John Greenewald  0:20  
You. 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, Happy Friday to you all, and in normal live fashion, I'm about to start all of this, and what we were going to be talking about changed a little bit, as the hearing witnesses have now officially been announced. When I did the graphic, when I did the show planning, when I did the PowerPoint presentation, sure enough, nothing was announced. We'll go over that. So literally, five minutes before I started, I said, I better be safe. Let me go back check to see. And had to make sure. And sure enough, they were announced. So I kind of frantically had to update some of the slides and change things around. So sorry if I started a little bit later than I wanted here by a few minutes. But regardless, I had to update that for you guys, because, as in any UFO conversation fashion, things change so incredibly quick, and that's what I was afraid of of doing the show. So I thought, okay, if they're not going to announce them by Friday early morning. Why don't we just go ahead and do this, this show, and sure enough, they they, they announced it. So we'll get into all of that. But again, Happy Friday to you all. I'm glad that I was able to pull off this show and at least get it updated for you. And who knows, by the time that this is done, we may have some other changes as well, but I will make sure that that I get this, you know, as as accurate as I can while I am recording it with the with the friendly caveat that things change all the time with all of this. So we're going to, we're going to dive into that now in the process of changing everything. I'm going to have to go ahead is bear with me here. Bring up my screen again. So I had to lose that because I had to change it. So bear with me here. So what I'm going to do, before we get rolling with the hearing, is just update you guys very quickly on a story that I dropped this week. If you have missed it, then I would highly recommend to go check it out. A very quick back story, because I'll probably do a much longer video. We'll go through the briefings themselves. But recently, on this channel, I talked about how the US Navy released a briefing that they had done to NASA. This was the result of a FOIA request that I had done, and that was finally released. So we got kind of an inside look at how the UAP task force had briefed NASA. And this is an example of one of those things that you pay attention to, every little minor detail, because this stemmed from previous FOIA requests and figuring out what date the briefing took place. So again, you just kind of stem off of that file, new FOIA requests, get the documents. So in addition to that, so that video is already on the channel, definitely check it out. It's been a very popular, very popular one of the recent postings of mine. So So definitely don't miss it. So now this week, after that video dropped, the Navy released even more. This stems from literally years worth of FOIA requests that I have filed, chasing various briefings and the PowerPoint presentations and even getting denied in full, having to appeal. And I can tell you again without making this a video in itself, the Navy FOIA process is so incredibly difficult. It shouldn't be this way, but they have just really kind of, I'm sorry, but messed up in the last quite a few years, and they got into the process of closing FOIA requests and essentially saying, Hey, we're going to post these eventually on the reading room, but would essentially close the request, which they are not allowed to do. So their decision was, we'll close your request, and sometimes in the sometime in the future, we'll post these to the online reading room. So I threw a tizzy, because that's number one, not how FOIA works. But number two, makes it so hard to keep track of everything you get FOIA case numbers for a reason, you are legally obligated to get certain responses within certain time frames. For a reason. Doesn't mean the case is going to be done in in a certain amount of time, but you're supposed to be able to follow up and say, Hey, what's the status of this FOIA case number? They're supposed to give it to you. So it was just an absolute mess. Well, I fought for some of those cases to remain open, which they did. And again, these, these went back years. Well, finally, kind of, all of them were responded to at the same time frame, and they dumped a lot of the briefings onto their reading room. And then I got the FOIA response letters, one of which I haven't talked about yet, not only on social media, not on this channel, nothing. It just came in this week. I had posted the briefings. Here's a rundown of what those are before I get into that letter I haven't talked about, but there were five of them that you can download, all stemming from the UAP Task Force day. So this is not anything to do with arrow, but rather the Task Force One was for the Naval Intelligence Director of the naval intelligence activity from February 27 2020 another was the briefing for the House Armed Services Committee from March 11, 2020 the briefing for the US Marine Corps. That date was unknown, likely circa, you know, mid 2021, or so, and then the briefing for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, May 17, 2021 and then briefing, along with some emails that that stem from STRATCOM. I'll get into that in a moment. That's what that letter tied to, going back to a 2021 request that I did to STRATCOM that got forwarded to the Navy. It's kind of a long, convoluted story, but I'll give you the end result. The briefings were illuminating to a point. Obviously, there's going to be a lot of redactions. You'll see a lot of big black squares everywhere. Some full slides redacted yet again, but I will point out in this video before we move on, you can now see the the leaked slides that Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp had leaked a couple of years back, they were framed being from a House briefing, which was true. They were said to be unclassified slides, which, by looking at this, they are not. You can see that some of what they released in a leaked area. Let me get my laser pointer here. They released this in the leak, but the government would not, which means that it is sensitive and or classified. It is a classified briefing, which I know that they did report, but the slides themselves were definitely classified to a point you can see a lot of redactions here under b1 that's national security and or classified information or both, and they're not released in their entirety, which shows us people were leaking potentially classified information here, in my viewpoint, it is classified. So I've always been fascinated by the lack of action that the US government took on the leaking of these? No, I don't want anybody in trouble. No, I that's not what that comment is about. But rather, the US government jumps on even controlled unclassified information or CUI that leaks out or gets posted on social media. There have been some headlines in the last few years, and boom, DOD is all over it press releases we're investigating, and they, even you know, will sometimes catch the person and and take action with the UFO stuff being leaked from likely secret or top secret documents. You can hear the see here, the classification is fully redacted in itself. It's like they don't care. And that always has, has intrigued me. It's like, why? Again, it's not about getting people in trouble, but rather, it's like they want this out. Do they want the leak? Are they responsible for the leak? Meaning people within the government that would essentially create these types of investigations, they're the ones involved. Who knows? I mean, there's a long laundry list of explanations there, but I've always been intrigued by that. Well, now we see the briefings where they came from, and although I'm not going to name names, look at where the briefings who they were for, and who likely had a hand on them. And was this, somebody from the UAP task force that was leaking this out, somebody from the house that was leaking this out of the committee staffers that may have gotten their hands on this or have seen it again. Long list. I don't need to name names, but if you guys want to try and figure that out, but I will end with what I've already said. It is fascinating to me that the government has seemingly not cared about all of this leaked information, and some of which was classified, which I would say the Mosul orb. I have been able to prove without a doubt it's classified. So, yeah, it's, it's an interesting part of this whole saga. Here's another frame for you from the slideshow. Always funny to see the the common shapes that that they don't want to tell. You about. They don't want to show you any shapes whatsoever of what UAP are and and this has been a theme. When I got the classified version of the UAP report, the first one from from a few years back, same deal. They had a page in there that talked about the

shapes of of UAP and what shape they were, and sure enough, they redacted them all there. That appeal is actually still open, but they continue that trend even to today, releasing these briefings, which is very much a shame. Now here's what I haven't talked about, which I found was kind of interesting. Again, that 2021 request to STRATCOM ended up being forwarded to the Navy. It was essentially for all records that pertain to UAP and all the different types of of acronyms that they use, the ever changing acronym, UFOs, but also pertaining to the UAP Task Force, STRATCOM found not only one of the briefings that you can download and read at least in part, but they also found some emails. You can go through those as well. But what is not evident from the reading room when the Navy dumped these is the fact that there was also a UAP video, yet another one that has been found that was pertaining to STRATCOM and the Navy material and the briefing. It's unclear on whether or not the video came from STRATCOM, came from the Navy, which one forwarded it to the other? Not really sure, but I can say that the Navy itself was the one that denied it, that it was classified in its entirety, so they will not release it. So we can tack this onto the list of visual imagery that we know for a fact that they have and that they will not release for national security reasons, which is absolutely a shame. So make sure you go to the black vault.com if you haven't seen that article, you can download all of those documents, those briefing documents and slide shows, including those emails and the letters and so on. I'll probably, like I said, do a video solely on those. But more importantly, this week is what everybody is talking about, and that is the UAP hearing, and that is slated for next week on the 13th, and it starts at 11:30am Eastern Time. Now they will be broadcasting this via their YouTube channel like they usually do, so we'll all be able to watch it live and see, see what what is said. I mean, I'm trying not to get too pessimistic about it. I'm not trying to be too optimistic about it. You and I are kind of gonna digest the witness list together, because, again, as I pointed out a few moments ago, that was released, and so I'm kind of still digesting who those witnesses are and what they may say and what they may be able to contribute. So some of this is going to be my raw reaction too, because there's no time to plan for some of these names that that just dropped. And before we get into those names, here's kind of the background of the hearing. Here's the official hearing notice. I won't read everything to you, but the title of the hearing, which is kind of wonky, if you ask me, unidentified anomalous phenomena exposing the truth. I mean, it sounds like a documentary, you know that's that's going to appear on Netflix soon. But this is a congressional hearing with that title. This is the hearing notice that was published on November 6. And here is the November 7 memo that gives a little bit more background to the hearing and what it's going to entail. I'll jump down to the background, and this part I will read to you. This hearing follows an unidentified anomalous phenomena hearing held last summer by the Subcommittee on national security the border and foreign affairs. It will explore continued concerns about disclosure of UAP related programs and information held by federal agencies. It will explore transparency issues surrounding the DOD and the intelligence community, including its disclosure of spending information and its policies and procedures regarding classification and declassification. The hearing will also examine the work of DOD, congressionally mandated, all domain anomaly resolution office or arrow. The hearing purpose This hearing will broadly examine issues related to over classification of information, along with a reluctance to declassify information where appropriate. It will attempt to shed further light on recent journalistic accounts concerning secret federal research programs on UAPs not disclosed to the American public. As of yesterday, they had not released the witnesses list. The witness list, excuse me, to be determined. So we were kind of left in the dark. Now I want to sidetrack for a moment and give props to Dee Dean Johnson. I mentioned him quite a few times. On this channel. Here's yet again, thanks to him, those those memos and stuff, he is absolutely on the forefront of covering these issues with Congress, the hearings, the legislation. He's got an incredible knowledge base that he has to offer on top of being able to offer these, these stories, and he, he Trumps mainstream media many, many times when it comes to this. So if you do not follow Him, definitely do do so he is most active, and quite possibly only active. I only follow him on x because that's where I see most of his stuff. I know that he has. You can see here his article link. But when it comes to social media, I think he's most active on x d Dean Johnson is his handle. Definitely make sure you follow Him, because He is, like I said, on the forefront of it all. So let's get to the witness list on now, who is involved in this, in this hearing now, Rear Admiral Timothy Gallaudet, we've already known that he was going to be involved. He has posted this publicly. He did so on LinkedIn. He also did so late last month on X looking forward to testifying at this and here. Dean Dean Johnson, there again. So he had retweeted him, but you can see here that he was openly saying that he was going to testify. Now, if you don't know Rear Admiral Gallaudet and his background, he was a former Acting Administrator of NOAA, that's the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration currently in the private sector. He's the CEO of a consulting firm called Ocean STL consulting LLC, for those who follow Ryan Graves and his Americans for Safe aerospace, he's on the advisory board for that. He's also a research affiliate with Avi Loeb's Galileo Project, at least the last I checked. So obviously, he's got a lot to offer here with his background expertise, and I know that he's got a very much a special interest in the USO phenomena, or unidentified submersible objects or submerged object, depending upon who you listen to, but Usos, so it'll be really interesting to hear what he has to say and what he has to offer, crossing my fingers for first Hand experience that he can offer the committee and to the general public. Mr. Luis Elizondo is now confirmed lots of rumors out there, and he was rescheduling a couple of his events. Clearly that was kind of indicative that he was going to be a witness testifying. Now it's confirmed he is the one that says that he led the Pentagon's advanced aerospace threat identification program that focused on UAP investigations. That's obviously very controversial when it comes to the official standpoint of the DOD. Don't kill the messenger. That's just what the DoD says. So regardless of you, me, or anybody else in the general public, believing that aspect of him and the DOD has been caught in quite a few lies. There's still a lot of unanswered questions about that history, so I will be very curious to see if any of that comes up, because let's say, let's assume for a moment, Luis Elizondo is telling nothing but the truth, a tip was a real program, fully funded, they investigated UAP on an official basis. The DoD was primarily left in the dark when it came to their leadership. All of that is is true. Let's assume that for a moment, then that roots to the DoD attacking this person, which goes to the secrecy, which goes to the conspiracy, which goes to the heart of why we're having this hearing in the first place. So it makes people uncomfortable, and some people are just tired of hearing it all together. But if you ask me, it's an incredibly important conversation to have. So how that's going to be handled? I don't know. Will it come up? Who knows, but it is something that is kind of the pink elephant in the in the in the hearing room here that needs to be dealt with, because if it is a massive conspiracy against Luis Elizondo, then we should explore that, and Congress should explore that, and start to ask questions if we haven't been fully told the truth, maybe just partial truth for maybe, maybe an effort that's worthwhile, but but done in the wrong way, and we weren't told everything. Well, that's important too, and that's important to explore and start to separate here truth from fiction, because that's what this hearing should be about, for those who don't know, if you've been living under a rock, he obviously was a former DoD counterintelligence officer who later then came out in October of 2017 to join to the stars Academy of Arts and Science, or TTSA, obviously a controversial. Decision, because that ended up getting disbanded. They collected millions of dollars, and then Luis Elizondo went on to do

other things away from TTSA. So lots of history there, and something that that we'll see what Congress wants to deal with and what they don't want to deal with. Here's something that I didn't see rumored a lot, but it's not surprising. I didn't have a slide for him. So, you know, full disclosure there, I actually didn't, didn't expect Mike gold on the witness list for no other reason other than I haven't really seen his name in a while. For those who do watch this channel, you'll notice his name may sound familiar to you. I had first discovered Mike in emails within NASA and started tying him to then Bigelow Aerospace in the past. And there was that that UAP history to him, and he started showing up on these NASA emails that I first started publishing years ago, and so I had profiled Mike at that time, and seemingly has just this very interesting background when it comes to not only his NASA work, but then before that, with bass themselves. So it will be really interesting, because we haven't heard from Mike a lot in the public realm. He has since left NASA. He's in the private sector, as far as I know now. So this bio, which I quickly put up for you guys, as far as I know, is up to date. But again, this was kind of last minute, because Mike's name was was thrown out there just moments before I went live. But I'm excited about this. I've spoken to Mike once before. Seems like a knowledgeable guy, great guy. I don't know much about what he's going to say, because, again, he really hasn't talked a whole lot about it. There was a video that floated around years ago that he was at a conference or something like that, and somebody had asked him about UFOs. That's really kind of the only thing that I'm aware of. As far as I know, he hasn't done the podcast tour, he hasn't done the YouTube channel tour, he hasn't done any of that. So he's going to be a fresh voice. And I will admit, I'm actually probably most excited to hear what he has to say, because it's the most unexpected to me, because I'm not familiar with what he is going to say at this hearing, with Luis Elizondo, with Tim Gallaudet. Obviously, we have a little bit of an idea, because we've seen them a lot in television, on on podcast, YouTube, Mike's a different story. The fourth confirmation was Michael schellenberger. Michael is a journalist with a long history not just reporting here on some of the recent UAP bombshells that will label them like immaculate constellation and his anonymous sources coming to him and confirming this highly secretive program and Special Access Program, unacknowledged Special Access Program, I should say, he broke the story on that immaculate constellation. And although a lot of other people you know, like, oh, we knew about this, but we didn't tell you guys, who knows if they're telling the truth or not, but when it comes to Michael Shellenberger, he's the guy that that brought it out. So he's going to be sitting there testifying as well, and I'm looking forward to hearing what he has to say. But I do fear when it comes to Michael Shellenberger, are we going to get kind of a grush 2.0 where he's going to be offering stuff that he's heard, but how many names and how many things are we going to be able to vet away from that? You know? So it's kind of like that grush 2.0 in a different way, where grush came forward with a bunch of stuff that he heard, but we didn't hear any of the names of where he heard it from. Now we've got a journalist who's going to be kind of saying very similar things with these programs and these types of efforts. And yet, his sources obviously have been unnamed up until now, so I'm not really sure how that's going to hand be handled, or is he going to be able to offer that in closed doors for privacy reasons to committee members so they can follow up with his sources. I mean, that's something I highly doubt, just because journalists don't reveal their sources in that way, unless, of course, he has permission to do so. So a lot of unanswered things there, but we'll, you know, we'll, we'll see what happens. This is the list that was, that was sent out there again thanks to D Dean Johnson and these quick slides that were made right before I got on the air. Here, all the more reason make sure you follow that guy now, who's not on the list, and that would be Mr. Christopher Mellon, if you watch social media, you. Know that this was a little bit of a firestorm this week on the reality that people faced that despite rumors that went around, he would not be testifying. Now, I'm sure you know Mr. Christopher, Christopher Mellon's background, but for those who don't, he served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for intelligence under Clinton and George Bush, he worked with the Senate Intel Committee focused on Intelligence and Security Policy. He also joined to the stars Academy of Arts and Science. Back in 2017 he was very interested in UFOs and UAP prior to that, had a history himself, but with his background, his name, and the power that he wields politically, that was something that was very intriguing, I think, for a lot of people, because, you know, he was somebody that you would recognize. He did have this provable history, and he had a lot to say. He believed in what he was doing. He was also instrumental in releasing those three famous UFO videos from the US Navy, the FLIR, the gimbal and the go fast. He didn't release them officially, so let me make sure I clarify that. But he got them leaked to him. They were not officially released, despite what you may have heard, and he took him to the New York Times, where he got them from. Nobody's officially confirmed. I personally feel that that one is very easy to peg, but, but he was the one that took them to the New York Times. So with his history, his name, his involvement, his knowledge, I really was hoping that he was going to be testifying, but unfortunately, Dean Johnson had reached out to him and asked him about the rumors that were circulating that he was going to be there. Let me read the message that was posted online that went to Douglas Dean Johnson. This is from Chris Mellon. I agreed to testify in September, and was very much looking forward to appearing. However, I have a long planned trip with my wife that conflicted with the new date, very disappointing, as I have some new information and ideas to impart that I think could have been helpful and of considerable interest, Perhaps another time. Regards Chris Mellon, I was, I was, I'm going to be fully honest with you, I was really let down to read that. You know, I mean, look, I'm married. I got two kids. If I had a long planned trip, I totally get it. You don't want to. You don't want to face the wrath of your significant other, if maybe she has nothing to do with this and doesn't care congressional hearing. You know, maybe I think mine would actually be okay with it, but look, it's, I'm not going to pass judgment. That's his personal life. Those are his personal decisions. He's not a government employee that's skipping out on something that taxpayers are paying for at this time. So look, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna judge the guy. Obviously, the internet is judging him pretty harshly in some areas, and maybe, look, maybe it's rightfully so in some arenas there, because he worked hard to get this done. Now it's here. You know, there's a UAP hearing. He has the opportunity to testify, and he can't because of of a trip that he has planned. So that was, that was kind of a letdown for me to see. So that's not meant to be an insult to him or an attack, but rather just an honest hey, look, I want to know the truth here, and if you are able to bring something to the table in a hearing like this. That's not a podcast, a YouTube channel or our cable network channel. Let's do it, you know, let's, let's, let's finish this. But unfortunately, other things conflicted with that, so he will not be appearing this slide doesn't matter anymore. This is just the rescheduling of Luis Elizondo. Is two rescheduled obviously, I was kind of putting a guess out there that he was going to be testifying based on the rescheduling of everything, but there you go. Now, it should be interesting to point out, for those that aren't fully aware, it wasn't the last UFO hearing, UAP hearing, because these things do not happen all the time. Was July of 2023, now you do the math, we're looking at what a year,

almost a year and a half or so since that, and we haven't had really a hearing that was explosive like that. Since then, any hearing on UAP. So we're looking at once every year and a half plus that these things take place prior to that was more than a year prior. This was May 2022, with Scott Bray and Ron Moultrie, the Under Secretary of Defense for intelligence, and Scott Bray being. From the US Navy. This is what I think that we're getting away from now that I see the witness list and so on that, I think we need to stick with now. I've talked about this on previous streams, so I'm going to apologize, you know, for repeating some of this, but I think it's important to do so here, and that is, it's great that we have these whistleblowers and journalists that want to come forward and speak their piece and support transparency and talk about what they think about the secrecy and so on. For me, we're beyond that. You know, this hearing before, with David grush and David fravor and Ryan Graves, we have a solidified foundation for the Congress and Senate to go out there and start asking questions of the agencies now, regardless of what you think about the claims of David grusch, and that's fine if you doubt him, where I'm going with this is that there's enough of that foundation for Congress to go. Okay, let's now sit these agency heads in this seat, not more witnesses or whistleblowers, unless, of course, they bring absolute evidence and unverifiable evidence to the table that's undeniable and earth shattering. Then fine, yes, bring them to the table. But what we don't need are more stories, and that is not supposed to be intended to be a jab against anybody that's going to be attending this hearing next week. I believe their voice is important, and I believe that they should be heard, but what should take precedence are the agency heads responsible for the secrecy that you guys saw in the very beginning of this show, before I got into the hearing about what we are facing through Freedom of Information Act requests and stone walls on that front and really start pressing the agencies on why that is because I've said it quite a few times, but it's important pointing out that when you have highly classified platforms like the MQ nine Reaper drone that films video of a mid air encounter with, let's say, a Russian jet spraying fuel all over those classified platforms that yes are acknowledged, we Know the MQ nine Reaper is a real drone. Their capabilities, however, are a different story. Yet when those types of incidents take place, we get those videos within hours of the incident itself, which means they get the video back, they review it for security reasons, they have press releases, press conferences and so on, and blast this out to the general public and the general media within hours, if not a day, after it happens. There's no secrecy there. There's no technical capabilities. We need to hide this type of of excuses. There's none of that. It's thrown out there because it's beneficial to show it the secrecy behind the MQ, nine Reaper drones, capabilities and so on have nothing to do with it. It's just it's not even an issue. Yet when UAP encounters happen, you have this over classification, this over secrecy that just plasters any video in its entirety. In in totality, it is completely classified. They won't send it to you. Look at the beginning of this presentation if you missed it. I was talking about an unrelated story to the hearing, but just to keep you guys updated, but the point is the exact same thing wherein that video is classified from from from tail, from head to tail, you know, from top to bottom, from the beginning second frame to the last frame, it is classified. They can't give you anything. Reaper drone takes video something else, crystal clear, amazing footage. That kind of stuff has to be justified. I think that we now have that established testimony from not only David grush. So again, even if you don't believe him, we have it from the pilot that encountered one of these things. We have it from another pilot who has worked with lots of pilots that talk about these things that has spearheaded an effort in the name of Air aircraft safety and the safety of our pilots. You have enough now to look at and go, Okay, this is something that we need to ask for. And back in May of 2022 when these guys were, you know, kind of poked and jabbed a little bit by by the committee, back then there were some great questions, why have we since May of 2022 not gotten additional answers on the USO issue that was asked about, and then they said, Well, we gotta go behind closed doors. Why is it that that when they were pressed about some of these incidents that lacked an explanation? I think that they brought up the tic tac encounter, if memory serves, what has happened since then, where they've tried to either figure out more about that specific case, or is that an ongoing issue? What types of things have they learned since then? So we need to hold their feet to the fire, meaning the government agencies and these types of efforts, which is now arrow, put them in the seat and go, Okay, what have you guys really determined here? Why are you blanketing everything as national security and not allowing any of it to be released? And we don't have that yet. I don't understand. So let me go back to that official press release by Congress and reread this section. It will explore meaning. The hearing will explore continued concerns about disclosure of UAP related programs and information held by federal agencies. It will explore transparency issues surrounding the DOD and the intelligence community, including its disclosure of spending information and its policies and procedures regarding classification and declassification. The hearing will also examine the work of DoDs, congressionally mandated, all domain anomaly resolution office or arrow the hearing, This hearing will broadly examine issues related to over classification of information, along with a reluctance to declassify information where appropriate, that sounds great. Okay, now that we know the witness list, and this is not a jab against them who can speak to the current classification and or declassification process of today, those guys are in the private sector now, and they're not the they're not the reviewers. Even when they were in they weren't responsible for the declassification process, as far as I'm as far as I know. So if that changes, and we hear that they are a declassification authority where they were able to review that information, and they solely made that decision, cool. I will stand corrected, but I don't believe that they are. And so if this hearing is really exploring all of that, a journalist can't comment on that simply because they're not part of that procedure. Those that are in the private sector are not part of that procedure. So why is it that we are are exploring. We're going to hear some great stories, I'm sure, and I'm excited to hear it. There's no reason for me to say, Oh, they shouldn't be there, but where I'm going with this is the description of the hearing itself will not be achieved by those sitting in the witness chairs. That's not an insult. That's just what their background is. That's just who they are. So they can't talk about the policies and procedures regarding classification and declassification, and let's just say that they can, but you're going back to 2017 with Luis Elizondo. When did Tim Gallaudet? Gallaudet retire? I don't have that exact answer, but his job was not the declassification of that material Mike gold, I was getting documents through FOIA that involved Mike gold and what he was talking about, and he was not the release authority, so that I can tell you, for a fact, is not the case. So you add up what they're trying to achieve, and then you look at the witness list, it's not going to achieve that. Doesn't mean we're not going to get something, hopefully, of value, but we are not going to be tackling what should be the issue and the issue. They nailed it. We should talk about the classification and declassification of of what this is. But who worked for Arrow, let me think, because, again, some of this is my raw reaction. Here Luis Elizondo did not. Tim Gallaudet did not, as far as I know, Mike gold did not, and Michael Shellenberger did not. So what are we going to examine here? That that's what's very difficult. Because what I think that that's happening is that the congressional hearing planners, whomever that is, is not truly grasping and understanding the secrecy behind why we are running into this. Now look, if we put a David grush up there, that's a different ballpark to me than what I'm about to talk about. But if they're going to do that, and they want to, they want to play ball on that, on that field, then stick with it. You know? What happened since, since David grush,

and that's, that's an answer I hope we get one day. But what happened, you know, did they really get behind closed doors? What David grush promised them? Did they take action on that? Did they hold agencies accountable, or did agencies just say? Ah, no, that's all. Bs, sorry. Go away. And then they go away. I mean, whatever it is, let's figure that out. And it seems to be lost. And then you fast forward to another hearing that they're tackling issues. Should be tackled by witnesses that can't address those specific issues. Now you don't need to take my word for it. I'm not the only one that can speak to this, but for years, I have dove into it head on, and have dealt with the secrecy through the Freedom of Information Act and the National Security walls that have been put in place when it comes to national security information, and you couple that with this UAP security classification guide. Now this had never been released before. When I first got it through FOIA, it was incredibly telling on how much secrecy there was behind UAP, and it only got worse. It only got worse. That didn't get better. And the congressional legislation that they tried to pass with the UAP Disclosure Act or whatever, all of that is great, but where I got a lot of heat, and I think it was 100% unfounded, was that it won't tackle what is in these two things that I just brought up, FOIA national security reasons, which stems from an executive order, 1313528, to be exact. And the UAP security classification Guide, which nobody has been able to show, is not still on the books. As far as I'm concerned, it still is, and it locks down this secrecy to throw a third one in at you, the Pentagon and the DoD utilize a law enforcement exemption that pretty much takes care of everything that the FOIA and the UAP SCG does not. So they have essentially the full ability to black out, redact or deny 100% of nearly all UAP information, especially when it comes to arrow. Now, if, if that is provable, which it is, and I promise you it is, but I please beg you, fact check me across the board. The question mark, then is, why are we dealing with that issue in a congressional hearing with the witnesses that they're bringing forward. That's not to be insulting. That means they're putting the wrong people in the seats. What they need to do is focus on the issues that are truly plaguing. Michael Shellenberger, being able to report a little bit more openly about what his sources have said they're plaguing Luis Elizondo not being harassed by the DoD if he is 100% telling the truth, and there's a massive conspiracy to hide it because of these over classification things that have been set in place that justify them to do really harsh things like that, trying to find the right words, because we're kind of speculating here, but obviously that if they're trying to cover this up, and it all stems from these documents, what lengths will they go to? So that's the root of what this is. And those that are sitting in those seats, like Tim Gallaudet as well, may know additional things that he's heard or that he's seen, but that secrecy is going to prohibit him from saying some of that stuff in an open forum. Mike gold as well. So what I'm saying is you need to go to the root of what's going to stop those four gentlemen next week from actually saying 100% of what they know. Instead, we're bypassing the whole objective of the hearing, putting them in the seat, and not dealing with the root cause, and that's truly unfortunate. Now, a couple years ago, I had posted a, we'll call it a dream team of witnesses that I think a UAP hearing would have, and I'll end it with just kind of going through that thread that I posted, because I think that it's important, I think it's important to deal with some of these names and put them in the hot seat, because I think that they would have a lot to offer in different ways. I don't think a UAP hearing should be an hour. I think that the UAP hearing should be days, and I think that you should bring all of these people in to testify. That's not a waste. You would absolutely be able to cover the gamut on all sorts of things, not just the secrecy, but talking about the root of whatever this is. Start to bring out. What do you really not know what, what's a facade? What do you what are you lying about? Why are you in the name of national security, denying all this so many things can be tackled with these types of witnesses. And when I originally posted this in July of 2023, I went through it before this presentation, and I thought, hey, this would actually still work today. This would all still work today, like the DoD Inspector General, Robert Storch. Now, obviously we know that the DoD IG dealt with complaints from Luis Elizondo and David grush, two different complaints for different reasons. But obviously. Something that he could absolutely speak to, and we could finally get some answers on what happened between those two gentlemen's their gentlemen, their complaints, and what else have they found during their UAP evaluation, the Inspector General the intelligence community, Thomas monham, that's another one that I think can speak to. What happened after David grush brought his material to the ICIG what kind of stuff did they pursue? What didn't they pursue? And if not, why not? If they did, what'd they find out? So there's a lot there that can be handled just by those two inspector generals that they could really bring to the table. But you add in the Secretary of the Air Force, Frank Kendall, then you've got a whole other military branch that's been mysteriously mum about this entire topic, and has been for years, yet they were the one in charge of the UAP investigations decades and decades ago. All of a sudden, now, the DoD is pursuing this phenomenon again, and the Air Force is seemingly nowhere to be found in a lot of arenas, and yet, UAP report gets published the very first one, and we see one of the contributors was the Air Force, so they, too have a big involvement today. But I want to know why they're so quiet. We hear from the Navy, we hear from the DOD and the Pentagon, but we don't really hear from the Air Force at all. Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, should also be held account being the Secretary of Defense on what his military branches are doing. And I think that there should be questions posed that if he fully supports and endorses that level of secrecy, then he should explain why.

Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, she's one that I think would be great up there. She's spoken openly about the over classification, not just in relation to UAPs. I'm speaking broadly that over classification is absolutely a problem, and that is something that that needs to be dealt with. I think she would be great to have up there. CIA director, William Burns, that's another one that, I think, is that redacted name and and contributor and partner of these UAP investig investigative efforts, but it's redacted. I can't think of many agencies that would fill that blank, but the CIA and so why is the CIA's involvement essentially classified? Why have they, as well, been incredibly quiet about UAP? You would think, if it truly is this worldwide phenomenon that's plaguing our military and overseas assets and so on and so forth, that they would at least have two cents to offer. And I would love to hear it. Obviously, we are going to hear from former DoD intelligence or, excuse me, former DoD counterintelligence agent, Luis Elizondo, that's great. I think he should be up there. I have said for a long time he should testify, so I'm eager to see what he has to say. But I also think you should have the former director of Defense Intelligence for counter intelligence, law enforcement and security, Gary Reed. If you followed the Luis Elizondo saga, you'll know that Gary Reed became the villain of that story. Now, whether it's rightfully so or not, I'm not gonna I'm not gonna say because I don't know for for sure. What I can say for sure is he became the villain. Luis Elizondo believes that that this vendetta was launched by Gary Reed, and yet Gary Reed wrote the internal documents that I got through FOIA through the December 2017, time frame that I believe went all the way to Secretary of Defense at the time, James Mattis, and that Mattis himself hand wrote on this memo to read and asked numerous questions, essentially showing concern over Luis Eliza Luis Elizondo, his exit from the DOD. Now, the Pentagon, sadly, would never confirm that was Mattis writing, but I analyzed his writing and I showed on screen. I did a presentation on this, and it's pretty much a match. I mean, they wrote incredibly similar. So I took his actual handwriting analysis, or, excuse me, actual handwriting, and coupled that with what was on this memo, and it was pretty much a match. I love handwriting analysis. I studied it many years ago. My mother actually was the one that that got me into it years and years ago. She was certified in handwriting analysis, and you can tell a lot on on handwriting and emotions and character traits and so on. Sounds crazy, but man, it is really a fascinating topic. So that was, that was another thing that I think, that that had come out of that, that I think Gary Reed should be up there too. And again, despite whether that hatred. And him being a villain was justified or not, I think that we should put him in that hot seat to figure it out. We've already heard from David grush, but I think we should hear from him again. I think that another hearing again in a multi I wouldn't be top of the list because we have already heard from him, but he would be someone that I feel is absolutely important and crucial, because I want to know what the follow up was, if he was harassed after and these death Rumors of Death threats and so on, bring all that stuff out. So I would love to hear from him again. These two should be a long time coming, adjunct professor from Baylor University, astrophysicist, Dr Eric Davis and the former director of the DIA, Vice Admiral Thomas Wilson. Why? Well, look up the Thomas Wilson notes, if you have the Eric Davis Thomas Wilson notes, they go by quite a few different names. The Wilson Davis memo. Look up that read through it, and that would be incredibly interesting to see and to really put Eric Davis, who all but essentially said that he wrote those notes on Facebook. So now he's at least admitted that much. I personally, I said in the first video I did on those years ago, it's not whether or not he wrote the notes. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. It's irrelevant for me. It's do they depict actual events, and did a meeting really take place between him and Admiral Wilson? And that's what I have always questioned. And I think when you put both of them in the seat with Eric Davis' background through OS app and what his research endeavors were through that they could add a heck of a lot investigative journalist Ross Coltart, that's a given. Ross has said he's got witnesses that told him the exact location of a giant UFO that is too big to move so they built a building around it, and he knows where it is, but he won't tell you. I think he should be put in that hearing seat. I think that he should be questioned about that. Again, not an attack whatsoever, but it's, it's kind of a letdown to hear that if the if humanity can change by the information that he has. As a journalist, I think that he should bring it out. That doesn't mean burn his source, I believe, bring it out and blow this whole thing wide open. And that comment is not just towards Ross and the knowledge that he has, but to every one of these people that I bring up and and the knowledge that they have, if, if it could really change humanity, then do it already. That doesn't mean you burn your source or put somebody in danger. That means you change humanity with the knowledge that you claim you have. And if you know of an alien craft so big that they couldn't move it and you know the exact location where they built a building around it, then bring it out. I think that that's a reasonable ask. Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, I think he would be great. He's a name you don't really hear much anymore, because he's not in in in government, but I think he would have a lot to say. Let me play you a clip. It's about a minute, almost two minutes,

Speaker 1  53:24  
but here's why. But frankly, there are a lot more sightings than have been made public. Some of those have been declassified. When we talk about sightings, we're talking about objects that have been seen by Navy or Air Force pilots or have been picked up by satellite imagery that, frankly, engage in actions that are difficult to explain, that movements that that are hard to replicate, that we don't have the technology for, or traveling at speeds that, you know, exceed the sound barrier without a sonic boom. So in short, things that we are observing that are difficult to explain. And so, you know, there's actually quite a few of those, and I think that that information is being gathered and will will be put out in a way that the American people can see. We always, when we when we see these things, Maria, we always look for a plausible explanation. You know, whether can cause disturbances, visual disturbances. Sometimes we wonder whether or not our adversaries have technologies that are a little bit further down the road than we thought, or that we realized, but there are instances where we don't have good explanations for some of the things that we've seen, and you know, when that information becomes declassified, I'll be able to talk a little bit more about that. Can you tell us where it was seen? Actually, all over the world. There have been sightings all over the world. And when we talk about sightings, the other thing I will tell you is it's not just a pilot or just a satellite or some intelligence collection. Usually we have multiple sensors that are picking up these things, and so you. Again, some of this are just they're unexplained phenomenon, and there's actually quite a few more than have been made public. So I think it will be healthy for as much of this information to get out there as possible.

John Greenewald  55:16  
I agree, and I think that we should have him in that mix, because although he's not the DNI anymore, I think the knowledge that he has gained from that can really give some interesting insight. Because that was only a couple years ago. One of my favorite things is the reaction of the news reporter, because she, I don't think, was expecting that, and he was very matter of fact about it, that there's certain things that he wants to talk a little bit more about and can't until they're declassified. That's that's, again, proof that the root of all of this is that secrecy that these people do have more knowledge than they can give you right now. So attack the root of all that secrecy. I'd love to see Jay Stratton in the sea. I'd love to hear more about his UAP Task Force, as you can see from the briefings that were just released that were primarily not all of them. Some came after his tenure as the director, but primarily made by him. You can really start to see some of what they were doing, what they were trying to achieve, and and who they were and what they were all about. You know, there's one media outlet that's really tried to paint them in like this crazy light. Well, now the documents are coming out, I feel that it's just not justified. And I think that they were kind of in the beginning stages of trying to identify these things, trying to see that there was a problem. They were kind of branded as this chasing alien type of group, yet nowhere in these briefing documents or anything that we can see anyway about aliens, rather, it was an issue for safety, for national security concerns. It's a really amazing look inside something that we haven't really seen yet, and I think that it shows the beginning stages of what has led into arrow and these other efforts. But that was very much the beginning. I'd love to see and hear from, from Jay Stratton himself on exactly what they were looking at, what they found, what they concluded at that time, and juxtapose that with with, let's say, Dr Sean Kirk, Patrick's testimony and what he talked about when, when he testified at that one hearing. I didn't mention that earlier, but, but he was one that has testified as well. So why can't we juxtapose that and see what the difference is? Pentagon spokeswoman, Susan Goff, that's another villain in this story that many people attack, and again, maybe rightfully so. But regardless, she should be there. She has been now for a couple of years, the sole voice to the UAP issue when it comes to the DOD and the Pentagon prior to her a few years back, that was not the case. We were able to get statements from the Navy. We were able to get other statements from from agencies that were willing to give them. But now it's all locked down to her. The Luis Elizondo comments are continued to be given by her, and solidifying the stance of the DOD about a tip and Luis Elizondo his role or in their in their view, lack thereof. She's the one that gives out all of the arrow statements and orchestrates all of that. She's the one that apparently is being notified about FOIA releases. I think that some people have embellished that reality a bit. I don't believe she plays a role, but I want to know why she's involved at all in those documents that came out. So there's a lot there that I think you can explore just with her. And lastly, I'll point out director for defense, intelligence collection and special programs, Neil Tipton. He's the former, I should now add, since I first wrote this, he still worked in the US government, but he does not now, I think he should be there. I think that we should understand why. Now, through FOIA before that, there were some leaked documents and so on, but now we have a more solidified picture that when Luis Elizondo was leaving the Pentagon, he was talking to Neil Tipton about essentially carrying the reins of a tip that he was going to be taking this over. Now, you could tell that he was a little bit confused about some of it that he wasn't sure, but if you look at it chronologically, four to six months or four to six weeks or so after that confusion, he kind of seemed very much on board with taking over whatever this a tip was the memo that was written by Luis Elizondo that was supposed to be signed and potentially implemented by the. Yeah, I believe the debt, yeah, Deputy Secretary of Defense, not Secretary of Defense, but the deputy that Luis Elizondo, wrote this memo to essentially pass the reins to Tipton. That's a very interesting history there that is not really told. We got a little bit from Luis Elizondo his book, but I want the other part of the story, and I think that there's more there. In fact, I know that there's more there. So I would love to hear that from Neil Tipton on the record to see exactly what was going on in that December. Excuse me, that I guess that would be September 20,000 excuse me, I'm getting tongue tied. September 2017 time frame, and what his involvement was or lack thereof, and really start to get into this. That's a hearing to me. That's what we need to focus on. That's what we need to see. We need to understand where the root of the secrecy is and how to tackle that. I've spoken about it for years and years before a tip was even mentioned by the mainstream media, before Luis Elizondo popped on the scene, the secrecy has been insurmountable. And as 2017 came and went and 2018 2019 the secrecy got worse. The UAP security classification guide made it worse. Made it a lot worse. Fast Forward, the DoD implemented something that I do not think is legally justifiable, and that is the blanket law enforcement exemption that they that they utilize, that needs to be dealt with. That is the hearing that we absolutely have to see. And I hope we see it. The names that I just went over are just some. They're not all. I think that there are quite a few other ones. James McCaskey being another one off the top of my head, that should all be in there, and it's time to separate that wheat from the chaff, understand the secrecy of why it's there and figure out if it truly is over classification that can be fixed, like Avril Haines has talked about, generally speaking, about the over classification of our intelligence community and our government work that needs to be dealt with. But if Congress keeps bringing in people that are not able to address what seems like to be a really good effort with this hearing, but if they can't speak to that, we're just going to get more stories that the general public is going to be left with more questions than answers, and that's a shame, because I think that we have to understand all of what we're dealing with, and we aren't getting there, and if we have to wait a year and a half and two years between UAP hearings, we can only cross our fingers in hopes that our grandchildren figure out the answers, because we definitely will not. So if those out there truly have the information that they can change humanity with, then it's time to bring it out. It just is. I'm done with hearing stories. I'm done with with feeling like I have to walk on eggshells saying this isn't going to offer us what we need. I'm done with all of that. It truly should be the voices that can deal with the issues, or at least explain the issues. Until then, I think we're just going to get left in the dark, and I think that that's exactly what they want. I truly appreciate you guys tuning in like I said, Happy Friday to you all. I really do hope you have a wonderful weekend. If you have not already, please subscribe to the YouTube channel. If you're listening on one of the other social media platforms, go to www dot the black vault.com/live, that will bounce you to the YouTube channel. Make sure you turn the notifications on. It looks like I finally fixed the podcast issues with iTunes, not thanks to iTunes, I'll tell you that much. So their support is absolutely awful, but I think it's fixed. So you'll see presentations like this, drop down within, usually a day to stream the audio itself. If you're not subscribed to that and you like those podcast platforms, just search for the black vault radio. ITunes is fixed. Spotify is fixed. If you use another service and it seems to be broken, then let me know, and I will make sure that that is fixed as well. So thank you guys again. Really do appreciate it. Hit the thumbs up on your way out. It does help me a lot. That said, this is John Greenwald Jr, signing off, and we'll see you next time you.