John Greenewald  0:34  
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, I absolutely love going live with you guys. Live shows are a lot more fun for me because, well, anything can happen, and to be honest with you, I mess up a lot, and there's no going back. And so it just kind of adds to the adrenaline and the fun that I have with this channel with you guys. I'm also pretty excited because I believe I don't want to jinx it, have gotten to a point where I'm going to be able to join you guys a little bit more often than I have been here in the last six months or so. So I'm pretty excited about that, more about that on this channel in the days and weeks to come. So I'm thrilled to kind of bring that out again. Didn't want to jinx it, but super excited about it. The other thing too is we are going to be diving into some big stories that happened this week, some of which I came out in, tying into the documents, and what I'm going to spend the majority on, because I think it's incredibly important to talk about, and that is essentially the chandelier heard around the world. I know that I'm making light of it, but I think we have to. I think we have to find at least a little bit of humor in this that's not meant to be disrespectful, but rather that is just where we at. We are where we are at in the UFO conversation. We have to find a little bit of humor and and take this a little bit lightly in some areas, because if we don't, we'll drive ourselves mad. And, and because it can get so incredibly frustrating, it can get so incredibly confusing, it can get so incredibly exciting. I mean, there's just so many emotions rolled up in this conversation, we have to remember to keep it a little bit light, that is part of what this channel is all about. And obviously that offends some people. I said chandelier heard around the world on on x, and somebody immediately was was upset that I said it that way. And you know, I've come to the conclusion that you really can't make everybody happy, but if that person did decide to join me today, well welcome. I hope you'll see that this channel is not what you expected. They told me they had never seen it before, but just because I said that they were not going to join us today, I bring that up because, again, we need to find that light hearted humor in everything. So we're going to be dealing with a couple different stories, as I mentioned. You can see that from the title as well. But the majority of what we're going to be dealing with here is a very controversial story, and this kind of invoked a huge reaction online because mainstream media picked it up. Obviously, it was huge on social media to begin with, but as time went on, it caught on to mainstream media and mainstream media, although they had their clickbaity headlines, started profiling this story, and it really didn't make the UFO field look good. Now I'm here to tell you that I think that's a little bit unwarranted. I think that there's a lot more to this conversation than this, just this image and this kind of debacle, I saw somebody on X call it chandelier gate, which I thought was funny. And if I know a lot of you don't use social media, you may not know exactly what I'm talking about yet, but that is where we are going to start. Now this week, a clip appeared on social media from this event here on october 28 This is a tour that will Luis Elizondo is doing. He is the one who says that he led the former UFO effort within the Pentagon called a tip. And now he, after publishing his book and has been on the New York Times bestseller list, is doing this tour, and he is going out, and obviously, with his popularity, getting a lot of people to buy these tickets and to go to see him well on social media, this clip from one of those presentations showed up, and the excitement that started from This was simply due to the fact that really a lot of people that originally saw it had never seen this photo before. All admit it, neither did I, although you'll see here that it actually did go viral a couple years ago on social media, but it was new to me, and it was really intriguing when I saw this video. So what I'm going to do for. First is play the video, I believe, as it is, through widely circulated down through mainstream media, multiple outlets, multiple social media channels. I am going to call this fair use, and I believe that is fair to do. So it's about a minute and six seconds or so. Let me go ahead and play it for you.

Luis Elizondo  5:20  
Real photo. Let me tell you a little bit about this, and then we're going to open this up for some discussion. We were having pilots, military pilots and civilian pilots in Eastern Europe and in the Middle East Report what unimaginably seemed impossible. They described it as, literally, the mothership looking like the mothership from Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Now, if any of you ever seen that movie, remember the very end this huge, mini sea floating in the sky and turns upside down. Listen, guess what we caught in Romania, 2022 by the way, the US Embassy now is an atmospheric anomaly or something like that. Suppose so talk to some of the pilots, they'll tell you, that's what they saw. They continue to see it. So there's a whole lot more here, folks. I just want to give you kind of a small taste.

John Greenewald  6:26  
Obviously, it seems like that's towards the end of his lecture that he's kind of ending here with this bang. He's talking about how it's a real photo, and clearly it is. I see that in the chat as well, actually flashed to my right here, but it's obviously a real photo, but what it depicts is something else, but listen to how it was displayed. Now, before I get into some of those quotes, if you didn't notice it, this is not a personal attack. This is something that we just have to have a conversation about. I'm not trying to make anybody look bad. Here. Luis Elizondo has addressed this. So I want to say that up front, and we will get into all of that. So I just want to preface all of this. Some of my biggest haters out there think that I just whenever speak about stuff like this, it is somehow an attack. It is absolutely not but clearly the picture was presented here is not only a real photo, but something that they caught, quote, caught in Romania in 2022 also Luis Elizondo had talked about pilots that were being spoken to, and they were saying that this is what they saw. Now, you can interpret this one of two ways that this is an actual photo of what they saw. We can clearly kind of rule that out, but maybe Mr. Elizondo meant that this was something that looked like what the pilots were were talking about. I think that's up for interpretation to be, to be fair here, but he is talking about these pilots that are seeing this object, and he's pointing to this object, and it is something that he was sure kind of brought up. Is it a atmospheric phenomena, maybe, but then implies something that is wildly different than that. So I don't think that he's trying to say that this is undecided. I think he really was pitching this as a UAP to his ticketed audience and let them kind of gasp you actually hear if you listen to the clip again, somebody gasp anytime you can throw in a reference to Close Encounters of the Third Kind that's going to invoke these types of reactions. So this wasn't pitched as, hey, we don't know what this is yet. Definitely want to crowdsource for information here. Anybody can help out, great. That wasn't what this was. So this showed up on x. I was incredibly intrigued. I wanted to make sure you guys saw the clip itself. There is a longer one that has surfaced. I invite you to look that up. It didn't really add context to this photo, but he talked about some other documents that have been around for decades. I love those, so I'm glad that he did, but it gave a little bit more of a taste speaking of of what his lecture was all about. Now I was, like I said, intrigued by this, so I started to do some digging. This had been spoken, I guess, on october 29 which was when his lecture was in Pennsylvania, showed up on the internet. And so the morning of the 30th, I start looking around, start Googling and doing reverse image image searches and came up with the source of where this photo actually came from. And although it had appeared actually like with no traction whatsoever, no likes or shares, there was actually one in 2022 that I had found as well. But I profiled this one because clearly this is where it's circulated in 2023 September, to be exact, you can see here 182,000 likes on Facebook. Now, for those who don't use social media, that's a lot. You don't get a whole lot. Generally, when you post stuff, UFO does get a UFO imagery gets a little bit more. Yeah, but you're talking about sometimes hundreds or 1000s. When you get into hundreds of 1000s, you're talking about viral level, and that's what they mean when you say something has gone viral. And you can see here over 23,000 comments in the comments section, a lot of amens in there, which is so weird to me, but you just see a wide array of people talking about this. So that's where it kind of first really gained traction, in 2023 but away from the viral aspect of this, and it's showing up on on Facebook, it now gives us something else, and that is a higher resolution image, still kind of low res from a technical standpoint, but much higher than a cell phone video of something that appeared online. And as I'm looking at this thing, and we'll get into some deeper analysis here of zooming in and zooming out. But at first glance, I followed the UFO topic for a very long time. I've used the internet for a very long time. I've run the black vault since 1996 and in that time frame, I have seen tons of viral imagery. Remember that Haiti video that went viral like, what, 1520, years ago, so advanced for the time, so hokey today. But went viral these things get hundreds of 1000s of hits, as you can see. Well, not the Haiti video, but another one stuck out to me that looked not exactly like this, but the process of which that it was captured, it reminded me. Let me pull up that photo. You look at this one. This was back a couple years ago. Again, went viral. You see here, I just went over, you know, not even a quarter of a million likes and shares. This one had nearly 700,000 shares. The likes were well over a million. So this thing just went everywhere, this massive UFO scene in the sky. You see a pretty cool photo there. Here's kind of it zoomed in. So obviously pretty cool at first glance, but when you start analyzing it, you start to see something different. Now, the analysis was of this was a lot of fun. I and quite a few other people actually all kind of really dug in on this to try and figure it out. And you can actually, from the scenery. Figure out that it was this lodge in Wyoming that you can actually match up the mountains. Here you can see that there is a match in the water. And the way things are obviously it's a slightly different angle. So some of you may argue, Hey, that's not an exact match. Well, of course not. I'm not saying it's the same photo, but it is the same region. And you can clearly see, just by the mountains there, how it lines up exactly well. Within this lodge are these lamps or chandeliers, whatever you want to call them, in the rooms. And again, although not an exact match, because this is just a stock photo, you can clearly see the resemblance from the exact same lodge that matches the background the lamp. And so it was determined that this is a phenomena, phenomenon, if you want to call it that, but in effect, called Pepper's Ghost. And essentially what it is is an object behind you. So consider this vault behind me, if it was not green screen, but a real one. And then you've got me standing here, and if I had glass in front of me that you can use trick photography to essentially make that vault look like it's in front of me, well off into the distance. That's that phenomenon called Pepper's Ghost. And so this has been around for a long time that phenomenon. So it's nothing new. You can use it to do tricks and stuff like that with photography. Well, when you add in a UFO, you've got a viral potential there, as proven here. Now, going back to that photo that Luis Elizondo had put out there, you can see that there are reflections in the glass, and that obviously supports exactly what we're looking at here somebody that's looking through the glass. So now you take it a step farther and zoom in on the actual quote, unquote, UFO, and you see the outline of what looks like hair. You see out here a glow, which, if you kind of put two and two together, is the reflection on the ceiling of where this thing is. And you go back to the wide shot, you can't unsee it that this guy's head is absolutely right here. The lamp is behind him, but when he takes the photo, it's projected out there. Now, I started putting this out there on social media on the morning of the 30th, and you may have seen this on other YouTube channels as well, some of which and thank you. Like, for example, Patrick from vetted, accredited, my. Thread for some of these images that you've seen and how this was determined. They're just a lot quicker at getting videos out that I am. But again, thanks to Patrick and those who did make reference to it, you'll also see this thread on the Daily Mail and a couple other news outlets that covered it. So it's much appreciated there. So forgive that you may have seen this on other channels. But again, I'm just a little bit slower, unable to being able to get this video out, but you can't unsee it once you start looking at it and seeing that this is something that, again, is that Pepper's Ghost phenomenon, that technique, the most famous one, just to kind of, again, give you an idea of how it works, is the ride of haunted mansion on Disneyland. If you've ever been on that, take a look. I love I grew up going to Disneyland all the time. It's one of my favorite places. That's exactly how that works. These are projections on a pane of glass, and the actual dancers are underneath the ride. You can't see them, but this was a behind the scenes photo that was published by a Tumblr account called haunted mansion backstage. So I thought that would be a fun way for you guys to kind of visualize how this all works. And it's not new to UFOs. These things have been around for quite some time, and you can see here just a select sample of a few of them. Some are more obviously lamps than others, but again, kind of gives you an idea of how all of this is done.

But the media glommed onto this, because here was a former director of the Pentagon's UFO program, as he says, and how he is advertised, and people are going to this lecture, and they're seeing this, and then it goes on the internet and like, within an hour, people have figured out what it is. Now credit to, I believe, flarky, Twitter user, excuse me, X user, flarky was the first one to determine this, and that account is awesome for figuring out and geo locating people and places in in photos like this, and figuring out where it was, they figured out that the building that it was taken from was an apartment and a rod in in Romania, but not at the US Embassy. The US Embassy is actually hundreds of miles away. Now, if you remember the video clip you just watched, the US Embassy was, was where it was said to have been taken, but once you figure out where the photo was taken, and now get beyond how it was taken, now we've got a completely false story that's going out there, and the media picked that up, and that's, you know, look not it's not good for anybody. It's not good for this conversation. It's not good for the legitimacy of UFOs. Because, again, this was not crowdsourcing, looking for people's feedback. It just was pitched out there as, essentially this UFO and UAP case, in fact, one of the most coveted spots in media. Whether you use it or not, whether you like it or not, doesn't really matter. It's Drudge Report, and drudge picked it up as well. Put it smack dab on column three, and look, anybody who follows media and the importance of this, what happens is, is that copy and paste journalism effect, because if drudge profiles it anywhere on this page, then it's newsworthy, and other people will pick it up just by default. If there's an image attached, then it gets even more exposure and more people cover it. So I only flashed a few headlines. Go to Google News, search for it, you'll see it's all over now. Why do I point that out? It's because it's important to watch what the media is then conveying to people that don't watch channels like this, that don't use x to get their UFO information, that don't use Facebook, that don't use anything they may understand just the tip of the tip of the iceberg when it comes to UFOs, and this is the stuff that they get. So that's the majority. Let's face it, the majority of the people out there are not like you and me. There's over 1500 people watching me right now live. That is absolutely a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the people that are out there that are getting their news. Where do they get it from mainstream media sources like this. And then they go, they go, Oh, wow. This guy released a UFO photo. He's from the Pentagon. Let's see what it is. Every news article essentially destroyed it and said that it was a reflection with a guy with the guy's hair, and it's a lamp that's not good. So again, none of this is personal or an attack on the messenger. But rather, we gotta, we gotta figure out how to get beyond these types of mistakes and get beyond the media seeing this as something that they need to profile. Now, as I said in the beginning, just said again, and I will keep beating the dead horse. It's not an attack. Now, Luis Elizondo addressed this. This is the first message that he sent right before broadcasting this. I went to his uh. X account again, anybody can go to it. If you use X, go to Lou Elizondo. That's his handle. There's way too many to read at this point, but I felt the most important was his original statement on it, and that's the one I'm going to read for you right now. He stated, as you all know, I am always happy to be my own worst critic. A photo that was provided to me by a friend in government a couple years ago was presented by me two days ago at our engagement in Philadelphia. Looks like we can put this one to bed as our friends in Twitter figured slash solve this one. Major bravo to you. Excellent work. To whoever solved this one and a big thank you. Crowdsourcing works now. Let's see it together we can figure out the rest. Excuse me. Now, let's see if together we can figure out the rest. As folks at the show will attest, this is precisely why I showed the first few slides at the beginning with an example of a fake UFO. We must continue to be vigilant and always go where the data leads. As you know, I will always own up to any mistakes I make a good lesson here, just because someone in government gives me something, due diligence and scrutiny is always a good idea, onwards and upwards. Kudos to him for addressing it. He later posted the link to the Daily Mail article, which again, profiled not only myself, but Jeremy McGowan, who has quite a different story when it comes to Luis Elizondo, including personal interaction. And it didn't end well. So that is something that was profiled for the Daily Mail Luis Elizondo tweeted that out as well. On the surface, all of that looks good. And hey, kudos to him. That's awesome. But digging into then what he is saying here, these highlights are obviously my own, but I wanted to kind of punch that he's saying a friend in government is the one who fed this to him two years ago. So in two years, no one was able to figure out, hey, this is probably a reflection, and something that people often fall for when it comes to UFOs, but instead, in those two years that never happened. So my question is, Who is this friend in government? And that's one question, because this was posted publicly. I posted this question publicly. In return, I feel it's very, very important, and I wasn't alone feeling that. And I said, What do you feel your friend and government's agenda was giving you this photo with all of your legitimate concerns about how the government conceals UAP information? Do you think you could be used to further that obfuscation by being fed false info from friends, what he is considering friends, and I'm going to punch this note. Who are these friends in government, not former government? That's not how he said it. I'll go back to the slide friend in government a couple of years ago, who's feeding him that information and and that were that, to me, is starting to become more interesting and fascinating than UFOs themselves at this point, because who is able to feed this information to him to then use a former counter intelligence DoD agent to go out and start blasting this out there, because, in my personal opinion, just being involved with this a lot that was way too easy to debunk. And I was, of course, attacked by some people for putting that out there. And it's like, oh, you're always trying to attack Luis Elizondo. Well, look, he completely says that he agrees with the debunk, whether he read mine or, you know, whomever, whomever else's post that he stumbled on. It doesn't matter, but the debunk remains the same, and even he agrees that that is debunkable at this point. So my question is the root of what's going on here? Because this is, again, not that personal attack, but rather, that's why I say it's an important conversation. Because as time went on and he gave this statement out there, he is now saying somebody inside the government is feeding him this information. Who is that the second part of that question,

and just to broaden it here on this stream, that I hope somebody will will ask him and get a viable answer, and that is what other information did this person on the inside feed you? Where are they getting it from? Why did they believe that you needed to take this photo out to the general public? When was it fed? Was it after the viral post on Facebook? Is that where they got it? Did they get it somewhere else? Where did the details about the pilots come from? All of a sudden, they're seeing something that looks and is clearly by Mr. Elizondo is admission a lamp behind somebody's head. They're seeing UFOs that look like that. Who are these pilots that are saying that they're seeing these motherships like close encounters? Of the Third Kind. This opens up a big conversation here that I think we need to tackle. I know some people want to just label him a liar. Maybe he is, I don't know. All I'm saying is the fascination for me about the root of this just went exponentially higher when I saw that first initial statement that people are feeding him that information if that is true. And I will concede it's a big if, but if that is true, then we have a pretty interesting problem here. And I know that some people are saying, Well, okay, John, now you read his his you know, you read his statement here, he made a mistake. Who cares? Like he owned up, up to it like, what? So what? And I'm here to say that's exactly why we need to keep pushing on it. Because if he, if he is telling the truth here, and it was somebody inside the government, then there is a massive and even bigger conspiracy than we've even been thinking about that are using even a former DoD counterintelligence agent as a pawn, as somebody as essentially a mouthpiece for disinformation. Why wouldn't you push that? Why wouldn't you keep asking the questions? The other part of it is those that don't believe that he's telling the truth at all, and that is an equally possible explanation as well. Then you can't let it go because, just because he's conceded and say, All right, whoops, crowdsourcing works. I made a mistake. No, that's that's not how this works. Either direction and either way that you go, needs to have this pushed profiled, and we need to get some answers, and I hope that we do. It should be noted that my tweet to him, which, again, a lot of people agreed with and were posting their support to get an answer, as of the recording of this was not given an answer to many other people were retweeted and answered, one of which, which I'll go through later, kind of touched on that as well, But sadly, I don't have an answer to that question for you guys, if you were wondering if I got one, so that's still up in the air, but I do hope that we get one. But I want to broaden this a little bit, because not only is it important about this specific issue, this now is another notch in a trend. This is another bullet point on a list of things that seemingly continue to happen over and over and over, even going back to day number one. Now, for those who don't know the history of Luis Elizondo, maybe you just know the broad strokes summary of it. He first came out to the general public in October of 2017 this was with a press conference with a company now defunct, called to the stars Academy of Arts and Science, or TTSA. This was some entity that was not only bringing in Luis Elizondo, but others as well, names you'd recognize, Christopher Mellon, Dr Howell put off and a couple others, again, names you'd recognize. They were trying to raise $50 million to build spaceships to collect UAP information and material, and they just had really grandiose plans, they only raised a couple million dollars, and as time went on, they essentially went goodbye, and TTSA is no more. It was essentially swallowed up into the stars media. And what was TTSA? I don't know what happened to all the millions of dollars they collected. Essentially is now just a media company, and Tom DeLonge is producing movies and and fiction, fiction, not non fiction, not spaceships, not what they originally planned to do. But why I'm bringing this up is that was october 2017 when they announced it, and everybody saw this man, Luis Elizondo, along with Christopher Mellon, come out on stage and give their respective speeches. And during Christopher Mellon's, which I think chronology, chronologically was a little bit before Luis Elizondo, they display this tic tac object that he even said it was clearly not us technology. And tried to pitch this as as one of those images of the tic tac but it turned out to actually be a balloon. Now again, mistakes can absolutely happen, but it didn't stop there, because about a year later, Luis Elizondo himself was back on the stage, and he was in front of a group in Italy, and in this presentation he looks and this is the actual transcripts at photographs on his presentation. What you see here are real photographs. What he's pointing to are actually CGI representations of the 1952 UFO event. I know for a fact these are CGI because when I was working in television. We actually tried to license this, but we couldn't figure out who the actual owner was. Why do I bring that part up? Well, because this was widely used in other television shows, yet was being pitched in a presentation by Mr. Elizondo as a real photo that there was of the 1952 event. There are no photos of the actual UFOs of the 1952 event. There are some that are commonly circulated, like this CGI and more commonly, an older photograph, but you actually see the glares of the lights on the ground. What most people do is crop the lights out, and then you see these like reflections in the sky on the camera. But they were just camera artifacts. So there were no photographs, at least none known of the 1952 flyover of the Capitol Building in DC, and yet it was pitched as real, also in 2000 and not 19 TTSA again, where Luis Elizondo was involved in, he was spearheading the project to go out and get UAP material that was collected by others. We know that they got quite a few, because as time went on, I think it was like 12 or 14 or something like that, they send out a press release and talk about these materials from unknown objects. Might be hard to read on your screen, but essentially, they were collecting these things, to quote further, our mission for discovery and innovation. They talked about it being advanced aerospace vehicles of unknown origin, which is where these metamaterials that they were collecting came from. What you see on the screen here is a stock image of a mineral called Malachite. It's a rock. It's not a meta material. Has nothing to do with aerospace technology, but they were blasting it out there as being connected to this groundbreaking metamaterial technology that they were looking at also in 2019 you might remember unidentified the TV series, Luis Elizondo and Tom DeLonge sat down with three individuals from the military, one of which was in fatigues. This person wrote me they were completely misrepresented on the TV program. The camera that was shooting them was not told to him, and he was completely misrepresented on screen about who he was. Why that was not really sure, but I did a big write up on this, because that's important. Essentially, they were pitching these individuals, these individuals, they were all redacted, or, excuse me, blurred out on screen so you didn't know who they were. I've identified these two for privacy reasons. I'm not going to blast their names out, at least not yet. You'd probably recognize one of the names you probably wouldn't recognize the second. But why I'm bringing that up is the entire scene was misrepresented. I did get a and e networks back backstory, essentially through a statement, and they said that they were essentially deciding with the producers, and they didn't care. Bottom line was that it was fully inaccurate, and that was back in 2019 you go to 2022 documents were pitched on fade to black with Jimmy church

by Luis Elizondo profiling an article by the sun. What they were profiling was essentially a training exercise by the NSA, except the sun completely misrepresented them, and then mister Elizondo took that story, conveyed it in 2022 is essentially newly declassified records talking about alien communication. The problem here is the trend that we are seeing that needs to be addressed. Are these friends in government feeding all of this information that is discrediting Luis Elizondo and Christopher Mellon, or at least trying to to the masses. Is this some disinformation op or is this a disinfo campaign against us, the people of the world, seeing all of this information? Because this isn't one or two things you can clearly source any of what I just went over to you. Everything is verifiable. You don't need to take my word for it, but you can see the trend. And it doesn't just stop here. I'm going to stop here, but that doesn't mean the trend stops here, because there are multiple other news interviews and things that were given to the general public, not the you and me's out there that actually care to look into it and look at channels like this and and those that give the actual evidence, but rather the majority of the people out there that are going to these mainstream media channels like the sun and and thinking that that's actually a legitimate headline and a legitimate document represented correctly. It's a legitimate document. It's just not represented correctly. So what's going on here? That's the the the issue, and it sounds like at least to the general public. Anyway, Mr. Elizondo is kind of going down that route to a question that was posed to him. So my. Question is, was this quote friend giving you disinformation, or were they misinformed themselves? Either way, somebody is lying on this chain of command. Who is it? Great question? Mr. Elizondo said Great question. Sorry, I forgot he said that it's a great question. We all agree. I'm in the process of trying to determine that myself, if it's a setup and an attempt to discredit me from the inside, that we may have bigger problems on our hands. So even he is questioning to the general public, again, this isn't any kind of leaked material. This is what he is blasting out to his near 200,000 followers on social media. X to be specific that he doesn't know if this is a disinformation campaign to discredit him. So those questions that I just talked about before earlier in the stream, who is the friend? How many are there, and what other information did you get? Specifically is something that needs to be addressed. Because again, if all of this is true, and I want to take him at his word for it, then we may be seeing a major conspiracy unfold, right? So if this is if this is true, then we need to push on it, and it needs to be addressed, because we also don't know what from these quote, unquote, friends in government feeding information to people like Luis Elizondo and who knows who else this quote, unquote friend has spoken to what's going back to Congress for them to create the legislation that they are now, it's really good. I know I get a bad rap for people thinking I was like, anti UAP Disclosure Act because I said it wouldn't pass. That's not being anti that was being realistic. They were putting things in there that would not have a chance. I'm sorry that's just true. I know certain portions of certain things past and you know, hopefully that will bear fruit of some kind. But what is being fed to these lawmakers from, from, again, roots to these friends in government that are spewing out disinformation. We've now established that disinformation is there, that things are being fed out from the government. So if all of that is true, then we need to figure out and separate what the actual evidence is and what the actual verifiable evidence is, and give that to lawmakers. Did they see that lamp in chandelier? Did it get conveyed to them that this friend in government who was sneaking out this photo? They don't have time to research these UFO claims. So to be fair to all the politicians, they may have a personal vested interest in it, they may find it fascinating, but they're also going to trust the information that comes across their desk because a former DoD official gave it to them. But what is the root and where is it coming from? And that is the big question that we need to figure out. So I hope in in more interviews, because I'm sure there will be, as Mr. Elizondo continues to go around and talk about his book. I just saw another one appear today. I hope that those individuals, those podcasters, those those personalities that are allowed to ask him questions that aren't scripted, that they ask him that, and I think that this may be the start of something that is incredibly important in this conversation, and arguably one of the more important things, because no matter how you look at it, Mr. Elizondo is lying. Somebody is lying to Mr. Elizondo. Somebody who is conveying what they think is factual information is actually getting it to getting it from somebody who's lying to them. I mean, look, it doesn't matter how far back you go. It's rooted in lies and disinformation. There's no way around it. Whether it starts with Luis Elizondo and that's the disinformation, or he's being fed it, it doesn't matter to me. Again, this isn't personal, but we need to figure out what that is, because in the process of all of this, the mainstream media is profiling BS and disinformation laden stories and stuff that that goes to easily explainable effects of camera imagery. That's what they're looking at. And even the Daily Mail, of all places, that is fairly, I'm sorry, they're fairly sensationalized with their headlines and and with their stories, if they're debunking this, you know, you got a problem, and you have to deal with it, because if you've lost the Daily Mail, you're losing it all together. And that's a problem that I think that we have to that we have to deal with the bottom line for me, as I end this part of the story is we have to remember that the core of the UAP story is not lampshades, it's not lamps or chandeliers. It's not reflections, it's not even. Drones or balloons. I say that based on verifiable evidence that anybody can look at, and that's, you know, videos that I've already done in a video for another day. But that's the conclusion that I've come up with, that reality is starting to get lost, that the outlets that generally profile, even in a sensationalized way, are starting to lose interest the New York Times that has started this whole thing, albeit with inaccurate reporting from day one, at least it was supportive of the topic. I didn't agree with them misrepresenting it. So please, let me be clear there, but again, the tone was supportive of the topic. You fast forward, New York Times is nowhere to be found with good coverage. They weren't at day one with good coverage, but at least you know they weren't completely debunking everything. And as time went on, they started to they lost interest. You see a lot of outlets when you see their 2017 coverage. Fast forward to 2024, wildly different. There's a select few, a handful of places that actually try and do positive stuff. You can pick apart the facts and stuff like that. And I don't agree with the reporting. If it is not factual, I don't want sensationalized reporting, so please make sure that you understand what I'm trying to say here, but it's about the tone, and I think that this topic is losing a lot of what people are used to, and this isn't going to help. But at the core of all of that is something very, very real, something that needs to be explored, something that is at the highest level of our classification within the US military and US government, that's not reflections of chandeliers, that's not even drones or balloons. Some will argue that it is, but I'm sorry, there's a case to dismiss that after everything that the Congress and Senate has heard, I went after this is kind of moving away now from that, that original story we've talked about for some time here this week, one of the other stories that I've talked about was I went After all congressional correspondence, because clearly they've heard a lot, whether it be fake disinfo or not. There is a core group of those in Congress, in the Senate, that are very interested in this topic. You can't get away from that. They just are, and that's a good thing. There should be more of them. So what I did was I went after all congressional

communication. To the US Air Force. On a list of keywords, all UAP and UFO related, you can see them on your screen. There unidentified flying objects, unidentified anomalous objects on an unidentified aerial phenomenon, all the different versions of the same darn thing. I did a list of them, and looked for all congressional correspondents for the last decade to see who's reaching out to the US Air Force. Because, as we know through Matt Gates and his testimony in one of the hearings, Eglin Air Force Base had a sighting. I got documents on that and published them out there quite some time ago. But there was a clearly a UAP event that happened, and that Matt Gaetz was directly involved, trying to get in there, get more information on it, and him and Congresswoman Luna were essentially stonewalled to a point Matt Gaetz got a little bit farther given his clearance, his clearance level, but regardless, there was still quite a problem getting in there. When Congress, whether it be a senator or representative, doesn't matter when they go to any government agency, their communications, official communications, are essentially really important to those agencies, because they have policy and procedure to respond to all of those communications, whether they be by email, but more specifically, letters, and even in some cases, we'll bar code those to make sure that they are properly logged. And then a spreadsheet is created, a log is created of all those barcodes, all those serial numbers, and it's responded to.

Air Force has it, CIA has it, NSA has it. I've collected a ton of them. You can go to the black vault just search for congressional correspondence log, and you'll come up with a ton of them. In the past 10 years, the US Air Force says Not a single congressman or senator went to the US Air Force on UA, UFO, UAP, related issues for the last decade. Why not? There's an issue here. Either the US Air Force is lying, and I am appealing this because some of you are probably thinking, hey, what about that Eglin Air Force Base thing? It. Isn't there communication there? Well, there is a little bit of semantics here, but I'll make it brief. There's a difference between official communication between a senator and the US Air Force, essentially them asking the Secretary of the Air Force for an official position statement, or for them to look into something or whatever it may be. There's a difference between that which is then logged and serial numbered and bar coded, versus Matt gates calling up Eglin saying, hey, we want to come down there, we want to see this, or we want to talk to a pilot, or we want to whatever. That's a little bit different. So you likely would not see that in a congressional correspondence log unless Gates got so upset and goes, You know what? I'm going to the top. I'm Matt Gaetz. I'm important. I should be there. I have the clearance. Congresswoman Luna could do the same thing. They go to the Secretary of the Air Force with a letter and say, I want this. I want you to do that. I need you to investigate this. Whatever their letter is. That's what serial number embar coded. Okay, so that's the difference. Wanted to point that out I am however appealing based on that. It's a little bit of a stretch, but I believe it does give me grounds to appeal, to go in there and say, hey, you know there was, there was clearly congressional communication between Eglin Air Force Base and Congress. I have reason to believe that there should be more than that. I believe that they would go to the Secretary of the Air Force, or whomever it may be, and dig in that way. I'll let you guys know when that appeal is answered, who absolutely knows the truth of the matter. So hopefully Matt Gaetz will come out, or Congresswoman Luna will come out and say, Hey, we went to the Secretary of the Air Force, that's a complete lie. Hopefully they'll do that. If they didn't, the question is, why? Why don't they have that interest? Because they are who they are. They've got a lot of power, and they could go to the top. So the question is, why didn't they? And I think that that's what we need to continue to ask ourselves. On a side note about the Eglin Air Force Base thing, I still have an open request for one of the military officers that was directly involved with that. He has moved on from egland. So my FOIA request is kind of like bounced around now for quite some time again. That's a video in itself, but just know on that specific issue, I continue to push on there as well. But as I said, the core of this UAP issue clearly has this root of high class, high level classification. This goes beyond those drones, the balloons, the chandeliers, all the silly, fun jokes that we can make about all of that. This is what's being lost. No mainstream media outlet that that I can think of, off the top of my head reported on this. And what this is, if you're not aware, this was one of the last videos I did on this channel. I invite you to watch it, because this is a UAP Task Force presentation that was done, a briefing document that was done that essentially was an overview of the UAP Task Force. This was predating arrow, that's the organization that we know now. And UAP TF created this document to do these briefings of the state of their research, what they had done, what's the current assessment of UAP? Two of the three, by the way, were still classified. They wouldn't tell you. These are just two slides from that, and it's a much bigger presentation, not only on my end, but the UAP Task Force presentation, and you will see a lot of it is redacted because it is highly classified. Now, in many of these cases, you can determine, no, we're not talking about satellite capabilities of the National Reconnaissance Office. We're not talking about capabilities of some classified aircraft platform. We're talking about UAP either imagery. You can see that in this presentation where multiple photos were blacked out, the only one that wasn't was the one that had kind of come out already that was determined to just be an artifact of the camera. Other than that, though everything else was classified. That's not a balloon or drone. I'm sorry. It's just, it's just not. I know that some people want to say that it is. But when you look at when you have these encounters with, let's say, a Russian aircraft or whatever, and the highly classified platform, let's call it an MQ nine Reaper drone, takes these videos. Again, it's a very highly classified platform. Those videos are released within like a day. So no, I mean, when you're talking about aircraft or foreign intelligence, you know, what do we have on on Russia or China or Iran? I'm sorry, we're very quick to showcase our capabilities when it is beneficial for us to do so, but when it starts to get into UAP, they go, Oh, no, you know, sources and methods, that's our our capabilities. We can't talk about that. Well, I'm here to tell you I've done over 10,000 FOIA requests. You can get highly specific technical documents completely. Unclassified and unredacted that allow you to see some pretty amazing things over the years, again, in relation to highly advanced technology, even highly classified forms of technology that are declassified over the years. Yeah, when it comes to UAP, nope, it is an absolute closed book that's at the core of all of this, and we're losing that. We're losing it. Why are so many outlets profiling what ultimately is a chandelier and not looking into documents that show you exactly the serious level of what this topic is. They don't have to profile me or the black vault. That's not where I'm getting at I'm getting at these documents are now in the public domain. These documents show something completely different than what we are being told when these kind of debacles happen, of chandeliers and so on. That's what needs to be profiled. That's what that general populace needs to see. One of the other stories that I published this week was about the National Reconnaissance Office. Now, the text of this had been released before, but I'm going to read it anyway. But essentially, what this was was a request that I did to the national or excuse me, to the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General about their UAP evaluation. In the course of that case, they found documents that were from the National Reconnaissance Office. Now the way the law works is they need to refer those documents over to the original agency. You'll hear me a lot on this channel talk about the original classifying authority that's also called an OCA or the OPR, the Office of primary responsibility, which would be in charge of declassifying documents. Essentially, you have to go back to the source agency that created the document, because they have to review it. In this particular case, DOD IG saw NRO material in responsive records, so they said, Hey, John, we're referring this over to NRO. NRO finally got to it, and I was able to publish it this week in it. It said the following, the NRO performs R and D, acquires launches and operates sensors and communications systems on satellites on behalf of national security, and thus our input and coordination is limited to our sensor performance, processing and exploitation, or tool capabilities allowing intelligence community analysts to fully exploit, assess and report their findings. An NRO officer on the UAP TF advisory panel provided feedback on NRO platforms, sensors, data processing and information exploitation now, the redactions start, any collection tasking would need to come from Nga or geo intelligence or NSA or signals intelligence once actual or hypothetical observables are or activity are codified, the NRO can work with our mission partners to not only optimize collection, but possibly, and then the rest is all redacted, obviously. Now you're starting to get into NRO capabilities. These are understandable redactions. And as you start looking at different documents, you see the difference between again capabilities, and you see where they just want to hide UA, UAP stuff, and that's something I've tried to stress on this channel so many times, because the skeptics, the true ones that just say, yeah, there's nothing to this topic, they'll immediately go to that explanation and go, hey, they can't tell you about NRO capabilities and spy satellites, duh. So they're going to cover it all up. But there's nothing to UAP. Anybody who speaks to that definitive, let me rephrase that. Anybody who speaks that definitively about all of this doesn't have a clue, because that's not what the evidence shows. Because just by using common sense and logic, and you track documents when they finally, after years, get further declassified, and you read under redactions, you can start to see the difference between something that actually does talk about capabilities and and NRO assets on a technical level, and yes, that should, should remain classified. But you can also then start weeding out those that get into UAP material that is not on that same level of classification. So then the question mark is, why is this classified? Why are they continuing to do that on something that so many want to pass off as balloons and drones and so on again? This is at the core of this topic that I think the mainstream media is losing.

In addition to that, what I just read you, which was part of one of the attachments to the emails, and I invite you to look it up if you go to the black vault.com right now. It's one of the most recent stories, and it talks about all the NRO documents that I got, and there's quite a few over the course of not only this case, but others, a lot of DOD IG material, all part of their UAP evaluation, with that said, this next part is a presentation that the NRO did on their contributions to that DOD IG UAP project we now know it as their UAP, quote, unquote evaluation. Information that they were looking in on how the DoD was handling the UAP issue, and that is something that they were, they were having a role in that they the NRO was, was kind of brought into this, and they had to give to the IG during that evaluation. Hey, this is what we did. So in the course of that, they created this PowerPoint presentation to say what they gave over to the IG, right? It's all kind of a long way of of trying to track down these documents. And I know sometimes in these videos, it's like, What the hell did he just say? You trust me when you try and like, track all these things down and follow all the cases. You can only imagine the kinds of things I say before I go to bed at night, wondering if I'm ever going to get what I'm looking for. But I always like to tell you guys how it all came to light. So back to the presentation. It was only one slide that you'll see here. It was a outline of, again, what they gave to the DoD IG, and it says NRO does not task the satellites nor produce intelligence. We provided coordinated input to the UAP TF housed in O and I, I know it says up a TF. That is a typo. I showed you that cover slide to show you this is about UAP. Some people questioned whether or not it was about UAP. It is that was the topic of the request, the slide header that I believe was just a typo, some technical guidance, multiple redacted lines, recent collection after cutoff date for congressional report. Cngs assessment bonus from automation, optimized or funded. Additional inputs, external tips, for example, brevity code, and then more redactions. The last line was the most interesting to me anyway. Let me stress this can be interpreted in a couple of different ways. I don't know the right answer. I've read this 100 times. I've reached out to some friends that I trust that have a handle on government documents and government programs. And I think we all kind of had maybe a little bit of a different interpretation, multiple This is what the line reads, multiple DoD programs, not sure they are coordinated. Now, after reading this multiple times, this is just speculation. I you know, boop boop speculation only, I don't know for a fact yet, and I'm continuing to push but multiple DoD programs, the NRO, just went over their UAP contributions to uh, to the task force as can pay as conveyed to the DoD Office of Inspector General during their evaluation. I read this as that there were multiple UAP related DoD efforts. Does that mean that they were these formal investigative arms like the UAP task force? Now that doesn't mean that, but were there programs that were dealing with UAP related issues, multiple issues, and the NRO itself was questioning whether or not they were working together? That's how I read this. That doesn't mean that it is fact yet, but I'm putting it out there because this is now another piece of the puzzle that came out. This is something that we can now all look at, we can all verify. But the bottom line here is how classified, how ridiculous it is when it comes to UAP and the secrecy involved that's surrounding it. And I'll say it 1000 times that I think that the media is starting to lose what's at the core of this, that the general public has been so drowned out by sensationalized headlines and sensationalized claims that, in the end, they meaning the general populace that's not tuning into my show or other, you know, fact based either ex social media profiles or fact based YouTube channels, which is a dwindling number, by the way, so be careful who you watch. But fact based reporting, but on a you know, amateur level, that's not the mainstream media. That's 99% of the people that know about UFOs, and the stuff that they're seeing is heavily sensationalized. The stuff, the stuff that they're seeing is not substantiated. And although it sounds cool and it's sexy and it gets clicks and it gets views and it gets viewership, all of that good stuff, in the end, we do not have the answers that we need. We do not have that verifiable evidence. So whether it's sensationalized but true or sensationalized, Bs. In the end, the general public, the 99% that doesn't care to watch channels like this, are just. Going to say, Hey, I'm going to go over there, because I don't care anymore about UAP or UFOs. And we're seeing that on a smaller scale with outlets specifically, and I believe that we are going to see that on a bigger scale with the general populace. I don't want that. I don't I don't want to sound like a pessimist here. I don't think that's what should happen, but that's what I fear about focusing primarily on sensationalists, sensationalized claims and unfounded information, unsubstant, unsubstantiated. Now we know that there is a UAP hearing coming up, hopefully in the next couple of weeks, I've heard the 13th, and I've also heard that the Senate may have one on the 19th. All of that is great. I want more, but we need to get the agency heads the ones that are responsible for the for the for the

lack of declassification that I just showed you, and that's, you know, point 00, 1% of what I could bore you with. When it comes to the absolute secrecy surrounding this, we don't need any more quote unquote whistleblowers to come forward. And I say quote unquote, because if you're a whistleblower, you've got that evidence to come with you. And I'm sorry to say we just don't at this point, I'm glad that we have some on the record, testimony under oath. I give credit, and always have to David grusch for coming forward. He strikes me as someone genuine and conveying what he believes to be true. Does he have friends in government that are feeding him that information, like the reflection image that we saw, are they the same friend as friends, or singular friend in government that's feeding him that information we don't know. So I believe that he's genuine, but we need to understand exactly what is going on on, on how these guys are getting their information. How do you do that? Go to the top, what the hearing has to do, which we likely won't see. I hope I'm wrong, is they need to go to the agency heads and sit them in those seats, put them under oath, and start asking about the high levels of classification and the over classification that, let's say, DNI Avril Haines has spoken about, unrelated to UAP, but just generalized about over classification. That's what they need to be asked about. They need to see these documents and be held accountable for the information that they as the head of the agency won't allow the general public to see they they should be put on the hot seat to convince Congress why that information cannot be declassified? That's the pressing we need to see in the halls of Congress. I don't No offense to any whistleblower that has yet to be named. We don't need another one, unless they're going to come with some kind of verifiable evidence. But you can't get more extreme than David grushe claims non human intelligence pilots, dead bodies that were discovered, biological material recovered, physical wreckage out there. You can't get any more extreme than that. That's not a challenge to some of you who want to make up stories and go to Congress. But what I'm saying is is that's enough, that that's absolutely enough to act on get some of these agency heads in the chair. No, I do not think that they should be completely inundated with questions about David grushe testimony that I believe should be a small portion of it, but talk about the secrecy, talk about the evidence that we all can verify, and that's what we need to do. I created a thread on x which I reposted recently about all the people that I think should be in that hot seat. I think the hearing should not be a day or an hour. I think that it should be multiple days. I think that there should be multiple agency heads in the hot seat. I think that there should be spokespeople like Susan golf from the Pentagon in the hot seat. I think that they all need to be held accountable for not only the actions that they take, declassifying or not declassifying information, and the way that that is handled. They need to be held accountable for that, and they need to be held accountable for the messages that they have conveyed to the general public. That is a UAP hearing that I want to see. I don't want to hear any more claims that I can't verify. I don't want to hear any more claims that are just going to be met with. Nope. None of that is we have no evidence to support that. And end of story. We don't need that anymore. Let's get the agency heads in the hot seat and go from there. All right, guys, I really appreciate you tuning in as promised? I know a couple questions. Here are actually no questions. Brian, story, watching live. Thank you for that support of the channel. Brian says, Thank you for your continued hard work, Brian, thank you for supporting the channel in that way. Truly appreciated. You. Mo Jahan guard, I hope I have that pronounced correctly. Thank you very much, sir, for everything you do. Your work is immensely appreciated. Well, thank you for that. It truly is appreciated. You supporting the channel. If you're watching on YouTube, you may have seen the pin post. Anybody who decides to donate to the black vault to support research like this. Just know, 100% of it goes into the research. I do not pocket a penny. I don't buy myself anything. It doesn't go to anything but the black vault itself. It all goes to an account that's specifically for the black vault. So whether you do a super chat here on YouTube, whether you decide to be a Patreon member, which the link is in the description below, subscribe to me on x i don't have I'm an advocate for transparency, so I don't promise you any secret insider info. I am public with everything that I do, but just know that that support is not only greatly appreciated, but I show you what it goes towards. I publish the bills when I get them from Freedom of Information Act requests and how much some of these agencies charge. Not everything gets a bill. Some do but, but I try and publish those receipts whenever they come in that way, you guys can see what they go to. And on top of that, I also take all of that and put it towards the servers that power the black vault. There's over for those who are unaware, the black vault itself is a massive online archive of declassified, uh, government records and and military documents and all sorts of stuff. There's over 3.3 million pages that you can download. There's absolutely no pay wall. There's no registration required. You could just log on, start downloading to your heart's content. But it gets a little bit expensive to run. There's three dedicated servers that power it. I just brought up a fourth for another technical reason, but that obviously has a few bills attached to it. So all of your support goes into that as well, and then I make up the difference from my own pocket. So thank you for anybody who chooses to do that. Thank you to those who did the super chats during this live stream. As I mentioned in the beginning, I absolutely love doing this with you guys going live. It's always just kind of like, we'll see what happens. You know, there's no editing, no nothing. And as someone who messes up a lot, I'm always nervous going in, going, Oh God, what if I make a fool out of myself, which often happens. So hey, what can you do? That's the fun of live. If you are listening and watching on YouTube, make sure you're subscribed to the channel. Make sure you tick the bell. Turn that on that way. Whenever I go live, as you can see from today, there's really no set schedule. I'm hoping as we move forward, I'm now in a better position to to broadcast to you guys live. I have a normal day job away from all of this, and that keeps me incredibly busy. So that's why sometimes there's a little bit of lag between videos. But I do my best to bring you everything that I can, as often as I can if you're watching and aren't aware, I drop a lot of these shows to the podcast version that's audio only, so you miss the visuals, but I know a lot of you just like to listen, and it is under every podcast aggregator, under the black vault radio. Quick note, I recently had a big issue with iTunes. Man, their support is absolutely awful. I was doing nothing wrong from a technical standpoint, everything was solid, but they would not update the show. They also would not help me. As a result, I had to change the feed. Essentially, it's the exact same feed, but I had to rename it. Once I did that, everything linked up. So clearly it was iTunes fault. They just didn't want to fix it that may have broken other sites. I'm trying to figure out which ones may have broke. If you're not seeing anything show up, you should have seen one from late August, if you did not see that. I think it was August. Was August, September, I don't know, but it was somewhat recent. So if you didn't see that audio drop, let me know where you're trying to listen to because I know iTunes is fixed, but if any other are broken, let me know. I'll make sure that I fix that for you. ITunes, again, is, sadly, as as popular as it is, it's just a necessity, and I had to, I had to fix it, because that is where most of the people listen to. But if you are listening to another one, I think Spotify is fixed, and a couple others. But please let me know if you don't think that it's working right. All of that said, thank you for your help. Thank you for tuning in. Thank you for listening always a blast. Truly appreciate it. If you're watching on any of the other social media networks and not YouTube, definitely subscribe there that has the most video content. Getting there is easy, the black vault.com/live, thank you guys again. Truly appreciate it. I'm gonna go ahead and stop talking now. I'm gonna sign off. This is John Greenwald Jr. I'll see you next time you.