Yeah, I mean, I thought about it every day as I
was planning this whole thing out like, so that's what got me
up early in the morning on the 19th to get aligned or get in
line as early as I possibly could. So I've also heard I read
a internes document on how to attend a hearing before I went.
And she said there are people that are paid that she said it's
usually Old, old guys that will wait in line and get paid so
that other people that are busier can come and take their
place and swap within the line. So I was expecting to see some
line post placeholders there. I thought it would be a decent
line. So I got there as soon as I could.
John Greenewald: I got there to 10. Right.
Dan Warren: I got I got up probably four o'clock in the
morning, my time which I lost an hour just traveling there. But I
got there by before seven so that I could walk in I got there
plenty of time I was the fourth person in line.
John Greenewald: fourth person. So yeah, for those who may have
not have seen the deep dive or the photos that I posted, give
us a quick rundown visually, you said it wasn't a whole lot of
people kind of describe the room for us. There was a lot of empty
seats. But what was the crowd like?
Dan Warren: So the line formed outside and of the room itself.
And there's a lot of people that go in and out of it prepping and
we didn't know if they were cut in line or whatnot. So that was
always a question I had as they were walking by and getting in
the room. But as time got closer and more people started showing
up, including media. There were some cameras with bright lights
on them that were being used, could not tell who they were
with. I think one of them was from Asia somewhere. I'm not
exactly sure. But but then they eventually let us in and It was
just pick wherever you want to see, they had, I want to say,
five seats reserved for Kirkpatrick behind him. But none
of them showed up, which is one thing that I
John Greenewald: was kind of surprised by were their names on
the seats out of curiosity. It didn't
Dan Warren: have a name, it just had Kirkpatrick staff or
something along those lines, I can't remember exactly.
John Greenewald: That's a, we could have used these names.
Dan Warren: But it was those five seats were taken, or
reserved. And then it was just sit wherever you want, there was
probably I want to say 24 seats, and all that would have been
available. And it was not incredibly crowded. You had
elbow room, if you wanted it, I made sure to sit in the front
row. Because if I'm going to travel that far, why not sit in
the front row?
John Greenewald: I didn't recognize because you didn't
have the hat. So I didn't usually have a hat on. So it
took me a second to recognize you in the front row. You said
that there's a couple of news cameras. I was surprised that
weren't more of I'm also surprised to hear there were
some because I didn't see him. Really in the pictures. If I
remember correctly, I think maybe one in the background. But
Did that surprise you if just with your history in this field,
wouldn't you think that there'd be more media?
Dan Warren: Oh, yeah, I thought that this would be what I was
anticipating was what happened after the first congressional
hearing where we had all these representatives being
interviewed outside in the building afterwards. I thought
that's what was going to happen that, that if they weren't in
the meeting, that they would be outside of the meeting after the
fact. But then, of course, when you saw how few senators and
that Kirkpatrick was by himself, there wasn't that inventory of
senators to pull from they tried to get quotes and comments and
sound bites from so that was that was shocking to me.
John Greenewald: Was there talk about the lack of Senators being
in the room? Did you have the opportunity to talk to somebody
else maybe that was there in the halls about that fact, because
for those who don't know, there were two that were there.
Kirsten Gillibrand and Joni Ernst, and correct me if I'm
wrong, but by the video, it looked like they were the only
two that were there in the beginning. And then a third had
showed up kind of in the middle, asked a question or two and then
left by the end. And that was Senator.
Dan Warren: Now Senator rosin from the bottle. So right, she
she showed up for two questions, then she had to go.
John Greenewald: And those were the only three that you saw
Correct. Was that unsurprising or out of the ordinary? In what
you were hearing or seeing?
Dan Warren: I don't know a lot about congressional hearings.
They're typically very boring, in my opinion. So I hadn't
watched a lot of them. So it's this one was what tickles my
fancy saw. I was paying attention to it. But I don't
know if that's normal or not. I also, the question that I always
had during the meeting was, well, what just happened in the
closed session? Hearing, right, that preceded this because it
was it delayed the open session by about 30 minutes or so on.
I've also heard since then, that Senator Kelly was in that one,
but he didn't come to the open hearing. And I also wonder if
there were other senators in that one or Kirkpatrick, staff
that tagged along with them to that one that didn't make it to
this this second one? And if that was an impacting factor on
why there were not as many senators in this one.
John Greenewald: I'm curious to your thoughts on that. Because
because, you know, we want that room full of Senators asking
questions and so on. My just very quick take, and then I want
to throw it back to you is that I think it was strategic to have
the classified hearing prior. Because in the first 120 21, we
as the general people, we the people were able to see what
sparked either Ronald Moultrie or Scott Bray to say, oh, we
can't do that in an open setting. That'll be you know, we
can go into more of that in the closed session, you know, and we
heard that quite a few times. So we get to see like, what the
juice is, just to kind of put it bluntly, here we had it the
opposite. So you guys were sitting there waiting for the
open hearing. The Classified one happens, whoever showed up, and
I can, I mean, I would hopefully safely assume more senators were
there. But those senators represent you. They represent me
they represent the people. They want transparency. Yet they only
show up at the classified hearing. They weren't there to
do any type of media interviews big or small. They weren't there
at all. Is that concerning to you?
Dan Warren: It is for the sheer fact that it makes me concerned
that they don't have Senator Gillibrand Spak like if she is
the chair for that entire subcommittee, and she deems this
subject this topic important enough to hold a open
congressional hearing along with a closed for them not to show
up. It's just Just a sign of support for her is what concerns
me about it. I don't know how concerned they are about
pleasing the UFO community, but to me, it's like a camaraderie
you should have with your co workers. If she thinks it's
important to be there, I would think that everyone would want
to be there. If it wasn't for Joni Ernst, it would be it would
have been a very lonely meeting for a Gillette brand. And I know
that she there were 16 senators that signed a letter of support
for funding arrow Foley just a few months ago. So I was hoping
some of those guys would show up because it seems like an honor
writing in paper, there is support for the arrow office
there is support for the UFO and the UAP investigation for the
government. But when that doesn't translate to butts and
seats, it is concerning that that was my take on it. I don't
know if you read if you read it another way.
John Greenewald: me know and I appreciate your thoughts on it
because i i More was concerned that look being you had
mentioned UFO Twitter, like the UFO. We'll just use that as a
general term. We all want the UFO talk. We all want that
possibility. Like what are we dealing with? Is it extra
terrestrial for me I I'm I deal with a two ways one is very much
that I love the UAP stuff. I love it. I dig it. I eat it all
up. It's it's one of my favorite things. But I also try and step
out of it and look at it from an outsider's perspective, just
like like remove your your fascination with UFOs. No matter
what way you look at this. It's a national security concern and
that there should be some level some with respect to the
classified national security stuff. But some level of
transparency. That's what politicians have been talking
about. So that transparency to the general public is more so
what we all should want. Skeptic debunker believer or on the
fence like we all should have a little bit more transparency. So
the way that I looked at it was the fact that they didn't care
the majority of the politicians, with the exceptions of those who
showed up to the public side, they don't care about the
transparency part, you know, and that I'm not sure how much that
bothers me. But that bothers me. Just simply because there is
that T word being bantered around a lot. Well, we want the
government to be more open. We'll be there in the public
hearing to bring that transparency to light. Because
in my opinion, Kirkpatrick was not pressed at all. That's not
trying to be disrespectful to Jilla Bran urns, or Rosen or
rosin. Rosin. So those three three senators is not meant to
be be insulting. But But let me ask you, if you agree with that
statement, because I took away at least from the video that
Kirkpatrick just had his set statement, and he was reading
it. And then he had some points that came out during some
questioning, but he was never pressed. And I would think that
if any senator cared about transparency, number one, they'd
show up, but number two, those that did show up would have
pressed a little bit harder. Did you get that impression that
there was a lack of that?
Dan Warren: So yeah, I definitely thought there was a
lack of any pressure being applied to Kirkpatrick, there
weren't a lot of follow up questions related to the
statements that he had just made. It was it was kind of
like, Hey, I'm gonna move on to the next question. And so that
was one of the things I considered occurred during the
closed session is that they got questions that got a little
deeper, they pushed back a little bit more than they said,
Alright, let's talk about what we're going to how we're going
to handle this open hearing. And if I had to describe the
relationship between Kirkpatrick and the senators, I would
consider it along the lines of, hey, I'm your I'm kind of your
boss. I'm going to have you. I'm going to call you on the carpet.
We're going to have a conversation. But I just want
you to know this is just a friendly, as Jimmy Church says,
We're just in my room on the couch and having a conversation.
I'm not going to, I'm not going to put you through the wringer.
We're just going to ask you some questions, show us some
information, and then we'll move on. And this is just part of the
process that we're going forward for. And that's the thing that I
keep going back to is was this hearing just one more small step
in a larger in a larger plan. As we saw yesterday, Rubio and
Warner just released some information or sent a letter to
SecDef Austin and DNI Hanes that echoed some of the same
conversation points that were brought up during the
congressional hearing. It makes me wonder if they said, hey,
we'll have this hearing. We're going to ask you about title 10.
Title 50. We're going to ask you about transparency with the
public. And then the senators that weren't at the meeting,
sent the letter so that it'd be a war on two fronts, towards the
SecDef, and the ODNI, to get their attention to address those
particular things, so I always try to look at it, take a few
steps back and look at the situation instead of just a
pinpoint, look at it as a shotgun approach, or a linear
progression of dominoes falling towards a bigger goal.
John Greenewald: With the hearing itself, obviously,
people like me only saw the the beginning with Jill Abram kind
of calling it to order. And then the end, thank you so much. And
then the camera clips, you obviously have a different
perspective, you got to see the walk in and is kind of maybe
dried to, as that might sound I want to ask you about that. Was
Kirkpatrick seemingly wanting to be there? Did? Did he interact
with the audience at all? Was there any sign of him being not
forced to that that's the word I keep using when I describe his?
His hearing is that it was forced that you that he had to
be there, that he didn't want to be there, that he just had to go
through the motions. And that was it. That was my takeaway.
But since you saw all that other stuff, what was your takeaway
about his demeanor,
Dan Warren: he'd be lying to a sea than acknowledged that there
were any people in the audience, which have been never turned
around to look at us or anything. And when you contrast
that to how Jilla Bran entered the room, entered the room, it
was 180 degrees, because I was expecting her to do the same
thing like, Hey, I'm just gonna go in here and take my seat. But
she's came in and greeted, everyone said, Hi, thanks for
comments. She was very warm and inviting. And it gave me a
feeling like she does care about the transparency with the
American people. Because she cares about this topic. She
cares about our involvement in it. And I definitely got the
feeling from Carter Kirkpatrick that he wants to talk to
officials within the government and he doesn't care much about
communicating with the general public at large.
John Greenewald: When so you have a video you interviewed
Senator Gillibrand was that after the hearing? Correct that
was afterwards and we haven't said it yet. Tell everybody how
to get to your channel so they can see that I'll also link it
if you're watching on YouTube. Just go ahead. And in the
description below, you'll find links to to Dan's channels and
Twitter and stuff. But Dan for the audio version, go ahead and
give that out. How can people find that video and your your
content?
Dan Warren: So basically, if you look up fifth pillar of emphasis
everywhere but Twitter, you're going to find me on YouTube, its
fifth pillar of emphasis Instagram, Tik Tok, as well. At
Twitter, it's Hey, look over there and look is spelled with a
U because someone beat me to it. But that's generally how you can
find, find these just the fifth pillar of emphasis.
John Greenewald: And great. And again, all those links are below
in the show descriptions. Now you had interviewed Senator
Gillibrand after the hearing, how did that come about?
Dan Warren: I waited my turn, I waited patiently. I felt like
one of my roles as being a
level headed member of the audience was to make sure that I
was paying attention taking notes be appearing alert, I was
trying to make sure that my that I was representing a
professional type of image for the UFO community, because we
know that there's the fringe element out there. I tried to
make sure I was making eye contact with Gillibrand and
smile, because there's a lot to be said about just smiling in
general, there's a lot of angry looking faces in the crowd,
unfortunately. But I just want to try to make sure that that
she knows that I see I see has my support, and do so by sitting
there and waiting. But then after the meeting, broke up, and
they stopped recording, some of the other members of the
audience spoke up in what I would call a non tactful manner
to get their information across to them. And I didn't think it
was very, very professional way to handle the communication.
They were basically I've said that there is no current way, no
current mechanism to relay information to arrow, about
their knowledge and what they know and videos and things along
those lines. So it kind of got to be a little bit raucous. But,
as I say, in my video, I got to applaud Senator Gillibrand,
because she handled it with poise and grace. She definitely
wasn't taken aback by the way that they were approaching her.
She was agreeing with him. She said, You're right. There should
be a way for that information to be known to this committee, and
that's what we're working on. That's what we're moving
forward. And then they started just to bump harder.
John Greenewald: Yeah, and I don't want to jump in on you but
I do Just just for the audience who doesn't know, and myself
included in this, you're talking about audience members that were
sitting there with you that when she was done with the hearing on
the video anyway, when I was putting it together, you can
hear a voice come in, right when they kind of like, say goodbye.
And it seemed like somebody was shouting a question. So that's
what you're referring to. Right? So she closes the meeting,
essentially, the video cuts, and people chime in from the
audience. Correct. And they're yelling over that room and the
table at her career. I'm only laughing because that does sound
really incredibly rude. But I don't know what standard in
these hearings either. So is that what they were doing? Yes.
So
Dan Warren: the eye contact that I had been making with
Gillibrand turned into me closing my eyes and shaking my
head for like, about a minute straight. So that see, I was
like, oh, man, I feel so bad for her and Kirkpatrick right now,
because this is like, the exact reason why I suspect they don't
want to be part of this community. They don't want to
have this conversation because, like, it's shocking to me that
people won't like the little bit of time that they had with these
people. They wanted to tell them everything, what they were doing
wrong, how how they should be doing it, that they've solved
it, like and it's just like, man, that's just your opinion on
what this is, that's you like, and I'm sorry, one pixel on a in
a big blue sky is not proof of anything, no matter how dramatic
the event was for you. It's just not evidence. It's not data. But
they just don't have that in mind. They get their emotions
get into it. And But getting back to how I got finally got to
interview where I waited my turn until she basically gone through
and listen to people, which was something else. I applaud her
for it. She definitely let people feel heard. See, looked
at their videos, she asked for their information, she
distributed it to Kirkpatrick, and then I more or less, like,
kind of tapped her on her shoulder when it was Mike when I
was close enough and said, Hey, I'm just a citizen journalist. I
don't have anything to tell you because you guys are the ones
that are doing the research. But I do have some questions I would
like to ask you, is it okay if I interview real quick? And she
said, Oh, yeah, let's do it right now. And like, without
missing a beat, she was ready to do so that's when I was able to
take a selfie with her, of course to show my kids that I
was hanging out with a senator and then make the do the
interview, which I wish I had asked better questions, but I
was very nervous.
John Greenewald: I want everybody to watch that video.
I'll make sure I link it. But can you give an overview of what
you did ask and kind of paraphrase what what her
responses were.
Dan Warren: I asked her basically how she thought the
hearing went and what she thought the outcome of it how
how she liked the outcome of it. And she said that she thought it
was a good hearing that a lot of valuable information came
forward. And I wasn't ready to hear it at that time. But after
time has gone by and I've listened to some analysis of the
hearing and gone back and watched it myself. There is some
what I considered valuable information that was included in
the hearing. We of course didn't get everything we wanted. But
there are those few breadcrumbs that came out of it that are
beneficial. And she hit on those. So she she discussed
those in particular. And then I asked her if there were any
questions that she wished she could have asked but didn't get
a chance to. And she said now I got I got all my questions out.
And that's the one I wish I had asked something a little bit
different because of course, she got all of your questions
answered, because you got them answered in the closed session.
John Greenewald: Do you think that will do you think that
we're ever find out when it comes to that closed session?
What ultimately she was told? And again, if I could quickly
preface that the reason I say this is you've now been there.
You've seen how it seems like she wants us transparency? Do
you think that there's ever going to be light in that in
that arena?
Dan Warren: I feel like the only person that could get that
information is that John Greenwald guy who's really good
at FOIA, like he's able to pry information out of the
government like no one else. I don't think they're just going
to be forthcoming with it. I don't think we'll ever see
meeting minutes. But I think there's a chance that will you
tell me Is there a document produced a transcript produced
from those close meetings? That would potentially be something
that could come forward?
John Greenewald: I will I will tell first off thanks for the
vote of confidence there. I mean, I will definitely try my
hardest, you know, congressional hearings and congressional
documents, letters and all that are are not open to the FOIA. So
anything when it does, when it deals with the Congress is off
limits unless they make it public. The exceptions are when
they actually send letters to the government. So or to an
agency. I should turn it that way. So let's say jelibean
writes a letter You can you can FOIA that once it hits the DOD,
because then it becomes a record that is ultimately FOIA trouble.
The responses are as well, there's a review process. So
sometimes they do communicate classified, you know, classified
means. But for those curious and yourself included, when it does
come to this hearing, even though the transcript or
whatever would likely be considered a congressional
record, if, if if you were to ask me, I don't know what the
legality would be. So that would be off limits. What is on
limits, would be Dr. Kirk Patrick's PowerPoint
presentation, any material that he utilized, videos,
photographs, anything that was utilized there, is open, because
that's a Department of Defense product that he took to Congress
not reversed. So that would be foible. I've already filed a
case for that, as you can imagine. So what I'm going for
is all the material utilized by Dr. Kirkpatrick in that closed
session. So to go back to your question, there's ways to kind
of see it, but kind of not and we know the the level of secrecy
is in my opinion, deepening when it comes to this. So it may be a
long shot on whether or not we, you know, we can we can actually
get our hands on it. But I'm definitely trying. So we'll
we'll see what happens there. Hopefully that answered your
question.
Dan Warren: Okay. This is a good segue to speaking of getting
your hands on things after eating. I accomplished one of my
goals of treble and up there is I was able to grab Kirkpatrick
sname plate off of his space and Brent's on with me. So I've got
a souvenir from Kirkpatrick himself. He didn't sign it for
me. But he was he was out of there pretty quick. He stayed
around and was bombarded with questions. I wasn't close enough
to him to hear what he was saying. He was out of there
before I even got a chance to get close to him.
John Greenewald: Well, before I ask you about Dr. Kirkpatrick,
quick exit. Where are you keeping that in your house?
Wherever you are? Does your family appreciate as much as as
you do? This?
Dan Warren: Oh, no. Oh, no, they don't. I've got a I've got a few
square feet of closet space and one of my daughter's closets
because I'm not I'm I don't, I barely have any real estate in
my own closet. So I've got a whole bunch of UFO books. In
information and trinkets that I've obtained, like I've got the
Nim aviation badge that Stan and was able to purchase and provide
me with a one of the full size. It's like a decent size. So I'm
just I've got a little collection of UFO memorabilia in
books, and that's where it stays. Right.
John Greenewald: That's awesome. Now that's that's very cool. I
saw your photo of that. I mean, those those kinds of things. I
always geek out over so I appreciate you showing that.
Going back, though, to the hearing. Dr. Kirkpatrick, as you
noted, quickly left. What was there something where he got up,
turned around and saw some of the other individuals kind of
passing out some flyers did was there any inner interaction or
was he just gone?
Dan Warren: He was there for a while. So the way that it worked
is those guys started chiming in, as soon as they said, Thank
you for the hearing. And they hit the gavel. He raised his
hand, he started talking. They probably had a conversation.
Like they probably said, two minutes worth of words at the
same time for the audience members. Yes, yes, the audience
started talking for about two minutes straight. And
Kirkpatrick never once turned around, he just kept his head
forward and down a little bit. And then it acknowledged that it
was happening, I guess. But then eventually, after Gillibrand
started to have a conversation with a with the audience, got up
and started interacting with the audience. Kirkpatrick joined
your buyer side. And so they were staring information at that
time, Alexa wasn't close enough to be able to hear what he was
saying or how much he was actually talking. But he didn't
have the warm and friendly and inviting aura that Jilla brand
had.
John Greenewald: If I've seen some pictures, you don't have
to, I don't want to make it seem like I'm I'm trying to trash the
individuals that were there sharing the information. So I'm
trying to find a better way to ask this question. What I saw
from a few photos that were snapped, they may have actually
been your photos. I'm not sure if they were. But essentially,
you can see the flyer and it was like ancient aliens related,
right? I mean, that that's what she was being given.
Dan Warren: Correct it I think it's called infinite astronauts,
something like that. It wasn't Ancient Aliens, like the TV
show, but it tied the past to the future. And once again, I
feel like it's just one person's opinion on what's going on. And
there was a lot of opinion being in what I consider opinion, they
considered fact that was being thrown at Kirkpatrick and
Gillibrand, and alien scientists, Jeremy Rice was
actually there. And he did a pretty interesting thing he
started talking about, here's some locations that would be
beneficial for you to look at and to investigate the Blue Room
at Wright Patt. And back back to that back door,
John Greenewald: but tell tell, but yeah, I know. He's really
connected to the Battelle Institute being connected to all
of that tying back to Anthony Berg Galia, which I've got maybe
some differing views on that, but I know that so but but tell
that he was saying, let me let me ask you this. And the I mean,
we all saw the video. But since you were there, and along these
lines are getting all this information from the general
public. Do you feel by the tone of what you saw before and after
the hearing? That Dr. Kirkpatrick, and even the Senate
would have the access to do and accomplish what they need to do?
So the general public just throwing all this stuff at them?
Do you think that they would have the access and go okay,
this is like what I want to run away from? Or do you think that
they potentially just don't have that access? And I know that
this is just speculation, but I'm curious to your thoughts.
Dan Warren: I feel like the UFO community is a tsunami of
information and they've got a teaspoon of capability and and
funding to, to drink it. And so they're, they're drinking from a
firehose at the moment. And I don't think that they have the
ability to track down every lead and you could. And I'm basing
that on the fact that they're even saying, Hey, I appreciate
you sending these whistleblowers, these people to
testify to us, but we need you to start to prioritize them.
Because, in my opinion, what that said was, yes, we've heard
a lot of information. And there's a lot of leads that
we're having to follow because of the testimony. But man,
that's a lot of information to tackle all at one time. Like you
said he won't we want him to answer 70 plus years of
questions right now. And there's just not going to be possible.
That's where I think we do need the GAO, the General Accounting
Office to help out because that's what they have been doing
for years. They have the mechanism. They have a better
mechanism that's already in place and functional. Instead of
Kirkpatrick having to create one that is functional. We could
utilize existing systems just like the sensor systems that we
have all around the United States right now. We don't have
to create new ones to look for weather balloons to look for an
anomalous phenomena. We just use the existing information in a
different way. And it's what save us. bajillion dollars.
John Greenewald: Were you surprised? I'm guessing you saw
the first hearing? Right? I mean, we all watched that. The
first one of the 2021. I took off of work for that. Yes, it's
a holiday. So yes,
Dan Warren: I feel I gotta I gotta tell this one story. Sure.
My family is kind of oblivious to what's going on as far as
UFOs go. So on the first hearing, which was at May 17, or
may 27. I take my kids and to neighborhood kids to school
every morning. So I made sure to stop at a gas station, I was
like, go in there and get yourself a sweet treat and a
drink and you can have the school it's in celebration of
this so that when in the future, you can look back at that time
that I took you to the gas station before school. And
remember, that's what it was about. So I'm hoping to plant
that seed in those kids at some point in the future.
John Greenewald: No, that's, that's awesome. So when you
watch that hearing, I was surprised when we all watched it
that the Wilson Davis notes came up, and that they were submitted
to the Congressional Record. And then obviously, the nuclear
installation encounters. And I'm kind of paraphrasing here,
obviously, but those were talked about and Moultrie and bray were
like, we don't really know what you're talking about. But
essentially, they would look into it. Fast forward to this
hearing. You're there. None of that came up. Now, I'm going to
focus in on the Wilson Davis part. First and foremost, simply
because despite my personal views on it, right, so I'm
putting that out of this conversation, you would think
that they would essentially address it even in part even in
brief to just say, look, I mean, there's there's like you noted
there's just a an avalanche of information out there some true
some not, and they looked into it. Were you surprised at all
that None of that came up in the public hearing at all, or do you
feel that that was just bunk? And they just kind of ignored
it?
Dan Warren: Well, I was hopeful that would be something that
happened is that it would be a continuation of the previous
congressional hearings, and they would carry over some of the
items from it to this new one. But this one seems to be, in my
opinion, a very standalone hearing that didn't necessarily
relate to the conversation that occurred previously. The biggest
difference between that one and this one is they figured out how
to use the pause button on the video much better this go round.
So they've learned from that, but they didn't talk about
anything else that was discussed that I could put my finger on
from the previous one. And that's why I'm trying to once
again, step back and look at it. I wonder what's going on in this
big picture? Is this just one step in a process and they don't
want to continue to go back to the first one, they're trying to
progress forward? And maybe that's why they didn't discuss
it. But I would have sure like to have heard more information
about?
John Greenewald: Yeah, and I as well. And that's why I wanted to
ask you it was it seemed like if that if that Wilson Davis story
is true. I mean, you're you're talking about a humanity
changing story, if they could confirm, confirm that. So for
them not to even bring it up, you know, because again, there
were there wasn't much that was quote, unquote, submitted into
the Congressional Record in that first hearing. That was one
thing. So you would think that if they went to that length to
say, hey, look, if you don't know what this is, they put it
in the Congressional Record. They're asking, and they did
nothing. That that kind of interested me. Also speculation,
but would you think that something like that would have
come up in the classified setting?
Dan Warren: Yeah, I would think that it would, and I think that
there is I'm gonna say Richard Dolan connected adopt from
actually now think about it was Jacque ballet that connected the
dots associated with the Wilson Davis, memo notes, that it was
actually the Comptroller General, from the GAO office,
that was the guy that was went and found the product, the
program and audited it, before Wilson was able to start to ask
question and knock on doors. So that's where I think whoever had
was assisting writing the NDAA. Originally, it was going to have
involvement from the Comptroller General from the GAO office
involved in the investment in the historical investigation.
And after I heard what Jacque baalei said about I think it was
browser, that was the STARTTLS browser was the comptroller at
the time, and if they suspect made it into the program, and
got the tour and got the briefing about it, that they
will, that position was written into the NDAA, for that very
reason that they knew that that was who made it into in the
past, and that there would be records of that at some point.
So that's why he was involved. But at the last minute, they
pulled the Comptroller General out of the legislation. And they
just said that the GAO was going to support them. So that was the
big question I had going into it was, are they going to talk
about the GAO office in relation to the Wilson Davis notes?
Because that would connect further connect the dots for for
that, and then in here, I don't know if that was discussed in
the previous hearing. But I would, I would suspect that
would be something in writing, not so much at a hearing that
it's too complicated to really discuss. When you have a whole
bunch of other questions, you got to ask about procedures and
funding and things like that. And the close team.
John Greenewald: Yeah. And you and I briefly talked about it.
And that's thanks to you. I'm going to pull up the name
myself. The let me see here. The current Comptroller General,
started on March 13 2008, which is a pretty big gap and
motivated by your question to me, that was off the air. I
filed a case now, first and foremost, the GAO, not sure if
you know, this is actually not subject to the Freedom of
Information Act. Yeah, so they they are. They have their own
instruction that goes to Gao records as part of the Code of
Federal Regulations. That's for like section 81 Something
section 81. But Gene Dodaro is the current Comptroller General
from 2008. To date, and motivated by your question,
because I had never done it filed a case this morning to
kind of sift around and see if that current Comptroller General
is involved at all with with the current conversation, so thank
you for kind of motivating me to do that because since the GAO is
not subject to the FOIA, sometimes you forget about them.
You You know, and I just don't have them off the top of my head
to go I'm gonna file a FOIA to the GAO because you can't. But
they do kind of honor what they call honor the spirit of the
FOIA. And that's that Code of Federal Regulations, statute
that they fall under. And then some of the other ones that
aren't subject to the FOIA like NORAD, because they're a
binational command, they have their own internal structure to
honor the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act, but you just
have to cross your fingers that you're going to get it. So
Dan Warren: real quick on that. Are, are their emails valuable
if it was to someone outside of their department?
John Greenewald: Yes. And so that's what I'm kind of sifting
around. So I have like a standard keyword list. That if
they're talking about anything even remotely close to standard
keyword list should come up with it. So and that's what I had
filed on with the GAO because it searches attachments. It
searches the body of the of the email, and then the subject
line. So essentially, like if there's any talk of UAP, or
unidentified aerial this or unidentified anomalous that,
like my keyword list will hopefully catch something. And
I've used that quite a few different times through FOIA,
where they were to, you know, essentially the same way. It's
just a different, different law. And then you go for that
information and see what happens. So I would think that
if there is any connection whatsoever, something will get
triggered. And then that just kind of branches off into 12,000
different other, you know, areas if you do get something so so
hopefully, hopefully we'll we'll find something and the
connection with the Wilson Davis thing. I'm glad you brought that
up. I think I vaguely heard about that in the past, but
never really focused in on it. So I'm glad you brought it up.
And yeah, we'll see. We'll see what happens. You know, if
there's anything within the the GAO, there has been UFO stuff in
the past, as you're likely aware, especially with the
Roswell stuff, where they very briefly in the beginning of the
GA, the GAO report and investigation, this was years
ago. But when they looked into the Roswell incident, that
essentially they said the majority of anything related to
this era, and this incident was destroyed. But then they go on
to like, place a conclusion anyway, and say, Well, wait a
minute, if you've destroyed the majority of the evidence, how
can you sit here and tell me that you actually, you know,
have a conclusion. So I don't want to get off on a tangent
there. But the GAO does serve, you know, quite an interesting
purpose when it comes to this conversation in the past. So
hopefully, they will so in the future.
Dan Warren: All right. Well, I'll when you post this, if you
put it on Twitter, I did make a video about this specific topic
with Charles rouser, tag it on there. And I do highly recommend
that people check out the Richard Dolan discussion of it
because he goes into great detail about it where I can't
into three minutes, so I try to keep my videos in.
John Greenewald: Yeah, no, I gotcha. Dan, if I can ask you
one more question. Before I let you go. After experiencing what
you did, and my compliments to you for getting, you know, out
there and interacting with politicians, that's awesome. I
hope more people follow suit. Now that you've had a little bit
of time to digest it, to hear what you did, and to process all
of that, if you could ask Senator Gillibrand, who were to
call you tomorrow and say, Dan, you can ask me two things. Or,
Dan, if you have two questions that I can pass on, what would
they be pick? Whichever, whichever way you want? What
would those two questions be? No pressure.
Dan Warren: Yeah, leave me on the spot a little bit. I guess I
would probably have to go with the reverse engineering. What
has she heard about that? That that's a that's a game changer,
in my opinion. If if there is material, she did mention, our
Osvaldo Franco did get a quick interview with her where she did
mention several things about what they have. I don't feel
like she said that we have that we have objects that we have
things I feel like he asked the interjected that and she kind of
just let it go. But she didn't reject it outright. So that
would be one thing I would want to ask her about is do we have
materials? Do we have a reverse engineering program that is
actually doing something with those materials? And then of
course, I would like to know, let's talk about satellite
imagery. That to me is something that is read has resonated with
me since the John Radcliffe comments that came out on the
Maria Bartiromo show. Do we have images from satellites of these
things? That would be what Without a doubt, non human of
non human origin. So those would be my two questions. I'm sure
I'd come up with better ones if I get a piece of paper and
pencil in front of me. That's what I got. Cuz shooting from
the hip.
John Greenewald: I was like putting people on the spot there
the, but I get to do it to you all anytime. Oh, right now, go
ahead. Right now, right now. All right. Let's see.
Dan Warren: Yes. All right. So we all know that you blindly
accept the truthfulness of the Wilson Davis documents without
that being the case. But what would it take for you to see for
you to go? Okay, I now fully endorse and accept the events
that are depicted in these notes. What evidence would you
have to see for for because I know that your stance is I can't
you're like me, you put everything a lot of things in
the anecdotal been in the interesting, but not? I can't
prove it. It's not fact yet. What would it take for you to
make that switch on the Wilson? David Davis documents?
John Greenewald: It's a great question. I am that type of
person that needs to see to believe. What I what I think has
happened, where I, where I get a lot of hate mail, we'll call it
that, for not believing them is that there's a little bit of
truth in these smaller points. So the bigger ones have to be
true. Right. So like the oak Shannon thing, and credit to Jay
from Project unity for tracking him down and getting the
interview. I have no problem with that kind of stuff. I love
it. I've openly complimented Jay for doing that. But it doesn't
convince me just because oak Shannon had the health problems
at the time. And those were depicted in the notes. I've been
around the field for a long time and seen, in my opinion, quite a
few hoaxes, as we all have. And for me the anatomy of a hoax, is
you have to entwine certain factual tidbits into a bigger
document. So you use real people, you use real events, you
use real things that you can verify peppered in with fantasy.
And I feel that that's what we have here is a work of fiction
and fantasy with real things. woven in. So when the oak
Shannon revelation came out, I'll be honest, it just didn't
surprise me at all. It's like, Well, I'm not accusing him of
making it. So this will probably come off wrong, no matter how I
term it. But it could just mean that whomever did Eric Davis or
whomever, was involved in that little niche group that seems to
have known each other at around that time, interested in all
these things. And that could have been woven in. With that
said, what would it take to convince me well, you need
something to support these programs going to the to the
private sector, because for me, for Admiral Wilson to be as the
story goes, and I don't get hate mail for this, a given a NRO,
the famous NRO document. And that gave him a list of
keywords, those that believes in the Wilson Davis notes being all
genuine and depicting the notes now say that that document
doesn't matter. And I was surprised at that shift, because
prior to that, that document was in most of the retelling of the
story. And then once it was proven, in my opinion, proven to
be false. I thought I would get the hate mail like no, this is a
real document. Here's why. It was like they were convinced it
was fake. But it didn't really matter to the story. So that the
goalposts kind of shifted, it's like, well, this gave Admiral
Wilson the list of keywords, then it was proven to be a hoax.
And then all of a sudden, I was like, well, that document
doesn't matter. Well, it's like okay, well fill in the gap. How
did Admiral Wilson find this? You know, this program? Those
types of things need to be resolved for me to start
considering this is nonfiction, that this is a real event that
took place. Why would someone like Admiral Wilson pick Dr.
Eric Davis to tell the story to in a car of all the people
inside Admiral Wilson's Rolodex, no offense to Eric Davis, but
that's the one that he goes to spill all the beans with. Again,
those types of things don't make sense. We can all speculate and
some may be you know, plausible on on why this unfolded the way
it did. But again, there's really no supporting evidence
plus you have Admiral Wilson saying it's all poppycock I
think is what His word was maybe was something else. But
regardless, you know, he's saying that it's wrong. So
Dan Warren: So I want to let me interject real quickly because I
I believe that even if Wilson said, yeah, those are real notes
that really happened, I still don't feel like that would be
enough for you to be convinced that the program that they're
describing actually worked. Like, I don't feel like that's
tangible enough information with him with if Eric Davis and
Wilson said, Yes, this is a discussion that we had. I don't
feel like that would be enough proof for you to say, although
obviously, there's a extra terrestrial reverse engineering
craft going on. So there's got to be something above that
conversation. That would be proof of what would have to come
out of that program for you to be condensed.
John Greenewald: Yeah, and I don't think you're, you're too
far off. But I will say, it would be a different
conversation for me when it came to those documents, if Wilson
kind of fell down and say, You know what, I was lying. With
these poppycock statements. It really did take place, I will
absolutely shift my tone on the documents, will I again, then
just run to okay, then there is an alien reverse engineering
program? Well, no, not really, because it's quite possible that
Wilson was misled. Now, again, this is all just kind of
speculation and a hypothetical. So before anybody, you know,
really rubs me a new one through the comments below. Just
remember, like we're playing a hypothetical here. But if but if
Wilson came out and said that the conversation took place, I
would absolutely change my tone, and take it a little bit more
seriously. But then we have to fill the gap of where is, you
know, number one, where is it? But number two? Why would Wilson
be told at all, let's just say that the j two was completely
denied access to these closed programs. In my opinion, the way
classification works as you would not get confirmation of
those closed programs, that they're able to fly him in, and
put on a game of charades and say, Look, I'm sorry, you wasted
your time. But we got nothing here. You know, like, here's a
tour, here's the back room, you know, here's the side room, and
do the tour and put on a game of charades. So if they really
wanted to deny those levels, of personnel of government
officials of politicians, whomever fill in the blank, they
want to deny them that I think there's ways to do it. And so
for them to then it meant to Wilson, and then say no, but
you're still you know, denied all this, then he gets so angry,
and then goes to Eric Davis. And of course, I'm very much not
shelling the story. But that kind of stuff. It just doesn't
make sense to me at all. And those are the types of gaps. So
again, in fairness, I would absolutely change my tone a bit
if Wilson were to say that, but then we would have to dig in
further. And we would have to wonder why that would transpire.
Because to me, when you talk about secrecy, you just don't
give a confirmation. If you want to keep the knowledge from
somebody, you know, and you just completely omit the truth 100%
And by Wilson knocking at your door, I don't think that they'll
say, Okay, well, you're right. We do have this, but we're not
going to give you any access or any type of confirmation
whatsoever. So I think that there would still be digging,
but in fairness, I would I would change my tone. I'm eager to see
if under oath, if Wilson will give a certain answer. And if
Dr. Eric Davis will give a certain answer. But the fact
that in hearing number two, what was submitted to the record and
hearing number one was completely devoid and the public
hearing. To me, that's not a good sign. So we'll see how it
plays out. I mean, no matter what, but I just think it's not
a good sign.
Dan Warren: So I'm not going to stop chewing on this bone just
yet. All right.
John Greenewald: With with and you're okay with time? I don't
want to I don't know, yeah, I'm
Dan Warren: fine. I'm actually doing some household chores. So
you're keeping me from work?
John Greenewald: Yeah, yeah. Sure, your wife is gonna love
that.
Dan Warren: She won't watch it, she won't know.
John Greenewald: I'll send her a link.
Dan Warren: But the let's say we never get the confession of
truth from Wilson. If you get if you're honoring the FOIA request
to the GAO office comes back with documentation that a
conversation depicted as as far as Charles Brower goes, that
echoes a similar scenario that was depicted in those Wilson
Davis notes. Would that also in turn, change your tone or change
your approach to it with that, two points of information
instead of one single point would that change your approach?
John Greenewald: I so off the top of my head I would say yes.
Turn me into a believer I remember. We have to see exactly
what what comes to light. And I'm writing it down because
obviously I was talking earlier about the current Comptroller
General who I know is different than who you're talking about.
But if let's say, Yes, I file a case to the GAO, they honor it,
they release something that coincides with the notes. That
to me. And by the way, my guess is those documents would not
have been released before, because there's not a whole lot
of people that do open records requests to the GAO. And I have
not seen anybody talk about doing a records request to the
GAO trying to authenticate this. So if there are, please, by all
means, let me know. But my whole point here is if these documents
have never seen the light of day before, this case, brings them
out. And then those documents reflect what's in the Wilson
Davis notes. Absolutely. I find that 100%. Heavier, they hold
more weight than oak Shannon had health problems around this
time. Why? Because that's not public knowledge, per se. But
the niche group that let's operate off the assumption if it
is a hoax, or hypothetical, I should say not not assumption,
but a hypothetical that somebody in that niche group decided to
create and fabricate the story but in twine, some facts than
they could have just known that. But if you start getting into
stories that really haven't seen the light of day before, but
backed up by official records from the GAO, yeah, you got my
ear. I mean, I'll say it right now. I'm not going to edit that
out of our interview, if that comes to light. And these
documents had never seen the light of day before and they are
in the Wilson Davis notes, you're gonna pique my interest.
I mean, again, it's, that's not confirmation of an alien reverse
engineering program. But you're one step closer to convincing me
that these aren't a work of fiction. So absolutely.
Dan Warren: And that is exactly why I think that the Comptroller
General was included in the original legislation that was
proposed in the NDAA. Because I'm convinced it's being ghost
written by someone that has a lot more knowledge than a
staffer for a senator. To me, it sounds like there's Chris Mellon
ish intelligence to it. And if, if the hit the first hearing
occurred, they talked about submitting the Wilson Davis
records to be this is me just speculating, by the way, I'm
just throwing that out there. They introduced them into the
congressional records of the next revision of the NDAA did
include the Comptroller General. So me connecting, trying to
connect the dots, I feel like there's a reason that they put
the GAO office in the mix, that they're kind of like an untapped
resource that we haven't ever really thought about, I would
have never thought about them. And so this recent round of NDA,
stuff came out.
John Greenewald: How much of a role do you think Mellon?
Christopher Mellon plays in the language? Do you think that?
That he's kind of influencing the actual wording? I mean, it
sounds like he is, but I'm just curious to your thoughts. Like,
do you think he's really kind of the puppet master, so to speak,
and I don't mean that in a demeaning way, but just kind of
the one that really is influencing this, this verbiage?
Dan Warren: I think he's, yeah, influencing. So the thing that
confuses me just like almost everything with the UFO topic, I
feel like if you look at it, you can see two different ends of
the spectrum. At the same time, there's part of me that's like,
man, there's so much Chris mal on language included in this
legislation that's been put forward, it's hard to deny that
it's him. And then I turn around, and when they when he
puts out those questions to ask the arrow director or questions
to ask at the congressional hearing statements, that that
are not covered in the legislation, it makes me feel
like there's a gap there. So I don't know if he is able to kind
of nudge these people that are actually writing this
legislation in a certain direction to say, Hey, make sure
you've covered this base, make sure you cover that base of it
for the for him to then turn around and ask questions that I
would think would be included in the legislation is confusing to
me. But overall, if I had to put up your dollar vet that you'd
like to put on things, I'm gonna say Chris Mellon's involved in
the outline of the legislation that's been put forward.
John Greenewald: I want to reverse that question. You asked
me if you don't mind. You said that. No, no, no, hold on, hold
on, bear with me here.
Dan Warren: I gotta go, John.
John Greenewald: Now you had asked it's a great question. If
I found something that coincided with the Wilson Davis documents,
if it would change my mind, and I stand by what I said. What if
it doesn't? And I'm kind of getting the feeling for me,
maybe we should cover this part first. I'm getting the feeling
that you feel the documents are legitimate, which I'm totally
fine with. but just to make sure we're clear, do you feel they're
legitimate?
Dan Warren: Once I'm with you, as far as like, I do feel like
the notes are legitimate. I feel like Eric Davis wrote them down.
I feel like there was a conversation that occurred. But
I also feel like what you stated earlier is a very common
practice within the government where they do this they pepper
lies in with truths, where it could be used as a misdirection.
For something else, what what the right look at the right hand
while the left hand is doing something else. So I feel like
there could be a distraction mechanism. And that's, I'm gonna
catch flack for this. It's like, that's how I feel about Bob
Lazar, I feel like they were using him as something else, to
cover something else. So I think that that's could be what's
happening with the Wilson Davis notes. I, this isn't once again,
I suspect that they're legitimate. I think they're
legitimate, I don't know. And it's hard for me to say I
believe that they are. But I want I want them I'm like Joe
Rogan, like that's where my my joke, I don't trust my own
judgment on these things. Because I do want them to be
real. I want them to have a reverse engineering program
that's hidden from us, that is now getting to the point where
it's becoming exposed to the public, and then we're going to
get 100 years worth of or 70 years worth of amazing
information and data that comes rushing forward from the fire
hose for us to drink out of on this topic, because it's been
held back for so long. That that's what I hope. I just not
going to be able to sit here and say I believe them. 100%. That's
exactly what happened. And that's exactly the program that
was depicted where they lied to where they lied to and told was
was Wilson lied to? And he said, Oh, yeah, we got this reverse
engineering UFO program. But it's really about secret
military tech that we're not going to tell you about. So
that's always going to be in the back of my mind.
John Greenewald: So if things don't come up via FOIA, then to
again, reverse that question, would you still hold the same
beliefs because the FOIA gets trashed a lot by people, if it
produces a result, that confirms a belief, it's golden, if there
is no result produce to confirm that belief? It's the FOIA. It's
tainted, they're lying. The government officials are all
corrupt, and so on and so forth. So there's very, in my opinion,
by some not yourself, but by some is very hypocritical way of
viewing this. But again, to flip that question around, would it
change your views of stuff just doesn't pan out?
Dan Warren: Yeah, I would have to, I don't want to be so
invested that I can't change my mind. And I feel like everything
goes into that anecdotal bin until proven otherwise. So if
that's where the Wilson Davis documents are for me, it's
anecdotal. It's incredibly interesting. But I can't put it
into fact, the fact Ben Yeah, so it's still in that anecdotal.
And if nothing ever comes from the investigation, no
information comes out saying that there's any truth to it
beyond what we have right now. It's going to stay in the
anecdotal, just like I have to put all the videos that I see
just like I have to put all the witness testimony, I'm not
there. I didn't experience it. I can't know for a fact that's
what happened. And that's what's going on. So I would just have
to, maybe I throw it away, if nothing ever happens in the next
20 years. But I can't move it forward until something comes
out.
John Greenewald: In closing, I can't tell you how much I
appreciate your time. It's been a joy speaking to you one on
one. And obviously we talk behind the scenes a lot. I've
always enjoyed that. But to be able to bring you on the show
has definitely been fun for me. Are there any closing thoughts
or motivational speeches you'd like to give Dan or anything?
For those that are looking from the outside that may not take as
much time as you were I in this topic and may even be getting
discouraged about the hearing? That you had just gone to that
it wasn't as groundbreaking, as some of us wanted? What are your
closing thoughts on on on that kind of stuff moving forward for
people,
Dan Warren: to words come to mind, patience and kindness. We
have a strong desire to seek the truth to learn what's going on.
And the truth of it might be that it's not going to happen on
our timetable. It's been going on for a long time. So we need
to have patience. We need to have the grace that Senator
Gillibrand showed with us. We need to show with them we need
to support their efforts. We need to do it in a manner that's
kind and not overbearing. And as well as with communications with
each other, there's a lot of anger that that pops up on
Twitter and other platforms around that sort of engulf UFOs.
That is problematic. And it's human nature that it occurs, I
hope that people can start to disagree, without despising each
other. That's one thing that I would like for people to start
to focus more on. But the big thing that I would like to
encourage people to do is go to the next congressional year, if
you can show support for the congressmen and women that are
putting their reputations on the line, my writing them by calling
them by showing up and being a courteous human being and being
professional presenting yourself, which is a
representation of the greater UFO community in a way that
doesn't stigmatize us like that's, we're our own worst
enemy a lot of the time. So if we could have a group of people
that show up and act respectfully and say, Thank you
and support the efforts of these people. That's what I would
ideally like to see, and I think would help keep the momentum
that we have going forward with the members of Congress.
John Greenewald: That's awesome. Damn, well said, I really do
appreciate your time again. And thank you for doing so
hopefully, you'll come back and we'll we'll have another round
of discussion. I hope you're up for it.
Dan Warren: One more comment real quick. And if you if you
look at John Greenwald's text messages and Twitter
conversations that he has, but you realize that he does
actually have a sense of humor, hidden behind all of that his
his tech tweets are funny, like, if you can look past what you
don't want to disagree with him about and start reading what how
he says it, there's comedy in there, you just got to be
willing to accept.
John Greenewald: I appreciate that. Sometimes my sarcasm falls
flat and people are like, Mike, you guys didn't realize that was
a joke. Come on, we gotta have fun. And most of them if you
look at the days, they always come on Friday. So Friday, I try
and chill out a little bit. Be a little bit less serious. But
thank you for at least acknowledging that humor that
makes two of you. I think my mom's the only other one. So
appreciate that, Dan. Thank you.
Dan Warren: Good company. I'm in good company.
John Greenewald: Yes, you are. Alright. Thanks, Dan. Have a
wonderful day. And thank you all for listening and watching make
sure that if you do not subscribe to the YouTube
channel, you do so go to www dot the blackbolt.com/live that will
bounce you to the channel you'll get notified of any live streams
or any new videos. And of course, if you are listening to
the audio podcast version, five star review is what I aim for. I
won't tell you what to do, but if you can consider taking a few
seconds and making a review there as well. That said thank
you so much for listening and watching. This is John
Greenewald, Jr signing off, and we'll see you next time.