John Greenewald: That's right everybody. As always, thank you
so much for tuning in and making this your podcast or your live
stream of choice. I'm your host, John Greenwald, Jr, founder and
creator of the black vault.com. And today isn't a fun show to
bring to you. But it is fascinating nonetheless. Now,
why I say it's not fun is that the US government, namely the
Department of Defense, in my view, in again, I want to stress
that this is my opinion at this point, has done one of the
biggest push backs on the general public accessing UAP
related information. This is a tactic that I've yet to see. And
this is something that may spell some bad news for us that are
seeking that transparency. Now. This is a theme on my show that
I talk a lot about the secrecy, the secrecy, the secrecy. I've
been always intrigued by that for decades have been intrigued
by that. However, it is getting worse. Now I know that's not a
popular stance to take. I know everybody's all excited that
Congress and politicians are involved and, and they're
pushing budget legislation. And that's all great. But from the
standpoint of trying to access that, that information, it's
getting worse. Now, why is that? And then the last couple of
weeks, it's really gotten worse. Now, I wrote a story. Let me
bring it up for you here just to kind of give you an update
because this particular story I primarily had written about the
mozal orb you remember that leaked video, couldn't get the
DOD to acknowledge essentially what it was or anything like
that. This was this was leaked. This was something that I deep
down felt was likely classified. And again, I won't get into it a
lot here but likely classified. Despite what we were told,
especially with the way that it was filmed. I believe the
Baghdad Phantom was more easily proven being shot by the MQ nine
Reaper drone. That that was something that was classified.
Well, I went after documentation on the MO Zool orb. And it
finally came back that everything and I mean everything
that I had requested, which includes off stress it again,
everything. I go for memos, reports, photos, videos, I've
got kind of standard legal jargon to cover the gamut on
what I'm going for. Everything was classified on this case. So
essentially, they are acknowledging that there's
something there. Like what what it means that we don't know,
it's likely labeled A UAP. But we again, don't know. But
regardless, they acknowledged it and said that everything was
classified. Well, that in turn means without a doubt, the
material that leaked is likely classified because that did not
come up. So obviously, there's a little bit of an assumption
there meaning that this is quote unquote, genuine, I don't really
have a doubt that it is just trying to be fair to the to the
evidence here. So on the assumption that this is real,
this letter essentially solidifies that it is classified
because they didn't release it. So you can see here go through
the letter. This was the letter excerpt. Exemption B. One is
national security. So that was the main crux of the story. That
was the main point. But I had seen something in this case that
I didn't really see before. Now look down here. You can see
hopefully, you can see my arrow there on your screen. The second
reason that or excuse me, technically the third reason
that it was withheld second being B five, which is internal
communication and deliberation. So you see that it's kind of
standard hate that exemption, but it's there nonetheless quite
frequently. But the third exemption that they cited is
this one here B seven A, which could reasonably be expected to
interfere with enforcement proceedings enforcement meaning
law enforcement, B seven e, which would disclose techniques
and procedures for law enforcement investigations or
prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement
investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could
reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of law. Now that's
a pretty big Legal mouthful, but essentially it just does not
want to give out any information because it considers whatever it
is entwined in that case, because this this particular
Freedom of Information Act request was geared towards that
Mozilla orb, whatever it is pertaining to that they have
kind of lumped up into a law enforcement umbrella and are
denying access to it citing those exemptions. Now, if this
stood alone, I would be intrigued by it, but not
concerned. However, multiple other cases around this time
started coming up with the same exact exemption be seven, law
enforcement, law enforcement proceedings law important
enforcement investigations. Now, you'll see why that that's a
concern in a second. But the two other cases at this time they
came in around the same time was one request that was for all
communications between arrow and the private organization UAP x.
Now, I won't go too deep into UAP X. But this was nothing
nefarious, I requested communications between arrow and
lots of private organizations to see what was being communicated
back and forth. Because some of these organizations were openly
admitting to talking to arrow. So that's public domain. You
know, I mean, that they they openly admitted this, they
posted it on social media. So I utilize stuff like that and went
after it. So the request for all just the communications, all
emails and letters, I even quoted it here, all emails and
letters exchanged between any members of Arrow and The UAP. X
organization. And then a second request all records pertaining
to the interviews of Dr. Robert Jacobs, and Robert solace. That
also is a quote from the second case that was denied. Now, as we
know, Robert solace has openly admitted to being interviewed by
Eero again, this was all public knowledge. He posted it on
Twitter and talked about it in a podcast. So I consider that
essentially fair game. I mean, if you're going to openly talk
about that, that let's let's see the interview, you know, are
there transcripts? Is there audio, video, all of that would
be FOIA a bowl and with some exception, releasable so we
could we could get it and a case in point, Luis Elizondo
interview with his DoD IG complaint, I got that although
redacted. And that was expected, you can read the majority of it.
So that's what I was going for here yet. All of them the mozal
orb, the arrow and UAP X communications, and the
interviews of Robert solace, and Robert Jacobs, all UAP related,
but very different in the scope of their request, interviews,
investigation in a military action area, and communications.
So three that were all scoped very differently with their
request. But all yielded the same response all be seven all
law enforcement investigation. Now what that essentially means
in a nutshell, is that B seven is one of the one of I wouldn't
say V. But one of the hardest exemptions to fight in an in an
appeal, because there's no going against if it's a law
enforcement investigation, and you could hurt law enforcement,
investigative techniques or potentially a prosecution as
this letter says. That's, that's tough to get beyond fighting
national security or a be one exemption on something 3040
years old. I'd rather go up against that, than then be seven
to be honest with you. Some attorneys may disagree with me,
but B seven is a tough one. Because now it automatically if
this is if I'm right, this automatically takes anything
that arrow is looking at anything that arrow is doing
anything that they are investigating it and exempts it
from top to bottom like that. No, it doesn't even have to be
classified. It doesn't even have to be any type of threat to
national security. It doesn't have to violate anybody's
personal privacy. None of that. So b b one out the window B six
out the window. All those exemptions. They don't have to
fall back on now, because they have one that they can. Now I'm
hoping that this isn't as bad as I fear that maybe and this is an
option. Maybe it's for privacy. Maybe this locks down the
ability for let's say whistleblowers to come forward
or witnesses to come forward. That shields them from FOIA. But
if that's true, be six is there to shield them from FOIA. So I
don't know know how much that is going to apply here. We will
wait and see, depending upon you know how all this plays out,
but I have constant contacted the Pentagon, I tried to get a
DOD official stance on this, asking, Hey, you have released
arrow related material before and B seven was never an issue,
you have denied other UAP related material in full even B
seven was never an issue. So this is new. This is 100%, a new
tactic that I have not seen before in this way, B seven is
not unheard of. So please don't get me wrong. But the blanket
denials, which I'm seeing, again, with these three requests
that had different scopes, that is new, and that makes me very,
very worried moving forward from a legal standpoint, because
fighting it is very, very hard. Now, that was a couple of weeks
ago. Fast forward now to this week. And there were a couple of
others that had been denied as well. You can see here, they
were forced Pacific arrow serial case numbers, be seven denied.
Also, they use the law enforcement. Or excuse me, they
use the national security exemption in addition to the law
enforcement, but law enforcement was there. The second thing
denied. This was I went over the Robert solace, and Robert Jacobs
interviewed denied. This was for all other interviews that arrow
had done, so any of them. And I and I said that I would exclude
Robert solace and Robert Jacobs, because I had already filed a
different request for them, since they had openly admitted
being interviewed. So sorry, one point of clarity there. So all
interviews, 100% of them, they claim are exempt. So I would
hope or think that if somebody like Robert Solace is coming
forward, saying, Here's my story, here's my name, I was
interviewed by arrow that they could release that because
there's no privacy issue there. But that that, you know, maybe a
different story in a different video altogether. So bottom line
here is the usage of B seven, and I know it gets dry and
snoozy boring with the legal jargon. But this is something
incredibly problematic to those advocating for transparency with
the US government. The last thing that I will address for
all of you to talk about it from time to time, but this is a
perfect video to bring it back up. Is that a rebuttal that I
see when I talk about stuff like this is John who cares about
FOIA? Who cares about you, you are wasting your time you'll
never get answers through FOIA. The politicians are pushing for
answers, they will bring it to us. The problem is, is that the
politicians adhere to the same secrecy that's laid on them as
we do. If you watch the media, you see that a lot in the
political arena where outside of UFOs, they are utilizing FOIA as
well, or they fall back on private citizens or private
organizations and therefore your work to help their congressional
pushes for for answers. My whole point there is people can
dismiss FOIA all they want and fall back on politicians.
However, evidence shows politicians will actually fall
back on FOIA a lot, as well. So this is a a valuable tool, no
matter how you slice it or dice it. But on top of that, and
above all else, politicians will get met with the same secrecy
that we do, or those that are cleared, will be ushered into a
skiff told the real stuff, the stuff you and I want to know.
And then they will come out and go, Well, we're taking care of
it. And we want answers. And we'll have a hearing and like 12
years, and we'll talk about it again and nothing will get done.
But don't you worry. Vote for me in November. So that's the type
of thing that I worry about where people are falling too
much on politicians. And yes, they've done some great work
thus far. And yes, there's some legislation. But secrecy is at
an all time high. How do you marry the two politicians are
getting answers, yet the secrecy is at an all time high. That
doesn't make any sense to me that secrecy will transfer to
the politicians as well. They will adhere to the same
guidelines of speaking out or not speaking out when they're
not supposed to, and what remains in a skiff. What happens
in a skiff stays in a skiff, and we will never find out about it.
I hope that I'm wrong. But this is something that's huge and the
Pentagon not getting back to me. I have tried and I've tried and
I've tried. I have followed up numerous times I will continue
to do so because I think that this needs to somewhat be
addressed and hopefully It's not as bad as, as I'm kind of
fearing here. But maybe maybe it is. And we will be at the mercy
of the Department of Defense having a once a year hearing
that's to the public. And they'll give us one, maybe two
videos, half of which are explainable. Anyway, the other
half may be tagged on identified from the government, but
seemingly online sleuths can find a very viable explanation
within like eight seconds. So that's not the good stuff. We
know by that testimony. There is a small, I'll be at single
percentage, number of the overall 800 Plus caseload that
is truly anomalous. According to Dr. Shawn Kirkpatrick, who leads
the UAP investigative effort. That's the stuff that I want to
go through under FOIA. That's the stuff that we need to
legally fined for, not the bread crumbs that they want to throw
out there. And make us all go wow, ooh, colors. And look at
this stuff. Because it's a joke. We know that there's more there.
And with each of these types of things happening, like slapping
a B seven exemption, blanket on nearly everything arrow related,
that takes that material that again, I'll be at single digit
and puts it lower, and lower and deeper and deeper and deeper
until it's inaccessible. Until it's untouchable. No politician
is gonna go down there and bring it out to you. They may even be
able to see it, but the likely never ever tell you or show you
about it. And that's the problem with today's conversation and
the world that we live in. When it comes to UAP. Secrecy is
deepening. Prove me wrong politicians. Please, I will
apologize if you guys somehow pierce this veil of secrecy and
this changes but until then, it's going the opposite
direction from my vantage point, and that's a concern. Until next
time, this is John Greenewald, Jr, signing off, and we'll see
you then