John Greenewald: A similar story has circulated for decades.
Rumors of crashed nonhuman spacecraft, alien bodies, and
tales of deep dark conspiracies and cover ups concealing at all.
Glenn Dennis: They definitely weren't humans, as we know
humans, but they could be from another planet Earth. The
doctors were explaining this that they couldn't be from our
planet. They had to be an alien. It had to be something Yes, but
not not in.
John Greenewald: But this week, David Charles grush, or the UFO
whistleblower, as the media has labeled him speaks out, and
essentially confirms that all these are retrieving non human
origin. Technical vehicles, call it spacecraft, if you will, non
human, exotic origin vehicles that have either landed or
crashed. Join me John Greenwald, Jr. as I dive into the story,
and explore some elements you may not have seen and highlight
some, well, I'll let you decide what it all means. 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. and today we are
taking a dive into the new story that I'm sure most of you have
heard about. I know that some of you may not have a complete
vested interest in UFOs, or UAP. But this one is one of those
stories that has gone around the world, talking about a brand new
whistleblower, which to my surprise, was not one shot in
silhouette, or not one that was just called a senior defense
official, but rather was named and there was a picture in the
story, all of which was incredibly surprising to me.
Because with these types of stories, generally, you get what
I just mentioned, which is very hard to follow up on. But this
story was a little bit different. So what I want to do
with this video is essentially take a dive into that story, and
not tell you how to think or how to believe or anything like
that, of course, I'm going to say upfront, I'm skeptical for a
couple of different reasons, which we will go over some of
those points that I think need to be said. But in the same
respect, I want to tell you that I'm not dismissing this
whistleblower in the slightest, quite the contrary, I'm eager to
see how some of this plays out where this goes. So I don't want
to say that I'm trying to sway you one way or the other. But
rather, I want to bring the pieces of the puzzle that I
think are worthwhile to you. So let's just go ahead and and
start diving into this. Let me bring up the visuals to start to
go over exactly what it is that we are dealing with. Some of
this for some of you may be a little bit of a review, if
you've been living and breathing the story that I know some
people have been. But for those that also haven't really been
acquainted with it, or maybe you just saw some headlines, but
didn't have time to to look it over. I'm hoping this will give
you a better understanding of what that story is. Now with any
video like this, wherever I talk about someone else's story or
work or whatever it may be upfront, I always urge you
please, in the link below, you will see something that links
over to the article, which was first published on the debrief.
If you have not read it in full, I urge you to do so I want to
make sure that I do not omit anything of importance. But of
course, I'm human. So i and plus I have what I think is
important, but sometimes something else may be important
to someone else and go John, why didn't you omit that? Well, I
don't want to be accused of that. So upfront, I always urge
you please look at the article. So you have essentially
everything. But with this video, I want to go over what I feel
are more of the major points that work for and work against
the story to help you get a better idea. In addition to
that, I want to go outside of that article to again give you
more puzzle pieces more context and more understanding of of
what we are dealing with. Now as I mentioned, this was a story
that we was published in the debrief. When I first saw the
headline, of course, it's intriguing intelligence
officials say us has retrieved crash of non human origin. Who
wouldn't be intrigued by that. And again, I expected those
silhouettes or senior defense official labels, but with no
names or any types of details because everyone's anonymous. On
the contrary, there was a picture and a name. The other
thing that surprised me from the get go were the authors, the duo
Leslie Kane and Ralph Blumenthal, you've probably
recognized them because they publish articles together in the
past on the same topic, but have primarily done it for the New
York Times. Now, even though I harp on the New York Times a
lot, I was still surprised to see this type of a headline
written by this duo published in the debrief that is not in any
way meant to be insulting or demeaning to them, I would
replace the debrief and put the black vault right in there, if
they came to me and wanted to publish the story. Simply
because with a headline like that, and a story of this
magnitude, I feel if the story is strong, it shouldn't be with
sites like ours, it should be in some type of a much bigger
masthead to not only reach a bigger audience, but also to
give it a little bit more weight. Yet again, that is not
meant to be an insult towards the debrief. But rather I was
just simply surprised to see it. It's got to be said, it's got to
be pointed out why the debrief. Now before we dive into the
story itself, that was kind of answered by the author's after a
lot of people were asking the same questions I was, why the
debrief, because there was a rumor going around that the
Washington Post was going to, to publish this groundbreaking
story that dealt with Crash retrievals, and so on and so
forth, which the story obviously was was dealing with. So was
that the Washington Post story and what happened there? To my I
would say a little bit surprised as well. There was a coordinated
message message by both authors posted on Facebook and Twitter
with the exact same wording, just minus the name replaced
from Lesley to Ralph on both respective posts. That stated
this to be clear, the Washington Post did not pass on our story,
Ralph and I took it to the debrief because we were under
growing pressure to publish it very quickly. The post needed
more time. And we couldn't wait. You'll see the identical message
posted by Ralph Blumenthal, just replacing the name from Ralph to
Lesley, but everything else was the same. Now, it's not
surprising that they're on the same page. They're both on the
byline and they wanted the message out. I was just
surprised by it, because they immediately went on the
defensive about the Washington Post, and wanted to make it
clear that they took it to the debrief, because they were being
pressured to publish it. My red flag went up on being pressured,
pressured by who now if it's pressure, because there's a
rivaling journalist out there, that was potentially getting the
scoop. Well, that's okay. I mean, I guess let's just go
ahead and say it so that way, we don't start thinking that
there's something else that may be nefarious going on. I know, I
get my hate mail when I post questions like that, but it
needs to be asked what pressure who was pressuring? And in what
way was the story potentially rushed? All of those are, I
think legitimate questions have a story with this magnitude. So
I'm not really sure why that hate mail is there. For me when
I post those questions. I did post it to Lesley directly on
Facebook, when I first saw her post, however, that from the
recording of this video had never been responded to by
Lesley. I don't expect one. But regardless, pressure by whom
that was what I was asking. And I think that the readers deserve
a little bit of clarification there as well. And again, if it
was just simply a rival journalist that was getting a
scoop, they didn't want to be scooped. That's fine. But
obviously, then the whistleblower is going out to a
lot of different people just talking to everybody, which is
also I think, okay, but it just, I don't know, it doesn't seem
right. There's something that doesn't smell right there. I'm
not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill there, but I
think it's still a viable question. So let's go into the
story itself. So now that we know that it was published by
the debrief, the whistleblower that you see pictured here on
the video, David Charles grush, he is the whistleblower as they
are calling him. Let me read you. I'm not going to read the
whole article through this, but I'm gonna read you some snippets
from the debrief article and again, I urge you to read the
entire thing linked below. They describe David as this a former
intelligence official turned whistleblower has given Congress
and the intelligence community Inspector General, extensive
classified information about deeply covert programs that he
says possess, retrieved intact and partially intact craft of
non human origin the information he says has been illegally
withheld from Congress, and he filed a complaint alleging that
he suffered illegal retaliation for His confidential disclosures
reported here for the first time.
The whistleblower David Charles grush 36, a decorated former
combat officer in Afghanistan, is a veteran of the National
Geospatial Intelligence Agency where NGA, and the National
Reconnaissance Office or NRO, he served as the reconnaissance
offices representative to the unidentified aerial phenomena
Task Force from 2019 to 2021. From late 2021, to July of 2022,
he was the NGA is CO lead for UAP analysis. And it's
representative to the task force. Now what I put in red,
there are key parts of this work, we're creating a timeline
and and what I want you to do is just remember that timeline that
there's not a test at the end. But rather, these are important
things that are published. And these are the things you look
for in an article because we start placing this
whistleblower, at certain agencies at certain times, and
timelines are incredibly important when trying to figure
out these types of stories. So that information, I believe, was
crucial to understanding where he was, and what type of access
that he had, and what exactly was he doing. Now, a quick side
note, in that timeline, you guys might recall from this channel,
and also one of the articles I published on the black vault.com
was about a NRO system called sentient that had discovered a
tic tac shaped object. Now, I won't go through the whole story
again, I've got a whole video on it. I'll link that in the show
notes below. But per the timeline grush, the
whistleblower would be at the NRO, at the time that these
documents I got were written, it's quite even possible that he
wrote one of the emails where the name was redacted, about how
the NRO could support the task force. I'm maybe more convinced
he wrote it than not at this point. But that's just a pure
guess. But given that he was the the lead at the NRO for this,
it's likely that he was probably writing these emails about how
the NRO could support the UAP Task Force. And then, of course,
would have direct knowledge of the sentient system. And its tic
tac shaped object observation that was documented in a heavily
classified report. So I'll link those documents below. But I
wanted to give you that side note, because it's interesting
to put that person now at the NRO, into that story, which I
didn't have before. One of the other people that were revealed
in this story was Charles Charles McAuliffe, the third. He
is the lawyer, he's representing the whistleblower grush. And his
background is pretty interesting. He was the first
Inspector General of the intelligence community that
started on October 7 2010. And he stayed in that position until
March of 2017. Now he's in the private sector. He works for
Compass Rose Legal Group, and he is again representing the
whistleblower in this case. Another person revealed was
Colonel Carl nel he was the Army's liaison for the UAP Task
Force from 2021 to 2022. Quick descriptor from the debrief on
Nell Carl E. Nell, a recently retired Army colonel and current
aerospace executive who was the Army's liaison for the UAP Task
Force from 2021 to 2022. And worked with grush there
characterizes grush as beyond reproach. Now, I kind of took
away from the article that Colonel Nell with his
distinguished background himself was there essentially as a
character witness to backup the credibility of the
whistleblower. In his words, he was beyond reproach, obviously,
grush was very revered by the fellow army liaison for the UAP
task force. So obviously, they work together in that regard,
how much that's still yet to be seen. But now we're starting to
piece together another piece of the puzzle, the army liaison for
the task force, another person labeled which there was a little
confusing aspect to this for some, not everybody, but hey,
I'll put myself under the bus for me. I didn't catch it the
first time. There was somebody by the name of Jonathan gray
that was described in the article, and they were
essentially there to backup and corroborate the testimony of the
whistleblower. Now, at first glance, you think Jonathan gray
is a person but you have to read through a lot more of the
article to realize that Jonathan gray is not a name at all, but
rather a pseudo name. Let me read the non and this was a
quote starting from the person identified as Jonathan Gray, the
nonhuman intelligence phenomena phenomenon is real, we are not
alone, Gray said retrievals of this kind are not limited to the
United States. This is a global phenomenon. And yet a global
solution continues to elude us. Those are powerful statements.
And I was excited because after seeing Russia's picture and
name, I just wrongfully assumed that Jonathan Gray was someone
else named sadly, it was an anonymous source using a
pseudonym. I'm not here to harp on grammar and stuff like that.
I think the right answer would have been to put Jonathan gray
in quotations since we are using pseudonym. I did, the article
did not. But I will read to you what the article said. And
admittedly, I missed this the first time that I read it,
because it is quite a bit down from Jonathan Gray's
introduction and his cooperation of the whistleblower. They
stayed at Jonathan Gray, the intelligence officer
specializing in UAP analysis at the National Air and Space
Intelligence Center, is speaking publicly for the first time
identified here under the identity he uses inside the
agency. I didn't know that Neysa uses identities on the inside. I
mean, that's kind of a fun fact of true, but still kind of a
wonky way to use an anonymous source. But regardless, it's
anonymous. So me harping on the lack of quotation marks, I
missed it. So I'm making sure you guys understand. This is
somebody who works within again, ASIC or the National Air and
Space Intelligence Center, unnamed, we don't know a whole
lot of their background. And again, anonymous sources are
actually okay, this is one of those examples that I really do
wish it was identified earlier. But regardless, it's there to at
least support a story. I'm not keen on him still. But again,
they're part of journalism. So this is an example that's much
better instead of doing the whole story, on and on anonymous
sources, rather, now we have somebody named and anonymous
source backs it up. That's a little bit more what they're
used for in journalism in my book anyway. So let's get into
the claims of the whistleblower. And, and again, he's labeled as
the whistleblower. I'm not trying to make any derogatory
statement by labeling him that David grush says, and let me
quote the article so you know exactly what he's saying. Greg
said the recoveries a partial fragments through and up to
intact vehicles have been made for decades through the present
day by the government, its allies and defense contractors.
analysis has determined that the objects retreat retrieved are of
exotic origin, non human intelligence, whether
extraterrestrial or unknown origin based on the vehicle
morphologies and material science testing and the
possession of unique atomic arrangements and radiological
signatures. He said, Now, the parenthetical nonhuman
intelligence whether Extra Terrestrial unknown origin,
people are having fun with that. Obviously, if it's a nonhuman
intelligence, of course, I think everyone's insinuating aliens
here, including the whistleblower. So to put in
unknown origin, I mean, what are we talking about? The
civilization lives in the ocean? I don't mean to make light of
it, but it's just kind of one of those quirky things with the
story. What exactly are you trying to say? If it's not
alien, right, if that's one possibility, what is this
unknown origin you're talking about? Is there another
civilization of people that you're insinuating live here in
the ocean, so they're not technically alien? I'm sorry to
point out the wonkiness but there is some wonkiness to to
those types of statements. So for me, I wish that he would
just expand on it. But that, you know, that's just me. I just
wanted to point out the parenthetical. Why does he have
to differentiate unknown origin from Extra Terrestrial if no
matter what he's saying that it's non human technology.
Now, here's a little bit more, when you read through the
article and get a little bit deeper into it. This is where it
starts to, I think hurt the story a little bit. Let me quote
Gratias investigation was centered on extensive interviews
with high level intelligence officials, some of whom are
directly involved with the program. He says the operation
was illegally shielded from proper congressional oversight,
and that he was targeted and harassed because of his
investigation. Gresh said that the craft recovery operations
are ongoing at various levels of activity, and that and that he
knows the specific individuals, current and former who are
involved. Individuals on these UAP programs approached me in my
official capacity and disclose their concerns regarding a
multitude of wrongdoings such as illegal contracting against the
federal acquisition, regulations, and other
criminality and the suppression of information across a
qualified industrial base and academia grush said those are
powerful statements to make. But now we realize is what it's
based off of. It's not grush his experience whatsoever. It's him
talking to other people. So this entire story, I don't And again,
I don't want to just completely negate it, but is built on 100%
anonymous sources that grush brought together people that he
spoke with during his time at the UAP Task Force, and
conducted interviews and talk to people and people brought him
stories. But nowhere has he said, and Ross Coltart who's one
of the other journalists who had tackled this story, as well said
on his podcast, and I'm paraphrasing, but essentially
grush had had not seen any type of, of non human craft, he had
not touched any of the type of material that he had reference,
but rather just heard about it. Now, that's going to be an
important point, because I don't want you to think that I'm here
demeaning the story, or trying to degrade it based on that, but
put a pin in it, because that might make sense a little bit
more. And a point that I definitely want to deal with,
later on in the presentation. I won't read all of this for you.
But this goes a little bit more into detail about grush. Then
compiling all this information through interviews and stories
that people were telling him. He compiled that and essentially
passed it on. He had stated he was denied, or the UAP taskforce
was denied access to certain areas that they they essentially
couldn't touch. Again, I just want to read a couple points.
I'm not going to read all of this. In May of 2020 Tim
McCullough filed member that's the attorney filed a disclosure
of urgent concerns complaint of reprisal on behalf of grush with
the intelligence community inspector general about detailed
information that grush had gathered beginning in 2019.
While working at the UAP Task Force, an unclassified version
of the complaint provided to us states the Gresh has direct
knowledge that UAP related classified information has been
withheld and or concealed from Congress by elements of the
intelligence community. Jumping ahead according to the
unclassified complaint, in July 2021, grush, had confidentially
provided classified information to the Department of Defense
inspector general concerning the withholding of UAP related
information from Congress. He believes his identity and the
fact that he had provided testimony were disclosed to
individuals and or entities within the Department of Defense
and the intelligence community outside the Inspector General's
office. As a result, grush suffered months of retaliation,
retaliation and reprisals relating to these disclosures
beginning in 2021. He asked the details of these pilots
reprisals be withheld, for to protect the integrity of the
ongoing investigation. Jumping ahead, the intelligence
community Inspector General found his complaint. Let me
start that over the intelligence community Inspector General
found his complaint credible and urgent in July of 2022.
According to grush, a summary was immediately submitted to the
director of the National Intelligence Avril Haines, the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The complaint was
drafted and signed by McAuliffe and his Managing Partner, moving
along a whistleblower whistleblower reprisal
investigation was launched. And grush began his communication
with the staff of the congressional intelligence
community committees and private closed door sessions. According
to grush, certain information which he obtained in his
investigation, could not be put before congressional staffers
because they did not have necessary clearances, or the
appropriate investigative authority. I won't dissect that
last part. Again, there's a little bit of red flag there on
the investigation. However, I'll let that play out on how the
Inspector General and Congress responds to this as it moves
forward. I'll let you know what the Inspector General's Office
for the intelligence community said to me, which isn't much.
But other than that, I'll let that play out. I'm not gonna sit
here and nitpick everything. But that gives you a bit of an idea
of what the story was, what it was built on what the claims
were, and why this is going to the inspector general. Why he
felt that he was being wrongfully treated. We don't
know the details of that. But okay, we understand that the
investigation has gone ongoing. So he didn't want to talk about
it. But regardless, we have a pretty good idea of what the
story is. Well, the media really glommed on to this and
rightfully so it's, it's a pretty amazing story. went onto
the cover of the Drudge Report, column three position one,
that's a very coveted spot. I watched those new spots very
closely myself. I like to see what's in the media. It's not
about UFOs really kind of ever. But rather, it really shows you
a lot of the hot topics that's going on in the political world
and, and when UFO stories break, sometimes drudge will cover
them. This is one of those examples. But when things go on
there, copy and paste journalism takes over. And you just have
this insane amount of coverage, which has happened with this
story. But in the process, a lot of things start getting lost.
And we're going to deal with some of that in a moment. You
can see these are just some of the headlines as of the
recording of this video. From the independent Fox News News
Week, there's the original debrief article here. This is
the news nation article, the video piece on that actually
wasn't bad. I know it got a lot of flack. But I was pleasantly
surprised that some of the questions and some of the points
being pushed, were actually pretty good. And I felt it was a
fairly balanced story. I'm sure I'll get hate mail for saying
that. But I think news nation did good. Some of the other
ones. There you go. There's a whole laundry list of other
ones. But those are some of the major ones. So let's break down
some of the points of the story that I think some people are
missing, or those that are often misconstrued or misunderstood.
Now, this is not my opinion here. This is actually backed
up. Anybody can can back this up. But I think it needs to be
said, I've dealt with dotser before on this channel. That's
the Defense Office of pre publication and Security Review
or again dotser. DOPPS are essentially reviews for the
Department of Defense Information that people want to
put in books, manuscripts. And in this case statements to
ensure that no classified information gets out to the
public. Now it was mentioned in the article for the debrief that
a review took place of brushes statement that he was going to
be providing to the debrief, essentially blowing the story
wide open. Let me quote the debrief. In accordance with
protocols. grush provided the Defense Office of pre
publication and Security Review at the Department of Defense
with the information he intended to disclose to us. His on the
record statements were all cleared for open publication on
April 4, and six 2023 and documents provided to us. We
haven't seen those documents, we have no idea but we can assume
that maybe you did a DD Form 1910 or something similar, there
may have been something similar regardless of how he did it DOPS
or cleared it for open publication.
What is being misconstrued about dotser and has been for quite
some time is if DOPPS are clear something for public release,
they essentially endorse it. That is not true. They are very
clear about the fact that they do not fact check or endorse
accuracy, but rather, they go through character by character,
word by word and line by line to ensure that no classified
information is being put out there in print in a presentation
in a statement that whatever is submitted to them. That's what
they insure. And on social media. I saw this a lot. Well,
the DoD cleared this this is disclosure. And no I'm not
exaggerating. A lot of people thought that this was disclosure
that a DOD person was cleared to come out and admit to alien
wreckage. That is not true in the slightest, you can take a
100% purely fabricated pile of steaming made up stuff and give
it to dotser for review. Now I should say if I haven't already
doctors there for former DOD personnel who are required to do
this and this case grush Luis Elizondo will have to do it with
his book if he's not in the process already. Those are the
types of people that have to submit. So it's not like anybody
from the public, but rather former DOD. Okay, so sorry for
that that quick caveat. So that you just bring that steaming
pile of fiction to them, they review it, they'll still give
you a stamp. As long as there's no classified information in
there, they will give the same exact exact stamp of approval.
Let me give you an example of what it looks like when they
give their stamp of approval. This was skinwalkers at the
Pentagon, that was all about Skinwalker Ranch and OS app. And
you'll see here the Department of Defense dotser The case
number cleared for public release may 11 2021. Here's the
required disclaimer that Dr. had them put on the book. The views
expressed in this publication are those of the author and do
not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of
the DoD or the US government. The public release clearance of
this publication by the DOD does not imply DoD endorsement or
factual accuracy of the material. Were appropriate in
order to protect personally identifiable information. and
protected health information names and personal details have
been changed. That's all standard. That's what Doppler
does. So I wanted to clear up that point because again, that
is often misconstrued right now, not only on social media, but in
some journalist outfits that this was clear, then they don't
explain what doctor was sorry, debrief that includes you as
well. Now, in fairness to one of the co founders, Tim McMillan,
they did a supplemental article, very similar to what the New
York Times did back in 2017. They have their main article,
and then it's like, this is how we did it. Well, this was kind
of echoing that. They had their main article, which I just went
over the points with you. They had a supplemental article that
was essentially a q&a between one of the debrief staff
members, Christopher plane, who sat down and asked a bunch of
questions to to Tim McMillan as how do you vet this story? How
do you how do you fact check it? And so you go through this, and
to Tim's defense, he had put in there the detail about doctor
that it is not an endorsement, so I want to make sure that I
compliment Tim McMillan there for putting that into his
interview to ensure that his readers did not think that it
was a DOD endorsement. But, I mean, I kind of wish that it was
in the original article, because that's what most people are
going to read. That's what the copy and paste journalists were
using as kind of the basis. And so the Doppler note got got
parroted, but the reality of what dots are does, did not. And
that's what's kind of frustrating. So hopefully, that
clears up a point for you. Another thing that the article
didn't do, which I was a little surprised at, was the fact that
there was no reach out for any official statement. Now I've
said this 1000 times, and I'll say it 1000 times over because a
lot of my biggest haters love to throw this into my face. The
official line from the DoD slash the Pentagon is not necessarily
in an endorsement if you publish. It's part of the story,
though. And I would think that anybody would reach out if you
are trying to cover any topic, even if it's a no comment, to
get the official line. It's important. So I'll stress it
again. Just because you publish, it doesn't mean that it's an
endorsement. But rather it is part of the story. So why you
ignore that? I don't know this article ignored that. Unless
they didn't publish it and did contact them, I don't know. But
I did end up getting a confirmation from the Pentagon
of what their view is on this in relation to brushes, claims. Of
course, it's everybody's favorite Sue golf, she is the
only one that responds to UAP related queries. That's our
portfolio. So that's why we see her name all the time. She gets
a bad rap from some corners of this conversation. But she does
speak for the DOD, she doesn't speak for herself. So that said,
this is the quote, to date, Arrow has not received any
verifiable information to substantiate claims that any
programs regarding the possession or reverse
engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the
past or exists. Currently, Aro is committed to following the
data and its investigation wherever it leads. Arrow working
with the Office of the General Counsel and the Air Force Office
of Special Investigation has established a safe and secure
process for individuals to come forward with information to aid
arrow in its congressionally mandated historical review.
Arrows historical review of records and testimonies is
ongoing. And, and due to Congress and due to Congress by
June of 2024. Arrow welcomes the opportunity to speak with any
former or current government employee or contractor who
believes they have information revelant relevant to the
historical review. That's the end quote. Now, obviously,
that's not my endorsement of the DoD position, but rather that's
part of the story. So there you go. One thing I tried to get the
Pentagon to elaborate on was whether or not grush has spoken
to arrow because then that makes this statement at least connect
to that first line arrow has not discovered any verifiable
information to substantiate claims. So have they dealt with
the claims from grush? And they can't substantiate it or in
fairness, maybe they haven't talked to him yet. Or at all or
refuse to who knows. They have not responded to my question as
of the recording of this video, but hopefully you see my point
in pushing that because, okay, they can say whatever they want,
but if they haven't talked to grush well, then how can you how
can you say you haven't discovered any verifiable
information? When I'm asking you about a whistleblower? You
haven't talked? To yet, but on the contrary, if they did talk
to him and couldn't substantiate anything, we should hear about
that. But again, I have yet to see that at all.
Then the question comes up, but his arrow cleared at all is
arrow, does arrow have enough clearance that of grush goes to
them and say, hey, look, XY and Z. This is what I learned
program names, agencies. He spills it all in a skiff for 11
hours at a time, and says, Okay, Dr. Kirkpatrick do your thing.
And he doesn't have access to everything. How could he
understand it? Now, this is the argument about title 10 versus
title 50. Now, I'm not gonna sit here and bore you to death with
all the legalities of the difference between the two. But
the nutshell is Dr. Kirkpatrick had stated that he didn't quite
necessarily have the appropriate clearances for title 50
material, and maybe would not be able to substantiate claims like
this. So I'm, you know, definitely on board with that.
Does arrow have that clearance? And we just don't know, we would
hope that they would, you know, we're crossing our fingers as
the general public that he would. But we don't know that
for sure. There's a lot of title 10 versus title 50 information
out there. Again, I'm not going to bore you to death with the
legality, because I won't pretend that I understand all of
the nitty gritty details about the difference between access
and title 50 and title 10 authorities, but I invite you
all to brush up on it. One thing I can comfortably say a lot of
people that are debating this and arguing and online, likely
don't know the difference either. So with that said, I
think there's a lot of legal area here that even you know,
congressional scholars may struggle to truly grasp, because
it does get a little bit convoluted. But on that point,
that arrow may not have access to all of this, I believe dotser
would now keep in mind dotser, again, is the arm of the DOD,
that will review all the way up to the top secret level, every
level of classification, that if information is going out into
the open in whatever form that it is, will they put the stamp
of approval on it? During the course of that process, dotser
will also reach out to what are called the OCA A's are the
original classifying authorities. And in turn, those
will have access to certain aspects of information. So I
will leave and I don't know 100% of every in and out of dachser
nor does anyone unless you worked within dotser. Okay,
there's a couple of DOD instructions you can call on.
But I believe that the protocols themselves on how they operate,
nobody in the outside world, including me is going to be able
to recite the whole thing. But what I can comfortably say from
the documentation, and the instructions that we can look at
is that if they don't have let let's just assume for a moment
that they don't have clearance to look at 100% of every single
thing out there. They do reach out to OCS or again the original
classifying authorities. For example, the videos that were
submitted to Doppler by Luis Elizondo just to put this into
context in this with the same subject matter they were shot by
the US Navy Luis Elizondo put on that paperwork, drones and
balloons. Now I'm only bringing that up because of Luis Elizondo
is response. That's not my attempt to take a jab, but
there's a point where I'm bringing that up, because that
is a huge concern of mine that that he did that but here's my
point. Luis Elizondo, his response was that Doppler was
not cleared to know that what was on those videos depicted UAP
but the Navy was so if you don't believe me, you can believe Luis
Elizondo, because if that is true, and I do have my doubts,
but if that is true, and dotser was not cleared, the OCA was
those are your Luis Elizondo is words, and that the OCA knew
what they were approving now. Let's now draw that to Gratias
claims if he goes to dotser, and brings all of that information,
to dotser, to clear to bring out into the open world about
Special Access Programs, this that and the other thing, I
would venture to guess he may have encroached into classified
territory, explaining to dotser some of that material and in
turn dotser could go to the CIA or the NRO or the NGA, or
whomever and say we've got a guy who's looking for clearance for
this. And assuming that the idea that doctors not cleared they go
to the OCA and go okay, can you guys clear this and they either
say yay or nay. Now going back to the Russia story, all of it
was cleared. Now we can safely say by that clearance, nothing
was classified. But in that process, if anything had any
ounce of truth to it, I believe wholeheartedly, it would have
been classified even a sliver of it. And we know that by
documented evidence that I've been focusing on now for a
couple of years. And when people don't like this, from me, those
who advocate for disclosure and believe that we are on the path
to disclosure, people hate this when I profile it, but it needs
to be profiled, because the the secrecy around UAP is clamping
down harder and harder and harder. That's documented. So
from a legal standpoint, from the United States Code, Chapter
Five, Section Five, five to our ability for that freedom of
information is being hindered by that secrecy. And I have
numerous articles profiling that when it comes to UAP, and how
they don't want to tell you a thing, reams of classified
information that is blacked out from top to bottom or withheld
entirely. This newest one down here, the classified Mozu orb
UAP case, which we found out is entirely classified. There's not
a single anything that they can release to us. And in that
process, I discovered a new tactic, which I'll also be
dropping a video on this channel a very soon. But I did write an
article about it last week, a new tactic to withhold that
information, all claiming it's a law enforcement investigation.
If the documented evidence, and a long string and trail and
train of evidence that I could put forward to you shows that
UAP related anything is heavily classified and exempt through
FOIA. If grush went to DOPPS, or with anything that encroached
into that classified territory, even if the longshot assumption
dotser didn't have access, their process would take them to
agencies that did. And if it encroached into a SAP or an
unacknowledged area, enough in that process, word would travel
that would say dotser. No. And that's it. They wouldn't give
their stamp of approval. You see this when you get into and I can
go on for hours, and I won't but you see this in the legal
process the checks and balances when challenging decisions
through FOIA and denials and national security information
that sometimes when you file an appeal, that office that you are
filing to will go back to the OCA I've countless examples of
this. And they will they will say John is challenging your
denial that this is classified information. And I see this a
lot with the Navy. Then that OCA that the office in the Navy goes
back to the appellate authority and says, Sorry, it's
classified, the appeal letter letter will essentially state
that the appellate authority cannot grab all of that
classified information and look at it and go, Yeah, you guys are
right. I wish that was the case. But rather they say that they
have to trust the OCA has authority to look at that
information and make that determination. And so then they
will backup the Navy in those cases. So with that said, that
is a prime example, that not all parties will be privy to 100% of
the information, but the checks and balances system works, that
the person that is in charge, ie the OCA will then look at that
and go No, but I'm not going to tell you why. And that authority
coming back to Grusha story dotser goes okay, and they don't
get the stamp of approval. And yet in this case, it absolutely
did. So I know that that turned into a long winded explanation,
but it has to be explored. If any of this encroached into a
classified territory, all except the argument that arrow may not
have that access. Okay, so I'll accept that. But since he went
through the Doppler process, and brought a lot of these
statements forward, you can't just go around and start
spouting off about Special Access Programs and their scope.
It doesn't matter if you're not showing progress reports, or
quarterly summaries or whatever, that doesn't matter. The scope
of Special Access Programs and beyond is classified in nature.
sometimes just the codename is a classified codename. So you
can't just go around spouting that. So you go to doctor and
you say, Yeah, I want to, you know, I'm making up a name you I
want to talk about red Talon, right? And it's a classified
site, but I won't say what red Talon is all about. Well, that
very name can be classified, and they won't give a stamp. And
then they, they, they will push it back and say no, but that's
not what happened in this case. So we have to look at the
realization of the process we were told, and what that process
actually means. I hope I'm wrong. Don't get me wrong. Look,
I mean, if, if this was some kind of way of starting
disclosure, cool, but that's just not how this is going. So
for that story, to be pitched to dotser, and they got the stamp.
I think that's actually a red flag, despite some people
thinking that it was a good thing. I think it actually may
work against it. The point I brought up earlier, where are
those documents from Doppler, and so on that were shown to the
journalists, where are they? I'm kind of curious what Gresh
brought to DOPPS? Or what adopts or sign off on? Was it literally
verbatim the statements that they gave? Okay, well, I took
from the article that, but I would like to see the actual
document. Because if that is true in the article, that the
statements that grush gave were approved, there's absolutely no
reason not to share that form. Because it's an unclassified
form. We know that it has David's name on it. Well, that's
fine. He wanted his name out there. So his name would be on
it. I'd be surprised if the document that they got, well,
let me take that back. Know that it may even have a name, let's
just we'll skip some conjecture there. Has a name of adopter
reviewer or somebody else blacked it out? Who cares? But
show us the information that was submitted to dotser that was
signed off on take away the personally identifying
information for those that work inside the government. But if
you showed it to the journalists, and the journalists
are claiming that everything that was said to us by grush was
approved by dots are great. Let's see the paperwork. Now,
some equate questioning brushes story, or these types of claims.
He's a liar. How dare you call him a liar? How dare you
challenge him. But that's not what this is about. See, when
you realize in the story, beyond these staggering claims, that
grush was simply talking to people. You cannot hold the
belief that the United States government and military for
decades has covered up UAP wreckage of non human
technology, and was successful in doing so. But fast forward
now post 2017. And people want that out. You cannot believe the
government would be successful in wanting to do that, but not
hold the belief that grush himself may be misled, that it's
not about being a liar or that crushes is is risking his life
and career for this. But why would you put it past the
government or not put it past the government that they would
do something like that? Some of the loudest voices that come
after me for saying How dare you question a military decorated
officer are the same people that thrash Admiral Thomas Wilson for
denying a certain event happened, who also happens to be
highly decorated. There's a selective belief system here.
But each case is absolutely unique to one another. So you
have to drill in. And just because you question somebody
doesn't automatically mean that they are a liar. But you also
can't put it past the fact that he is being misled because the
laundry list of people that he spoke with, and the hours upon
hours of interview audio that he recorded or videotaped. I don't
really know what he amassed when none of us do, I don't think but
regardless the hours that he brought together that formulated
his belief that they were covering up non human craft, who
are those people? Why aren't they out there speaking to
Congress, why do they have a conduit? Somebody who is really
like in fairness to him, putting his whole face out there to be
the conduit of the stories. Number one, it doesn't help if
any of you are watching this, which I doubt you are. But if
you are, it's done. It doesn't help. It absolutely doesn't
help. If you want to bring your story out, you can do so and
remain anonymous. Congress will listen. They've said it JELA
Bran said it, that they are they're ready to listen. So if
you have the information, then put it out there. But to then go
to somebody else, and then that's somebody else then goes
and says, Hey, wait, look what I've figured out. And then he
believes that he's being mistreated. Well, that's all the
more reason not to use a conduit. Somebody who's being
forced to feel the need to do this. And hey, all the more
power to you and kudos for, for having that mindset. If this is
all true, it should be out there. But do not put that on
somebody else. Those anonymous sources that he is conveying the
stories for at this point, they're the ones that need to
come out. If Luis Elizondo lead some secret UAP investigative
effort called a tip, which I know, is controversial when you
watch this channel, I mean, there's certain aspects to that
story. I'm sorry. There's just like no evidence to support some
of what is being said. But let's just get beyond the controversy.
In the amount of time that he ran that program, does he see
the same thing that grush saw? Because if anybody was in the
position to see it, it would be him, right. That's the pedestal
that so many people have put him on, that he was in the position
to essentially see all of this? Well, you know, what? Now's the
time to put up. If he wants to support grush, which I'll show
you a screenshot in a second, which I know he does. But I'm
talking about naming names, and pointing fingers. Now is the
time do you really think that Luis Elizondo if saying the
truth will get arrested? I'm sorry, I don't, I don't believe
that. If these people came out and their information changed
the planet, you really think they're gonna get arrested for
that? I laughed, because I don't buy it. They're not releasing
strategic plans for the middle of of the war in Ukraine, or
secret troop placements in Iran, or, or secret spying programs on
people, they are talking about something that all of humanity
should know. So if you have that knowledge, I do not believe at
this point, that you would be arrested. I just don't, if you
came out, you showed your face on CNN or Fox News or whomever,
you're not going to be led away in cuffs, there's too much.
Imagine what the government would go through, there would be
anarchy. If somebody came out with a scientific proof of
discovery, that humanity is not alone, all of a sudden, they're
like carted away No way. I don't buy it. I just don't maybe
that's wishful thinking. Who knows, but I just don't buy it.
So these conduits that are being used to convey the stories is
silly. I think people should absolutely come out. But that
aside, that again, goes back to don't say I'm calling this guy a
liar or anybody who questions his story or anybody, but rather
you have to accept the reality that it's possible he is being
played. Also. This was another part of the story that started
to fall apart for me. It wasn't in the article, Luis Elizondo
wasn't named at all. But Luis Elizondo, at least, through his
support, have a link to the article and said this to Dave,
the whistleblower, my friend and former colleague, thank you for
your courage and honesty. What was interesting by that was
friend and former colleague well, just what because they
were DOD. Okay, well, that's cool. Friend, okay, they're
friends. Also nothing against either one of them. But man, I
was let down to see it. Like, why is everybody connected now?
Oh, I'll be fair here. Maybe they work together. Right? Well
Remember how I talked about the timeline earlier in this
presentation. That's where stuff like this comes into play.
Before I get into the timeline, one person that I think needs to
be cited here is Brian Bender, the author for the political
piece that broke the story about Luis Elizondo and a tip and he
chimed in on one of the Twitter threads. He meaning the
whistleblower Dave grush is also a close ally of Elizondo which
is important context I think.
Another tweet right underneath it, in fact, I would even say
Lou groomed him a bit for several years now. Now I don't
pretend to know all of Brian Bender sources, but I will say
this of all the journalists that are out there. I would say Brian
Bender has had the most prestigious position that he
that he had at politico of, again, those that are that are
kind of covering this, but but definitely when he broke this
story. He was one of the two I knew New York Times gets most of
the credit. But Brian Bender was right there with a piece on it
as well. He worked on that, as well. And I think he even said
that certain things in there were. I'm paraphrasing, and I
don't want to put words in his mouth. But I think that in one
tweet, he said that he felt he was misled, which I think is a
pretty big point to make. But but to further that, that there
were things that came out that weren't necessarily the the 2017
story, that that obviously has morphed since then. Now he's
moved on. He's not a political anymore, and still actively
interested and even engaged in the UAP topic, but not not a
journalist. So in that, by his own words, he says he doesn't
work as a journalist anymore. So that said, it's important to
show the context of how Brian Bender, obviously has a little
bit more knowledge here about the situation and draws a
connection between the whistleblower and Luis Elizondo.
Now you'll see here the dates from 2019 to July of 2022.
Through his tenure at the NRO and the NGA, the whistleblower
was working on the task force, but we also have to keep in mind
Elizondo retired in 2017. October for to be exact. So
again, where is that friendship forming from maybe outside?
Again, that's fine, or did they work with each other? Because
I'm sure that a lot of people are gonna say, well, they're all
connected in this UAP research, but the timeline doesn't really
afford that. You will also keep in mind that some of you may not
remember this statement. I got this an April of 2021. But I
believe at the time, Luis Elizondo was making the claim
that he was still actively engaged, and essentially working
with the UAP Task Force at that time. So I got the Pentagon to
actually address that. They said Luis Elizondo departed the DoD
in October 2017. He has no position in the UAP, TF. And the
UAP. TF has not involved him, and it's ongoing work. So this
was around the time that grush was involved in the UAP TF. So
again, if he was working with them, great, but there's no
connection whatsoever there. Again, that's where the timeline
is important. So what is that connection? So yeah, I know some
of you will hate me for saying it. I just wish I didn't see
that. Because it doesn't for me, it doesn't have it's like seems
like everybody is connected in some way. If it was work
connected, great. I look forward to seeing to seeing that. It
just doesn't seem that way for Brian bender to come in and say
this guy who has been groomed for years. I know enough about
Brian bender to know that He's not just going to make that up
in a tweet. If this was like some, you know, off the wall
Twitter account that had two followers. I wouldn't even be
bringing it up. But it was the original journalist who broke
the a tip story who's saying this guy was groomed by Elizondo
and that he's a close ally. Yeah, that that piques my
interest a little bit, I would definitely want to dig in more
and, and explore why. But another weird thing. And, you
know, there's no love lost between this guy in me. He
doesn't care for me at all. I you know, full disclosure, I've
had the guy block for quite some time goes by the name UFO Joe
made a post and people were screenshotting this because I
think that this took an even bigger hit, if you want to call
it that, on how the story unfolded. Now, I will say again,
I'm eager to see how it plays out. But let me read to you this
claim. I know this will make some folks cry too bad. When
Dave grush first decided to reach out to the media. It was
over a year ago and it was to George Knapp and Jeremy Korbel.
And thanks to George Knapp and Jeremy Korbel. I was introduced
to Dave last August when I went to see the weaponized pair speak
at the Star Trek convention here in town. You'll be hearing more
from George Knapp and Jeremy Korbel. about their relationship
with Dave in the very near future. I forgot to add in the
hotel room where we hung out, Jeremy Korbel George Knapp and,
and grush and I all recited the opening scene to the Wrath of
Khan. And I know folks have a lot of questions about my
original tweet. But the answer will come from Jeremy Korbel and
George Knapp on weaponized hopefully soon, because I want
to hear it. I wouldn't be bringing this up to you. Except
for the fact that core Bell had retweeted it and said promise
that George Knapp and I will tell this a central part of the
sequence of events soon. This UAP puzzle is like an iceberg.
We see so little above the surface and in the media, not
for long, I suspect. So what's up with that? He's at a Star
Trek convention going after George Knapp and Jeremy Korbel.
Now that's cool because corbello Nap have broken some interesting
stories in the past. Not all I know that the most recent has
been the most controversial, especially with with my
interpretation of it. But regardless, a Star Trek
convention like that's, that's their meeting. Now that was in
August, I believe that was of 2022. And one of the quotes from
the debrief article said from late 2021, to July of 2022, he
was the NGA is CO lead for UAP analysis and its representative
to the task force. So does that mean that it was a month after
he stopped his work with the UAP task force that he was chopping
this around, which is fine, but let's put that into proper
context. But then when you read deeper into the debrief article,
you realize that's thrown out the window, because it stated
grush left the government on April 7 2023. So that was just
what a month and a half ago, two months ago. grush left the
government on April 7 2023. In order he said to advance
government accountability through public awareness, he
remains well supported within intelligence circles. And
numerous sources have vouched for his credibility, all that is
went fantastic. But it's a red flag to me that if he was still
within the government, he was out there at a Star Trek
convention chopping the story around. Now that may ultimately
not be the case. So I am eager to see how Jeremy Incore Bell
and and George Knapp talked about this meeting at the Star
Trek convention, but all the more reason not to have some guy
calling himself UFO Joe out there, going we were singing in
a hotel room together, while the guy was still in government out
there. pitching a story. I don't get that. But to further that,
why would Korpela nap? Just let it go? Like, did it not pass
their test? Which would be super intriguing to hear? Simply
because Well, nevermind. I'd be surprised if it didn't pass
their test. I'm surprised they didn't want to break the story.
So what happened there? I don't know. But I bring this part up.
Because this is where the story is starting to get wonky that
this guy is at a Star Trek convention. While he's still
working for the government, essentially pitching his story.
That doesn't make sense. But in fairness, I'll wait for that
explanation that Jeremy Corbyn says is coming. I contacted the
Inspector General of the intelligence community you see
them referenced as the IC IG in the debrief story. That's where
grush had submitted his complaint that after he started
talking about all that material that was centrally being blocked
off by the UAP ATF meaning that they couldn't have access to it
yet he was collecting all this information. He starts getting
reprisal and getting treated badly. We don't know the details
of that yet, but submitted the complaint. And and his attorney
who was very impressive attorney was the one that's that's
representing him. The IC IG or Yeah, the IC IG Intelligence
Committee. Anyway, acronym acronym. I see IG stated this to
me, as of this morning, the Office of the Inspector General
of the intelligence community declines to comment, so they
don't want to touch it. Now, to expand on that a little bit. I
think I understand why the DoD IG, the Inspector General for
the Department of Defense, which does differ from the IC IG. They
have the same approach to when anybody asks them questions
about a whistleblower complaint. They will shut it shut it down.
They don't want to talk about it. You get into some very dicey
legal areas.
But I do know this, the IC IG if they receive explicit permission
from grush to acknowledge the complaint, they will. I do know
that based on documentation, which I didn't make a slide for,
but I'm happy to link that in the show notes below as well.
But there is proof that if grush says, Hey, I will allow you to
acknowledge this, that they will how much farther they will go
from that I'm not really sure. But why I bring that up is why
didn't the authors of this piece do that? This was yet another
opportunity to give weight to this now I'm not saying that the
complaint wasn't submitted. But what if they did validate the
quotation that it was considered credible. And the wording that
they used? I forget what the slide said I had it in the
earlier slide, but regardless credible and so on, why wouldn't
you want that validated, but we don't know what quote that came
from. We don't know where that document is, we haven't been
shown anything. And that is yet another, what I call a red flag
is why not? Now it may show up tonight, for all I know, or
tomorrow, and I'm looking forward to it. But it should
have been in the original piece. So that type of documentation is
crucial to help evidence to help give some evidence to what is a
largely evidence LIS story. It's just a bunch of claims. I'm so
excited, we have a face and a name. But in essence, he is just
telling you what anonymous sources told him. So even though
he's highly decorated, which is awesome. We have no idea who the
other people are. Even though he may be 100% telling you the
truth on what he was told, we have no idea if he is being lied
to. We have no idea who's telling him these stories. We
have no idea if he got caught up with with the same cast of
characters that we've heard about for quite a few years now,
some of which have very questionable backgrounds, and
I'll let you fill in the blanks. But I truly believe that people
are being misled, that I wholeheartedly believe, and that
there are certain characters out there that will say one thing
and say they have your best interest at heart. But deep down
they do not. Now that sounds conspiratorial, and I'm not
saying that that's a official psyop something against the
community. I'm not saying any of that. But what I am saying is
people are being misled. That's provable time and time again,
there are certain things that are irrefutable. on them being
wrong using actual evidence. And no, it's not a Susan golf
statements. And it's not all just because of a FOIA request.
But rather, if you look at the information and you start
putting things together, you can only use interviews that some of
these people have done. That's it No, take the government
totally out of the equation. And you put their interviews
together, you'll get a completely different story. Why
is that? So that's what makes me go back to that whole, like,
it's not bad to question anybody. Because we have no idea
that in their journey, they're absolutely telling you the
truth. grush could be completely honest with everything that he's
saying to you. But people could be lying to him. And we have to
consider that because you cannot believe in some grand conspiracy
and cover up which by the way I do I think that that's provable.
But you cannot believe that the government is doing a grand
cover up about all this, but also not believe that there are
certain aspects of these stories, wherein there are
people being misled. You can't just say no, that's not
possible. He is completely highly decorated. Well, great.
He is. That doesn't mean he's not being lied to. And that
doesn't mean that people are not misleading him, or pointing him
in the right wrong direction versus the right one. And in
turn, he's misleading all of us, not because he wants to. But
just because he doesn't know. That's a big possibility. I can
already see the hate mail. I'll get for that. But regardless, we
have to look at it. So what does all this mean? Now I will say
this, to end it on a positive note. Even though there are
problems with the story itself, and essentially the root of
where these claims are, what can we do with the story? If he was
purely anonymous sources? Well, the answer would likely be kind
of nothing. But contrary to that there's a lot of great things
that we can come up with through this story. And we can start
putting puzzle pieces together like the army liaison and
Colonel now, like the NRO, and the NGA whistleblower who we've
labeled the whistleblower, but his tenure at both agencies and
his connection to all of this, that opens up FOIA requests not
only on those two individuals, but also additional requests to
the IC IG to the NRO, to the NGA, and to the army, amongst
some others. And yeah, I've filed quite a few to start not
only fact checking some aspects of the story, but even away from
the grandiose claims that are being presented. The story was
crucial to put certain pieces of the puzzle namely these names
and individuals and some extra puzzle pieces with the agencies
themselves, put them all together, to file more requests
and to start figuring out where we can go next. So it doesn't
matter. or if it's just a big old pile of steaming fiction.
What happened with this article gave us some new information
that we can use. And that's a plus. So I'm happy for that. And
and, and intrigued and encouraged that finally, we got
some names and some new pieces of information. But the grander
claims, the ones that are obviously making the headlines.
I think the jury's still out on that as it should be. Because
despite everything that I went over, at the end of the day, we
have absolutely nothing to support regrets that. So I'm not
branding, Brett branding Him a liar. That's not what that is
about. But we have absolutely nothing. Hopefully, the
information that he passed on, has some type of tangible
something for them to look at, hopefully, hopefully, the people
behind grush, the ones that were feeding him all this
information, they come forward, I truly hope that we see that
even if they are anonymous sources in some future article.
I won't dig that. But hopefully their information will somewhat
be verifiable by someone out there. But Congress is ready
Gela Branda, saying, if you feel you're not being treated right
come my way. Now's the time. I said in a video not too long
ago, it's time to put up or shut up. I'll repeat that sentiment,
it really is time to put up or shut up. Stories are great
stories like this. I'm not sure if they help or hurt in the long
run. We're all in this together to try and figure it out. But at
least we got a few puzzle pieces. But regardless, these
are just still stories when it comes to the big claims. So
those people they need to come out in the open. Let's see what
happens. I'm here to hear it. Hopefully, if you'd like to show
you like this presentation, please give a thumbs up. It's a
big help here on YouTube. If you're listening to the audio
podcast form, just know that I do have a video, just go to www
dot the black vault.com/live, you'll be able to see all of the
live streams that I do. And make sure you subscribe to that
channel, turn those notifications on. And on the
opposite end of the scale. If you're watching the video, have
no idea i turn these into audio podcasts or the majority of
them, not all of them. But I do do that as well. Please feel
free to go to that website, the black vault.com You'll see
podcast at the top all sorts of ways to subscribe or just go to
your favorite podcast platform, iTunes, Spotify, whatever it is
under black vault, radio, and that's how you can download it.
Always interested into your thoughts and comments. Of course
I always ask please be respectful, but post them in the
comment boxes below. I try to respond when I can. But I'm
always eager to see where you agree where you disagree. What
didn't I think of what I missed? All that good stuff. We'll see
you there in the comments. This is John Greenewald Jr, signing
off, and we'll see you next time.