Unknown: So
John Greenewald: what you are about to watch is something that
is no doubt diving into a very controversial topic. In fact,
I've pursued information on much of what you were about to watch
for more than five and a half years throughout numerous
federal agencies after filing a number of Freedom of Information
Act requests. And I know that sometimes, the findings have
triggered many people who don't care about all of the pieces of
evidence. Ever since October of 2017. When Mr. Luis Elizondo
began making claims about his time directing a program,
researching anomalous aerial threats, and declared UFOs were
indeed real. I was fascinated. But it's no secret as time went
on that I had my doubts. Over the course of the past five and
a half years, I've taken great care to find out what is fact.
And what is fiction throughout an ever evolving saga that will
no doubt not go away anytime soon. So here's my friendly
warning, before we get going to some of you, I know you won't
like the story I'm about to tell. Some don't care about what
happened in the halls of the Pentagon back in 2017. Because
in the end, we got UAP videos, and people are talking about
UFOs in the halls of Congress years later. And although all of
that is great, I want to know how we got here. And when I say
I want to know, I mean, I want to know, everything, every
little piece. But I do know that not everybody is the same way. I
bring with the story only verified official documents
obtained through official means. And I've tried to string
together firsthand testimony given in different ways from
different people over the course of years. Official documents
don't equate to the truth. But it is part of the story. I tried
to backup everything I can and put the puzzle pieces scattered
on a large table closer together, so we can finally see
what the picture is, or at least get a glimpse. Since day one,
none of this has been personal against any one person. What it
is about is discovering the truth behind a story that has
huge implications, and a huge payoff for humanity, if what we
want to believe turns out to be true. But in order to get there,
we have to separate the wheat from the chaff. And to do that,
we have to ask some tough questions, and sometimes deal
with some uncomfortable realities along the way. So with
that said, buckle up, because 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 Greenwald, Jr. and today we're
diving into as I just went over there, in the top of the video,
a pretty controversial story, or at least a gets into territory
that I know some people are really not going to be happy
about. And they will just by default, deny any type of
accuracy to these memos. Now, as I just stated, I want to state
again, just because things come from official documents does not
automatically make everything gospel, but they are pieces of
the puzzle. And that is why I have always aimed to get this
type of material because it tells the other part of the
story. For years now, we have heard various aspects of the
story of Luis Elizondo and how he came out of the Pentagon and
why he came out of the Pentagon. And his resignation letter
stated that the DoD wasn't essentially taking UAP serious
enough and it needed more action. All of those types of
stories are great, and they could absolutely very well be
100% True. But now we're starting to see the other side
of it. And this is what this video is about. This is what was
going on within the halls of the Pentagon in late 2017 after the
New York Times published their article. Now hopefully you have
all had a chance to see the article that I published earlier
this morning. This breaks down with great detail admittedly
it's long but it had to be great detail about what this is all
about. Why it's important, why it's a essentially inside look
and what why we need that inside look To decipher what was really
going on, because when you only have one side of the story, even
though it may be right, it's still not the whole picture. And
this gives us a little bit of a sneak peek into the other side
into into the Pentagon, and the confusion that was going on
around Luis Elizondo his resignation and the security
concerns, not only over his resignation, but also the
actions that he was taking outside, and also how those
videos popping up the FLIR ONE the gimbal. And later, the go
fast, how those popping up in the New York Times was not
necessarily a good thing, and very much welcomed by the DOD,
less about them being about UAP, although I'm sure that played
into it, but more so and we'll get into this, but more so the
fact that they were potentially classified. So put yourself into
that mindset. This was days after the New York Times
article, we know now that the videos were were deemed
unclassified. And we'll get into that as well. So before anybody
reacts to that, like, Oh, this is who cares? It was later
determined unclassified note, let's forget about that for a
second, because this is chronologically chronologically,
days after the New York Times article. So it creates a very
interesting look inside what was really, really going on with all
of this. So let me go ahead and pull up the documents
themselves. And this was not in the article. What I want to do
here is kind of give you guys a little bit of an idea of how I
came to know that my freedom of information act request was
responded to because you will note, people that actually read
the letter that it was sent on October excuse me on August
17 2022. Now, here's the weird thing, why am I right? What Why
am I writing about it in June of 2023, that I would not sit on
something like this unless there was like more to the story that
I was pursuing and, and to essentially give give depends on
the story. But but to give it the respect that a story
deserves to ensure that I have all the pieces of the puzzle for
that respective piece, something like this, all the pieces were
kind of there for this, so I wouldn't sit on it. So why did
why is there that big discrepancy? Well, here's the
weird thing. And again, I did not get into this in the
article. But I figured I would tell the story here. I had seen
a post online, on Twitter, actually, from somebody who had
posted the the resignation letter that I'm about to show
you is very short. It was not the resignation letter that we
all have come to know from Luis Elizondo. And I thought, Oh,
come on this is this is fake, there's no way that this is
real, because number one, we would have heard about it. But
number two, that's not his resignation letter. So what's
going on here, and then there was a snippet from another
document. That was it turned out to be real, it was from this,
but just a snippet. It was just a paragraph or two. So I wrote
that person, because I do follow up on these types of things just
to kind of, you know, feel it out and go, Hey, well, what's
going on here? What are we talking about? That person
privately messaged back. And so well, the documents are genuine.
I thought you got them. And I was like, wait a minute, no. Why
would I get them and not talk about this? It was really
interesting. The little snippet and the fact that there was a
second resignation letter. And I thought okay, this is weird. And
so I chatted back and forth with this person, and I'm not not
giving you their name. I don't know their name. And their I
only knew that the Twitter handle. And it got really
bizarre by the end. But in the beginning, as they're saying,
Well, we think we got the documents from you. And they
kept saying we they ended up sending me a heavily watermarked
PDF file through a encrypted email. And I'll be honest with
you, My first impression was like wow, if you guys fake that
this is really well done because number one, it wasn't explosive.
Like it wasn't, you know, saying alien bodies were in floor
number two of area 50. One's underground facility. I mean, it
was quite the opposite. It was just straightforward. DOD
memorandums and with redactions, which were weird, because the
redactions actually look legit. And I'm like, wow, this is
really fascinating. So they, for whatever reason, didn't want me
to just run to the Pentagon spokesperson. And I thought,
well, that's what's weird, but I said, Okay, I won't, but I had
to verify these things. But one thing that I noticed when they
sent me, the PDF, my FOIA case number was in the title. And I
thought how bizarre like, wow, not only if they fake these
documents, they actually looked up my FOIA case number one I'll
fast forward the story. I didn't go to the spokesperson, I went
to the FOIA office. And I said, Hey, there's somebody out there
touting this material from this case, I had an open Freedom of
Information Act appeal on it from years ago. And, and in
fact, you'll you'll see it was filed December 17 2017. So
you're going way back when this case actually was routed to.
somebody's out there touting this thing. So about a week
later, I got the response sent to me via email. And sure
enough, the documents were all legit. And sure enough, for
whatever reason, the DoD never sent me the response. So I was
floored by that. I don't have a answer for you. I'm still
working on that, on why the DoD messed up. And with as many
requests that I've had, and obviously, since I had filed
this on December 17 2017, you know, that amount of weight is
ridiculous. But to know that I could have had these, you know,
months and months ago, makes it even more frustrating. So
there's like this weird caveat that makes the story even more
bizarre. That person, I don't know, just to kind of close the
story where it got bizarre. Before I talked to the DoD at
all. They I think, either misunderstood a direct message I
sent to them or or I'm not really sure, started making
silly accusations that I sent all this paperwork and their
name to the Pentagon, which which wasn't true. Again, I had
not even talked to the DOD, they ended up blocking me on Twitter.
And that's the end of it. And I thought with that, I was like,
Okay, well, there's, you know, the writing is on the wall that
this is fake. And this is someone that's just, you know,
fooling around. But when I went to the FOIA office and just
said, Hey, you know, I'm probably getting my leg pulled
here, but they're saying in my case number, and then a week
later, I got the actual documents. And here we are. So
that to me, was just a very one of the more bizarre things that
has happened to me. And it turned out to be legit. So I
have no idea I'm gonna keep pressing the DOD to figure out
hey, how did someone I don't know who it is, how did they get
my my FOIA request release? How did they get it and I didn't,
because that that
there's also kind of an ethical issue here, where, you know,
you're, you're filing these legal cases. So if you're gonna
leave the requester, in the dark, but somehow somebody else
gets sent the records. Again, there's there's kind of huge
implications behind that. So still trying to figure that part
out super weird, I thought I would give you guys a little bit
of behind the scenes of how that went down. But let's just go
ahead and dive into the documents themselves. Because I
do think these are definitely worth exploring. So as I
mentioned, August 17, was the day but I did not get these till
about a week and a half ago, I didn't go live or anything when
I first got them. Because this was one of those stories that
deserved a little bit more handling with care, making sure
that those people that I was going to be talking about in the
story had a chance to give their say, and I did I did just that
we'll get into it. So I won't read the letter to you. Nobody
really cares about that. Here are the documents themselves.
And for the purpose of this deep dive, I'm going to go ahead and
read it for you and through with you. Because essentially this
this for the podcast version, I think is going to be much more
worthwhile. So forgive me as I get queued up here on the actual
graphic, the way that it was sent to me was reverse
chronological. So that's why you just saw me scroll down through
a bunch of stuff. And I'm going to start with the first memo.
Chronologically easy to determine chronologically, it's
the oldest because this is what started kind of chronicling the
media attention that a tip was getting. And then as we go
through this, we'll go through a couple other documents that they
gave me, but let me go ahead and start with this. All right, so
this is a memorandum for the record. This was from Gary Reed.
I know some of you cringed don't worry we'll deal with Gary Reed
later. Gary Reed director for defense intelligence office of
the Undersecretary of Defense for intelligence update on media
reporting related to the advanced aerospace threat
identification program or a tip and actions of former DoD
employee Luis Elizondo. This memorandum summarizes recent
media interest in the a tip, which has been accentuated by
the public statements of former DoD employee Luis Elizondo, who
is aggrandized his role in the program. We are collecting facts
regarding Mr Elizondo his actual role in the a tip, reviewing the
program's history with dia, Navy and Air Force and pursuing
options to investigate Mr. Elizondo is possible mishandling
of sensitive information. Mr Elizondo was assigned to AU Usdi
from September 28 2008 to October for two days. 1017 He
served as an action officer in partner engagement and
subsequently as a branch chief managing classified information
to support the Office of Military Commissions. This is
underlined by emphasis, by the way, from Gary Reed. This is not
my underline, to the best of my knowledge. He had no job
responsibilities related to the a tip. The a tip was terminated
in 2012. And information paper on the program is at tab a. Now
I'm going to stop right there. That emphasis like I said the
underlined that sounds familiar, right in 2019. Pentagon
spokesperson Christopher Sherwood, not Susan golf, like
everybody says, and the reason I'm saying that is for accuracy
here. A DoD IG complaint was submitted against her, but she
did not come out with the original statement. All
evidence, although I'm still digging, but all evidence shows
she had nothing to do with the UAP portfolio until after that.
So Christopher Sherwood was the root of that statement. He was
never mentioned and Luis Elizondo his IG complaint. He's
the one that issued it, but he was not the one that actually
came up with it, as evidenced here. In fact, it wasn't even in
2019 wasn't even in 2018. But in fact, it goes all the way back
to the end of December, within about a week. And you'll see
even though this is undated, how we can determine it was probably
around December 20 22nd, somewhere around that timeframe.
But regardless, it was the end of December of 2017, that this
was written. And even then, they were already bantering within
the Department of Defense and putting in a memorandum for the
record. We do not believe that he had any job responsibilities
on the a tip. We do know years later, they added the word in
assigned responsibilities. The jury's still out on exactly why
that is. There are some guesses I think I have a guess but
doesn't matter. That was changed years later. But look, this is
how early that statement was, but they did not release it. The
DoD never addressed it. Until years later. I found that pretty
interesting, especially with the accusation that they were trying
to assassinate the character of Luis Elizondo, you'd think like
boom, right off the bat, they would start throwing these
statements out there, but they didn't they sat on it. For
reasons unknown. Let's continue on. On October 3 2017, Mr
Elizondo submitted a resignation letter tab be requesting
immediate termination of his employment. He was cleared out
of Usdi the next day, he provided no reason for the
sudden departure. Now I'm going to start jumping around in the
documents because it's for the sake of the storytelling. I will
show you tab B, because the resignation letter that I know
you guys have in your head, showed Luis Elizondo his
reasoning for resigning right. It was all about the anomalous
aerial threats. And in fact, there it is, that's the one that
you saw on the History Channel website. That's the one that was
stored on Christopher Mellon's web server. So that's the one
that goes into more detail. So what's this one? This was a
second resignation letter never before seen by the public. And
you can see it as short and sweet. There are no letterhead,
note no letterhead to it. It just says effective for October
2017. I humbly submit my resignation as Director,
National Programs special management staff office of the
Undersecretary of Defense for intelligence. In this regard, I
understand I will no longer be an employee of the US
government. I respectfully request I receive a quote,
deferred retirement very respectfully, Luis de Elizondo.
Now let's jump back on and going back to the memo on or about
October for after Mr. Elizondo had departed the organization. A
second resignation letter tabs see was delivered to the USDA
chief of staff office in this letter, which is formatted as a
memorandum for record, but uses the salutation. Mr. Secretary,
Mr. Elizondo cites concerns over anomalous aerospace threats as
the basis for his resignation. Given the uncertain provenance
of the second letter, oh Usdi retained a copy, but did not
provide it to the SecDef office. The uncertain provenance stuck
out to me what uncertain provenance the first resignation
letter didn't have that tag to it. And then this one on or
about October 4. Well, why didn't he know that we knew this
one. Is it because it was dated maybe, but who dropped it off?
You'll see later it was Mr. Elizondo who submitted that that
resignation letter to his boss John Garrity, look at the
signature here. initialed John Garrity written out three
October 2017. This stipulates that he had received it from
Elizondo personally and again that's in these documents as
well. But when it comes to the second now we know second
resignation letter, the one that we all know about and have for
quite some time. That was technically the second that had
this uncertain provenance to it. What that was, is your is your
best guess is best guesses? Same as mine. I have no idea. Yes, I
did ask Mr. Elizondo. We'll get to those statements later in the
video, or the lack thereof. Back to the letter or memo I should
say in a phone call on October 5. When asked about the second
letter, Mr. Elizondo told me that for many years, he had been
secretly tasked by the Secretary of Defense as the program
manager for investigating UFOs and other aerial threats. He
said nobody in Usdi was cleared for this program and would not
discuss it further. I discussed his claims with senior officials
who would likely have known of such an arrangement but but was
unable to substantiate them. Keep in mind Gary Reed has now
for the last year or so been the guy that people are pointing
their fingers to in some circles that say he's the one that's the
root of all of this. This is showing that he checked with
senior officials to try and substantiate the claims of Luis
Elizondo. Moving on in the memo. On October 12, I learned a video
featuring Mr. Elizondo that was posted on YouTube by the to the
stars Academy of Arts and Sciences, which appears to be
his current employer, he asserts for nearly the last decade, and
this is a quote he asserts, quote, for nearly the last
decade, I ran a sensitive aerospace threat identification
program focusing on unidentified aerial technologies, that's
unquote from Elizondo back to the memo and later says, We are
also planning to provide never before released footage from
real US government systems.
So again, that last part quote being from Mr. Elizondo, we are
also planning to provide never before released footage from
real US government systems, put yourself into the timeframe late
December, and in as this was written, but in October before
the videos came out, he started to see Elizondo say publicly,
they were going to release never before released footage from the
US government systems. You can imagine that might be a red
flag, put a pin in that because that's absolutely a red flag and
plays a role later. Back to the memo. Following discovery of the
YouTube video, I requested an informal review of Mr. Elizondo
is conduct by the Air Force Office of Special
Investigations, or AF OSI, which is responsible for providing
investigative support to the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, including investigation of assigned personnel. In late
November, FOS, I advised that absent more tangible indicators
of possible misconduct, they did not have enough information to
open a case on Mr. Elizondo. Now remember, another thing that we
keep hearing about in from some circles in the last year was
that Reid was using his kind of all powerful arm in office to
push for these investigations, and that he was the sole we'll
call it puppeteer to make Elizondo his life miserable.
However, this shows that he didn't have that power afosr At
that time, in October through to November of 2017, before those
videos were published in the New York Times, that's key. Before
that, afosr I pushed back and essentially said no, the
evidence there does not justify a investigation into Mr.
Elizondo. So despite what you may think about Reid, and I
could care less about the man, myself, I mean, I don't know
him. I've never talked to him. I know nothing about him. But
regardless of what you think about him, the claims that he
had this all powerful like, oh, investigate this guy, and then a
fo fo is I goes, Okay, let's investigate the guy. That's not
true. And the there was not enough there. So they pushed
back and said, No, we will not open a case. Back to the memo on
December 7, DOD was contacted by the New York Times seeking
information regarding the a tip and noting that Mr. Elizondo,
his recent resignation was submitted to protest what he
characterized as internal opposition and lack of resources
for continued research. So now we're getting into the New York
Times playing a role in this on December 15, based on
information contained in the New York Times inquiry, I notified
the O Usdi. Security Officer, that Mr. Elizondo may have
misused government systems and may intend to release US
government footage or information that he obtained
during his employment with Oh Usdi. I don't know what was in
that initial New York Times inquiry, but this shows you that
they likely had knowledge of some kind or We're asking
questions about something that may have encroached into
classified territory or was potential, potentially a
classified territory. And that's going to pique any senior
defense officials ears right up, because clearly for years, leaks
are a concern to the Department of Defense. So now you've got a
mainstream media outlet and a major one pushing for answers
about a program that may or may not even exist at this point.
But obviously was was potentially tied to somebody who
was irrefutably, Luis Elizondo was highly cleared and had
access to many government secrets. So put all of that
together. Any senior defense official anybody doesn't matter
if it's Gary Reed or not, who sees that is going to start
perking their ears up going, Hey, wait a minute, what is
potentially going to be leaking out to the general public? Back
to the memo. On December 17, Mr. Elizondo appeared on national
news programs providing commentary on a video that
appears to be camera footage taken by a US military aircraft
showing what he claims is an unidentified flying object. In
the TV interview, Mr. Li. Mr. Elizondo affirms his alleged
role in leading the a tip program and says, quote, We are
not alone. Now, I did look up that quote, that is not exactly
what he said. It's there's quite a kind of a twist. He has said
we may not be alone, so I want to be clear there. Regardless,
that tone that claim was a concern to the DOD. So despite
the slight misquote there by Reid Elizondo was essentially
alluding to that very thing that humanity may not be alone.
Moving on, on December 18, oh, USDA, I located a classified
email generated by Mr. Elizondo in August of 2017, in which he
requested assistance from a navy civilian, a navy civilian
employee to declassify one or more videos. The video attached
to the email is the same footage broadcast on national news on
December 17. The email chain is incomplete. So we have yet to
determine if the video was properly declassified, what
process was followed and how it ended up in the possession of
the national media. We continue to research these email
transactions. This is one of the key parts of this memo again,
despite what you think about Gary Reed, take that name out of
the equation and look at the reality of the facts. The DoD
was, was encountering a classified email written by Luis
Elizondo with attachments that were the same videos that were
now broadcast worldwide. So I'll say that again, a classified
email written by Luis Elizondo, talking about declassifying
them. So the declassification word is declassifying is key,
because that indicates potentially they were classified
and they are all over the world. That is a concern for any senior
defense official doesn't matter how you slice it or dice it.
That would be a concern to try and figure out did classified
information just spill out into the open, or is this something
else? The last paragraph in this memo on December 21, I met with
afosr agents to initiate a formal inquiry into Mr. Elizondo
as possible mishandling of classified materials.
Attachments, as stated that's the end of the first memo. Now
to go back to that classified email. I am not sure if the
email there's a there's an email or two that was released to me
years ago through a Freedom of Information Act request in
relation to the Doppler process. Now, that was potentially what
is being referred to here. I can't confirm that at this
point. I have filed other requests to get that specific
email and may ultimately be the same. But the point here is the
same regardless of it is the same email or not. It was
classified. The attachments were technically classified because
they were on a classified system. And they were talking
about declassifying the videos. So that that's every indicator
that potentially there was a security problem and a security
leak. So now let me go to the second memo, which is
interesting, because this is essentially what I just read to
you with one exception, see all these scribbles? Those are not
mine. Those are made by someone who I believe I figured out and
I will show show you the handwriting analysis before we
go through the hand writing itself and what was scribbled.
But you see up here, these initials. And we know at the
time the Secretary of Defense was James Mattis. His middle
initial was n. So when I saw this, I thought, Okay, could do.
Essentially what this indicates is Mattis got this memorandum
for the record initial receipt on the 23rd. This is Gary reads,
GER. So that would be Gary Reed's initials. And then you
see these handwritten notes.
So I'm going to change how I'm going to do this. I'll go
through the notes first, then I'll tell you why I think it's
Mattis. So I'm not going to reread the entire memo again to
you. But you can see what what what I believe is Mattis so I'm
just gonna give that friendly caveat again, I couldn't confirm
it. 100%. I wrote James Mattis, he read the email did not reply.
And I have followed up with the Pentagon numerous times to try
and confirm it. They they say they are researching it, but
have not gotten back to me by the recording of this video. But
there's a lot of indicators that it is. So that's my friendly
caveat. There's a slight possibility it's not him. I
considered a very small possibility. But if it isn't,
doesn't matter. It's clearly a senior official above read, who
saw this, analyzed what read was writing and then issued some
follow up questions which we'll go over as well. But here's what
piqued their interest, underlining who was aggrandized
his role into the program. Obviously, him going out there
telling tall tales in the eyes of the DoD was something that
that kind of piqued his interest there. Here's some exclamation
points with another underlying brand. He was a branch chief
managing classified information to support the Office of
Military Commissions. That obviously piqued his interest as
well got a couple of exclamation exclamation points. Likely
because it tied in with, there was no reason for his sudden
departure. Look how he boxed that in exclamation point at
that one. And then hand wrote in C, Intel alarm, that's the
letter C for those listening to the podcast that essentially
stands for Counter Intelligence alarm with a question mark. Now
why would he write that? And to me, I think the answer is easy.
He had access and managed classified information to
support the Office of Military Commissions. We know from
Elizondo his background he was working with or through Gitmo on
some of those law enforcement proceedings when it came to the
terrorists. I was able to show that his position likely was
farming out SAP access meaning Elizondo has position farming
out SAP access to the attorneys of Collete, Sheikh Muhammad, and
an unknown number of other terrorists. I've done a video on
this channel. It's been a couple of years. But I was always
fascinated by what Elizondo was confirmed to have been doing
this kind of supports that with the office of the military
commissions managing classified information, but back to the
counterintelligence alarm, his sudden departure to any senior
defense official, if you are just immediately leaving your
position. Why, where are you going? Is somebody threatening
you? Is there a problem? Are you taking your secrets with you?
And potentially selling them? All of that, again, is just
conjecture. So I want to stress that, but that justifies putting
in there, Hey, are we concerned here for any type of, you know,
potential threat here with his knowledge, sudden departure, and
obviously, where he in what he worked on? So let me stress
that's just speculation, but it's kind of obvious speculation
because of combining what piqued his interest, why this stuff was
underlined, and then the sudden departure you can also see here,
he circled uncertain provenance. So that was in relation to that
second resignation letter, you'll see that a question goes
directed. What does that mean? And we'll get to that question
in the next memo. Scrolling down here he kind of has some check
marks so it's probably you know, he's just going through it my
guess is Mattis may have been a little old school and and you
know wasn't in the right and emails but would grab a paper
copy of something and and and do that type of you know, okay,
read this or read this or this goes down the line underlying
Navy civilian so the Navy civilian that was on the other
side of that classified email that Luis Elizondo wrote, which
was obviously a big concern, because it's in there quite a
bit and referencing these that classified email. It was
starred, it was underlined. And then you can see here, the
handwritten note who is investigating AF LSI. If so, are
they looking into all Excuse me all. That's the word I couldn't
read. I think it's all aspects surrounding the situation. I
don't know what this word is. It's kind of hard to read. And I
might figure it out like after zooming in, but it's kind of
hard into all aspects. All aspects or assistance maybe
Regardless though, you can you can kind of see that he was
worried about this navy civilian and asking who was who was
writing, I thought it was a little bit clearer of a copy,
but I guess it's a little bit a little bit bad there to see on
screen. Regardless, though, that was the the handwritten note in
the margin. And so that was it. That was the second document
that was released. Now let's get to why I think that this is
Mattis. Okay, so now you see what was important to what I
believe is who I believe is Mattis, but potentially a senior
defensive official above. Read. Obviously, I already went over
the initials. But take a look at this. This is what I just read
to you. Again, that word or two is kind of hard to read. But
look at the writing style. Number one, though, it sticks
out. It's all capital letters. Number two, you look at
matching. You look at matching letters throughout the these two
are confirmed. Mattis Okay, so those are those are confirmed,
written by Secretary of Defense Mattis. So this is like what
we're what we're questioning. So when you look at stuff, you look
at the different letters. And when you look at, let's say, the
N, you look at the end, so you see an n here, and you go over
and try and find an N, look at how he writes this n kind of
hooks, the end there a little bit has kind of a weird way to
start it, you're never gonna find exact matches, but you'll
find huge similarities. Now look at the ends over here, same way
hooks at the end, same kind of short on the top part of it or
the front end of it. He also has these kind of bubble, you know,
kind of the only way I could describe is more of a bubble
writing to where he really kind of like you could see the W
there on how he does this. On the RS, you can see he trails
the tail of letters, RS is a big one, see how he tails he trails
on the tail. So he writes the R but it trails down. Look over
here, he does the same thing in all the letters that he does.
The SS also you look at the hooks that the SS have the hooks
are the same, the way that he does them are very, very
similar. So you see that and a lot of it. So I invite you to
stare at that image and look and see the similarities there. On
on his on his different writing. But then let me get to the third
document, which again reinforces that it was the Secretary of
Defense's writing, because that first one I had mentioned was a
memorandum for the record. Right. So it wasn't to anybody
directly, but it was for the record. So read was outlining
everything that was going on within the media. The response
here to different questions was for the Secretary of Defense, so
not record anymore, but directly to the Secretary of Defense.
That's further, that's a further indicator that all that writing
and provenance, uncertain provenance and all that which
are in these questions came from the Secretary of Defense
himself. So memorandum for the Secretary of Defense. So this is
a new memo looks kind of similar, but this is a new one
from Gary Reed, Director of Defense Intelligence Officer,
the Undersecretary of Defense. The subject response to your
questions on the advanced aerospace threat Identification
Program are ative and actions of former DoD employee Luis
Elizondo. So obviously this was in response to the questions for
the secretary of defense Okay, so I'll leave the handwriting
thing alone now but obviously wanted to stress that that all
indicators point that was Mattis All right. So let's read this
memorandum provides response while there's a sick there, he
grammatically was wrong, provides responses to your sick
six questions. Regarding the actions of former DoD employee
Luis Elizondo, responses to your questions on the eighth tip are
in the classified enclosure. The US Air Force Office of Special
Investigations or aft OSI is conducting an inquiry to
determine if Mr Elizondo mishandled classified
information. Now, the classified enclosure I have filed an appeal
for that it was not referenced in the release letter, nor was
it included in the release. So I am going after that. Question
number one, quote, I want to know more about his abrupt
resignation. Why? The response? Mr. Elizondo has provided three
different explanations for his sudden resignation. On October
3, he told his direct supervisor he was resigning because he had
a fleeting job opportunity that required his immediate
availability, and a memorandum dated October 1 worth, he cited
his concern over inaction within the department over quote,
anomalous aerospace threats, unquote as the reason for his
resignation on October 6, via a phone call, he told me he
resigned because his job was too stressful on his family. So
those were three different explanations all given by
Elizondo to different people in different ways. Obviously, that
was a red flag. That was something that was tying into
that uncertain provenance. Question too. Did
CIA immediately review or counterintelligence response?
Yes, we referred the timing and circumstances to Mr. Elizondo
his resignation to the AFL OSI. Their informal assessment did
not find any wrongdoing by Mr. Elizondo, and absent any
indicators of misconduct, they were unable to open a formal
investigation.
Unknown: Now, one quick
John Greenewald: note on that, that is obviously towards the
concern over the multiple explanations given. So
obviously, there was a concern there and the director, the
Secretary of Defense, wanted to ensure that there was a review
to see if there were any red flags. And obviously, everybody
followed protocol. So if this was questions that were by the
Secretary of Defense, again, I'm not defending the man here, but
this is kind of going against what we have heard now for more
than a year that Reid was doing all of this maliciously with a
vendetta against Elizondo. But as you can see here, the
circumstances warranted it, and even likely up to the Secretary
of Defense himself, wanting to ensure that it was being
reviewed. And oh, Usdi, at that time, had obviously followed
whatever protocol that is, or saw the same concern and refer
to it over but they did not do any afosr did not do any
investigation beyond that. So again, I'm just trying to clear
up the things that we've been told in the last year from one
side of the story. I mean, hey, now we've got it in potentially
the Secretary of Defense's own writing, that there was a
security review here. So unless we want to say that Secretary
Mattis was involved in this big character assassination plot
that was aimed towards Luis Elizondo, we may want to just
kind of resign from pushing that angle and just say okay, well
there's some pretty obvious reasons here why you know, why,
why, why we should look into this. Question Three was
subjected read out of all classified responsibilities
between his October three notifications last resignation
letter and his departure 24 hours later response Yes, Mr.
Elizondo completed all administrative and security
related out processing including formal debriefs of all saps, Sei
and compartmented. Programs. Alright, self explanatory.
Question Four. What was the uncertain provenance you refer
to? Regarding subjects second letter? response, the letter was
hand delivered to the USDA chief of staff office by someone other
than Mr. Elizondo. The letter is not consistent with the first
resignation letter, Mr. Elizondo personally handled his
supervisor after my phone call with Mr. Elizondo in which he
said he had been secretly working for the secretary. I
checked with two senior officials that have knowledge of
special programs. Our collective assessment was that Mr.
Elizondo, His claims were not credible, and the letter was not
worthy of the Secretary's personal attention. Also self
explanatory but pretty big. You now have read not making the
decision on his own but checking with two other senior officials.
At least two we don't know if there were more than that. But
as of late December 2017, multiple senior officials above
him who were they we could venture to guess maybe one of
them was the third individual on Luis Elizondo his complaint by
the name he goes by the name of Neil Tipton in Elizondo is
complaint, nothing is alleged against Tipton, which is really
bizarre. So he filed a complaint against the guy, unless I missed
it, I did that big deep dive on it. I have no idea what he was
issuing the complaint about tipped in about. So let's just
say one of the two is tipped and who's the other one. And why
aren't they backing anything up? If if Reid is in a high position
himself, again, doesn't matter who you like him? That's where
he was. But if he goes to other people that who would know
things that he doesn't? Who are those people? That That to me
was was really interesting, because it shows that this
branched out well beyond Reid's office to try and figure out and
substantiate Elizondo his claims and nobody could substantiate
them. And of course, that second resignation letter that we were
all shown to the public wasn't even sent to the Secretary of
Defense, because of all of those reasons, giving an uncertain
provenance. And then the last thing I'll point out, you can
see here it was noted that first one was personally hand
delivered by Mr Elizondo to his boss, but this other one was
delivered by someone other than Mr. Elizondo. So who was that? I
did, as I mentioned, asked Mr. Elizondo, and we'll get to that.
Question five, has the Navy civilian been interviewed about
the declassification response? Yes. Usdi staff contacted him
upon discovery of the supranet email sent to him by Mr.
Elizondo. He informed us that he told Mr. Elizondo that he was
not the declassification release authority and took no further
action. So that's a pretty interesting development.
Obviously, this was stretching far beyond, again, just those
those emails, but they were investigating, they talked to
that Navy civilian, I have an idea of who that is, but the
name, I'm not, I'm not ready to put the claim yet. But I think I
have an idea of who that was. So there was a lot of weirdness
about that declassification exchange, that obviously was it
was a red flag, and it wound up with that Navy civilian being
interviewed during this whole process to question six. What is
a deferred retirement response? deferred retirement refers to
delayed payment of benefits until certain criteria are met.
deferred retirement applies to those with at least five years
of federal service, who depart before reaching their minimum
retirement age, which is between ages 55 to 57. Depending on your
birth, those with five years can opt to collect retirement
benefits as early as 62. Those with 10 years can collect at
their MRA but will sacrifice 5% for each year they are under 62.
That's great, wonderful. I'm not really concerned about his his
retirement. So I wish him all the best. I hope he gets a great
pension in regards to Mr. Elizondo. So that that is now
all of the documents themselves. That is what was released to me.
We've gone over all of those. Now, obviously, the article
itself went into a lot more detail. Here's that article. I'm
not going to read this to you. But if you haven't already, I
hope you do. Because there's a lot here. Admittedly, it's long,
but as I mentioned, it deserves it. There's a lot of anchor
links there. That's the blue links you can click on that
backs up the bigger points that I made, making sure that you had
access to all of that information. And obviously links
to other the recorded interviews that I've that I've done or that
I reference, and give a lot more detail there. Now a couple of
big notes that I want to deal with this video, and then I'm
going to end it here for you. One thing that I tried to
explore with Mr. Elizondo, and Christopher Mellon, was the
videos, the videos obviously, were a big security concern
inside the Pentagon, that they all indicators were just based
on how people were acting and writing and emails like Mr.
Elizondo was classified email, that potentially those videos
were classified. That was a big concern. I also feel that the AF
OSI investigation, now that you see all the information was very
much justified, that's not me defending the government in any
way. But look at how this played out. You have somebody saying
that they're going to say they're going to release never
before seen videos to the public. And then a couple months
later, videos are released to the public. And a classified
email with those same videos is found internally at the
Pentagon. I mean, I'm sorry, that's a security concern, no
matter what anybody who knows anything about classification
can see those are numerous red flags all lined up, that needed
to be dealt with. So it's no surprise that that happened.
Well, one of the things that I wanted to tackle was the huge
discrepancy between Mr. Elizondo his claims to me directly, and I
link to that video, but essentially, he said he did not
know that TTSA had the videos, nor did he know that the New
York Times was going to be publishing the FLIR and gimbal
video, and he said that he was quote, very surprised. And I was
always really intrigued by that because I'm like, how do you
work for an organization and stand up in October of 2017
Elizondo said it he says, We are planning to release these never
before seen US government videos. How do you not know like
what they have and it just so happens that they came across
the same videos that you said you wanted for internal use
only. And that was another revelation that came out of this
interview was the fact that Elizondo stated he did not want
those videos for any other reason other than internal use
only for a database that was essentially tracking drones, and
that was it and balloons and so when you couple all that, you
know together, combine it all together. You have some really
big weirdness there. But then when Christopher Mellon says to
James Fox, I received the videos in the Pentagon parking lot from
a Defense Department official, and I still have the packaging
in Barcelona. Mellon had said that it was let me see if I find
the quote here. It's been from troublemakers and activists like
Lewin me. We snuck these videos out and I took them to the New
York Times, to quote well, that to me is every indicator that
Louise Elizondo, and him snuck it out whether we liked the
result or not, obviously, someone was bending the rules
enough. And here we go. The last point was the packaging that
Elizondo had, excuse me that melon had referenced to James
fox that was on the documentary and that's in video as well. Had
Luis Elizondo his name on it. So how do you say that you
had no idea that these things were out in the open? I don't
get it. So I did ask Mr. Mellon about all of that and to try and
clarify, because that plays a role in these documents. It's
clearly a security concern. And I'll bounce down to what he
said. There's a you can see a lot here. I published all
questions in the interest of transparency. verbatim what I
sent to Christopher Mellon and Luis Elizondo my I won't read
the questions outright Tia, but essentially they surrounded the
videos, asked him about the resignation letter why that was
on his web server. The one thing that I haven't said that yet in
this video was the NY Mellon has a tie to this was that back in
2018, a Twitter user was roaming around Christopher melons
website stumbled on an unsecured directory, it wasn't hacking,
and found Luis Elizondo, his resignation letter, some a tip
documents, a unredacted assessment that TTSA was
distributing but it had personal contact information, especially
those witnesses with the Nimitz encounter. It was kind of an
embarrassing moment, but also the packaging the photos that I
just showed you. Those were all stored on Christopher melons
website. So I asked him about the resignation letter why he
had it what he thought of the the first resignation letter
that I asked him about the packaging that he has referenced
with Elizondo his name on it. It's like, well, how did you get
that? Did somebody steal it from the Pentagon from Elizondo his
desk you know, I mean, that's the only thing that makes sense
because of Elizondo said he didn't give it to anybody. And
he wanted internal use, Oh, somebody's lying, somebody's not
telling us the truth. And then I went into the fact that Elizondo
in the recorded interview with me completely contradicts kind
of what Mr. Mellon story is, and so on. Here's his response. This
I will read to you. I appreciate your efforts to bring credit to
the brave individual who provided me the famous
unclassified DoD UAAP videos. However, I am compelled to honor
their request for privacy in due time, hopefully, that individual
will receive the credit they richly deserve, for helping our
nation overcome a glaring intelligence failure, and an
unfortunate and misplaced prejudice against the legitimate
and vitally important UAP issue. Keep up the good work, perhaps
someday the black vault will succeed in bringing to light
information that has a comparable benefit for science
and national security. Boy, I can't tell the snarkiness there,
Mr. Melon, glad you work that in. But in the interest of
transparency, that's what he said. And, and look, that was
that was silly. I never asked about the identity of the
leaker. I asked for him to confirm what was going on with
the resignation letter in the packaging and why I'd had
Elizondo 's name and why nobody story agrees with each other. So
it's great that he that he had some great things to say about
whoever this hero is, and that's fine. We can love the result
here. But we should actually get the you know the answer to some
of this I mean, who's lying who's not telling us the truth
here? Because nobody can be all right here. Somebody is either
lying or really misguided with what they are telling everybody.
So I'm glad he worked in the snarkiness against me but and,
and that's fine. But he had an opportunity to answer this and
he decided not to now with Mr. Elizondo. Let's get into him.
For those who don't know, Mr. Elizondo will not speak to me
directly anymore. I have to go through Todd McMurtry, his
attorney, and I want to say up front, I have no bad things to
say about Mr. McMurtry. He has been a pleasant person to speak
with. Absolutely no issues there. I'm not just saying that
because he's an attorney and I'm afraid or anything. But quite
the contrary. I was I was very impressed. There was a lot of
professionalism there. He was very appreciative that I wanted
Elizondo side of the story. But also I want to just for the
record, I mean, it was the professionalism was on his side
as well that he understood what I was doing and, and, and
realized that I was not trying to defame Luis Elizondo so So,
so credit to him, you know, because sometimes attorneys are
not so pleasant to deal with. But in this case, you know, for
the record, it was it was fine. So I submitted the questions to
him asking about that second resignation letter. You know,
and what the, what the idea was behind it, kind of going into
the uncertain provenance on the letter that we were showing,
like who delivered it? If it wasn't Mr. Elizondo, why was
there uncertain provenance to that? Talking about let me see
here. And again, I'm not going to read all of these to you, I
invite you to I published it. And this is a verbatim copy and
paste, I made zero edits on what I submitted. But essentially the
discrepancies behind what we keep hearing, even in these DoD
documents, but also by Mr. Elizondo, his interviews with me
and elsewhere asked about the reasoning for resignation,
talking about, you know, his statement to me that he had no
idea that TTSA had the videos, and that the New York Times was
going to publish them. But essentially, in October of 2017,
was saying, Hey, we meaning TTSA are going to release these never
before seeing videos very, very again, trying to dig into the
very, very, very again, straightforward trying to dig in
to these different claims and trying to make sense of the
contradictions. And then, lastly, about the role, the
packaging and the role he played, if any, in the leaking
of these videos in a pentagon parking lot. Why was his name on
the envelope? And could he address that? Here's what I got
on behalf of Mr. Elizondo from his attorney. Thank you for
allowing Mr Elizondo the opportunity to respond to your
questions. He believes he has already answered these questions
repeatedly, and will stand by his prior public statements. To
clarify one point his memorandum or of resignation directed to
John Garrity was simply an official notification to his
direct supervisor. His resignation letter to the
Secretary of Defense and the DoD was his explanation as to why he
was resigning and expressing his concern with the bureaucratic
challenges and other issues that created hurdles for the
investigation of UAP, which present national security
concerns as Mr. Elizondo his resignation letter states under
estimating or ignoring these potential threats is not in the
best interest of the DOD and the American people. And he hoped
resigning and calling attention to these matters would encourage
positive change as evidence, excuse me, as evident by where
we are today in the UAP disclosure process, his efforts
were clearly successful. As a reminder, you are aware of the
fact that Mr. Elizondo was cleared of any wrongdoing by an
official afosr, investigation and 2019. As for the remainder
of your questions, Mr. Elizondo will be addressing many of these
points in his upcoming book and prefers to rely upon that
writing rather than creating a separate account through this
response. So he pitched his book to get answers to the questions
that I submitted. And again, I invite you to read them, because
they are a little bit lengthy. But they were very direct and
pointed to try and clarify what many people not just me, but
when many people have been a little concerned about now for
the course of a couple of years. So now that we get a little bit
part of the DoD side, and it connects a lot of these dots,
even more, so take this opportunity to answer this, as
you can see, snarkiness and all for Mr. Melon, I publish it, I
won't hide from it. You know, this is your opportunity. And
that is a word that I gave to Mr. McMurtry. On the last
article I wrote. And I followed through with that, that 100% of
what they give me, I will publish 100% There's not a lot
of journalists that will promise that however, I give the
friendly caveat that for my article itself, I will cut it
down but not change context, and not maliciously omit any any
type of statement to make him look bad. You know, but rather
for ease of reading, I mean, you you can sometimes see especially
in the last article, answers you get can be like paragraphs and
paragraphs. So it's not fair to a reader who maybe wants a more
condensed version. So I give that caveat, I will trim it
down. But to ensure that I am not taking anything out of
context or changing meaning, or being malicious and omit
something 100% of that will be published at the bottom and that
was agreeable. There was no negotiating, you know, meaning
like, like all parties were very happy with that. It was like oh,
great, thanks. So that was great. And so this time around,
I did the same thing. long winded way of saying this is an
opportunity to address all of this, and to finally put some of
this to bed if they have easy answers. Phenomenal. Let's go
ahead and see it. And yet I didn't get answered. from either
one of them, neither one of them helped. Christopher Mellon
answered a question I didn't even ask. And Luis Elizondo did
a book pitch for his book. And no, look, I have nothing against
books. I fully support books. I've written books myself, I've
always said, if you're going to write a book, all my best, I
hope you do great. Hope you sell millions of copies, I truly mean
that. It's not easy to put a book together. But in a context
like this, where new information is revealed, and there are clear
contradictions to the story, and there's clearly problems. We
need to address those. Because this, this story is important.
At least I think it is not because it's Mr. Luis Elizondo
not because it's Christopher Mellon. No, it's the
implications behind what they are claiming.
It all ties to the root of what they have been talking about for
years. What are UAP? Do they tie into some extra terrestrial
presence, or now the buzzword of today is non human. The
implications behind this are staggering. So let's get the
story. Right. And as I said, on the top of this, I know every
puzzle piece is not of, of interest to every person out
there. They want to focus on on on the pictures on the videos,
and that and today, and that's fine. But I want to know how we
got here, because that's important. Because where we are
today, was built on all of this that I've been going over the
New York Times article, the Luis Elizondo claims the videos that
had leaked out all of it. All of it is built on that foundation.
So shouldn't we understand where that foundation isn't, how it
was built, and why. For those who only want one side of the
story, and again, that story very, very well may be true, but
wants to ignore any other thing that may challenge it. That
means that foundation is weak. Full stop. See, I don't mind
hearing Luis Elizondo, even though I'm skeptical about some
of the things he claims, because I know that he has experience.
And I know not everything is a bold faced lie, or at least I
hope not. But I can still be skeptical. I can look at the DoD
because I'm not afraid of being challenged over what I believe
is really going on. I'll meet the DoD head on through legal
channels, because I know what's there. I've done this for almost
27 years. So it doesn't scare me at all. If the DoD wants to push
back, like in my last video on this channel, and say, No, John,
you can't access anything well, game on. And yeah, I will file
those appeals. And yeah, I will continue to pursue it. I'm not
afraid of any legal challenge. But in the same respect, I'm not
afraid of anybody on the outside either. I'm just not. My beliefs
are my beliefs. But regardless, every piece of the puzzle is
important to try and figure out how strong is the foundation
that holds up where we are today? And answering those those
questions that I send to Mr. Mellon and Mr. Elizondo through
his attorney, those are important to figuring out that
answer. And if we determine beyond any shadow of a doubt,
that foundation is super strong, then great. Let's build another
couple stories on this building. But if it's weak, and people
want to throw mud and sling mud and launch attacks against me,
or whomever is asking these questions, then I think that's a
pretty good indicator that the foundation is weak. And all
that's doing is making me push harder. The harder the DoD
pushes back on me, the harder I will push back on them. But the
same is true for people on the outside, if people are making
gigantic claims. And I challenge that just as much as I challenge
a DOD statement or document or, or stance or spokesperson
statement. I know that I have to push harder, because that to me
is the indicator. There's something there that either the
DoD or those outside people don't want me to know. And
what's interesting is even though it's like pulling teeth
with the Pentagon, trying to get statements, at least they're
talking, at least they don't have snarky remarks. I may not
believe what they have to say. But at least they're willing to
try and put something on paper. But when I get snarky remarks
and a book pitch, when I'm trying to make sense of some of
this stuff, I'm sorry, that's a red flag to me. And that means
I'm just gonna push harder. I know that there are more
documents like the ones that I just sent to you. I know that
for a fact. I'll prove it to you real easy tab a that already
went over. I know there's more documents on a tip and yes, I
will go for the declassification of that record. I think I'll
have a good chance of getting it. On top of that. You'll see
that on that third memo that I showed you with the six
different questions they were in quotations. That was pulled from
somewhere whether an email or a memorandum that was sent to Gary
Reed regardless, that shows me there's more to the story. I
have other reason to believe that in the months that
followed, all the way through the end of the afosr
investigation and beyond, there is much more tied to the story.
So I go back to me asking those questions, why wouldn't people
want to deal with them? Why wouldn't people want to address
what we all want to know? Because the end is where we're
trying to get. I know, some, some people just don't care
about the puzzle at all. And they four wheel drove over the
line, and they're at the end, and they're like, we're in
disclosure. And that's fine. I love those people, too. We're
not that's okay. That's where they are. I'm still behind the
line trying to uncover what in the world is going on. And I'm
still trying to see how strong that foundation is and answers
like this. Answers and statements of pitching a book,
or answering a question I didn't even ask but then ignoring the
follow up, that's the one thing I didn't mention, he ignored my
follow up, which was can you at least just deny that Luis
Elizondo had a role in this? Like he says, That's it, just
say, No, he had no and no response. These are missed
opportunities for us to actually work together and get to that
finish line. Because if that's truly the intent, let's work
together. If I didn't care about what they had to say, I would
have never reached out to them. I wouldn't publish these these
memos last week, and say, Aha, look, the truth. But no, I
wanted to make sure they have their word. And sadly, they
didn't want to give it. Now, they don't owe me anything.
Nothing. I'm a nobody. I get that. But people watch this
channel, they want to know what documents are coming. Sadly, I'm
one of the only ones that pursue stuff like this. There's a few
others don't get me wrong. But I'm one of the only ones that
covers it in this way. Others do the copy and paste journalism,
and they see one thing and one blog, and they just roll with
it. And you see it in all the British tabloids or whatever,
and the story is a mess. That's not me. I go for all the puzzle
pieces. So the bottom line for me is I really do, despite our
differences, despite my skepticism, despite me doubting
what people say sometimes. Let's work together. Let's try and
figure something out together. But the pushback just doesn't
help. And in the end, it's only going to make me push back that
much harder to try and figure out why. So I hope you all do
have an opportunity to read the article. Like I said, it is big,
long, I get it. There's a lot of words there. But there's a lot
of information to cover in these three. And it really is the
culmination of five and a half years of research. So I do hope
that you check out those anchor links, see the documents, read
them, read them carefully. And as always, I'm always interested
in your feedback, your questions or comments, even your
criticisms, all I ask is that you do stay respectful. If
you're watching here on YouTube, you can do so right below, on
your way down. If you think it's worthy punch that thumbs up
button, it really does does help the channel, make sure that you
are subscribed with notifications on but give me
your comments below. If you're watching or excuse me, if you're
listening on the audio podcast, just know that there's a video
version, just go to the black vault.com/live it'll bounce you
right to the YouTube channel. And if you don't know that
there's a podcast audio version of these types of shows these
longer ones anyway, you can find the podcast just go to the black
vault.com. There's a podcast link at the top all sorts of
ways to subscribe. Most major platforms have it under the
black vault radio. When you're there, I can't tell you to put
five stars but that's what I shoot for. So please offer a
rating if you can, a review is even more helpful. But those
types of things really, really do help spread the word about
this. So thank you all again for listening and watching. I know
that this is a controversial topic, as I said at the top of
this, and I'll say it again, at the back end of this. It is
controversial, but it is one that I hope that we all care
about in the same way that we want the truth behind it all.
Because it's not personal. It's not personal against anybody,
but that this is about the truth. At least I would hope
that that's what it's about for everyone else as well. That
said, this is John Greenewald Jr signing off. And we'll see you
next time