John Greenewald  0:33  
That's right, everybody as always. Thank you so much for tuning in and making this your live stream of choice. Happy Friday to you all decided to do this live. I know the last time I did one, I said that I was going to have a little bit more free time see you a little bit more, and then I crashed and burned on that November ended up being a pretty darn busy month. But back today, thank you all for your patience and understanding on pretty much every failure I have in that regard. But I always have a blast doing this. So again, Happy Friday to you all. There's a couple things to discuss. I like these kind of shows for a couple different reasons. Number one, they're live. Anything can happen. So, you know, forgive me if I have any technical glitches. But number two, it just allows me a chance to kind of interact with you guys too. Live in the chat room. Obviously, there's quite a few people here, so the chat sometimes gets a little bit busy. I'm going to try and answer whatever questions that I see. It's not necessary to do a super chat, but I will admit that makes your questions stick out all the better, because it does highlight and automatically tag it on my software. But again, if you you don't want to do that, that's okay. Just put your question in all caps. I will try and, you know, grab them when I can, as I kind of go through a couple things here, but willing to hang out with you guys for a little while, but there are a couple things that I wanted to kind of go over with you, so I hope you are having a great time and watching all of those crazy news stories about the New Jersey drones. And yes, we will get into that as well. And you know, it's not like I have all the answers for you, but I'm happy to riff a little bit about exactly what I think may be going on and what we're seeing in the media and how everything is kind of going awry on that. So let me go ahead and pull up this bad boy with just a few visuals and stuff that I wanted to chat with you guys about. Let me pull up. Let me see the laser pointer here, and get going now. The first thing that I want to talk to you about, which I haven't really talked a lot about on this channel is the whole immaculate constellation story. Now it kind of seems dated, because it seemed like a long time ago, but this is something that kind of roared through the UAP conversation not too long ago. The last UAP hearing it obviously came up we expected it to be brought up. Michael Shellenberger, a great investigative journalist, have kind of really pushed this story, and he, as according to him anyway, has these sources on a unacknowledged Special Access program that deals with UFOs, crash retrieval and all sorts of things. Now, he did a pretty long write up of this on his blog, slash news site called public. I would recommend anybody to sign up for that website. I think the article, once you do add your email, you can download it for free. I believe the last I checked anyway, it's kind of gone back and forth. From what I recall that at first it was a paid article, then it ended up being free if you signed up for the site. So again, either way, there's a big write up there. My biggest kind of concern about the whole story since day one was that it was full of anonymous sources, which is kind of the norm nowadays with many of these big claims. So you'll you'll have a journalist come forward, or you'll have a an X account, somebody on social media who claims that they have these anonymous sources, and they have some pretty big claims to go along with their blog or their social media post or their news article. Now, the one thing that this story has going for it, at least from the get go, in my personal opinion, was it was Michael Shellenberger. I know not everybody is going to be a fan of everybody out there. Okay, so there's always going to be somebody that has something bad to say about everybody, and that's fine, but Michael has done a lot of of great work outside of the UAP storylines and should be commended for that. So when he came out with this story, I will admit it was pretty intriguing to me, because it was him. It wasn't like a UFO blogger from Joe blow.com that that had a story to tell with anonymous sources, which, again, has become the norm, at least this guy. Had credibility behind his name and and brought this story forward. But as time went on, it started getting hit on the credibility front. And where that hit came was especially during the hearing, where then we kind of learned a little bit more that Jeremy Corbell, I'm sorry, but that didn't do this story any good. We find out that he's heavily involved, and a now infamous 11 page document surfaced during this during this congressional hearing that was put into the congressional hearing record, again stressing hearing record on this one, and we find out that it was like, pulled from Jeremy corbell's briefcase and, you know, given over, but that wasn't really evident if you watched the hearing. And then I think Jeremy Korbel got a little bit upset because he wasn't credited for it, so he starts tweeting to Nancy mace online. I'm sorry some of this has been turning into very much a soap opera, and this was a prime example, and that, to me, was a huge credibility hit to this story, not that I felt that I believed it prior, I was still highly skeptical, but hanging on to the possibility that there was something to this, and to me, that was a huge blow again. That's not going to be a popular thing to say, and I know that I'll get flack for saying it, but that's the reality of it. I'm sorry having Jeremy Korbel attached if he was one of the main sources, or he connect Michael schellenberger to X, Y and Z voices that became the anonymous source, or sources? Yeah, I don't think that that's really working to his favor. And if some of you are wondering why I'm saying that, just look at some of the recent stories that I think Jeremy and George Knapp have pushed. I think that a lot of them have fallen apart. You've got some in the very beginning that were very intriguing to me, because clearly they had connections. Clearly the government was acknowledging some of those original leaks going back, and as time went on, it just like it was credibility crash central when it came to this stuff. And again, that may sound harsh, but I followed this for a long time and saw that progression downhill, and it was really frustrating to see, because I went from being very intrigued to what they were coming out with to rolling my eyes. And I think that the 29 palms, quote, unquote Triangle UFO was absolutely the nail in the coffin for all of that. And if you didn't follow that, they meaning the weaponized folks pushed this story, having 40 plus witnesses, which I don't think any came forward. They had some anonymous voices in one of their episode. But as the story unfolded, it was supposedly this UAP triangle and something that was a UFO to them, and it was a giant craft, and they were really pushing this. Well, it turns out that the analysis on the on the videos, I mean, very, very quickly, I was able to come up with Department of Defense videos from a training exercise that they withheld from everybody. And in one of those videos were flare drops that matched up like nearly identical to the photos that they were pushing. Obviously different angles are going to change the variation of these lights in the sky slightly, but you had a very, very close one in a billion chance that these flares would drop in the same type of array of lights that that this UAP triangle was was being pushed. And on top of that, they had omitted that from the story. And on top of that, they didn't care about the video analysis. I went through FOIA and found all sorts of other stuff, photographs, all sorts of things that put this to bed. And of course, none of those 40 witnesses came forward and said, Hey, look, it may be a coincidence, but this is what I saw. So that, to me, really kind of crashed the credibility there. And why I kind of went on to that side track, by the way, is that if, if there's some people listening or watching that aren't sure why I kind of go down that route, that this is a credibility punch to immaculate constellation that, again, was that nail in the coffin. And so there's a lot of other stories that I can bring up as well, but I'll kind of end that there, going back to immaculate constellation and post the hearing. It was frustrating to see that yet again, the same players are involved in this particular story. But why I wanted to bring it up and talk to you about it, with you guys, is that there are documents that have surfaced, one I should, should say that have

not reinforced that it's a real program, but shows that it started to be bantered about behind the scenes once Michael shell and. Burger came out with his story that obviously heads were starting to turn and look at this. Now, if you haven't seen this, this was a document that was released from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and this was released through FOIA. It's a legitimate document. It was considered unclassified, but was for official use only just shows that there was nothing classified about it. That's kind of key when you talk about alleged unacknowledged Special Access Programs, because if there is truth to it, a lot of times they will classify those documents. In some programs, the mere mention of a code word associated with it or the program name all classified. So if you put that in a document, it automatically goes to the highest classification level of that program. Generally, you're going to see a top secret stamp. Then you don't see that. Here you see description of alleged immaculate Constellation program. I'm going to read this document to you starting around nine october 2024 open press broke a story about a supposed unacknowledged Special Access Program or usap regarding unidentified anomalous phenomena, or UAP referred to as immaculate constellation. This usap was allegedly created in 2017 and houses highly classified UAP evidence, ie, videos, images, documentation, but is supposedly being managed without appropriate congressional awareness or oversight. The journalist who broke the story alleges that his source is a US government whistleblower who came across the material quote accidentally, but this whistleblower has supposedly written a report delivered to Congress about the usap, a second source referred to in a UK publication, not the original outlet that broke the story, confirmed to the UK publication that the usap exists and is authentic, obviously, sources, anonymous sources, so on and so forth. They really have nothing to go on other than these anonymous sources, meaning the Office of the Director of National Intelligence this usap supposedly has high quality evidence of encounters with UAP that have not been shared with arrow or other people manning the UA, excuse me, managing the UAP mission, a DOD spokesperson, Sue Gough, everybody's favorite person, denied that immaculate constellation exists or that any evidence for it exists, stating, quote, The Department of Defense has no record present or historical of any type of SAP called immaculate constellation. Unquote, the press has reported that immaculate constellation will be raised and discussed at the open hearings with arrow in November 2024, then a couple lines that are attributed to what they call internal deliberation, or the deliberative process. I hate exemption FOIA b5 I did appeal this particular one to see if I can get those redactions lifted. Sometimes it's a long shot. Sometimes you get lucky, so we'll see what happens. But the deliberative process means they were probably adding in some, I don't know, opinion or something like that, to what they were hearing about the hearing and and they can tag some of that as internal deliberations. Sadly, be five is often overused. It's known as the exempted if you want to FOIA exemption. So essentially, they can hide a lot under a, b5, redaction. And there's really kind of no, nothing you can do about it. You can try, but, you know, a lot of times you can't. So there's always been, for years, I've said this a lot on this channel, but I repeat it a lot, because it's a very important issue. There's been a push for years to try and get, essentially a revamp of FOIA exemption, b5 because it's awful. All the other FOIA exemptions have a definition. This one kind of doesn't other than that deliberative process privilege, which kind of is horrible. So that's the only document thus far that has surfaced that kind of talks about this program. I've searched a couple different places, and this is one of the more notable ones. Now bear with me here, because your initial reaction may be one of two ways, but let me deal with that, because I find this commonplace. But still interesting, and I'll explain that in a moment. I requested from the National Security Agency everything on immaculate constellation. Now, of course they could lie and say, Hey, we've got no records that fine. We'll cross that bridge. If they give that sometimes they'll say, everything is classified, fine, we'll cross that bridge. Sometimes they give a Glomar response, fine. We'll cross that bridge. So you kind of expect a few different responses, and then, as a FOIA requester, you kind of are already geared up in your head on how you're going to respond to that. This particular one, again, was for everything that they had on immaculate constellation. They said, for reasons described below, we are not able to confirm or deny the existence or non existence of these records. Please be advised that this is our standard response to all requests where we reasonable, reasonably believe that the request seeks intelligence records or records revealing intelligence related activity involving UFOs, slash UAP, this agency has determined that the fact of the existence or non existence of the materials you request is currently in properly classified matter in accordance with executive order. 13526, as set forth in sub paragraph C of section 1.4, thus your request is denied pursuant to the first exemption of the FOIA, which provides that the FOIA does not apply to matters that are specifically authorized under criteria established by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign relations, and are In fact properly classified pursuant to each executive order. In addition, your request is being denied because of being denied based upon the third exemption of the FOIA. This exemption provides for the withholding of information specifically protected from disclosure by statute. This agency is authorized by various statute statutes to protect certain information concerning its activities. The specific statutes applicable in this case are title 18 us, code 798, title 50 us, code 3024, I and Section six, Public Law, 86 dash 36 or 50 us, code 3605 thus your request is also denied because the fact of the existence or nonexistence of intelligence records and intelligence related activity pertaining to the alleged usap immaculate constellation is exempted from disclosure pursuant to the third exemption. That's a mouthful times 10, all of those public laws and everything for something that doesn't exist. Now, are they being accurate by saying, Where is it? Please be advised that this is our standard response to all requests. Is that accurate? The answer is kind of yes, that if you go to them and kind of make up a name under an alleged usap program, generally, you're going to get this very similar response, so I will acknowledge that part as being legitimate. But the US government, I'm going to go back a slide, has already made it known that they have zero evidence, so they're denying it. So if they wanted to take that stance and say, Hey, sorry, we can neither confirm nor deny, simply because, if we did, and this was real, this is a threat to national security. So they just kind of have this blanket. It's called a Glomar response, we can neither confirm nor deny. I hate that, but that's just it is what it is. So that's fine. The US government, however, did not take that position. So through Susan golf, who speaks on behalf of the Pentagon, slash arrow, they stated, quote, The Department of Defense has no record present or historical of any type of SAP called immaculate constellation. I'm also aware that Dr Sean Kirkpatrick, post retirement, has also commented on this and said the whole thing was essentially BS.

Now he doesn't speak for the government, so I don't take a lot of weight in those types of statements, but regardless, he is backing up what Susan golf and the Pentagon is saying. Now, why this is important is that it is believed and said and claimed that arrow has full access to everything, including saps and usaps and all sorts of programs on a highly classified level. So even though that they can't turn around and give that to the to the general public, what they can do is they can figure out, okay, are we dealing with something that is real here? Are there nuggets of truth about the immaculate Constellation program? Maybe not like Michael schellenberger fully reported, maybe not like these anonymous sources believed what was going on. But are there some kind of threads of truth here that could be true, and if they are, this would be a highly classified topic. Even if the general public was hearing a bunch of poppycock, it doesn't matter. It would be a highly classified issue. So what would they do? They would neither confirm nor deny it. So it didn't matter what you were hearing. It could be absolutely bogus with one little thread of truth to it. But since that little thread of truth is interwoven in that, they just kind of put their hands in the air and say, sorry, we can neither confirm nor deny the Glomar response is their answer to that that. It's the whole show in itself that ties to the Glomar Explorer and this whole cover story about what was really going on, going out and doing a secret operation. Look that up if you're not familiar with it's a fascinating story. Maybe if I ever get time during the day, I'll do a video based on that. But it's a fascinating piece of history. I've got documents on the black vault as well about it. Think it was project Jennifer, if memory serves. But definitely search the black vault for Project Jennifer, and you'll come up with some stuff. So the government didn't do that though they put on behalf of not only the Department of Defense, but arrow that sole entity within the US government, not just the DOD, but their arms allegedly stretch beyond that, and they can access all those usap programs and claim that they have nothing. So in my humble opinion, this, to me, is what I would call a position statement by the US government that immaculate constellation doesn't exist. That's what they claim. They didn't pull a Glomar. They didn't say we can neither confirm nor deny that is now set in stone, yet the NSA won't do that. Why That, to me, is what makes them this now more interesting doesn't mean it's true, meaning immaculate constellation absolutely is confirmed. That's not where I'm going with this, but I'm intrigued enough to continue to push because I again, we may not be hearing the exact truth here, but if there is some thread that we can pull on, I want to find it. And if the NSA, I'm sorry if the Pentagon is really speaking truth here, then that should be echoed by the NSA, because they kind of, you know, broke protocol per se. And instead of giving that Glomar response, said, No, there's absolutely nothing to this. Why won't intelligence agencies like the NSA follow suit, and I don't have an answer to that. I've appealed this case, making that argument in a much more legal and clear and concise way, but saying, hey, the position statement here is all of this doesn't exist, so deny it. The I appeal this Glomar response because I believe that it's wrong you Why can't you deny something that's already been denied? And so that's what I want to start pushing on and seeing if they will change their answer or not, and if they don't, then I've got a plan for that, but that's a story for another day. One of the other agencies that I went to was the FBI. Now, this agency was not connected to that. I recall, anyway, the root of the story here, when it came to immaculate constellation as a program, what I was going for by filing to the FBI was what I had learned about what the FBI did on the MJ 12 documents. Doesn't matter if you believe the MJ 12 documents were real or were a hoax. The reality was the FBI learned about the documents, they got a hold of them, and they began a investigation to figure out, were they real and legitimate, and did classified, top secret information truly spill out into the open by the end, they wrote bogus across all the MJ 12 documents that's found in their files. I've got them on the black vault. Just search for MJ 12 FBI file, and you should come up with it. And they did this investigation, determined it was all bunk. What I was looking for here was two things. One, the documents, if there were any, to show any investigation into the allegation that the immaculate Constellation program was real and did classified information spill into the open. Or the second thing I was looking for was potentially a denial under b7 that would have been fascinating, because what essentially that means is that they have an active investigation, and neither of those came. The third option, which you know was never fun to get, it was just a simple denial that records existed. There's no records you can see here on a letter that that I just got a few days ago, we were unable to identify records subject to the FOIA that are responsive to your request. That is a generic term. I know some of you are going to jump, aha, subject to the FOIA, maybe they've got something. I highly doubt it. That is a very common way for them to deny it, the FBI probably has the worst form letters ever, simply because you can see here, let me get my pointer. You can see here like they have every answer that they would give you, and then they have check boxes. So you would get these generic. Answers, and then they just check which one pertains to you. It's like put a little bit of effort in there and just copy and paste and make it a concise letter. I know it's not hard to find the check mark, but it's just silly. So anyway, they just love their form letter. So this is kind of a form way of saying it. So nothing, sadly. So let's talk about what is probably top on everybody's mind. Let me first check the chat room. Now we're live, so I'm sorry to kind of break the flow, but I don't want to miss some of these. Do Brian ebock, I hope I have that pronounced Brian. Why isn't FOIA reform more popular, instead of chasing our own tails? Brian? That is an excellent question. I have pushed for years and years to reform FOIA. A lot of people bash FOIA. I am not in that camp. I say that it definitely needs help. I believe that it's wounded. I believe that there are downfalls to it, but it's not broken. I'm not on the FOIA is broken camp. But yes, there absolutely needs to be reform, and we have to stop chasing our tails. You're absolutely right. Why aren't we doing that? I don't know. I wish more government officials would. I got into a lot of trouble, for lack of a better way to phrase it, from some camps for speaking out, not against the UAP Disclosure Act, but essentially saying the way that it was written, it would not pass. That turned out to be correct on multiple occasions now, but what I advocated for, instead of it, was a reformation of FOIA. And why I say that is what the UAP da wanted to accomplish. I truly believe, if you give the right fixes to FOIA, we would have very similar, if not exactly, the same, and arguably better results because of it. I would say better results simply because let's not be selfish. Yes, we want UAP disclosure, and we want to learn about those documents, but why not learn about other topics as well that are being hidden from you and me, and that, I believe is what has to happen here. We have to reform FOIA, because other camps that may not be interested in UFOs are suffering the same fate we all are that have an interest in UFOs, and they're suffering from a lack of transparency as well. So let's fix the tool that allows all of us to access whatever our respective interests are in a way that is beneficial. The UAP Disclosure Act was not bad. I'm not. I'm not saying that taking these documents out of the the secret cabinets and giving them to the general public was a bad idea. In my opinion. They went about it the wrong way. They were. It was far reaching, over reaching,

and that's the reality of it. It's not that I disagreed with the act itself, the overreaching part of it, I knew would never fly, the eminent domain stuff, which everybody tries to argue about just was not going to fly. That turned out again, to be true now on multiple instances. So you ask a wonderful question, and I wish more people would advocate for reforming FOIA and seeing the value of it. It's really interesting to see people when they do bash FOIA, it's mostly people that tout documents to support their claims that are only available to them because of FOIA. It's like the biggest hypocritical stance that you can have, and they're bashing something that gave them more evidence than the UAP Disclosure Act. It gave them more evidence than anonymous whistleblowers. It just has. It gave them more verifiable evidence, yet they're so quick to bash it. So it's always interesting for me to see those voices and and how they view FOIA? So Brian, I'll beat the dead horse again. It's a great question, and I hope more people get on that bandwagon, because we are chasing our own tails trying to get some of this information out. And I believe that with some fixes and some funding, we can fix some pretty big issues with FOIA most of all the time it takes to process the last thing I'll say on that, and then I'll move on. It's not all FOIA, and it's need of reformation in some areas. It's not the UAP Disclosure Act passing or not passing. Obviously. Obviously the key parts of it, there are portions that have kind of made it through legislation, but the key, the big stuff, did not. The secrecy has to be dealt with first, and that is the big issue that a lot of people don't want to deal with. The UAP Disclosure Act. Again, on the surface, sounds great, but I spoke with people that are much smarter than me on a legal sense, because I had concerns. I thought no that this will not trump the national security roadblocks that we keep running into through FOIA and the roadblocks that stop Public Affairs people talking more freely about this and and government officials and so on. So that, to me, was always a red flag. But I'm not an attorney, and I fully admit that, and have admitted that many times. So discussed with attorneys and said, Hey, do you think that this would essentially, from a legal standpoint, just kind of Trump a lot of those national security roadblocks. The first one that comes to mind with UAP is the UAP security classification guide. But that's not it. That's not the only roadblock, but that's a big one. There was nothing in there that would just Trump all of that and make the national security label go away. And that's what a lot of people and advocates for the UA PDA didn't want to talk about. I don't know why. They just felt like, oh, well, we'll get disclosure if this passes. And no, the national security thing trumps everything. And the easiest way to figure that out is to look at where this was modeled from, which was that JFK assassination documents act that did pass, they modeled it after that, and in the end, there were 1000s of pages that still remained either withheld or redacted from that despite all the legal language and so on and so forth, why national security reasons were touted The most. So that's clear that this type of legislation does not Trump that. So you don't have to take my word for it. You don't have to take an attorney's word for it. Just look at our history, and you have a bill that's modeled after something that's already gone through, and there were 1000s of pages still withheld. Now, will Donald Trump change that look I'm eager to see in the next four years, but he said that before, so these new promises of we're going to release it all again, and I've got nothing to lose. Okay, whatever. I'll believe it when I see it, I'll cross my fingers and hope for the best. But that being said, he already had a chance, and he didn't. Why not national security, so that's where it doesn't get trumped. So it's not all FOIA is fault. Where I'm going with that is, not only does FOIA need reform, you need to deal with the secrecy itself. Thanks for I don't know if you expected that half hour answer there, Brian, but I appreciate the question nonetheless.

All right, so let's get back to this. The New Jersey drones, obviously, this is a huge deal to many people, and social media is not only helping that interest, but hurting it also. It's it's hurting the conversation, because you've got all sorts of things that are being posted online one this morning. I'm not even going to give the account credit, but it was a very high profile, high traffic, lots of subscribers and followers on X that posted a video of a rocket launch. But it was a rocket launch way off in the distance, I believe, probably Cape Canaveral and and you see this giant ball of light, and it's coming from what looks like the ocean. And essentially the label was that there was new footage of a New Jersey drone out there circulating that was coming from the water. And obviously this was completely misrepresented, and the amount of 1000s of likes and shares when I saw it, and it's like, this is what we've come to people are just posting whatever and making up a caption and getting 1000s of likes and shares, none of that helps and and it really is unfortunate, but there is an underlying issue here that's pretty fascinating to me. When I first started looking into the story, it was kind of in the very beginning, and most of it was, you know, the British tabloids had some stories. People were posting videos on tick tock. The one video that was interesting looked like a craft instead of, you know, banking and turning had just kind of like turned on an axis and it and it looked like a plane, admittedly, but it was like the way it turned, looked really interesting, and I had posted that out there, and then had a few minutes, and I pulled it into a video editing. All I did was up the brightness and contrast of it and slow it down, and that brought out the stars. And you can actually see it wasn't the plane moving. It was just an aircraft going straight forward. What. Going on, however, was that the person filming with a cell phone camera had turned the camera probably to a horizontal view, and to see that you see all the stars around it, and the stars make an arc. So essentially they're turning the phone so if the plane was moving, the stars would not the plane would, that would be interesting. The fact that it all had the arc to it just shows that the camera was moving and not the craft. Now, why I bring that up is that was huge. I mean, like, there were accounts that posted that, myself included, and then I posted that debunk along with it, but was fascinating, and that's what's really, I think fueling this story, because then people are going out in New Jersey and filming anything and saying, Oh, it's a drone. Other people want the likes and clicks, so they're posting videos of a rocket launch out of Cape Canaveral, and going, Well, look, it's a, it's a, it's a drone, and it's going through water. It's trans medium, you know. So that just doesn't help whatsoever. But there are things that are, again, intriguing about this. And if you watch some of the video clips, and I've compiled a few here, and I hope that this works, okay, I've compiled some video clips just to kind of take a look at before we we get deeper into the New Jersey drone thing. So we'll take a look at those. But one thing that I I think that we all have to really start to question, and this actually ties into UAP. I'm not saying that the UAP, whatever that phenomena, or that phenomenon, or these phenomena, if you believe that there's multiple like myself, things at play here when it comes to that conversation. I'm not saying that the drones are anything but drones, but where I wanted to tie it together were the amount of agencies that played a role in the UAP research effort known as arrow and this year's 2024 report, if you're not aware, they did release the 2024 report, like, a week or two ago, and I've got that on the black vault, so it's one of the the more recent stories. So if you haven't read it, it's on there for you. They do these annual reports. For me, What's always interesting, I always jump to this. I jump to the agencies that played a role in the information and data that they utilize for that report. And obviously, a lot of what arrow is investigating is not only over military bases overseas, we've we've known that, but also domestic issues as well domestic encounters and things that are coming across their desk. Now we don't have all of the data. They have released some things. Even last night, they released their their heat map, kind of shows where things are, are being seen, and the amount of agencies that are playing a role in that, to me, are fascinating. I won't go through all of them, but you got the Air Force and the Navy, the FBI, NASA, the NGA NRO, NCIS, multiple components of the DoD Space Force. So you've got all of these agencies playing a role that they're able to monitor and to contribute to all of those investigations when they arise. Of UAP, what amazes me is that now we are weeks into this drone mystery, and none of these agencies have offered any help whatsoever to actually identify what's going on. Why not? I don't that's what I don't understand. You've got so much power there helping with unidentified craft known as UAP, but when it comes to unidentified craft known as drones, none of these agencies have been able to offer anything of substance for them to identify and put this to rest. Because, as you're about to see with the clips that I mentioned a few minutes ago, there's a lot of confusion here. So even though social media is completely screwing up this conversation, the British tabloids don't help. Bad copy and paste journalism doesn't help. There are some underlying things here that are pretty interesting, the

Speaker 1  39:15  
drones in New Jersey and Morris County 20 I don't know how many mayors sent a letter to you this morning. Ask her for a clarification. What can you tell us what is going on and why is it taking so long to come up with an explanation? It's a good I don't blame people for being frustrated. Let me say most importantly, right up front, we see no evidence, and I say we, this includes Homeland Security, FBI, Secret Service, our state police, authorities at all levels of government. The most important point to say is we don't see any concern for public safety. That's number one. Number two, having said that, it's really frustrating that we don't have more answers as to where they're coming from and why they're doing what they're doing. We. Had last night 49 sightings. I think 20 of them were over 100. And now those include, I think I saw one mistake in a fixed wing aircraft, a plane a small Piper Cub, for instance, for a drone. Or you saw one, and that counts. And then I saw the same one, and that counts. So we think these are overstated, but it's a non zero number. I was on with the White House and Homeland Security Leadership, literally at the very top yesterday, pretty much all day. I'm hoping we'll get answers sooner than later. I would just ask folks to continue to let the FBI or their local law enforcement know when they see something, and we'll continue to do everything we can with our federal partners to get clear answers. Why is it so hard to get answers? These are apparently very, as I understand it, very sophisticated. The minute you get eyes on them, they go dark. And, you know, we're obviously most concerned about sensitive targets and sensitive critical infrastructure. So we've got military assets, we've got utility assets, we've got the president elects one of his homes here. This is something we're taking deadly seriously. We've got good cooperation out of the feds, but we need more. And that's, that was my plea. How long? How much longer do you think? I don't, don't know, but if we have news, I'll come. I'll let you know that the minute we know something, I'm not going to hide it under a Bucha

Speaker 2  41:27  
governor. You have going to have people saying, you know, I saw a drone spraying something, or I saw crash in my yard and set it off an alarm when I tried to go near it. There's a lot of fear. Yeah,

Speaker 1  41:37  
New Jersey residents, I mean, what is your message? Well, the message I just gave. But by the way, we're not aware of any nefarious drone that has crashed, or if there is one that's crashed, Could someone please call me and let me know where that is? There are a couple of rumored Downings for one reason or another. One of them was a toy. The other one was never found. But having something, having our hands on equipment that's on the ground would be helpful, no question about it. This is where

John Greenewald  42:06  
it started to get a little bit interesting for me, because that was the New Jersey governor, Phil Murphy coming out and talking about drones. When you would zoom in on them, or, you know, capture them, they would go dark, and so on and so forth. Where is he getting this information from? If this is all mistaken identities of commercial aircraft, this is kind of a problem that's brewing in itself, like going to the highest ranks of state level governments and convincing them that there's this major problem and in advanced technology, advanced enough to again to try and evade detection and so on. Who are those sources? But it got a little bit more interesting for me that this week, if you missed it, there was actually a hearing within Congress about UAS and drones and the threats that they present. And obviously the New Jersey issue was a big one. Here is Congressman Chris Smith at that hearing. So

Speaker 3  43:06  
last night, I was on the beach in Island State Park in Ocean County with the with the sheriff. He's he has been working it every single night. He's got his own tethered drones chronicling one of his officers two nights ago saw 50 drones come in off the ocean right there. So we thought maybe they'll replicate it. They didn't, but we thought it was a possibility. I then last night, we had a number of other people there, including a commanding officer from the from the Coast Guard, who said that one of their 47 foot motor life boats was followed by between 12 and 30 of these drones as they went through the water followed right behind them.

John Greenewald  43:53  
So now we've got Coast Guard witnesses. We've got law enforcement, obviously. Now the witness pool is growing when it comes to UFO sightings again, because I'm not trying to say that these are UAP. I personally actually don't think they are. So let me just say that for the record. But connecting the two when you look at the witnesses of UAP and their law enforcement officers, Coast Guard witnesses, people that are trained enough to know commercial aircraft drones, threats, not threats, so on and so forth. They're seeing these things and counting 50 drones coming in from the water. That's not normal aircraft traffic, the way that it's described, coming from Newark or going into Newark. Obviously, this is something that's a little bit more interesting. And as time went on through the week, other people started to kind of speak out. And it was really interesting to see, because then on Fox News, I won't play this whole clip, so I'll clip it in, but in the middle of it, but Congressman Jeff Van drew decided to throw in what. He labeled as pretty much, hey, I'm going to speak real with you guys. Here is the definitive answer on what's going on. Here's what he said

Speaker 4  45:06  
in focus now, Republican Congressman Jeff Van drew of New Jersey, member of the House Judiciary Committee on the Hill right now, how do you how do you address this at this point? Well,

Speaker 5  45:18  
here's the real deal, Harris, you know, I'm also on the Transportation Committee, on the aviation subcommittee, and I've gotten to know people and from very high sources, very qualified sources, very responsible sources. I'm going to tell you the real deal. Iran launched a mothership probably about a month ago that contains these drones. That mothership is off. I'm going to tell you the deal. It's off the east coast of the United States of America. They've launched drones. Is everything that we can see or hear. And again, these are from high sources. I don't say this lightly. Now, you know, we know there was a probability it could have been our own government. We know it's not our own government, because they would have let us know it could have been some really glorified hobbyist or hobbyist that were doing something unbelievable. They don't have the technology,

John Greenewald  46:09  
but let's put so high sources, qualified sources, reliable sources, all said that it was an Iranian drone ship that was off the off the east coast that was responsible for these sightings. Now, that obviously created a stir. Now, these types of stories, they go quick. I mean, there is like, the minute you this, this video as I'm live, is already outdated. I'm sure I'm gonna log off and go, uh, that I could have talked about that I could have talked about this, because every hour, there is something new. So this story took a weird turn, that it was an Iranian vessel off the east coast. And then there was that chatter, is that an act of war? Is there something really going on here? Are they going to attack? Should we start shooting these things down? Then the citizens started saying that, that they were going to point their guns to the air. Well, then the Pentagon got involved. And said this, Sabrina,

Speaker 6  47:08  
can you tell me what the Pentagon is doing to address this issue of drone sightings over New Jersey? It's near sensitive installations. The FBI is involved. What is the Pentagon doing? Sure,

Speaker 7  47:19  
so at this time, so aware of those drone sightings that have been reported at this time, we have no evidence that these activities are coming from a foreign entity or the work of an adversary. We're going to continue to monitor what is happening. But you know, at no point were our installations threatened when this activity was occurring. Can you

Speaker 6  47:40  
rule out that these are American drones, military drones? These

Speaker 7  47:45  
are not us, military drones. Again, this is being investigated by local law enforcement. What our initial assessment here is that these are not drones or activities coming from a foreign entity or adversary.

Speaker 6  47:59  
Representative, Jeff Van Drew, who is a Republican from New Jersey, was just on the air, saying that Iran launched a mothership probably about a month ago that contains these drones, and that that mothership is off the coast of the East Coast of the United States. Is there any truth to that? There

Speaker 7  48:17  
is not any truth to that. There is no Iranian ship off the coast of the United States, and there's no so called mothership launching drones towards the United States.

John Greenewald  48:29  
So not Iran so whatever congressman, Congressman Jeff Van drew heard from his high, qualified and reliable sources, was completely bunk. Now I know that he eventually then walked that back and said, Well, maybe it's not Iranian. And maybe my sources, you know, 90, I forget what his exact quote was, but like, 90 plus percent sure. But then backed off on the Iran thing. So that just kind of crashed and burned. But what she also said there in that clip, if you didn't catch it, was that it was not foreign. There was no evidence to show that it was like a foreign entity or adversary and not US military, which kind of leaves very few things left. Which means, is it some kind of commercial organization here doing something hobbyists out there with drones regardless? This brings up a very interesting part of the of the debate, if it's not US military, and there's no indicator that it's a foreign entity of some kind or an adversary, why can't we figure out who it is? Who is that techno, technologically advanced, to try and and dodge this, you know, and dodge detection, dodge identification, and continue to fly. So are all of these statements and everything that that the congressman is hearing the New Jersey governor is hearing. Is it really all mistaken identity for commercial aircraft? Because that would be a huge problem on so many levels if that were true. Are these drones evading detection and identity? Vacation, not US military, not a foreign adversary, but they're just able to do this with no problem on us, soil or over us, soil that in itself, is a huge problem. Well, the New Jersey State Representative Brian burger, he just he got a briefing from the Bergen. Excuse me, I mispronounced his name, but Brian Bergen got a briefing from the US, or, excuse me, the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness. This is what he said about that. So you're

Unknown Speaker  50:37  
here today. You were just inside. You walked out. Why

Speaker 8  50:40  
I walked out, because it was it was worthless. It was the biggest amateur hour presentation I've ever seen about anything. Okay? It was ridiculous. There were no answers. Every question that was asked by the a member of the State Legislature. Great questions, no answers, no resolution. They don't know where the drones are coming from. They don't know who's doing it. They don't know why they're doing it, but they say there's no credible threat. It was annoying to be there. I drove two hours to be here today. Spent an hour in there. I gotta drive two hours back, the biggest waste of five hours in my entire life. So why do you think they called this meeting? No idea. Why would you call a meeting to tell people you don't know anything? I have no idea. And then, when the legislators were asked questions, there were no answers. Here's the most frustrating part. The Colonel state police said that he had a helicopter of his flying over above one of these drones, a six foot drone or something. I can't remember exactly what he said, and he just he felt unsafe for his helicopter, so he just let it go. Just let it go, and Where'd it go? Who knows? You know, didn't want to follow it because he didn't feel safe. That is that not the most ridiculous thing you've ever heard. I mean, honestly,

Speaker 9  51:38  
do they have any Do they have any idea where these drones are originating? No, they

Speaker 8  51:43  
don't. They would maybe if they follow that sucker to when it landed, they would know. But they don't. This is, this is a complete lack of effort, in my opinion. I'm trying to figure this out. This is not about ability. We have the technology, we have the people, we have the training, we have the resources, we have the money. It's just a lack of effort. I mean, they are, I don't know. I don't know they should be saying, You know what they should have done today, with productive use of our time. If they didn't know anything, come in there and say, Hey, legislators, we don't know anything. But if you get us these 10 things, do these 10 things for us, and the governor calls in this kind of action, we can figure it out. Will you help us? And then we would have helped them, but instead, it was just excuse after excuse, and we know nothing. It was infuriating. And I got up and I walked out. You've been in the service, right? Yeah, it was an attack helicopter pilot, Apache helicopter pilot in the army, and I helped stand up the initial unmanned aircraft training battalion in the aviation sector of the army. So I know a little bit about what I'm talking about. And these guys are not doing the job they need to do to figure out what's going on, and that is the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and the state police, and they're saying no no threat to to Americans. They're saying no threat. But how the hell do they know they don't know anything. They don't know what it is. They don't know where to come from. They don't know nothing. When I walked in here today, I was actually pretty calm. I was excited to be here to find out a couple things I thought they'd be like, Hey, listen, it's FedEx, trying to figure it out. But instead, I got the most ridiculous amateur hour briefing I've ever sat

Unknown Speaker  53:08  
through. Wow, that's truly upsetting.

John Greenewald  53:12  
I love that clip. He was so fired up about it being just an absolute waste of time. So again, misidentified commercial aircraft. It sure doesn't sound like it, because you would be prepared as even at a state level Homeland Security Agency, to federal level agencies at this point, they should have enough to say, look, there's absolutely nothing going on. A lot of it is hysteria, hype, and that's fine. I would actually believe that, based on what I've seen for decades, using the internet and seeing these types of stories come from time to time, and yet, here we have another fired up politician that was completely upset about what was going on, then the White House chimed in this week, and it really made everybody kind of scratch their head. Take a listen

John Kirby  54:01  
now. Finally, I just want to add a few comments on the reports of drone activity here on the East Coast, particularly in and around New Jersey. We have no evidence at this time that the reported drone sightings pose a national security or a public safety threat or have a foreign Nexus. The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI are investigating these sightings, and they're working closely with state and local law enforcement to provide resources using numerous detection methods to better understand their origin, using very sophisticated electronic detection technologies provided by federal authorities, we have not been able To and neither have state or local law enforcement authorities corroborate any of the reported visual sightings. To the contrary, upon review of available imagery, it appears that many of the reported sightings are actually manned aircraft that are being operated lawfully. The United States Coast Guard is providing support to the state of New Jersey. The End, has confirmed that there is no evidence of any foreign based involvement from coastal vessels, and importantly, there are no reported or confirmed drone sightings in any restricted airspace. That said, we certainly take seriously the threat that can be posed by unmanned aircraft systems, which is why law enforcement and other agencies continue to support New Jersey and investigate the reports, even though they have uncovered no malicious activity or intent at this particular stage, while there is no known malicious activity occurring, the reported sightings there do, however, highlight a gap in authorities, and so we urge Congress to pass important legislation that will extend and expand existing counter drone authorities, so that we are better prepared to identify and mitigate any potential threats to airports or other critical infrastructure, and so that state and local authorities are provided all the tools that they need to respond to such threats as Well now.

John Greenewald  56:00  
So nothing to see here. They couldn't corroborate the stories. It's all commercial aircraft flying lawfully. That could very well be true, and if that is truly what is going on. You look at the amount of clips, and I haven't shown you everything. I didn't want to spend, you know, seven hours showing video clips of every voice that's chimed in, but you have enough here to really kind of make yourself question, how is it that politicians can be so misguided with all of these reputable sources that they have high level, high ranking to be as definitive and precise as to blaming this all on an Iranian drone ship? What they what they label a mother ship, and yet that's wrong, that they're hearing 50 drones come in from the sea. That's not United Airlines. What's going on? So where are they hearing all of this stuff and the contradictions spread across the board? Now, a lot of you are going to hate this next clip because of the person that's in it. Some of you will absolutely love it. Others will laugh. I just laugh. I don't judge the politician. I just think it's kind of hysterical. Here's what one politician had to say about the Pentagon's lack of answers. And let me give a polite there's a language warning here.

Speaker 10  57:20  
Well, number one, I'm going to call it total bullshit, that no one knows what these are. And I think it's a slap in the face to the American people to say they don't know what this is. They can track down a guy that just killed a CEO, but they can't identify what nightly drones are and where they're coming from. I think that it's absolutely disgusting to lie to the American people like this, and the truth needs to be told about it. Secondly, if they're telling the truth, then this country is in horrible shape. We're all in danger. I mean, seriously, if our great government can't identify what these drones are, they're flying every single night that people are sitting out there videoing with their cell phones, then no American is safe and and I mean, I would I have no respect if our government cannot say what these are?

Speaker 9  58:13  
So if we don't know who they are, right? So it's got to be somebody else, or they're just not telling us, and they know who it is. And some people have said maybe it's for an adversary. What do you

Speaker 10  58:22  
think I personally, I seriously don't know, but I think they know. I think our Pentagon knows. Our Pentagon should know, right? The Department of Defense absolutely should know, and I'm not privy to that information. We're not in control yet, but I'll call them a bunch of liars. I think they're full of

Unknown Speaker  58:41  
shit because they're saying they don't. So it's like,

Speaker 10  58:44  
if they don't know, they need to resign in shame. That's what I think. And we need people in charge that can know what this is. But I don't buy it.

John Greenewald  58:57  
I love when politicians get fired up and start throwing cuss words and F bombs and all that. It's not an endorsement for Marjorie, Taylor, Greene, that's who you just saw. But I love it, Republicans, Democrats, independents, if they get fired up. I love that passion, because that's the voice of the people. That's who we are, that we get fired up, we get ticked off. That's what I want to see more of in these hearings. Some of them get so spicy, and I love it. I think that the next UAP hearing should have that level of spice to it. But regardless, that's my diatribe on that. But you can see the frustration, though, the lack of answers, the messaging from the US, government, military has been awful. Local governments are scrambling to try and figure out what is it really commercial aircraft? Then? Why are we scrambling? And she has a point there. Why is it that we are in such a mess that we don't have answers, that we don't have a definitive identification of what's going on? Now some may automatically kind of come down and equate this to, well, it's. Aliens, and there are a lot of people pushing that narrative. Now, I was surprised, I will admit, on how and I shouldn't be, but I still am surprised at how many people attacked me for saying, hey, this isn't aliens, but it's a problem, and I got tons of hate mail from that, because it's like, how do you how can you dismiss aliens? How can you so I had posted this explanation out there, and surprisingly, got a big reaction to it, but I want to kind of go over why. I'm sorry, I can't believe I have to do this, but why I don't think it's aliens. And the number one thing that I have on the list is an intelligent civilization is not going to travel light years and light years and light years to visit Earth and check out Jersey like I just don't see that happening. And although I can't predict extraterrestrial intelligence behavior and what they would do, my gut tells me they're not going to just sit and hover over jersey and start checking it out and flying around with red, blue and green navigation lights, very similar to aircraft. It just common sense tells me that ain't going to happen. Now, if I am wrong, I'll stop here. I will fully admit it, if it turns out that the New Jersey drone mystery is absolutely an alien invasion. Hey, I will absolutely live stream tomorrow morning, and I will apologize to all of you and say I'm sorry I was wrong about the alien thing, but I at this point, just don't see it happening. Now I made this point briefly earlier, when you have UAP witnesses, those that are seeing strange and anomalous craft in the sky, and their police officers, law enforcement officers, military personnel, commanders of either sea bearing vessels or aircraft or whatever, and they are seeing things in the Sky, and they label them as unknown, unidentified, paranormal, anomalous, whatever. There's a lot of weight to that. There's even extra weight to their credibility, because it's not no offense to the person who lives in the middle of nowhere Idaho, but there's kind of a level of credibility there that goes up a few notches, because they are those trained observers. And in this case, we do have trained observers. I played a clip for you law enforcement officers and military personnel who are out there patrolling either in or around the Atlantic Ocean, and they are labeling them as drones. They are seeing them as drones. So I don't see how we can just kind of like discount all of that witness testimony. And I really don't think that aliens are going to come here and resemble our craft at all when you have these fixed wing aircraft, so on and so forth. I It still amazes me that I have to, like go out of my way to say why this isn't aliens. In this case, not saying Aliens aren't here. Maybe they are. I just don't think they're over Jersey right now, and I think that we have to, you know, rest assured on that fact, but figure out what this mystery is, because it is a mystery. Nonetheless. What isn't helping this mystery, though, again, is that messaging that I briefly touched on earlier, and others have come out with their assessments and their two cents, the North com, one Northern Command, was intriguing to me for a couple different reasons. Now I don't want to read all of this to you, but it'll be on your screen. Feel free to pause and and read it yourself if you'd like to. But the one on the left was a press statement on December 11, so as of the recording of this about 48 hours ago, and NORTHCOM is headquartered at Peterson Air Force Base, or now it's the Space Force Base. Excuse me. But in Colorado, we are aware of monitoring reports of unauthorized drone flights in the vicinity of military installations in New Jersey, to include Picatinny Arsenal and Naval Weapons Station early, and we refer you to those installations for information on any efforts that that they are, any efforts they are maybe conducting to ensure the safety and security of their personnel and operations. Local law enforcement and the FBI are currently investigating. NORTHCOM conducted a deliberate analysis of the events in consultation with other military organizations and interagency partners, and at this time, we have not been requested to assist with these events. What was the result of that deliberate analysis, where they coordinated with other military organized organizations and interagency partners? That, to me, was red flag Central, if NORTHCOM did this analysis, and in the beginning of the sentence talks about the analysis, but at the end of the sentence says, but we weren't asked to play ball with you guys. It's like they're stomping out of the sandbox. That's how I read this. Maybe I'm totally wrong on what they intended here, but it was like. We did analysis too, we could help, but nobody's asked us. So we're taking our toys and we're going home. Well, where's the analysis? So I immediately filed a FOIA to NORTHCOM to get that analysis. It shouldn't be classified, or if portions of it are, that's fine, but hopefully the majority of it could be released. So I am chasing that through FOIA, and a lot of what we've gone over, I'm chasing all sorts of things on this, especially on the federal level. But regardless, I wanted to hone in on this, because that makes no sense whatsoever. Because if this was absolutely nothing, or commercial aircraft operating lawfully, like the White House wants us to believe, NORTHCOM should have come out and said that it's like a half a line that they could have put in there. We did a deliberative, a deliberate analysis, and determined there really is nothing beyond commercial aircraft flying and normal channels. Okay, end of story. And yet they don't. It's like their conclusion, unless I'm missing it and completely blind is omitted from this the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. They also released a statement. You could see that it's rather lengthy to the right of your page, but they didn't have any answers either. And it's like we're how many weeks into this, and you still have absolutely nothing. Call NORTHCOM sounds like they got something to offer, and it's it's the old adage of the government's government agencies not working with each other. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Don't understand that logic. I never will. I never have. And in this case, you would think that they would get beyond that and play in the sandbox together and not go home and share their results, even if nobody asked. The general public is asking. So NORTHCOM put it out there. If it's a classified report. Doesn't sound like anybody's asking you for help. So you got some time on your hands, make a public one. You just put it out there. I think it would be nothing but hopeful. But again, if I'm missing something, let me know if I'm if I'm blind to them saying we figured it was absolutely only commercial aircraft. Fine, let me know that, and I will absolutely put that out there. Okay, I'm going to start dealing with some questions. That's all I wanted to do visual wise. So goodbye to the PowerPoint presentation. I'm going to deal with a couple starred ones here. So thank you to everybody for those super chats. They really are helpful. 100% if you if you haven't joined a live stream before and you're thinking like, well, what are you gonna do with the money? This is what I do with the money. 100% of everything that comes in through this channel, both the advertisement and from the commercials that you see when you're watching the video or the super chats, 100% goes right back into the black vault. Helps with FOIA requests, charges, server charges monthly fees, software licenses, everything that you see on the black vault.com which is now passed, oh, I had the number here. It's like three, 3.4 I'm approaching 3.5 million pages, I think, on there right now, 100% free resource, No registration required. You can download all of that, but that does get kind of pricey to run. So I take 100% of everything that's made, puts it right into that list that I just gave you, and then I make up the rest. Sadly, it is not fully covered. So I post bills a lot. I show you know what sometimes comes in from the government agencies and so on. So if you wonder what you are donating to, that is absolutely it going after these documents. Not every case costs money, but some do, and sometimes it gets quite a few $100 for one single request. So that can add up pretty quick, but the majority of the charges are those software licenses. But more so than that, there are now four dedicated servers that run the black vault and house those 3.5 million pages. So that's what that goes to so that said, if you decide, great. If not, don't worry about it. Just put your question in all caps, and I will try and see it. I will do my best. We're live, so it's very hard for me to follow. There are over 2300 people watching as we speak, and I see comments from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, YouTube being the most popular on my screen, so I'm going to try and make sense of it. Black Dread Scotland, always a pleasure to see you in a live stream. And otherwise, Hey, John, hope you're doing well. What's your take on the drones in New Jersey? I saw your question come in, and I figured I would be dealing with that through the majority of the video. So hopefully I answered your question. If there is anything that I didn't cover that you want to ask, please feel free to do so, and I will do my best to see that question and answer it. Anthony Elementary, the US is being forced to bring out the reverse engineer tech due to what is it to muddy the water and confuse the public from the orb slash UAPs first reported? Well, I'm not sure what reverse engineer tech you're referring to, Anthony, so I'm not going to be able to comment on that. Obviously, the the US is kind of showcasing some. Of the stuff they've had in development for many years.

So I'm not sure if you're referring to that or if you're insinuating that maybe the technology being seen in New Jersey is that technology. I'm not sure. So I'm not going to have a lot to answer your question there, because I'm not entirely sure where you're going with it, but wanted to acknowledge the question nonetheless. And yeah, I'm not sure what you're referring to, but please feel free to add more info on there. Mike B, thank you so much for that Super Chat. No question attached, but Mike, thank you for that Morgan, thank you for that donation. Is there any historical documents in the black vault about the cloaking, hold on. I just lost my window there about the cloaking slash shape shifting UFOs, which is mentioned in the reporting of New Jersey drone mystery. I've heard others reference that aspect in historical cases. Loaded question. Morgan, I can say that there are research documents that I've uncovered, not really connecting it to kind of this drone mystery, but where they have researched cloaking technology and also metamaterials, which obviously has been rumored to have shape shifting qualities to it again, rumors. But I went after documents about meta materials to kind of showcase some of that, and kind of show that research and what they're kind of doing with meta materials, because that obviously really blasted onto the scene more end of 2017 through 2018 2019 reason being to the stars Academy of Arts and Science. And so they were going out there and grabbing and buying and borrowing alleged UAP pieces of debris and technology. And they were putting out meta material, press releases and so on, talking about how UAP were utilizing this, this meta material. So I went after documents on that. And yeah, they research a lot of cloaking capabilities and what they can and or can't do with that. And again, shifting, shape shifting, may be a little bit over exaggerative, but I know that there's some other things that they can do in that regard with metamaterials and other types of materials. So if that's what you're referring to, yes, I have documents on that. If you use the search engine, search for cloaking and search for metamaterials shape shifting, you may come up with something. I'm not really sure if that specific phrase would be used, but you can kind of see the advanced qualities of what's going on. The other thing I'll mention, too, just from a technical standpoint, I revamped the search engine on the black vault a little bit. Now it is powered by Google, so it does rely on Google archiving the site with three and a half million pages, you would think that you could easily make a database searchable of those documents and the pages on the black vault, and it is a lot harder than you might think, because it is so hard to index that amount of data, there are Literally terabytes worth of data that are in the website right now, and the three and a half million pages of PDFs and image files and all sorts of stuff. And so to archive that is really, really challenging, but Google has done a good job on archiving a lot of the PDFs and indexing them. And so I've built a search engine surrounding Google's engine, and so you can search that on the right hand side of the website. If you go to the black vault.com Once the document archive opens, look on the right hand side, on that right column, and you'll see a Google search box. There are two search boxes on the black vault. The very top one will only search the base level pages and archives, very good for doing basic searches. Cloaking is a prime example, which will bring up the index pages of all the documents. But if you really want to drill down in all the PDFs, use that one that's powered by Google on the right hand side, and hopefully you'll get some results that you're looking for. I know that's a pretty complicated answer, but I ain't lying when I say it is incredibly complicated to try and index all of those pages. So anyway, Morgan, hopefully that'll set you off on the right foot there. Feel free. I'm the only guy that runs the black vault. So this is to Morgan and everybody else that's listening. If you have a question that I don't deal with and you want to ask, just use any contact form you find on the website, and it'll come right to me. There's nobody in between, so I will see it and help you out where I can seek truth. 778, no question attached. But I really, really appreciate that. Support of the channel. Thank you. Zunar j5 nine thoughts that this is advanced government tech being used to sniff out a greater threat, eg, nuke or bio threat. Not specific to nuke or bio threat, but advanced government tech. Yes, I did an interview with a I don't want to say the outlet yet, I'm not being secretive, but it's just out of respect because they were doing a story, they may or may not publish it, I don't know, but a major outlet where I talked about that, I don't know if they're going to use it in the article, but I said one of the big possibilities here is it's absolutely us and and us, meaning the US, military testing vulnerabilities, testing responses from local governments to such a threat. So if it was an Iranian warship off the coast, how quickly could we get identification of it? How quickly could we handle that threat? It's, it's, it's not, I don't think it's kosher at all. I don't think it's legal for them to run ops like that on US soil and potentially push on local officials like that and state agencies to see the response. But is that something that they would do, and would it be considered worthwhile? If you ask me, the answer would be yes, that they could take that data and say, Okay, if we have an enemy warship, if we have an enemy drone ship, what they call a mothership, that's another keyword. Search the black vault for that, because I've got some records on what mother ships are. I know everybody attributes that to like Independence Day and an alien invasion, but check that out, and it's a cool keyword that comes about. But that being said, the idea behind this type of scenario, and situation is that they create a plausible scenario to see how the East Coast would react, the state agencies would react. Because if this was the real world, and this really was a threat, if it was truly a threat, look how awful this really is. It's, it's awful. I mean, it's, it's not aliens. I don't know what it is, but it's awful no matter what it is. And from the the hype and hysteria to the messaging from the the mainstream media, for the most part, there's exceptions to that rule, but you have a lot of hype in these mainstream articles. And then you have local and state level agencies that are, you know, kind of panicking, but clueless. And then they're falling back on federal agencies for their help. And you look at the the press releases that I showed you, not only are they not working together, but they're just as clueless as well. And then when it goes to the top the White House goes, Oh yeah, nothing to see here. It's just all all commercial flights. That's it. It's all fine and dandy, really, all right? Well, if that's true, still a mess across the board. So these types of situations and operations, albeit, albeit very possibly illegal to do that over US soil and again, to push state and local agencies like that in this type of a game.

But is it necessary? And I'm not here to endorse it. I'm just here to say, is that something that's necessary for America to understand its vulnerabilities, to test those vulnerabilities, to understand response times, to see how the general public will react. It's that, I don't know if there's any truth to it, but there's always been that long rumor, going back decades and decades, that War of the Worlds was like that, testing how the government, or excuse me, how the general public would react to such an announcement, or if aliens were really coming and they had a bad intent, how would the general public react? So again, there may be absolutely no truth to that, but the idea is really fascinating, because we would have to understand how the general public would react to that. Now, there's cases of them shooting at drones. I read about one this morning where somebody went out and just, you know, took matters in their own hands, and I'm gonna shoot this some bitch out of the sky, and they go out there and, you know, it's like the old west. It's like, well, hold on a second. Let's not do that, because what if you're shooting a law enforcement drone that's out there tasked to figure out what's going on. So you've got all sorts of problems that have arisen from this more so the absolute cluelessness of the state, local and federal agencies at this point, because at the end of the day, it's terrifying that they don't have answers yet. That, to me, is actually a terrifying thing. It doesn't mean that I'm scared about what's going on in New Jersey right now. I'm not. I think that we'll probably, or at least hopefully, get answers. Where I'm terrified is the vulnerability that's been revealed here. That's kind of the issue, not only with the general public, but from media messaging, government messaging, even White House messaging all the way to the top. From the top down, has been awful. So that, to me, is the more concerning aspect to this, and one that who knows whether or not we get an answer or not. We'll figure that out. But yeah, well, we'll see Mikhail Larson again, quite possibly Michael Larson, I apologize, I probably butchered it either way. Do you have any information about Antarctica? There is a there is huge areas being whited out on Google Earth and Maps. Linda Moulton, Howe took up this question. There's a huge question to the only place on Earth where people can't visit. There's always been rumors about Antarctica. I won't say that I have any you know information off the top of my head that's going to wow you. There is something that's often been connected to high jump and Antarctica, which was, or excuse me, connected to Antarctica called Operation high jump, and that is something that has long been filled with conspiracy. I went after documents on that that was a military mission that went down decades ago. I forget exactly what year that it commenced, but it was like one of the largest assemblies of our military here in America, and that all went down to Antarctica, and there was a lot of rumor like, why are you going down there? And you know, there's alien theories about it. There's subterranean civilization theories about it, hollow Earth, theories about it. Other people are saying it was a military exercise and nothing more. It was to see how our military equipment would would handle the extreme temperatures. So there's a lot of rumors about that. So I went after the documents, and again, I wouldn't say that there was anything explosive in the records, other than, you know, just kind of added some pieces to the puzzle. But beyond that, you know, Google Earth, obviously there are stories all the time about strange areas, Antarctica, included, but these strange areas where it seems like there are redacted areas or things that are pulled from the data and messed up so you can't see what's going on. And it is quite possible that we have military bases down there, or military assets of interest, and they don't want us to see what's going on. It's also possible that the way that Google Data works when it comes to satellite imagery is a lot of times you'll have imagery that's taken from from essentially two different time frames and it's stitched together. And sometimes, when that data comes together and is stitched together, it's not like one, you know, consecutive pass by a by a satellite, but rather stitched together from multiple passes, sometimes years apart. That stitching, that stitching from the data sense, creates things that are very abnormal looking. And that's where a lot of kind of things start. You know, rumors start online, people will find those glitches. I don't know if glitches is the right word, but they'll, they'll find them and post them online, and then, you know, the internet takes over from there. So I think you have all sorts of stuff at play. But when it comes to seeing what our present day assets, if any, like, from a military sense, I don't, don't have that. Sorry, I don't have more for you there. Clinton, sorry, it sounds like somebody is coming into my office here. Clinton DeVoe, do you think the US Air Force has worked on gravity manipulation research? Well, it would surprise me if they didn't. There's a, I can't think of a program off hand trying to think on specific to gravity manipulations. You know, places like the Air Force Research Lab, in some of those government research arms. They do a lot of of research into things like that, to see if there's any promise. I'm trying to think, if I have any thing on, like anti gravity, in fact, why don't I just look really quick here while, while we're live. I told you, anything can happen. Let me. Let me see. I believe I do, but I don't want to misspeak and send you the wrong way. But to kind of close that thought quickly, they do have these types of programs where they look into advanced technology, anti gravity, cloaking, high velocity propulsion methods, again, across the gamut, and sometimes it just stays on the drawing board, and then other times, when they show promise, that's how a lot of the more advanced programs get funded are from these research programs. So the Air Force Research Lab, just off the top of my head, is one that has done a lot of work on that in. In that realm. And I think that you could probably find stuff there when it comes to anti gravity. I have on the black vault if you search for anti gravity, a presentation that was done in October of 2004 for the non atomic military research and development. And it is the slide show presentation. So I would have stuff like that. So yeah, that search engine. I mean, look, I don't even know half the stuff that's on there half the time, just because the archive is so big. And I actually got this, let me see what the date of it is, 2018 so I got this six years ago, and you'll see the whole PowerPoint presentation, so that might give you a little bit of of information there. And again, that search engine is pretty powerful, where it will hopefully grab some documents that that you you find of interest. But those advanced technology research angles, they're always fascinating to look at because it gives you a glimpse at what they were trying to do, and sometimes it gives you the glimpse at what the root of what they are doing. And that, to me, is pretty interesting, because you get all sorts of leads from that. One of the other government agencies you might find of interest is one called the Defense Technical Information Center, or DTIC, and why I would recommend you to look at that is because, if you're interested in those advanced forms of research and and technology, whether it be anti gravity or cloaking or whatever, although I love to archive everything I can find and get through FOIA, I don't have everything. Clearly, DTIC has a database. It's one of my favorites when it comes to government archives. And if you go there, if just just Google DTIC, because I think there are actual addresses like discover dot, d t, I c.mil, I think. But regardless, just just search for d t, I C, defense, Technical Information Center. And when you're there, you can search their database of technical documents. It's unclassified. What you find online, it's obviously unclassified, but you really can see some of the advanced science that they've researched. Sometimes, private organizations will put their information into DTIC, and they'll archive it that may and they may have received, you know, government funds or small grant money, or whatever other times it's government contracted work, periodically, you'll find declassified stuff, so previously classified material.

So it's something definitely to look into. Closing thought too, for all the researchers out there and all those FOIA people out there, DTIC is an excellent, excellent research research tool, not only for what's found online, but they have a FOIA office that you can actually request through FOIA a index of documents that are in their database based on certain keywords. Now, again, this is one of those little, quick stories that's a video in itself at a later time, but what you can do is request an index of records, let's say on anti gravity, which I've done in the past, and it will spit out from their database, which is not all online. That's what I want to distress to you guys. It is not evident if you go to the website, but it is not all online, and there are classified citations in the database that they search behind the scenes. So if you do that, FOIA, you will come up with a index of documents that are still classified. Now, why that's useful is a lot of times you can get the classified documents that will not be shielded from you. They may have redactions, but it's not like they'll just automatically deny you and say, oh, sorry, it's classified. It gives you a lead to then go out and request that, either from DTIC or the controlling agency, they've got records from everybody, and start to get things declassified. I have gotten countless documents from DTIC in that way, so just a little bit of a tip there. It is a very underutilized research tool that's out there that's free for everybody, and they've got a mountain of data within that archive, but not everything is online. So I wanted to stress that. So all you FOIA researchers out there that are looking for leads, that is a very, very cool one. What is the legal ramification ramifications for a civilian to bring down one of these drones, and who would one notify after doing so well the clip, let me just stress that is illegal, so don't start shooting things. I don't support that I don't advocate for that. If you or anybody that's listening see something that they can't identify, they feel it's a drone and they shouldn't have it there. Call your local law enforcement, please don't shoot it. That's the stupidest thing you can do, because you have no idea what you're shooting at, just because you have an. IPhone app that shows you flights in the air, and you're pointing it at it, and there's just black sky, and it's not supposed to be there. Don't shoot it. Call local law enforcement. The legal ramifications are, I'm sure you're going to get in cuffs. I don't know what your local law is going to have over there in Jersey. I can say, in Los Angeles, you pull out a gun and you start shooting things in the sky, even though it's not supposed to be there, you're probably going to go away for a little bit. Well, it's Los Angeles. You'll probably be released. But regardless, don't do it. That's a different gripe that I have with California. But just don't. The legal ramifications, I'm sure, are probably different state to state. Who would you notify after doing so well, if you want to get arrested, call the cops that you should have called in the beginning, and they'll be right there to arrest you and figure out what's going on. But yeah, just stick with local law enforcement, figure out what's going on and go from there. Hopefully that helps. Just don't shoot it. Stop shooting it. Don't Shoot it. Turning off lights is not cloaking a plane turning, a plane turning, causing its landing lights to shift out of view and reveal navigation lights. Is not shape shifting. That's from Brian boards. Brian, that's a great point, and that's I didn't show visuals, if you noticed from this presentation about what's been floating around online, simply because there's too much. But on top of that, a lot of it is misidentified craft, and that's where, in the beginning, I was kind of turned off on this whole story, because people were making it about aliens, and then showing like a regular commercial airline flight. And it's like, well, wait a minute. You know that that makes no sense whatsoever. It was such a turn off to the story, but now that there's enough to kind of show that maybe there's an element that that is of concern here, even if it's just the reaction by local, state and federal agencies about what's going on. But yes, you see to Brian's point, you see a lot of these videos where you do have a normal craft making a bank, and that light that's on the side that's visible at this angle, if it banks and it's not visible, people are thinking that it's turning on, off its NAV lights, that it's cloaking, that it's shape shifting, so on and so forth, when that's not the case. And I talked earlier in the presentation about a video that I don't do video analysis and debunking often, but I had posted the video and I said, Look, I don't know what this is. It looks like a plane. It's got wings, but this turn is kind of interesting. And I don't know if he's listening now, but he told me I can say his name whenever it came up. But Jeremy McGowan had kind of texted me, and he said, Hey, you can, if you, if you increase the brightness, I hear, you can see the stars. And I went, Oh, okay. I was like, really cool. So I pulled it up, made a quick video, and said, Yeah, he's absolutely right. You can see the stars change and so on. And it kind of proved that it was a camera move. And I posted that in the thread where I posted the video. So a lot of times, myself included, you see this, these things, and it looks interesting on its surface, but everything has to be analyzed and looked at. And common sense is going to be your biggest guide, more than all else. So yeah, people are conflating just a normal turn of an aircraft or just, you know, an angle shift of something, they're conflating that with cloaking and shape shifting and aliens, and that is not helpful to this conversation whatsoever. So Brian, great point. Really appreciate your your support of the channel. Thank you for that. Clinton. Looks like I got to that question already, so hopefully that answered it for you. Good morning, UFO, in the house. Good to see you here. I hope you are doing good. One of the more passionate voices in this community. She's always fun to speak with. Did John say what he thinks these drones are. I've been in and out of the stream. I don't think they're alien, that I'm safe to say, and I kind of had a slide of a tweet. Can I still call them tweets, an ex post, whatever the heck of some points where I like I was shocked that people lambasted me for saying that it's not aliens because I couldn't identify what they were definitively. Ergo, why can you say it's not aliens? And while I have a couple reasons why, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, so I'm safe to say that, but I don't know what they are. I mean, I feel strong that if they are, if they are not all commercial aircraft traffic, like the White House wants us to believe. I think that they are drones, and they're pieces of technology on that level, made by human hands, flown by humans, maybe AI, but, you know, flown by humans and created by humans nonetheless. So that's what I that's what I think it is on a broad stroke level, but exactly where they're coming. From I don't know. I really don't. If I had to speculate, I feel it's us. I feel it's an OP, illegal or not. I feel that it's an operation to test vulnerabilities. The only thing that's turning me off on that idea is the length of time that now they're doing it. And I know that won't be a popular thing to say, because, again, it's not kosher. They generally don't do this. But in this day and age, do we have to? And I won't repeat what I said moments ago in this stream, but Amy, I would go back and take a look at that and see a little bit more in depth of what I said. But in short, you know, are, are they going to do that? And I feel the answer would likely be No. But should they, and would they? And I believe that, yeah, there's a small possibility that they would and and the benefits of that would be pretty big, because this day and age, there's a lot of people in this world. They hate America. And if this has shown us something more than all else, it's we're vulnerable. We're vulnerable to identify what could be just normal air traffic. We're vulnerable to identify what could just be drones flown by a hobbyist group. We're vulnerable because we can't identify a foreign entity of some kind, whatever fill in the blank these things are or aren't. We are unable to determine that, and that is problematic. That's a vulnerability, no matter how you slice it, dice it or julienned it. It is a vulnerability to America, and we have to deal with that going through some of the questions. Here. Brian Shirley, a super sticker, no question attached. But truly appreciate you showing your support. Aaron, reinforcing what I have stressed, and I'm going to say it again. Aaron desario, always good to see you. Aaron, do not shoot at things in the sky. It is dangerous and stupid. Couldn't have said it better myself. Let me see I'm getting caught up here. I'm getting caught up I think I've got all the super chats. I'm just trying to go through the regular jumping around here.