Ripe with paranormal activity; it rivals that of the more recognized Utah location known as Skinwalker Ranch. Though Marley Woods, unlike the Utah location which turned into a History Channel television series, has stayed away from the TV cameras and any widespread notoriety.

Ted Phillips, a pioneering legend within the UFO field, spearheaded the research into this mysterious location. Although now passed away, his protege and my guest today, Thomas Ferrario, continues the hunt for the truth. He's here to step into the Vault, and explain some of the darkest, deepest, and most frightening experiences that he and others have encountered while there. And some of those experiences may have even left a lasting physical effect that will be with him for the rest of his life.

Stay tuned… you're about to take a wild ride INSIDE THE BLACK VAULT.

NOTE: Rural Missouri bandwidth is not ideal for livestreams, but this worked fine. The only audio hiccups we had were entirely removed, and the only obvious thing that remained was the pixelated video if you watch the lifestream.

Also, towards the end, I left the audio in, but there is a “show and tell” of the graphics. You obviously can not see the photos on the podcast, but I setup a gallery of them here: https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/podcast/ep-82-thomas-ferrario-and-the-marley-woods-case/

Photo Gallery

These are the images used in the livestream, including a few more.

Note: These are the highest resolution captures at this time. I am going to try and work with Tom and his team to see if some of the below (and more) can be increased in digital quality.

LIVE STREAM VERSION

The post Ep. #82 – Thomas Ferrario and the Marley Woods Case appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

One of the earliest recorded examples in written literature exploring alien life, was penned way back in 200AD. Lucian of Samosata, a writer of satire in Eastern Turkey, wrote a fictionalized story about a journey to the moon, and the discovery of life flourishing on the lunar body.

My guest today, who walks this Earth more than 1,800 years after that story was written, aims to make what we call science fiction… and turn it into science fact.

Professor Avi Loeb, who serves as the Frank B. Baird Jr. Professor of Science at Harvard University, has authored nearly 700 research articles and 5 books. He explores some of life's most amazing questions, that many scientists fear to touch, and he is here to speak about his new endeavor – The Galileo Project.

According to the press release sent out just today, “the goal of the Galileo Project is to bring the search for extraterrestrial technological signatures from accidental or anecdotal observations and legends to the mainstream of transparent, validated and systematic scientific research.”

From bio-signatures to techno-signatures – and everything in between – stay tuned… you're about the journey INSIDE THE BLACK VAULT.

SHOW NOTES

o Press Conference on Galileo Project

o The Galileo Project at Harvard University

LIVE STREAM VERSION

The post Ep. #81 – Avi Loeb and the New Galileo Project Seeking Out Extraterrestrial Intelligence and UAPs/UFOs appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A more structured outline/presentation may be set for next week, but for now, I thought it would kind of be fun to go over it together, fresh after it was released. Comment below if you want even more of a deep dive into this.

180 days – if you're anything like me, you've been waiting for THIS DAY for at least… 180 days.

Now, it's here. And was it all worth the wait?

What's up everyone, John Greenewald, Jr. here, founder and creator of The Black Vault.

That's right, the UFO or UAP or whatever you want to call them report is here. And, I'll go over just some key points about it.

Because that report, all whopping 9 pages of it, is the subject of this quick blast.

SHOW NOTES

o DOWNLOAD THE REPORT

LIVE STREAM VERSION

The post Ep. #80 – Preliminary Thoughts about the Preliminary Assessment on UAPs RELEASED TODAY appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Earlier today, he launched a 10 minute video detailing his struggle with the Pentagon while he's covered UFOs/UAPs/and Luis Elizondo; the man who says he led the entire program with the Pentagon to investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.

He dropped some great information in the video, and he's here to share even more about his experience.

Stay tuned… you're about to journey Inside The Black Vault.

SHOW NOTES

o NEW! Shocking Pentagon UFO revelations, Lue Elizondo & AATIP | The Basement Office

o Steven Greenstreet on Twitter

o December 2019 Article on Changing of UFO Statement 

LIVE STREAM VERSION

The post Ep. #79 – Steven Greenstreet on Pentagon UFO Revelations, Luis Elizondo & AATIP appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

First reported at The Drive's WarZone by investigative journalist Tyler Rogoway, the encounter was confirmed by American Airlines and the Air Traffic Control recordings were authenticated. But beyond that, the airline recommended to contact the FBI. This indicated there was an investigation potentially underway, and that meant to me, there were documents to be found!

Although I didn't have high hopes of groundbreaking results, I attempted to get a hold of the information via the Freedom of Information Act. The end result, made the entire saga much more interesting, but may have also produced more questions than answers.

Here's the story about how it all went down.

Stay tuned… you're about to journey INSIDE THE BLACK VAULT.

SHOW NOTES

o American Airlines Flight 2292 UFO Encounter, February 21, 2021

o UFOs NorthWest

o FBI FOIA Response to William Puckett – American Airlines UFO Encounter – Feb 21, 2021

LIVE STREAM VERSION

The post Ep. #78 – American Airlines Flight 2292 UFO Encounter appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There was a TON of information discussed, and to my surprise, the lines were flooded with calls, and the text messages poured in.

By popular request, here is the entire audio drop of it.

ENJOY! Make sure you are subscribed to the YouTube channel to ensure you can take part in the next one!

The post Ep. #77 – The Black Vault Live – Updates / AMA / Open Lines appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Just days ago, The Black Vault released a story that confirmed the e-mails of Luis Elizondo… have all been destroyed by the Department of Defense. This paper trail that is now gone for good would likely not only consist of e-mails, but all attachments, scheduled tasks, calendars, chat transcripts and other communications that spanned nearly a decade.

After months of seeking the proper authorization for the DoD to do this; there was nothing found. When asked, the Pentagon couldn’t cite authorization either, even after two months of asking. In fact, documented protocol proves that this material should likely have been saved until at least October 4, 2024, if not, possibly even being mandated to be saved indefinitely.

With this crucial evidence seemingly destroyed, stepping into the Vault today, is Luis Elizondo himself. Now hear from him on what truly was lost; how he feels about it; and what the next steps may be.

Stay tuned… you’re about to journey INSIDE THE BLACK VAULT.

SHOW NOTES

• The Pentagon Destroyed E-mails Of Luis Elizondo: Here's How It Went Down
• Official Tied To UFO Investigation Claims

Live Stream Version

Transcript

Transcripts published for The Black Vault are approximate, and done by AI, with a quick human pass through. There are often some minor mistakes, or grammatical errors, especially when guests talk about each other. These errors are not intentional. 

John Greenewald 0:11
Just days ago, the black vault released a story that confirmed the emails of Luis Elizondo have all been destroyed by the Department of Defense. This paper trail that is now gone for good would likely not only consist of emails, but also all attachments, scheduled tasks, calendars, chat transcripts, and other communications that spanned nearly a decade. After months of seeking the proper authorization for the DOJ to do this, there was nothing found. When asked, the Pentagon couldn't cite authorization either. Even after nearly two months of asking, in fact, documented protocol proves that this material should likely have been saved until at least October 4 2024, if not, possibly even being mandated to be saved indefinitely. With this crucial evidence seemingly destroyed. Stepping into the vault today is Luis Elizondo himself. Now hear from him on what truly was lost, how he feels about it, and what the next steps may be. Stay tuned, you're about to journey inside the black vault.

That's right, everybody. As always, thank you so much for tuning in and making this your podcast or your live stream of choice for those subscribers to this channel. Or if you're brand new days ago, I posted a video which was connected to a very long article which I worked approximately about three years on, it took two months just to verify the lead of the story, which was simply this the paper trail that will lead into better understanding a tip the Pentagon's UFO story as it is largely referenced in the media would consist of Luis Elizondo his emails. And finally, after months of pressing, they did confirm the Pentagon and Department of Defense confirmed, it's all gone. Now, although that may stay at sound like standard procedure, I, for months, tried to verify what, what authorized them to do this, and I was unable to do it. Now, that doesn't mean much. But I was pressing the Pentagon at the exact same time. And they couldn't prove it, either. Now, you've all heard my reaction to that. But more importantly, here's the man himself, Luis Elizondo, Louise, thank you so much for again, stepping into the vault and spending some time with me here.

Luis Elizondo 3:17
Yeah, john, my pleasure. Thank you very much. And a big thank you to your audience as well. I know, a lot of folks have been kind of following this, this topic for quite some time. And I look forward to addressing any questions you you or your listeners might have.

John Greenewald 3:33
And I appreciate that. So like I mentioned, my audience has, has heard my reaction, a very quick backstory, so they better understand it was almost two months to the day, when I picked up my cell phone and called you and said, Okay, this is what they're pulling, I wanted you to be be the first to know, you ended up being essentially the only one to know, you may have shared it with others, but but in the sense I didn't talk about it at all. I want to start with those emails and and get your reaction to this story. Let me take you back to two months ago. If I can ask you, were you aware of that? Or was that new to you that your emails were destroyed according to the Department of Defense?

Luis Elizondo 4:19
Well, I it was a surprise but but not a surprise. You know, obviously john, I've had to to the major portfolios I ran the last 10 years or so in the Pentagon was the UFO program. And then one that I haven't really talked much about, which is Guantanamo Bay. And clearly from a from a perspective of not just posterity, but from a legal legal perspective. Anything that I was engaged in involving the 911 Commission trials is considered discoverable. in a court of law, it's considered evidentiary. And so that must by law be preserved to for posterity sake and there is no, there's no destroyed 25 years, it stays around forever. So when you when you had indicated to me that the Pentagon were good be grudgingly admitted that my my correspondence my emails were destroyed. Obviously I was very disappointed in that because frankly, it's it's, it's it's illegal in some cases, especially as related to some of my work I was doing. But also disappointing and disappointing because there are several categories of information that I was involved with that are specifically exempt from that destroy on, you know, let's say two or five or 10 years. And, yeah, there you have it. Am I am I surprised? You know, again, not really, I am because it's it's such a bold act for them to do I mean, at that point, it's, you know, they say, Well, yeah, Lou had nothing to do with eight. Okay, well, where it's just females, we don't have them. And so, you know, it's kind of this weird, you know, double negative, right. And one case, you're saying that a tip wasn't real, and we never studied UFOs. And I was a part of it. On the second on that second accutron sale? Well, we don't have any any of those emails. Yeah, you know. So it's just, it's kind of kind of bizarre where, where I

John Greenewald 6:19
have stated publicly that this goes to the heart and core and soul of why I do what I do. for 25 years. When I started when I was 15, I realized that there were two main aspects that drove me it was transparency, and preservation. And with this particular case, the Department of Defense showed neither, they obviously did not want to give me these emails, I have at least or had at least eight FOIA requests with various keywords going for this material. But what was amazing to me was that even away from a tip was that that office that you directed, called the National Program, special management staffer, and psms. You had mentioned the gizmo portion of that. Can I ask you away from a tip UFOs, and all of that, with that particular office? Can you mention anything else that that office

Luis Elizondo 7:16
did? I had to be very careful because it was very, very sensitive. It my I think one of my last emails may have been, I don't know if it was released, or someone had a copy of it. But in there, you can see that it was it was definitely nuanced. It was a program that supported the White House and the National Security Council. So obviously, that information to be just willy nilly destroyed by the D o t, when we're talking about information that's beyond just title 10. is frankly, silly. And I'll tell you something to john, from, from my perspective, look, we haven't always necessarily agreed on everything. And we can agree to disagree. But let me tell you the one thing that I've always respected about you, you are you are one of the most tenacious and probably one of the most global experts on the FOIA process. And what why is that important? Because FOIA isn't just a privilege. It's a right. It's an act. It's a law that was established by Congress to make sure that there is transparency within the government. Okay. That is, that is a law that was passed by Congress. So basically, it's not a option. It's not at Well, you can if you want, you know, you must comply with FOIA. And what I'm seeing here, besides this, this obfuscation and the these these silly games that keep playing, is that they are taking a law. And they're making a mockery of it. They're interjecting organizations and people into that calculus that are that are deliberately not supposed to be in there. They are, they are deleting information, which frankly, between you and me, I don't believe they've deleted anything. I think it's just extremely damning and incriminating. So they don't want it to come out. And it's it's making a mockery of law. So at that point, you have to ask yourself, john, when an organization in the United States who is bound to uphold the law, is now breaking the law. Okay. Is that organization? Are those people that are in those positions? Do they represent the will of the government? Do they represent the will of the people in United States? And if the answer is no on both, then are they even legitimately in charge of anything? much that's my, that's my concern here, john, this is what exercises me so much that there are people that are willfully trouncing on on on might as well be the constitution because these are laws of balls of the land. They're not they're not flexible. It's not like a rule that you can bend the rule. Yeah, law you don't and and You have all people I'm sure probably are frustrated by this. But for me as a as a patriot and somebody who served his country in uniform, you know, I fought against tyranny over in the battlefields of the desert and jungles and what not only to find that same tyranny now within the halls of the Pentagon, that that is problematic that is that is that that is that is a true threat, if there was ever a threat, is, is somebody upstanding with our freedoms, and and and basically tearing up whatever rules or laws have for you that they think, you know, don't apply to them? These laws apply to everybody. Yeah. And especially if you're in a position of in the government, you, you know,

John Greenewald 10:49
well, I appreciate those kind words about my work. And when I say that it really does go to the core of of why I do this. It truly, it truly does. And going back to the question I asked you about your office, I know that you get a lot of flack. And I'm happy to say it was never flak for me on this point, that, you know, you do have those security oaths, and NDA is and and and clearances where you can't talk about it. And that was what was very evident to me about that office, because there was very little to dig up. And trust me, I've tried since 2000, whatever it was, that I have no doubt, john. Yeah. But it was those Navy court transcripts that came up and I won't push you on it, because I know it is sensitive. And I know it's still ongoing. But for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to reference your office in October of 2017. It's clear that whatever you were doing within that office, was in dealing with special access programs, and also giving what appeared from the transcripts, the translator, for Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, access to the information for him to properly translate to the for the defense, and there was a problem with the judge because they had lost their SAP access. So for me to see that again, away from the a tip story that made me realize a couple years ago, okay, this guy was into, you know, some some highly classified material programs, and obviously, the one that was spearheading that effort for others to gain access to those special access probe.

Luis Elizondo 12:28
Well, that's honestly john, what landed me on the naughty boy list with with ISIS and Al Qaeda, that I was informed that I, I was wound up being put on the on the kill list, which was not a very good day in the Elizondo house, or they can make an assure you. But, you know, fortunately, for me, just, I just wanted up on being on some sort of kill list where other people actually, you know, lost their lives. So I'm definitely not saying that, that their line of work was was, you know, anything more dangerous than anybody else. But it did put me in a situation where it, it, it may, it still is technically, I'm still, you know, on that, that naughty list, if

John Greenewald 13:11
you will, which has not been been easy for my family, for sure. Sure. And I totally understand that. And I'm sorry to hear that. Because I know, that's obviously not easy for you, your family and anyone connected to you. So with that, though, what I wanted my audience to understand is the sensitivity behind this material that stretches well beyond a tip. I know, I keep saying that, but it's like, this has become such a bigger issue now. And that, that is why I got so attached to this a couple months ago when I realized they were playing that card. And they were saying, hey, look, for three years you fought for these records. And oh, by the way, we don't have them. Let me let me point out one thing that I'm not sure if I told you this privately, or maybe you read it in the in the email, but I want you to react to the importance of this before they told me that essentially, your your documents were destroyed. And I want to also be clear, and clarify, that's not just emails, by the records retention schedule, what goes along, missed that with that would be all of the attachments, all of the what they call text communications. And there was kind of a short list of things that are it's not just email like, Hey, you want to go have lunch today to one of your colleagues. You know, you're talking about the attachments and everything that goes along with it. When I started getting these no records denials, but never did they mentioned that your stuff was destroyed. I verified triple checked that they searched sipper net nipper net and Jay wicks to ensure that I would get everything they wrote back and said yes, never once indicating that no account existed, or that it was destroyed.

Luis Elizondo 14:57
Kinjo that's either one or two things, john either a They still had the records back then. And and they were knowing that you were interested them said, Yes, we search through all this stuff. No records of that specific request has popped up in that system. And knowing that they're going to go ahead and destroy these files, or the other option is they were already gone. And they were just stringing you along. But either way, if Something smells fishy, either, you know, those emails were there. And then once you won your appeal, they came back and said up, nothing to see here. Yeah, or those files already were destroyed, which they shouldn't have been. And they were just saying, Yeah, yeah, nothing to see here. Just move along. You know, we looked there. We couldn't find anything knowing full well that they were already destroyed. But either way it's it's it's it's no bueno. It's up someone is, is been been manipulating the FOIA process, in my opinion.

John Greenewald 15:57
Have you had a reaction not only from the social media world because this pop this article did become very popular very quickly within that world. But obviously, you're dealing with the media, the mainstream media, like on a hourly basis. Every time I turn on the television, and there's a UFO story, you are right there on camera. You. I hope we'll have an upcoming vacation soon. And get some sleep because me too. Yeah. Again, there's there's not 36 hours in a day, but you seemingly have squeezed that out. What is the reaction if any two people that you've been been talking to in the mainstream, and those that have kind of tackled like, for example, Gotti Schwartz, who have a lot of respect for with NBC, he seems to really dig and he brought out that Harry Reid endorsement letter of view. And obviously, Harry Reid has endorsed you since 2019, I think was the first time publicly, but now it's, you know, Harry Reid's letterhead, and so on and so forth. And that was Gotti Schwartz, and with his investigative journalism, he just kept pushing, pushing. And I respect that. Is there a reaction that you've been getting from? Yeah,

Luis Elizondo 17:08
yeah. You started a firestorm? JOHN, I mean, you've had everybody from Politico to CNN, Fox News, NBC, they're all looking at things right now, based upon upon your your article, you know, you know, that that's something I could never publish. You know, obviously, one of the things I always want to do is make sure I, I never come across a self serving because I don't do it for me, I do it for a much more sacred reason. And for me, it's to to get the truth out to the American people. With that said, You You hit on something that really struck a chord with some people in the mainstream media, and that is okay. Are we dealing yet with another iteration of the pentagon papers? are we dealing it with another issue, like we did with with with Watergate, where all of a sudden elements of the government are running rogue and doing things that they shouldn't have? And I think that's given a lot of people some some concern, because it's gonna lie about they're gonna lie about this. What else are they going to lie about? Right, you know, and that is, I think that is that has struck a chord in certain elements within the mainstream media as it should. Yeah. Because once again, you know, there is a requirement the Public Affairs Office, is, is enjoying to, to, to dialogue with with the media, okay, there's that we have open, you know, first amendment right, for freedom of speech. And of course, you have freedom of the press. These are inalienable rights that we hold very dear to us. And when elements in the government that are supposed to be fair and transparent, don't they don't behave that way, then you've got a problem in the past, there's been attempts by by these offices to mislead the press. And and it's never worked out well, for for the government to do that. Ultimately, the government has to be reminded that it serves the will of the people not the other way around.

John Greenewald 19:03
And and why I wanted to ask you that question kind of segues into the other thing that I wanted to catch up with you on was the alleged investigation by the D o t. Now what we know publicly is that they sent out a memo that they are evaluating that they went out of their way to not call it an investigation, but rather an evaluation of how the DOJ has handled the UAP topic. Now, there's a lot of rumors out there. But why I wanted to ask about the mainstream media about this is because part of those rumors are that and maybe this is more verified fact now, but I kind of felt more as a rumor that this was about how you were being treated, and essentially targeted by some of these pointed statements in the last couple of years.

Luis Elizondo 19:52
Since I have Well, it's true. It's true that they weren't targeting me and still do. Yeah, and unfortunately, they manipulate Good news, good people to do it, which is, which is for me, probably the most disappointing piece of this, you know, people that are truly just trying to find the facts and the truth, we're being misled willfully by it by a small cadre, if you will, or a group of individuals at the Pentagon. And by the way, that does not represent the whole Pentagon, I just want to make this clear. There are wonderful fine men and women working every day for that organization, and 99% of it is is just an exceptional organization. The problem is, as you know, it takes one bad apple to spoil the rest. And, you know, that that's that's what's happened in the Pentagon's been put into a position where it's made public statements based upon the input of a couple individuals. And, and now it's coming back to bite them. Rather than then, you know, just be forthcoming and truthful from the beginning. They try to be clever, and unfortunately, it's, but it's coming out one way or the other. And guys like you who are who are experts, eventually anything that is in the government's possession regarding that's unclassified, special like this, I can ID, you know, don't think that's not going to be made public. Yeah, it has to be made public at some point. So, so it doesn't do anybody any good to try to lie right? Now. That's, that's the last thing you want to do. And that's why having this IAG evaluation, I think it's so important because it's, it's, it's a bit of a release valve. You know, I'm a gearhead, right, so I'm always looking at in terms of cars, well, think of a waste gate on the turbo system, a waste gate is there to, to, to allow to disperse any overpressure in the turbo system, right. So you don't blow up, blow up the engine. This, I think ag evaluation is very much the same way. It's a waste gate. It's a it's a way to allow some of that pressure to be released in an appropriate way. That that is the purpose of the Inspector General is to conduct reviews, inquiries, investigations, and then provide those recommendations and those findings to the Secretary of Defense. So they can fix it. That's what the Inspector General does. And hopefully, hopefully, the big evaluation here will will do the same thing. I have full faith and confidence in the ag right now. I've had a chance to work with them. The past always found them very professional. These are also trained investigators, and some are auditors. Some are actual law enforcement investigators type in the intelligence community, but they've got a tough job, you know, and they're always they're supposed to be fair and impartial and objective. And so far I've that's that's what I've seen with my experience with with the DOJ big.

John Greenewald 22:42
So when I reached out to them, I was trying to fish around as I usually do. See what kind of fish I could catch. But I had asked them, you know, is is the is part of the angle is the angle, what is it with this evaluation? Would that be you and I got glow marred and for those who don't know, what glomar is they? They said we can neither confirm nor deny any involvement with Mr. Luis Elizondo. So where I say the rumor is I read Brian benders piece about this made reference to your ID complaint that you had submitted. I was surprised to see all that come out. But not surprised. I was happy, because as you noted, a lot of stuff will come out with that. So then, can I ask you outright as the evaluation that was that was announced? Is that based on your complaint? Or is that separate from this eval?

Luis Elizondo 23:35
I cannot speak on behalf of the government. I think there's two things going on. I think there's an honest attempt in evaluation to to determine what if anything went wrong over the last three years in the Pentagon's communication. Now that you've got this report due to Congress, there's a lot of pressure and at some point, people are going to start asking some very difficult questions, right. Doesn't matter what the report says. At some point, they're going to come back and say hey, Pentagon out that you said there was nothing to see here or Hey, Pentagon, I think you said there was something that's either way there they're in a corner. And and big is a good way for for somebody who's in a position of leadership, like the Secretary to say, look, I realized there was some consistencies and we we deliberately did this IAG evaluation to see where things went wrong. Okay, that's that's a prudent thing to do that, that that's something honestly, if I was in charge, I would do that as well. I would do a self initiated ag evaluation now. Are there elements of an ag? complaint? We'll call that a complaint that has been received by the DI G. Yes, that is also true. I'm not going to go into any specifics. Because I want the government the ability for the government to do its job without outside interference. You know, I don't want to I don't want to put I don't want to backup the government anymore into a corner than they're already in? Yeah, you know, I'm trying to offer on their own. And I'm trying to help them with a way out, right. I've been for the last three years seeing guys, come on. You don't you don't have to be this way. I'm not I'm not I'm not trying to hurt you. I'm trying to help you. Yeah, I'm the one guy that your friend in this. But I mean, it is true that that I spoke with with the do di g again, I've been asked Let me tell you what they do di g told me. Please do not elaborate on any of the questions that that we discussed or the dialogue. So that is that is what they asked. And I'm going to respect their their request on that. Until at some point, you know, I given the ability to speak more freely about it.

John Greenewald 25:49
When they sent the memo out it I read it anyway. But maybe it was incorrectly read that they were going to like kind of have this wrapped up by June, that it was a evaluation that they were doing in May. Do you have any indication when that eval would be over?

Luis Elizondo 26:07
Brother? I can't imagine any ag evaluation that's done in 30 days for maybe 30 months. But I don't know, unless they already have a preconceived conclusion of what they want to say. I don't see how that's possible. I guess that to me is that would almost be a worse indictment on the government, right? Because you can't do a first of all COVID has just now allowed some of these people to go back to their office. Right. So they haven't even been allowed in their offices until recently. So I'm not sure. You know, you're going to do an ag evaluation and 30. I mean, maybe maybe they drop everything that they're doing their job, which is I don't think the case. I know, that's not the case. But you know,

John Greenewald 26:50
yeah, it just the way that it the way that it read, it seemed like they were going to do this evaluation, and then again, partly an assumption on my part. But now we're in June when this report was going to come along. So I was thinking, you know, okay, what are they trying to? Do you feel that this is potentially going to be a delay for this UAP report? Or do you believe that those are maybe two separate issues?

Luis Elizondo 27:16
I think they're two separate issues. I hope that that the the, I hope that the UAP report is is too late, I don't think it will be. And from my understanding, it's going to be rather underwhelming, which is really a shame. My hope is that there'll be a follow on report, you know, this, honestly, 16 pages 17 pages isn't really enough to to have a comprehensive report of the last, you know, 70 8090 years worth of military sightings and documentation that exists. But, you know, I'm not in DC right now.

John Greenewald 27:54
So, not up to me, now you have said that you were and helped me with the correct word, but either consulting or working with or communicating with those that are creating this report or the task force, or both,

Luis Elizondo 28:08
I am doing my best to facilitate that process in whatever capacity that I am useful. without imposing my my own will, you know, I have been been quietly doing my best to, to facilitate it's in everybody's interest to have have a fair and comprehensive import, because not only does Congress expect it, but that's what they deserve, and ultimately serve the American people. So, you know, Don't you've already had seven years to screw this up. Don't screw it up anymore. Yeah, you know, I mean, for the love of God, at this point, here's your chance to get this monkey off your back now 800 pound gorilla that's been sitting on your back. Yeah, you know, you really want to carry that around for another decade or two. Don't do it. This is this is the time to, to do it. Right. And, and, you know, everybody at this point are we're all adults, we can we can handle the truth.

John Greenewald 29:04
My biggest fear, not trying to be a skeptic, but rather looking back at history and the Condon report. And, you know, I did this this article about essentially comparing how this is unfolding right now, and how it has unfolded the last few years and then how it unfolded in the 1960s. I eagerly await this report, but I fear that we are at what I call a Condon report 2.0 meaning, you know, this, this, this material that leaked out, which I want to ask you as one of my last questions here as we wrap up, but this material that leaked out, I fear that they put that in there essentially as fodder for saying, Oh, well, we know what these things are. We never, we never said that they were an identified which is true. And I fear that that is playing a role in this but we haven't seen that chapter written yet. Do you believe that's a possibility?

Luis Elizondo 29:57
Well, I'll tell you a look and I'm not Let me preface this one way, john because what I'm about to say some people are gonna look at, they're gonna say, you know, Who the hell are you to say that. But with all due respect the Condon report didn't have it didn't have Christopher Mellon, it didn't have Alex Dietrich, it didn't have Dave Craver didn't have gym slate, it didn't have Ryan graves, it didn't have me. This is, you know, if they try to pull something like that this is I've said this before, then they're gonna have a real issue on their hands, because that's gonna force guys like me who don't want to do it. But I will run for Congress. And I will make sure that if I get in this seat there, I will make sure total transparency on everything, not just uaps all the other crap that I know that goes on behind these closed doors, I will make sure that that that people come to heal on that. And that that the will of the American people will be represented period, I can assure you that there are elements in the Pentagon right now, that does not want to cat like me sitting in Congress, I promise you and sure that sun will rise tomorrow. Because I'm not a politician. I never happened. I don't give a damn about politics. I care about serving the will of the American people. And you damn well better believe I will do it, I will go in there and I will, I will do what is necessary to make sure we are never in this situation again, I will hold every single person accountable. Who's behind this kind of crap.

John Greenewald 31:26
You bring up an excellent point. Condon didn't have individuals such as yourself, but in fairness, they had others I feel Condon was essentially an effort to ignore those important voices then, and again, just kind of throw throw the question at you in a different way. I believe their intent was to dismiss all of that to create a narrative that they wanted. So the Dietrich's, the flavors, and all of that be darned, they had an objective and that objective was Let's wipe ourselves clean of this. And the chairman and the Condon committee, despite the voices they had had back then even a guy on the inside Dr. J. Allen Hynek, who saw firsthand and went from a skeptic believer essentially, that that those voices were just completely ignored. And they said not no scientific merit to continue this, we're done. JOHN,

Luis Elizondo 32:19
the only way this is gonna stop it. Like I said, Before someone puts a bullet in my head. If If, if I even suspect that the government is not being when I say government elements and the government are not being forthcoming with the American people, I will continue to pursue this doggedly and vocally, until the cows come home, I'm telling you, I feel the same. Chris is the same way. We're not giving up. We I know what I've seen. And same with those people that that, that I served, I took an oath, you know, to represent the will of the American people to defend this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Now, that oath has never changed. And I'll be damned if I'm going to sit back and let a bunch of bureaucrats, you know, abscond with with that responsibility to be fair and transparent with it with the American people. This is what I've said before the American government. We do not work for the American government, the American government works for us. And we must be prepared to tell the government what we expect of it. Don't sit back and wait around and let them tell us, oh, here's what you can have. Bullshit, man. That's not the way this works. who represent us Don't ever forget that. Because the day you no longer represent us, you're gone, you're out. Because you're no longer legitimate. Your authority is no longer legitimate. So so it is important that we, we we we gently remind our friends in the government, those elements that that forget their oath to the American people and remind them of their responsibilities, and make sure they don't confuse that responsibility with privilege, right? Sometimes we get when we get senior enough we start getting complaints that we start thinking we deserve it. No, you don't deserve it. No, you're there to serve us the people. And you know, this is why I said if I got to it, you know, I get pissed off enough man. Last thing I want to do is is get back into the fray of things. I need that like a hole in the head. I just want to be left alone and retire. There's a reason why I live in the middle of nowhere Wyoming. But, you know, hell, man, if I got to put my boots back on you know, I will I'll be willing to do that. So we can we can get we can finally get the answers that the American people deserve. And I'm not talking about you know, relinquishing classified information. I'm not asking I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is just be open and honest with the American people and don't deceive them. Whatever you do. The last thing you don't want to talk about a fine say No comment. But for the love of God, don't go up start wanting to the American people. Because that's the kind of thing that that, you know, that's not just gonna make me angry. That's gonna make a whole lot of people. Yeah. The last question I have for you before we Wrap up here is something that has fascinated me in the last month or so which is these leaked the leaked material that's coming out we've got various either videos. Let me say something I forgot here, by the way in case anybody Miss understands anything I'm saying here at no time do I ever advocate violence? Okay, that is that is not what I'm saying here. So I don't want people to say yeah, Lou's gonna go in and you know, I many cases of speaking proverbially when I say I'm going to go in and clean house that is that is using the instruments and the policies that are already available to people who are in a position of power. Okay, I don't ever ever I don't want anybody to misconstrue, what I'm saying is that I am trying to advocate for any type of violent act, because I am not, that is not at all the purpose of this a true democracy is one that is one through words, and not violence. So just want to preface that real quick, just so no, anybody has any in the back of their mind, you know, that, um, when I say I'm going to put my boots on, I don't mean I'm going to put, you know, put my boots on and carry machine know what I mean, to put my boots on and carry, you know, a billfold and a pen. Yeah, that's what I mean,

John Greenewald 36:10
I didn't take it that way. But I appreciate your your clarification. I think the restraint you've had in the last couple of years kind of speaks for itself. But I appreciate the clarification. But so the last question here, and then I'm gonna I know I have to let you go. But the leaked material, the videos, some briefing slides, and the swiftness that the Pentagon is confirming the authenticity taken by US Navy, utilized by ua PTF, but will not comment on the designation. What are your thoughts about this material leaking out? And what are we looking at?

Luis Elizondo 36:48
I think we've got a sincerely we have a very much of a schizophrenic approach right now by by elements within within the Pentagon, I think they've been beat up so bad, on their contradictory statements that now they're almost over eager to answer whatever they can, what's considered an easy pitch by the media. If there's a video that comes out rather than delay, delay, delay and look foolish. Yeah, that was one of ours. Yep. We're not going to talk about it. But that was one of ours. It's almost reflexive, you know, imagine sitting there at a at a batting cage, right? And you're in the 100 miles an hour pitch, batting cage. But instead of one ball, you've got about 10 of these machines, watching balls at you constantly. And I think that's what's happening now that the media has has snow proverbial blood and realizes the inconsistent nature of some of the Pentagon's responses. You know, they're they're not, they're not letting up. And I mean, your proof proof in the pudding man, you I mean, every time someone utters anything in the Pentagon, you're you're proof, you're falling voice, man, you want everything you know, and I'm sure that scares the hell out of them. And I know that that last thing you want to do is is be caught flat footed again. So I think they're probably just swinging the bat at anything that comes to them right at this point is probably almost reflexive, just just hit it. Hopefully you hit it. Who cares if it's a first base, second base, home run, or a fall ball just just hit the ball?

John Greenewald 38:18
Yeah. And just a quick follow up to that. We know the FLIR gimbaled and go fast videos when they came out. It took a little bit of time, but they eventually had given the designation of unidentified or UAP. We know then by that that designation is not in and of itself a classified designation, but they won't do it with these. Do you feel? And then I promise, I'll let you go. Do you feel that these this leaked material is truly, in your opinion, a designated UAP? And if so, why won't the government say it?

Luis Elizondo 38:53
I have to be careful because the I've been privy to information. It's my security clearance. And so I don't want to compromise. Anything that could be considered sensitive. So I'm not going to comment on on the specific videos that you're referring to the recent ones that came out. I know that the government has already stated their position that they are real. And I can tell you that they're real. I can tell you that now because government has said that. But I really can't go into any more context. Now, is it possible that there is somebody trying to throw a bunch of we call it cat litter, you know, if you have a cat, you have a pet cat that your cat will sometimes get a little boisterous in their sandbox and start throwing cat litter all over the place? I have. So you know, it's just an attempt for the Pentagon to throw little cat litter and, you know, try to throw people off off the scent so to speak. It's possible I don't think so. I don't think they're quite Forgive me for saying this. I don't think they're that sophisticated. I think they're too much in react mode right now. And I think what you're seeing is a disjointed approach to this topic. There are some people saying, Yeah, we need to be forthcoming. There's other people saying no, don't be forthcoming or be forthcoming about that, but not about this. I suspect that maybe maybe what what's going on again, I don't want to comment specifically on the last video simply because I, you know, I'm not at liberty to discuss discusses. Once the government has acknowledged further, more details, then I will be able to as well. But until that happens, I simply can't do that.

John Greenewald 40:36
Sure, fair enough. And I know that you probably have a light scheduled day of 8700 interviews ahead of you. So I, I'm at the end of my slot, but listen, I mean, it thank you for your reaction to the email story. I'm eager to see how this plays out. Because I think of anything and everything that I've written about a tip UFOs yourself, I'll be at some not so popular. But this I believe, is the most important and I truly, truly, truly feel that there is much more to this story to come. And I have this gut feeling that you and I will probably have some more things to talk about. Hopefully, you'll give me some more time when it allows. But thank you

Luis Elizondo 41:18
so much. I'm going to share something with you short, quick observation which this is coming from some some colleagues and friends of mine in the Pentagon. You are one of the few people that is truly feared within within public affairs office. I'm not kidding. I've had people call me say you're not going to believe what just came across my desk. I am not getting so it's you're making a difference. It's it's resonating. You are every bit as as part of this equation for disclosure as anybody else. And then you kind of make a distinction distinction between mainstream media and you but I'm not sure I think that line is blurred a lot. I think a lot of their stories and what they have is based upon your work. And all I can say is, you know, keep it up, man. It's it's making a difference. I'm hearing, I'm hearing a lot of good things in the Pentagon because of the pressure you're putting on people. Well,

John Greenewald 42:11
that's awesome and motivating. So thanks for letting me know that and, and again, thanks for your time. We'll definitely talk soon. So you take care of yourself, you family as well be safe out there. And have a great time with those 8700 interviews today. You've got to john, thank you so much. Thank you and thank you all for listening and watching. This is John Greenewald Jr signing off. And we'll see you next time.

The post Ep. #76 – Luis Elizondo On His E-Mails, DoD/OIG UAP Evaluation, and MUCH MORE appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Since October of 2017, intrigue and mystery have surrounded Luis Elizondo. He says he headed a secret UFO study known as the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), but his journey telling the story about his career at the Department of Defense has been challenged by the Pentagon every step of the way.

After years of seeking a paper trail to either prove or disprove his story, The Black Vault made a discovery that has turned the entire saga upside down.

According to the Pentagon, they destroyed Elizondo’s e-mail box. The importance of this, is that box resides on a short list of evidence that could help solve the mystery of what really happened during Elizondo’s days working within the classified intelligence world.

The biggest question when it was all over, was whether or not the DOD had proper authorization to destroy the data. And when asked, they were unable to prove it after nearly two months of being asked .

This is the story behind what really happened these past few years to unravel this mystery. So stay tuned – you’re about to journey INSIDE THE BLACK VAULT.

SHOW NOTES

• Full Written Article

Live Stream Version

Transcript

Transcripts published for The Black Vault are approximate, and done by AI, with a quick human pass through. There are often some minor mistakes, or grammatical errors, especially when guests talk about each other. These errors are not intentional. 

John Greenewald 0:04
Since October of 2017, intrigue and mystery have surrounded Luis Elizondo, he says he had a secret UFO study known as the advanced aerospace threat identification program or a tip.

But his journey telling the story about his career within the Department of Defense has been challenged by the Pentagon every step of the way.

After years of seeking a paper trail to either prove or disprove his story, the black vault made a discovery that has turned the entire saga upside down. According to the Pentagon, they destroyed Elizondo his email box now the importance of this is that botch resides on a shortlist of evidence that could help solve the mystery of what really happened during Elizondo his days working within the classified intelligence world. The biggest question when it was all over was whether or not the Department of Defense had proper authorization to destroy the data. And when asked, they were unable to prove it after nearly two months. This is the story behind what really happened these past few years to unravel the entire mystery. So stay tuned. You're about to journey inside the black vault.

That's right, everybody. As always, thank you so much for tuning in and making this your live stream or your podcast of choice. I'm your host, john Greenwald, Jr. And thank you for deciding to today take this journey inside the black vault with me. What we are talking about is, in my opinion, the single most important story that I have ever written on the a tip saga that is the rumored Pentagon UFO study, and Mr. Luis Elizondo himself. Now the reason why I say that is because I believe it, I believe, with what happened throughout this entire saga with me trying to essentially Unravel the Mystery on what really is going on with this program. What ultimately went down is incredibly important. And it actually goes to the heart, the soul of why I do what I do. As you know, I started when I was 15, hammering the government with the Freedom of Information Act. And I believed in two things, transparency, and preservation. Now, although I felt that there were some reasons for withholding information, and I do still believe that, to this day, I was a strong advocate for transparency and preservation. So whenever I hear no matter what the topic is, that something is destroyed or deleted, it's a punch in the gut, because I truly believe in the preservation of that history, especially with this topic, because they have seemingly been launching an attack about one of their own, one of their former own, where an employee comes out, he says what he did on the inside and they start slinging mud. Is it true? Is it not? I don't know, as it's no secret. I've been real critical of the man myself. But when it started to get dirty, that's when it got really bizarre to me. And we'll go through some of that today. But that is what this show is all about. Now, if you follow me on social media, you'll see that yesterday, I published this article, I was entrenched in this thing for months. The research itself goes back three years. Now I want to talk to you a little bit about what that story is now and where we're at. Because if you didn't read the article, I recommend you do so. But I do understand it's long. And it's detailed, but it had to be and that is why it has taken this long for me to ultimately come out with it simply because I had to dot every I cross every t triple and quadruple check what I was coming out with because if I was wrong, I wouldn't have forgiven myself, let alone the fact But I think a lot of you all would not have done so either just simply because the claim is huge. Yet when it was all said and done, I could not find a reason not to publish this. Now here's the quick synopsis. Luis Elizondo, the man who says that he directed that secret Pentagon UFO study that we all know is the advanced aerospace threat identification program, or you'll hear me say a tip. Well, the true value of a paper trail would either prove or disprove his story. Now, if you have followed, not only the black vault, but this entire saga, you'll know that there have been a lot of challenges and hurdles for this guy to overcome. Now, again, true or not, if you believe him or not, it doesn't matter. There are hurdles nonetheless. So if he's telling the truth hurdles, if he's lying, while they're hurdles, because he had to get by him. So he had a lot of challenges that were thrown at him. And yet, he just kept marching forward. That was always impressive to me. And as critical as I was for him to communicate with me once I was finally able to get a direct line with him, come on my show and take some of those difficult questions. I admire that. And, and it probably wasn't the easiest of all things to do, because you have the weight of the Pentagon saying that he didn't do certain things. Now the big one was that he didn't play a role in the program. He said he did. But before we get there, that wasn't the beginning shot. And the beginning shot actually came if you could believe it, through the Freedom of Information Act, even before the December 17 2017 article from the New York Times and Politico that broke the story of a tip and took Luis Elizondo story to the next level. Yes, there was a shot fired prior to that. Now why do I say it? Well,

when Luis Elizondo first came onto the scene in October of 2017. I literally was there watching it live at not there physically, but but on the internet where it's streamed live, and taking notes. Because the most intriguing aspect to that and it always has been, even despite the mud was Luis Elizondo, because he was the guy that that ultimately was proving something that not only myself, but others had been saying for decades. The government did have an interest in UFOs. They were investigating them, and they were a potential threat. That is something that has been so wildly overlooked from the Pentagon and the Department of Defense and the government and the intelligence community for decades. It couldn't have been anything else but a lie. That's why I was such an advocate for for pressing for more information and digging through the Freedom of Information Act. Elizondo proved all of that with that original press conference. But as time went on, those red flags started to appear those questions started to appear. And back to that first what I call shot against Elizondo came on November 27 2017. Because while I was taking notes that day, I had filed Freedom of Information Act requests for information, I believe it was maybe the next day the next morning, but regardless, I mean within 24 hours of Elizondo storming out on that stage, I was going after records. It took till only November a fairly quick turnaround time for the D o t to tell me that the program that Elizondo described, keep in mind, a tip had not been named in October. The name was never public until December. Obviously journalists were working on it, but nobody was chatting about it. There was no public, sizable material that I can bring to you is only Elizondo, his description, which essentially was described as an aerial threat program that was that they were looking at, essentially those aviation threats, those aerial threats that included UFOs. And so that was his description. So the way that I worded it to the do D was just that, that there was a program that was identifying aerial threats. I used Elizondo his testimony it was public and sought after information, using only the description that Elizondo said, That's generally enough to a FOIA officer. What came back was that the do said, we got nothing. We have no records responsive to your request. Now I have since appealed that I've won that appeal since 2018. The end of 2017 going into 2018 won that appeal, it is still ongoing. So despite what I'm about to tell you and in this video, just This particular case is actually still open. And the appeal is is granted. Regardless though, that was a red flag to me, because I thought, Well, look, this guy's out there talking about it, which means it's, it's likely not classified. Why would they have motivation to lie about it? So to anybody who researches government documents, that part didn't make sense to me. And that was always a red flag. And I never, I never had any problems, even to this day bringing that up, because if he is talking about it, you can establish that there is no classification about the existence of the program. That doesn't mean that aspects of it portions thereof deal in classified information. But the existence of it was not. So why would they say that there was no records. So that's why I appealed, and ended ended up winning the appeal. The second shot was the big one. And this is where I just kind of like if you look at what I was saying publicly and stuff like that, and followed the timeline. This is when I backed off, I'm like, Okay, this is going into an area that I did not expect. And this was then in, in 2019, the intercept had published this article,

I was floored when this statement came out. And you'll find me in the article. You know, I was cited in one particular section, because I was asked for a little bit of detail about what was going on, because I was digging into this. But as skeptical as I was when the Pentagon sent this out, and I know that the intercept wasn't the first to receive it, but they were the first to report it. I had confirmed it as well to ensure that it was a valid statement. And it was, that's when I backed off and went okay, this is I don't mean to laugh about it, but getting really bizarre, because it's one thing to say okay, that there's no documents on the program. Sure, that's fine, whatever, when you start taking shots in an actual person and say no, no, he didn't work on that program at all. He had no responsibilities on a tip and his entire career at that point was talking about not career but but but post resignation. His whole public persona was talking about his career as the director have a tip and so when that came out, I'm like, Okay, I'm out No, like I don't want I really at that point didn't want any part of it. Because I wasn't there to attack demand. I was there to critique the story. And even though there was a lot of bad rap that came along with that, like all Greenwald's out to get them truly I wasn't I was trying to figure out what really was going on what what really happened during a tip and yeah, ultimately, who is this man like? Did he had it? Is this is this a government cover up? Is this a lie? You know, what, what ultimately is it? But more than all else, it was about critiquing the story itself. The man just came along with it. So that was the big one. Now it should be noted that in 2019, when this when this all kind of came about Harry Reid, Senator Harry Reid, former majority leader when Senator when Luis Elizondo was was on the inside, he came out and vouched for Elizondo just weeks ago, in fact, about a month now it is April 26 of this year, Senator Harry Reid restated his endorsement of Elizondo I bring up the 2019 one, just so you know, that he he, although it wasn't as public as this one, Gotti Schwartz at MSNBC had had, or NBC had had, essentially really put this into the limelight. But Harry Reid's been supporting Elizondo and his directorship have a tip since 2019. So that is not new, the fancy letterhead with the Harry Reid signature, that is new, I had taken this letter, just as a side note here to the Pentagon, saying, Okay, look, you guys have maintained this position for a very long time about Elizondo, and he hasn't gone anywhere. He's continuing to do media interviews and making these claims. So clearly, whatever you guys are saying, it's not stopping him, and he's getting international attention. So my aim, and they've done it before, was to correct that statement, to have them alter it and say whatever it was that they were going to say, based on new information and new evidence, and sadly, they still post this harry reid letter, maintain that position, even as I'm talking to you today. They have not reneged why I don't, I don't know. But maybe that all plays a role into what happened as I was trying to track down a lot of this information in order to prove disprove the Pentagon Elizondo or both, you need that paper trail, because the spokespeople, as we've proven will change statements. They did that with me. So they will change their view. Although spokespeople you can cite their answers and there is a legal reason why I get spokespeople, statements, they're late. They're

what's the right word to say this, I can legally cite them in an appeal and they mean something, because the do de has has authorized them to speak on their behalf. So if a spokesperson says something that negates a foyer response, I can use that in an in an appeal. And generally they will, they will take that and in fact, it has worked. I have provable examples of that. So that their word as much as people hate them viciously, and don't care unless they say something good. But they don't care what those folks people say. There's a reason I go for that. And it is because it means something. So that paper trail is the only thing that is going to either prove or disprove what the spokespeople are saying, and what is the quote unquote, official stance of the Pentagon or the Department of Defense. One of those lines of paper trails, one of many would be emails. Now we know that Elizondo worked for the DOD, that has never been disputed, even with people that are highly critical, such as myself and throw everything through a fine tooth comb that was never disputed. What was disputed on the side of the Pentagon was whether or not he had this program. So what I started to do was to do was dig into his emails and dig into the paper trail to prove or disprove what he was saying. Now first up that came out was this voice response that you're looking at if you're watching this video, which was all about the emails between Luis Elizondo in August of 2017. I think the thread starts in September, but what you're looking at is in August, August 9, to be exact. This is the paper trail that got the three original videos to in December 2017. And then the go fast video in March of 2018. That got them reviewed. Now, according to Luis Elizondo, in an interview that I did for this channel, he was unaware that these videos ended up in the public realm. And he was unaware that to the stars Academy had them. And he thought for a bit while I interviewed him, and he and he says that he does not think that he knew that they were publishing them at all in December of 2017. So take that for what it's worth. But that is Elizondo side of the story. As we've kind of learned a little bit more. what he wanted to do was an internal database, tracking these threats. Now, he described them as drones and balloons. But his explanation for that was he used the terminology because he couldn't inform dopps or on the reality that they were UFOs or, or more accurately now, ua peas, again, take that for what it's worth, but this was the paper trail to show how it all went down. And so my thought process was Look, if this will add more to the story, then obviously, there's more emails. I mean, the guy worked for the Pentagon for what over a decade decade at least, or so. So that's a heck of a paper trail. Something had to be said about a tip is directorship UFOs whatever it may be. So I started digging in. I filed at least eight Freedom of Information Act requests specifically aimed to target Luis Elizondo his email now you can see here because I've seen social media chatter on this he Yes, he did have a do D mailbox. Yes, he did have an email account. Yes, he did use it. That's all kind of a safe assumptions. But I see a lot of people kind of firing at my article saying well maybe he didn't have one maybe he used private email. No, this was all through a legitimate God email all provable with documentation. So my at least eight cases because I think that there were more but eight for, for me being able to verify for this. I started seeking emails from Elizondo his mailbox that contain some of these keywords on identified a tip OS app, which is one of the other names that's connected to the a tip program UAP community of interest to the stars delong put off. Obviously you can see where I'm going with that. Obviously you can see that I was seeking out a paper trail to see What was going on? Was he talking with to the stars Academy? Was he talking about unidentified flying objects? Was he talking about uaps? Was he talking about the a tip program? All of that would come up in the course of this request. Now, a couple things of note. When you file a FOIA request, you stipulate a timeframe. That timeframe that I stipulated was the entire career of Luis Elizondo while he worked for the D o t. Hence, that email address I just pointed out to you would be used. I also put language in there that they may have more than one email address, that could be for whatever reason, and I stipulate that just to be safe, just to ensure that I get everything that I am looking for. Something really strange happened, though, you can see this was back in December of 2019. This specific case I use as the example because it's pretty much the most common sense. 19 f 1903. This was a request that I did for Luis Elizondo emails, all of them that contained the word on identified that was the specific request. There were the final determination in December, said there was not a single one, there were no records responsive to my request, you can see that clear is day after thorough searches of the electronic records and files. of no records. Excuse me, let me start over after thorough searches of the electronic records and files have no records of the kind you described, could be identified. Sorry, got a little tongue tied there. But that was how they said it. There was no records whatsoever. This wasn't the only case that was getting that others as well. A tip OSS app on identified the one I just read, yeah, all of them were coming back as no records. Nowhere Did they say the box didn't exist a search, not in a single letter. So I appealed almost everyone, the ones that I had, I felt the evidence based on public testimony, and what had been printed by other major media to appeal. I won every appeal that I submitted when it came to this particular topic, because I had enough evidence, the appellate authority, which is not the action officer that is involved in the foi request, meaning it goes to a higher office or adjacent office, whatever, but it's not the same. They are the appellate authority that looks at my case and says, okay, Greenwald put up a case. There should be something, there should be no records, it should be a response and not a no records response. So let's reopen this. They remanded back. It's called remanding. Back, they remanded back to OSD and they say process this again. So I won all the appeals that I submitted on these cases. Fast forward now to April, April 1 to be exact. And yes, as I noted in my article, the irony is absolutely noted in my head, April 1 2021. I got another no records response on this 19 F 1903 case, where they said there is no records. However, this time, there was new new language. And I'll read it to you. Please note that emails of former Department of Defense employees are not retained unless they are considered historical records and retained by the national record center. There are currently no existing email accounts for Elizondo for Mr. Elizondo, we believe that search methods were appropriate and could reasonably be expected to produce the requested records if they existed. Now remember those other emails that I showed you about earlier in this presentation? Here. Now note this back to the letter. In regards to the records you forwarded responsive to your FOIA request number 18 fO 644. The defense Office of pre publication and security review office located those records from their records system. those records which we released to you were responsive to your request for all records slash correspondence relating to the DD Form 1910. Sent to slash from Mr. Elizondo and their office. There were no other records located responsive to emails to slash from Mr. Elizondo in their records system. What does that mean in plain English? simply this, what they were saying in the first paragraph I just read you was that everything is gone. They didn't save Elizondo ‘s emails, it was more they were alluding to that, but I knew the writing was on the wall that they destroyed them. Now, don't worry, I didn't assume it. I do do have backup on that claim. So I assume that that that's where they were going with it. In my appeal, you could probably deduce from this that I used those original emails in my In my appeal, as a basis to prove my case, hey, there's got to be something responsive to this. They said that it was simply because they got it from dotser. Not Elizondo his email box, but rather the receiving ends, email box. And so that was the only reason why they came up.

Back to confirming that assumption, because to me, it's clear, but it wasn't clear enough. Remember, I always talked about triple and quadruple checking this is why, because if I ran to the internet and went, aha, they destroyed Elizondo his emails, I could potentially get bitten in the rear rear end if pie, assuming too much. And so I always try and figure out if I'm, if I'm right, when it comes to assumptions, or 99%, sure, but not 100. I always make sure. It took two months, two months to confirm that this confirm officially that this was saying it was destroyed. Now when I say confirmed officially, I was waiting for approved language to publish in two months, they could not produce it. why that is? I'll let you guys guess. I don't know. I will say that I followed up well into the double digits, trying to get those answers trying to get the approved language. I knew by by conversation, that yes, they were gone. And yes, they were standing by that, but I wanted to quote them beyond this letter. After nearly two months, we're just a couple days shy. Of the two month mark, after I first reached out, reached out for clarification. They still never gave me that language. But I said, Look, I'm done waiting. I shouldn't be expected to wait forever. This is a final determination and your letter speaks for itself. I'm just trying to give the courtesy that if I'm wrong, and I'm reading this incorrectly, I don't want to lay down a you know what storm on you guys? Because I essentially allege something that isn't true. So you need to tell me is it can you at least confirm. And I can fall back on this? Can you at least confirm that they are 100%, destroyed, deleted, however you want to say it, the data is gone. We can't access the emails. And there's no backup. And I was given that confirmation that I could then publish this article. But they knew it. I was not going to blindside them. I said, I said this is this is what I'm doing. So if I'm wrong, now's the time to tell me. And they said no that that that no matter what that they are standing by that. And that was it. So there is no official statement beyond this letter. And what's that frustrating? You better damn believe it because I again in the double digits was following up trying to get that approved language and trying to be fair, as fair as possible to the other side. And in the process of being fair. I've known over the years and over the decades of filing FOIA requests. In order to delete government documents, you need authorization or an authority to do so whether that be a presidential directive to destroy something, but more so what are called records retention schedules, or records disposition schedules. In my attempt for clarification with the do D. I specifically asked for that. They can say whatever they want, in addition to a records retention schedule, but I needed the citation. Now, in short, what those are, are records that ultimately define how long they keep government records based on type and subject matter, along with quite a bit else. But I'm giving you the nutshell. every agency is different. Every type of document is different. There's very much a public perception Oh, you can never delete a government record. It's illegal. It's absolutely legal. So when I knew that Elizondo his box was gone. I wanted the legal authority to do so because either this was a interesting story. Or this was a mind blowing story. Interesting because well, it was legal. And here's the records retention schedule, but darn it, we can't confirm Elizondo story or the Pentagon story about a tip and his work. Or it was a mind blowing story. They couldn't cite one. There's no authority and his boxes just gone.

It turned out A mind blowing story, in my opinion, will I be proven wrong tomorrow? Because then all of a sudden the do D kicks in with this record schedule that I couldn't find? Absolutely. That's a possibility. I'm waiting for it though. Because if if it takes two months for them not to produce that, and then I publish this article, and then like, a day later, they go, Well, you know, why'd you make such a big to do? Here you go, then yeah, I'll create a fairly big storm about that, because I gave them nearly two months to produce that. But here's the bottom line, I don't think they will be able to. Before I published, I spent way too much time going through what you see on your screen here. These are the records disposition schedules for the Office of the Secretary of Defense and all the sub components they're in. And there's a lot of them. The sub component there in that Luis Elizondo worked, was this one here, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, or Oh, usdi. I think now it's Oh, usdi and s, intelligence and security. So I think they've changed the name, but regardless, so he worked for this office here. You go through this records retention schedule, there's no mention of email. However, certain things I feel would apply, and so did Mr. Elizondo, but it wasn't good enough. What I did feel applied was something that I found after conversation with Elizondo Now, here's what we determined, as I was asking him questions, trying to figure out in all of these schedules, which by the way, totals a ton of pages, it's not just, you know, one sheet, you have to go through all these different categories. And it stipulates how long and I'll show you the part of it in a second, but to try and figure out the categories and confusing as all Heck, and and especially for someone who doesn't deal with it every day. It was a challenge. So I had to round it down to a couple different things. I started talking to Elizondo about it and really kind of digging into his background, the thing that we that I had determined that then defined where he fit in the schedule, was that he was called a non Capstone official. And that's important because documents in these schedules differentiate between non Capstone and Capstone. If you're curious what that means that generally that there are a high senior level position that is permanent. And so those Capstone positions are generally more important than you would see like a low level contractor or something like that. So obviously, much higher retention on something like that, generally permanent, wherein low level contractors would be a much lower amount of time. He was a civilian employee, also defined in the schedules, and he was not a contractor also differentiated in the schedule. Now, based on that and quite a few other things I won't bore you with I had it rounded down then to something that I felt was to the tee, and it ended up being to the tee, which was found in series 100. For all of you that are taking notes of the OSD records, disposition schedules, subtitled general office records, and here Here it is. Email retention for non Capstone officials. Here's the description all recorded information maintained an email accounts regardless of classification, for current and incoming non Capstone, OSD employees, civilian or military service members, supported by both D and non D email systems, including personnel on the Secretary of Defense Network who are not designated as Capstone officials. You'll note the key words that I just went through in conversation with Elizondo to try and figure all of this out. He fit to the tee in this particular category, from top to bottom. The key looked down here the disposition meaning how long do they keep it it is temporary.

It's cut off annually upon receipt destroy seven years after cut off essentially his cut off on his resignation December or excuse me, October 4 2017. I know that based on his resignation letter, and I also got it later confirmed in writing by the D o t. That means that he's supposed to be there that the documents are supposed to be there until October 4 2020. For what happened. I couldn't get a date of destruction. So I have no idea if it was within a day or a month or 30 days a six months, what, two years, three years. Doesn't matter. Documentation shows October for 2024. They should have kept some people thought emails just are deleted outright. I saw that on social media. To all sorts of theories going on around there, while again, this is 100% pertaining to email accounts, regardless of classification, let me take it one step farther, you can see here, it also applies to email messages and attachments, email calendars, and appointments, email tasks, email chat transcripts, and other communications maintain on D are non D Systems. that acronym is defense enterprise email, I think it is something to that effect. But regardless, it's D and non D system. So you know, everything. And that's exactly what this story was about. So those that are firing kind of those skeptical shots at this, just know it is spelled out, I even saw a well known skeptic, one who I actually like one who I hope will do an interview with me not about this. But just because I like his work, immediately dismiss it publicly, because it's normal or standard procedure or something like that. And it's like, did you even take 10 seconds to read that, that I that I have spent way too much time addressing that very point. It's not standard procedure. This, I believe is the procedure seven years. For those again, taking notes. I sent documents to Elizondo after I had established it's at least seven years, he was also looking at categories that he felt applied. And I want to point out in series 500, that there are different sections, which include intelligence, and special subject files, General systems and policy correspondence and coordination. All of these different sections would apply, he felt to him as well, across the board of what he felt applied. It was a permanent retention. After 25 years after Elizondo retired or the documents, origination date, either one, I believe, 25 years thereafter, it would be transferred over to the National Archives. Yet again, let me stress permanent retention, never to be destroyed. So for those who want to talk about policy, go ahead, because this shows that those records likely, and I'll say likely, should have been kept permanently. What I can comfortably prove is seven years. And we're still a couple years shy of when they were allowed to be destroyed. So what happened there? I don't know. But the fact that the boxes were deleted, and they've known it as they were processing my requests, because I was told you're getting no records responses because the box doesn't exist. Well, I was told that in the last month, I was never told that in the last couple of years. And in fact, to prove that point even farther, I was not just filing FOIA requests and getting no records and then appealing. And that was it. Rather throughout multiple cases, there were multiple instances of correspondence between me and the Freedom of Information Act action officers, this is one, the blurbs are my own just as a courtesy. But what I did was I was trying to make sure that the no records responses that they were giving giving me were based on searches that were siprnet that were done on siprnet nipper net and j wickes. accounts. Meaning if you're not familiar with those systems, it's just the different levels of classification that they can communicate on. So let's say everything internally about a tip was classified top secret. While that would be through Jay wicks, did they search it? From the action officer, I can confirm that we did do searches correctly, sipper nipper and Jay wicks accounts. And they signed the letter. What does this prove? Why wouldn't they tell me way back in December of 2019, when I started winning my appeals, why wouldn't they tell me that it was gone.

And I do have multiple examples. I link them in the article. I have multiple examples that if the government agency that you're requesting from destroyed records, they keep records of the destruction, so they may not have the records anymore, but they have record of when they did it. The FBI is a prime example of just that. And I offer again examples in my article, but they'll say we believe that there were responsive records to your request, or I believe they worded like there may be responsive records pertaining to your request, but they were destroyed on July 1 1985. And you see that a lot with like the mj 12 alleged members, you know, not to work mj 12 in there, but to use a related somewhat related example. A lot of those members have had portions or all of their files destroyed. And I've got the dates of almost all of them. So that's what happens when records are destroyed. But in this case, I was communicating with them about how they searched his email box. And yet here he they are confirming, yes, we can we searched all three networks. But by the way, the boxes are deleted. So it's moot. It's a waste of time. No, none of that. And instead, I spent all that time filing appeals, the appellate authority within the Department of Defense, who I guarantee you don't work for cheap. They spent all that time then reviewing my material remanding it back to the action officers. Then those action officers wasted all that time doing all of these searches again, on what, what were they searching? And why wouldn't they tell me and it wasn't until April of 2021 where they finally did. One of the other things in their letter and let me go back to that screen really quick. Former d o t employees are not retained unless they are considered historical records and retained by the national record center. What I want to bring up now is a provable undeniable aspect of Luis Elizondo, his background, largely overlooked. I've seen it mentioned by a few people but largely overlooked, and that is his his job title when he resigned. And when he resigned, he was the Director of the National programs, special management staff or the NPS, Ms. Now, what is that office? And so when I saw his resignation letter, and yeah, I had concerns on whether or not it was even real because it leaked out and it was kind of found through nefarious ways, but nobody's ever disputed it and Luis Elizondo himself, I think, has even made reference to it. So and then History Channel published it when I unidentified aired. So, you know, a couple years ago, it was like, Okay, well, then I guess this is real. And that office, I started digging in trying to figure out okay, a tip aside, you know, what, what are these? What is this office? You know, what, what is what is he doing? What was his job title? What was how many people were underneath them? What was going on? Was this code for a UFO office? Was this something else? And at that time, when it first came out, there was nothing if you googled that, that title, you'd only come up to references to Elizondo Joe's resignation letter, and that was it. There was nothing else. Not that Google is the end all be all. But you know what I mean, you search for Secretary of Defense, you're gonna come up with 22 billion documents, so it wasn't like that

at all.

So I started digging in deep. And the only at this point, the only official government documents that I was able to come up with were military corps transcripts from the Office of military commissions on the trial of Khalida Shaykh Muhammad, or KSM. Yes, the 911 mastermind. And if you subscribe to this channel a lot. One of the first videos I did was actually about these documents. And I said them that I'll say now i'm sure Luis Elizondo has seen a lot and knows a lot, obviously working in the highly classified settings and programs. And in this particular transcript, it was proven that number one, the attorney for KSM, was talking about the NPS, Ms. Because they were the quote SAP access people. Here's another part of the transcript and NPS ms came up. And the NPS, MS is the office it states the NPS, Ms. Is the office responsible for administering the Special Access Program for the Office of military commissions. And it was a line of questioning and it essentially went into Yes, that is what they do. I confirmed with Luis Elizondo that this would not only was his office, but he was there around this timeframe. You can see October 2017. kind of put two and two together, although he retired earlier that month. Obviously this was something that had been ongoing for years. Other than confirming a yes, that is him. And yes, he was there. He wouldn't expand anywhere else, which I totally understand. Going back to that if it's not a historical record, it's not saved. This is litigation of the 911 mastermind. If they are really going to argue that if Luis Elizondo himself or his office, whichever was communicating with KSM, his attorney and the background of why this came up was that one of the interpreters for the Defense Law SAP access, because they needed special clearance to work and potentially see what might be very sensitive or classified information that they had to select that and then give SAP access to not only the interpreters, but the defense and so on that came up in the trial. If you're telling me that's not historical, and something that is involved in litigation and potential evidence that could be that could be called on by an attorney, that that's not historical, and they just delete it. No way. There's none. It doesn't matter if you believe Louise Elizondo at all about his atep story or not, there is no way that anybody can tell me when you look at the actual evidence about what we know for a fact that Luis Elizondo did that his email box would just be wiped clean. And all of that stuff has gone and a tip material should it be there was just crossed a, you know, cross deleted off the face of the map. There's no way I don't buy it at all. And those records retention schedule sealed the deal for me. And the lack of ability that they couldn't cite one also was very telling, because again, those FBI cases unrelated to this can cite those dates when I request them. So something is super fishy around here. One thing that I have shied away from for quite some time is this lady here, who I deal with. And maybe after this video, we'll never deal with again, not by choice, but because maybe somebody is watching, but I think it should be noted. And what I'm saying here is sizable with documentation and historical fact. Back in 2003, Susan golf who is the Pentagon spokesperson, who is the sole spokesperson for UFO related inquiries from the mainstream media, anything related to Elizondo anything related to the UAP Task Force. And she fields all of that from not only the Pentagon slash d o t, but all the components thereof, the Air Force, the Defense Intelligence Agency, OSD, the US Navy, on and on. She is at this point and has been for some time, the only one that will talk about it. If you now look into her background, and you look that back in 2003, the evolution of strategic influence by Lieutenant Colonel Susan L. Goff, where this comes into play, and I have not talked about this at all, until the last week.

The reason is, is that she and I'll read it to you just to make sure that I don't mess it up. And I'll read the part of my article that deals with this, because this is cause for concern, not only by myself as a researcher investigator, but should be a concern to the general public. Let me read to you what I what I wrote, and then also, in turn quoting her paper, golf's background prior to commenting on uaps for the Pentagon has not made her popular, too many online UFO Disclosure advocates. In 2003, she authored a strategy research project where she wrote that the quote, orchestrated combination unquote, of public diplomacy, psychological operations, and Public Affairs, is the definition of what is called strategic influence. She adds that the do D need she adds that quote, The do D needs someone with the appropriate position and authority to oversee the policy and to coordinate do D strategic influence activities among God public affairs, military psyop and other military information activities. Do you feel that the person that is the sole person tasked to comment on ua peas? Do you believe that they are more focused on the truth? Or do you believe based on this they are more focused on strategically influencing the public? And that is the biggest concern that I have and have had for quite some time. But I've kept quiet on it, because we are forced to work with this individual and it will hurt posing these types of questions, but they need to be posed because after what I reported on yesterday, and what no one has yet been able to disprove and I am open to it. If they deleted the paper trail to either prove or disprove Luis Elizondo, the big fat question mark is Why? Because if it was, if it was not authorized, if there was nothing that legally allowed them to do it, why did they do it? And if there was some type of authority that allowed them to do do this, whether a publication or otherwise a disposition schedule or otherwise, whatever it may be, then cite it. Because after nearly two months of someone who has dug in for three years, and wasted an untold amount of time, let alone inside the Pentagon wasting all that time from the appellate authority to the action officers of the Freedom of Information Act, to the process of of having to in the double digits follow up to the people that I needed to follow up with asking for clarification on this. How much wasted time, money and resources is that all for what strategic influence? What was that the truth? And it just so happened to play out that way? That is the issue that what we are dealing with, that plays into again, the heart and soul and core of why I do what I do with the black vault, because we need the answers. We need the truth, not only because of this topic, and it deserves it, but because of Luis Elizondo and the fact that he deserves it. The fact that if Yeah, I'll say myself or if anybody else was used in a pawn in a strategic influence operation, call it whatever you want. But if it was not based on truth, and we were just used as pawns to relay that message, what is that saying about this topic? And about how the general public is treated? Now to the powers that be that may be cringeworthy, how could john go? conspiratorial, and the reason is, is because the documentation tells me to be the evidence is there that something is going on? It's clear for decades, we haven't had the whole truth I've been touting that line for 25 years is since 15. It's obvious the evidence is there. But what type of strategic influence are they doing now? And who may be suffering in the process.

As always, I am interested in your thoughts, please feel free to post them right down there into the comment box here on YouTube. If you're watching anywhere else, let me know. Because YouTube's the only place you should be able to watch to be able to watch this. But if you're listening, there are tons of audio podcast platforms, including Spotify and Apple iTunes. And wherever you get your podcasts you'll find the black vault radio, where this presentation and many others go down to audio form. So you'll miss out on the audio visual part, or excuse me, the visual part of the audio visual presentation, but make sure that you subscribe. And I always aim for five stars. The biggest help you guys can give me is that five star review. But an honest review. So if it's for two, if it's less than that, you know, don't worry about it. And also a thumbs up and a Subscribe here on YouTube. If you are listening and aren't familiar with the YouTube channel, make sure you go to the black vault.com slash live that will bounce you to the YouTube channel where I do stuff like this all the time or at least as much as I can. And that's a lot of fun. But as I always say thank you guys for listening, watching and this is john Greenwald jr signing off and we'll see you next time.

The post Ep. #75 – The Pentagon Destroyed E-mails Of Luis Elizondo: Here's How It Went Down appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Since December of 2017, the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, or AATIP, has long been touted as a “Secret Pentagon UFO Study” which lasted from 2008 – 2012. However, that has not always been the case to the Pentagon. In a series of conflicting and confusing statements since 2017, the official position of the Department of Defense (DoD) has gone from confirming it was a UFO program, to saying no it was not, to now saying it still was not a UFO program, but it did utilize UFO (or Unidentified Aerial Phenomena / UAP) reports during its research stages.

Read more:  https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/pentagon-now-admits-aatip-utilized-uap-ufo-reports/

Live Stream Version

Transcript

Transcripts published for The Black Vault are approximate, and done by AI, with a quick human pass through. There are often some minor mistakes, or grammatical errors, especially when guests talk about each other. These errors are not intentional. 

New Pentagon statements on AATIP and UFOs.

Yes!

They want you to believe that there's nothing new in there, that it's all just put together from past statements. But you know what, there's one little nugget that made the entire effort to get it worthwhile. And it was an effort that stretched well over a year, not only by myself, but numerous other media outlets and journalists and bloggers that have been pushing for answers. And they're finally here. What's it say? I'm not sure if it gives more clarity or confusion, but we're about to dissect it together. Stay tuned, you're about to journey inside the black vault. That's right, everybody. As always, thank you so much for tuning in and taking this journey inside the black vault with me. I'm your host, john Greenewald, Jr. And originally, when I was gonna do this video, I was just gonna do kind of a short, quick blast, as they're called on this channel, just to kind of update you guys on the new Pentagon statement that just was released on Friday. Now I call it new. It's mostly a cobbled together bigger statement of things that we've heard about before, except one section that I believe is the biggest revelation out of it all. I'll get into that in a minute. But when planning for the video and thinking, Okay, I need to revisit this and revisit that I did. So to kind of refresh my own memory and realize, you know, what, there is so much here, a lot of which that we haven't talked about any year or two, and stuff that I even forgot about. So I thought, you know what, let's just do a full show a full video, break everything down? What do we know from the statement? What don't we know? And where are we at this point. So in the planning now, for that, I realized, man, this is going to be a couple of videos. So stay tuned, because maybe there'll be a few that are going to drop here. In the next week or so with this, what I would call revelation. Now, what I want to break down for you guys is this statement. As I mentioned, it's kind of this cobbled together over the last couple of years, they've released smaller statements, so they cobble them all together to make this much larger one, and added some additional information. It seems to be yet another example on the side of the Pentagon for flip flopping, flip flopping in the sense that

they say one thing, one year, and then a year or two later, kind of go back on it, change it or so on and so forth. Do they admit to doing that? No. When I had written a story, I was not actually aiming for them to change, a UFO statement from the past. However, in conversation, it came up that when they originally told The New York Post, yes, a tip was UFO or UAP. Related, that obviously flip flopped from statements prior saying, No, it didn't. In the course of conversation on another story I was writing. She said, by the way, you know, essentially, and I'm paraphrasing there, but essentially, that statement was wrong. And they had corrected it and said a tip did not deal with UFOs or UAP. And they were not UFO or UAP related. So there's been a lot of these types of issues where they have flipped flopped. So that's why I titled this. It did. It didn't Okay, it kind of did. And that will make a little bit more sense here in a few moments. Will this add clarity or confusion? And that's kind of something that I don't have the answer to. I'm here to kind of make this video dissect everything. I'll let you guys decide on whether or not the Pentagon is being more clear with everything, or if they are just muddying the water and causing much more confusion. That, to me is a more common theme that I'm leaning towards, from a personal standpoint, that that may be by design. I wrote that in the article that I dropped today. But also, I will say to you here, I mean, maybe that is the pure and absolute intent with this mess on the side of the Pentagon talking about UFO and UAP related issues. Now, if you could believe at the root of this statement, what I believe is this statement is what Susan golf has told quite a few different mainstream media journalists and people that have written her that they were working on creating a more in depth statement on a tip. So in preparation for that, I'd created a page on my site, thinking that that was going to come in a week or two weeks, maybe even if you know, few months, it didn't matter, that it was coming, I had everything set on the black vault ready for that. And if you can believe it goes back to February of 2020. And this was not released until May 21 2021. So well over a year after that rumor started. And in fact, that was just when I created the page, that rumor was already I think, a month or two old, if not longer. So this is a big thing in the making on the side of the Pentagon. But again, a lot of it is stuff we've gone over. Now for the audio version of this, I am going to read the entire thing to you You guys know that I'm not a huge fan of just sitting here reading. But I think it's important for the audio version to hear the entire statement, but also it's a great refresher. Because I looked back some of this information was were in statements that I got back in 2018 when I was pressing the Defense Intelligence Agency, when they were actually still talking about a tip. Now it's all transferred to Susan Goff in the Pentagon, and she is the only person that responds to UAP and UFO inquiry. So here's the statement. The purpose of the advanced aerospace threat identification program was to investigate foreign advanced aerospace Weapon System applications with future technology progressions over the next 40 years, and to create a center of expertise for advanced aerospace technologies. The goal was to help understand the threat posed by unconventional or leap ahead aerospace vehicles and technologies that could have national security implications for the United States. The program commenced in the fiscal year 2008. With $10 million dollars appropriated in the defense supplemental appropriation act, DEA awarded a contract to a sole bidder, Bigelow Aerospace advanced Space Studies LLC. The contract was known as the advanced aerospace Weapon System applications program or you'll hear me say OS app. The contract goal was to study 12 technical areas lift propulsion control, armament, signatures, reduction, materials configuration, power generation temporal translation, human effects human interface and technology integration. The contractor identified and worked with academics and scientists to produce technical reports.

In developing the reports and exploring how to create a, quote, center of expertise, the contract allowed for research drawn from a wide variety of sources, including reports of uaps. However, the examination of UAP observations was not the purpose of a tip, I'm going to stop there, the statement keeps going, and I'm going to continue reading it. That is the bingo paragraph, there are at least a line or two, that is the essentially the best out of this entire thing because everything that I read to you up into up until what is highlighted there in yellow, for those watching the video, that was all rehashed of statements from the last couple of years, none of which has really changed, modified a little bit here and there. But the but the core of it had had always remained the same. What's in yellow, there is the new material, that is the stuff that made me go, Hey, wait a minute. This goes against what the Pentagon has said. But then they took it back. And then they said it again. And and they can't at this point. I'm curious if they can even keep the story straight. But that was that was the most important aspect of this. So I wanted to take a moment and at least drill into that particular part. And I'll revisit it in a few moments. But that to me was was the biggest part of that. What was very interesting to me was that when I was sent this, and I was not the only one, I don't want to give any impression that this was crafted solely for me. And it's an exclusive statement. Quite the opposite. This was actually forwarded to quite a few different journalists, and bloggers and so on. I don't know the whole list. I do know that Roger Glassell from Sweden had received it yesterday. He and I had talked kind of behind the scenes and I told him, I said, Look, I'm planning on on writing something as well. But I had held off because I knew that he was writing something. And I didn't want to just kind of like make it a race or anything. So I held off and I said hey, whenever you publish your article You let me know. And then mine was written yesterday, when I woke up this morning, Roger in Sweden, obviously much time difference there kind of went up, I think at like four in the morning, my time, something like that. And thankfully, it was Saturday, my alarm bell didn't go off at 4am like it usually does. And so I saw that he published it, I let it kind of sit so people could talk about his article first published mine, that's what you saw today. Or if you didn't, it's in the show notes. So this is something that was given to all sorts of people and journalists, I do know a couple other colleagues of mine were also sent this the route of it, though, from what I understand goes to a another media outlet. So they created this to kind of just blanket statement to anybody asking about a tip, they just go, here you go. And they have this really big, essentially statement that they can just reference to anybody who is asking the other. The other part of this that I will note that I thought was interesting when I was given this, it was kind of I mean, I'll say it was it wasn't an official statement. But in the email and this was sent that there was nothing new that essentially it was just a cobbled together statement of everything that they've released. And that nothing new threw me off, because this part in yellow, I've looked everywhere. I've never seen this and don't recall it. And in fact, they've tried very hard to correct this, to say that uaps and UFOs were unrelated to a tip. So anyway, quick side story there. But that is the the background to this statement and who has received it and it's a rather large list. So continuing to read from the Department of Defense. The first 26 reports were completed by late 2009. The defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 included an additional $12 million for the program, and 12 additional reports were produced. A total of 38 technical reports were delivered, the list is below. All of the reports are either classified or marked for official use only. Only a few have been released to the public. After a review in late 2009. It was determined that the reports were of limited value to the Defense Intelligence Agency. The department terminated a tip when funding for the program ended in 2012. The statement also went on to talk about the UAP task force or UAP TF. This is what they said a tip versus UAP Task Force. The UAP TF is not a continuation of a tip.

Since the majority of reporting about UAP observations in recent years came from naval aviators, the Department of Navy has been leading assessments of UAP incursions into d. o t training ranges and designated airspace since approximately 2018. Beginning in 2019, DOJ undertook efforts to formalize the good work done by the Navy for the Department of Defense. former deputy former Deputy Secretary Norquist approved the establishment of the UA PTF on August 4 2020. So they're trying to clearly differentiate between a tip and the UAP task force with with this particular statement, so what their aim and goal is your guess is as good as mine. But obviously, I think they're probably getting a lot of questions. asking whether or not the task force is just that continuation of a UAP program, which obviously they say it is not. One thing I want to do now is revisit that statement. I'm not going to read it again to you but but rather just cite different sections, but talk about the evidence to support what the Pentagon is either trying to say or whether it's lack of evidence. Because these types of statements I'll be at are very helpful. They can also create a lot of confusion as well. And the aim is ultimately we want clarity. But sadly we get confusion. So I wanted to kind of revisit a few areas, in particular the beginning when they talked about the purpose of a tip and how it was to investigate foreign advanced Aero space weapons system applications and so on and so forth. What's interesting about that is that as the language from the advanced aerospace Weapon System applications program bid solicitation, so the very public and and still reachable today, you got to go on wayback machine. But this was all posted in public this in 2008, was sent out for people to bid on to win the contract to get the funding from the US government, namely the Defense Intelligence Agency, and create these these reports. And this information that again, was looking at projections over 40 years, that was all SAP, but what's key here is that it seems like the Pentagon is just lumping together. Tip. And OS app is kind of being the same thing. Interestingly, when john mccain asked about this, many years ago, that letter has been released by the Defense Intelligence Agency. He asked about a tip, and he got the reports that were made under OS app. So it, it kind of seems like they just feel that it is the same program. And that's, that's backed up by the documentation. Because again, McCain asked about a tip he never asked about OS app. And in reply, the DA said, Yeah, here's everything that we created. And it was all the stuff that was done under OS app. So in their eyes, I feel like they consider it very much the same program, to where Luis Elizondo has gone out of his way to say they are not that all SAP was was essentially operated by his predecessor. And even the other day on Twitter had had did a tweet about this. I'm not sure what sparked it, I may have missed something that that may have rubbed him the wrong way that maybe somebody said he was the director of OS app or whatever. So I'm not really sure the core of it, but he had tweeted out rather sternly, that he was not the director of OS app, that he was the director of a tip. And that all of that credit goes to the his predecessor, which he has never named, I have a guess on who that is. But out of respect, I'm not going to start blasting his name. But Luis Elizondo,

again, made reference to a predecessor along with bass. So he wants to clearly differentiate between the two programs and how they were different. I'd love to know what the core of that motivation was to create the tweet, if you guys know, put it in the comments, let me know if I if I miss something. So back to some of the supporting evidence, just again, as a little bit of a refresher to what has come out in the last couple of years, the section of their statement, about $10 million in 2008, to create the reports. This was a document that was flashed on screen by George Knapp and one of the many stories that he's done. Obviously, George has great sources, when it comes to this kind of stuff, he's been able to come out with quite a few different reports and letters that nobody had seen before, been able to do stories on them. This particular document I don't believe he's ever released in full, but they used it as a graphic. And this was the, essentially the awarded amount of money, I assume, then for 2008 for fiscal year 2008. That was going to bass and you can see here $10 million, which absolutely coincides with the Pentagon statement. So those two very much match up. As you recall, it was noted that it was $22 million total. Well, there was 12 additional million dollars that were sent 10 plus 12 22 million. So that all kind of matches up and coincides with each other as documented by evidence and what was reported originally by the New York Times. That's That's all. Again, maybe just just too much information. But from an information standpoint, and especially an investigative one, you need all of that and the pieces of the puzzle to start matching up. So in that regard, it seemed like it matched up the part about the 12 technical areas lift propulsion control armament, that whole that whole list that the Pentagon stated was was the goal of a tip that is language that is again taken directly out of the OSS AP program, so that the the publicly available information backs up everything that they say. But again, they are 100% combining a tip and OS app here, meaning the Pentagon, why are they doing that? While to them it may have ultimately been the same. So there's a huge discrepancy there. People were involved. Mainly Luis Elizondo say they were different. I should also point out Dr. Hal put off, he actually sides with the Pentagon on this one, he states that all SAP and a tip were the same. A tip was simply a nickname. So those are the types of discrepancies from an investigative standpoint that do mean something. They sound silly, and it's like, oh, you're just nitpicking. But when you really start to, again, this leads into litigation also for litigation, going after these records. All of these statements, since they don't coincide with each other can absolutely be very problematic. In situations like that, as the general public, myself included, are requesting information, which may ultimately go to an appeal process or litigation. So we have a lot of discrepancies there on the relationship between us app and a tip the section about the 26 reports in 2009 and then the 12 additional ones the next year after review in late 2009. It was the And that the reports are of limited value to the Defense Intelligence Agency. So 2009 seem to be a very key year 10 million in 2008 12 million in 2009. They reviewed it at the end of 2009. And said, this is worthless. This is something that is not worthwhile to us, meaning the Defense Intelligence Agency, so they wanted to wash their hands of it. I have had an open request for years on what that review entailed and what it what it documented. But regardless, that has been a stance of theirs. Going back to I think I first got that in the beginning of 2018. From the Defense Intelligence Agency, when they said, This is why we stopped doing the OS app slash a tip contract was, it was of limited value. That year

is also key in 2009. Because just months prior, we don't know exactly how much. But this would be mid 2009. According to the Pentagon, the review was late 2009. Harry Reid was getting involved. This is his letter that he tried to get a tip SAP status. Now I've done a whole video based on this letter. It is intriguing. There are many interesting elements to it. And I won't repeat them all here. But just kind of putting it a little bit into chronological order here. 2009 seemingly, something was going on, you know, and Reid gets involved, which is pretty unorthodox for a senator to do that gets involved, tries to get SAP status, it was reported that it was denied. However, the response letter was not found with the Department of Defense when I requested it and essentially fought for years to try and get it. They can't find the response. But they after telling me they couldn't find this letter either have finally said yes, we did find it is still being reviewed and may ultimately be redacted in some areas. Who knows because this is a leaked document, who knows what will ultimately come out of that but I did do that huge report that has a heck of a lot of detail on this letter, but that was 2009 This is a slide from Luis Elizondo his presentation that he gave to move on. Now, why I wanted to bring this up was this is talking about the 2009 timeframe but also 2010 through 2012. So essentially, enter stage left Luis Elizondo, he comes into play and takes over at OSD. So let me go through this slide 2008 through 2009 preliminary results are broad and promising, including vast amounts of data collection and analysis. 2009 congressional letter sent to do D leadership requesting program status be upgraded to better protect the data and sensitive results due to the nature of the effort and likelihood of counterintelligence threat. 2009 specific elements and do D resist the effort based on philosophical differences. The fact that the phenomena is real is not denied. 2010 through 2012, a tip moves under OSD rather than di. So according to Mr. Elizondo, that 2010 Mark was when a tip transfers over to OSD. And he then starts to become the director and lead this a tip effort investigating UFOs what's very, very weird, which has not really been addressed as again, that Pentagon statement that talks about Ace a tip and OS app as a whole, that they're essentially the same thing. And that they awarded the $22 million over those two fiscal years. What happened in 2010, to 2012. Now again, we have Luis Elizondo his testimony he was out there, he's investigating UFOs, even while beyond 2012, into 2017, when he retired, so we have that. But on the side of the DOJ in the Pentagon, those two years are completely absent from any of their statements. They really just don't talk about it. They always refer back to the reports, the 38 derd reports that were referenced earlier. And that's it. So for two whole years, how much money went into that in addition to the 22 million that funded basses involvement, how much money went into that and what happened, and that is a complete hole that I don't think a lot of people deal with. So you have these gaps in the timeline of what essentially happened. So when you take that program from DEA and you put it over to OSD and then again enter Luis Elizondo takes over the program, what happened, and that's something that the DLD just has not touched yet and I'm not really sure why I'm you know, I mean, if if it if it stayed without UFO involvement, that's fine, but at least say something. And it seems like that's just a two year gaping hole that they have never, ever touched. Moving on that part about the UAP taskforce that obviously All checks out for those who pay attention on August 14 2020. They release that press release that you see on your screen here that the Department of Defense established a huge, unidentified aerial phenomena Task Force. So obviously very much unfolding right now. There's a lot of roadblocks when it comes to the UAP TF, where a lot of it is classified or so they claim from the spokespeople, I always say Challenge accepted, because through FOIA, sometimes you get very different results. But of course, going back to that bingo sentence, or sentences rather, and developing

reports and exploring how to create a center of expertise, the contract allowed for research drawn from a wide variety of sources, including reports of uaps. However, the examination of UAP observations was not the purpose of a tip. I read it a couple times through this video, but for a reason, because they have been so weird about this, about admitting that UFOs or uaps had anything to do with a tip or OS app. Now, this is where I kind of get myself in trouble with some people because they don't like me saying these two words, which is sweetheart deal. As we know, Harry Reid, who spearheaded getting the funding, which ultimately turned out to be at least $22 million. He spearheaded getting the funding for a longtime friend. There's no disputing any of that, that Robert Bigelow and harry reid have not only known each other for a long time, but Robert Bigelow has a history of donating to Harry Reid's past campaigns. Does that play a role in this? I would say yes. is a sweetheart deal accusation completely destroying or dismissing any UFO or UAP data that came out of the program? No. And that's what people don't understand with me bringing up sweetheart deal is that that doesn't negate what they found. But it puts in into proper context to understanding all of this muddy water. So a lot of theories out there have said, Well, once this goes into the private sector, it's totally off limits. And it's hiding from the foyer. That drives me nuts because that's not true. I have a stack of Bigelow Aerospace emails that I obtained through the Freedom of Information Act that disproves that. Of course, there will be elements once things go into the private sector that will remain off limits to FOIA. I've never have argued that being fully invisible. That's, that's a farce. Because there has to be deliverables there has to be something in return. Take OS app, for example. They had to create those reports. That's essentially a deliverable. So here, Bigelow Aerospace, here's $22 million dollars. Bigelow Aerospace says, Okay, here, da, here's 38 reports. And that's that that's a contract. Those are your deliverables. So you're going to throughout that timeframe have communications, you're going to have a program manager that is on DEA side. And you're going to have people in Bigelow Aerospace aside that are the program leads in this case, it would be Dr. Hal put off, or at least that's what he has said, and nobody's ever disputed that. Between da and bass, you're gonna have those communications. Of course, I can't fly a bass or Bigelow Aerospace, but you can on the DIY side, and you can get those communications. You can foil up any journalists emails, not for any other reason other than you can FOIA an agency and their communications with, let's say, The New York Times, I have a video on this channel that talks about that. And you can see how those communications take place. Because the moment you write a letter in its public public record, it just is it's not classified. And it comes up in a government system airgo, subject to the Freedom of Information Act. So that whole allegation that it's completely off limits, get that out of your mind, because that's provably false. So a lot of this information, in my opinion will come out eventually, when it comes to communications and what bass was really doing. Where the confusion is, going back to the sweetheart deal thing is it is possible that yes, Harry Reid wanted to do his friend a bit of a of a favor. I'm sorry, but that happens in politics, if anybody doubts that just open the history books, but maybe he wanted to do him a favor and in the same respect, start tackling something that they both had an interest in. As Bigelow Aerospace would get this money, they had the deliverables that they had to follow. Phil, that's what you see in the 38 reports, many people have noted, wait a minute, there's a lot of this that doesn't have anything to do with UFOs. But of course, there's like a random one about Drake equation, and then another one with human effects on tissue and stuff like that. Those were kind of the wildcards, everything else was exactly what the OS app language was asking for. So getting that money over to Bigelow achieved two things, yes, that sweetheart deal they happen. But in addition, satisfying the curiosity of not only Robert Bigelow who we know has a lifelong interest in this, but Senator Harry Reid as well, who has said numerous times that he has been interested in this topic for a very long time. So fulfill what you can for us app, but take that money, and let's go investigate UFOs. Because in a broader spectrum, this could have been the Segway for more money and a different contract, essentially, and this is a guess. But it makes sense that Bigelow Aerospace would take that money, fulfill the contract, funnel some of that money into UFO UAP research, or I'm sure werewolves and ghosts, and whatever else people want to claim all SAP was, which, you know, that's a totally different gripe of mine in itself. I don't buy it. But let's say that he decided to do that. The idea then would take that data, especially more so with the UAP stuff, because I can, I can see that a little bit more, go back to the DA and say, Okay, look, in the process of doing OS app, it is possible to learn, features, characteristics, even maybe composition of highly advanced aerospace pieces of technology from these UFO or UAP cases, alien or not, that doesn't matter anymore. What that would translate to is a potential new contract. That if he was able to convince those that were on the CIA side, hey, look, you know, here's what you guys wanted with us AP, but we can spiral this out, and we can do something else. That is a possibility. I know that there will be some people that will hate me for posing that. But that makes a lot of things make sense. You have the Pentagon saying? No, it was not UFO UAP investigations. But with this new one where they included UAP reports. That makes sense. It would make sense that that Robert Bigelow would would utilize that from from the money that he got from from Harry Reid. And, of course, there were two other senators Stevens and inouye, who, who spearheaded that also, but it seems like Reid really took an interest in this. So he gets all of that money and starts putting it into. Yes, the contract, but his own personal interest, trying to spiral that out, going back to the Pentagon. That all makes sense. Because if they said they utilized UAP reports, well, he did. Was it a UAP? program? While according to them? No, neither was it to the bid solicitation. No mention of UFOs or uaps, as I said in the beginning of it. So that sweetheart deal. What are the odds that someone like Robert Bigelow, who had this interest in UFOs? What are the odds that he bids on a weapons system applications program gets awarded the the program, and it secretly was worded the way it was, but in the background, it was intended to be a UFO or UAP research program. Right? Like what are the odds that that he would land that? What are the odds that he's the only bidder? No one else went after that contract. It was only up for a couple weeks posted online accepting applications. Robert Bigelow had created the bass LLC, limited liability corporation in January of that year. And yet the bid solicitation did not go up until I believe it was August of 2008. And it was reported that bass was 100% set up for that contract. Well,

how did he know

in January, unless it was set up? And if it was set up, which, in my opinion, it likely was? If that was set up, then at what point? Did the CIA want UFO or UAP research at all? Was this a spiraling off of the reservation a little bit connecting it to the point where they say okay look, we can use this database from this international organization to look at what people are seeing and the better cases those that maybe even have, physical object to to look at. We can utilize that and we can understand the techniques A little bit more reverse engineering, if you will, and take it, dissect it, learn about it and see what it is, again, alien or not, it's irrelevant. That was there in to tell the DBA. From an intelligence standpoint, this is why UFOs or uaps matter. If the DA just doesn't care, they're going to pull the plug, which is what they did. So apparently nothing came about that missing two years, I think is key to understanding this whole story. And I've interviewed Luis Elizondo, we've come a long way in the last couple of years of, of communicating with each other. And what I mean by that is, you know, I'm highly skeptical about everything. He was definitely in that category. I'm still skeptical. But I'm also skeptical about everything, Pentagon included. So that's just who I am. It's how I operate. That's why I keep pushing for answers. But that sweetheart deal. Angle is something that isn't touched. And it should be, it's not pressed upon, and it should be. And I think it's supported by documentation, or the lack thereof. Now, why is it that Bigelow Aerospace has been completely mum about this? He only grants interviews that I've seen to George Knapp, a KLA s TV in Las Vegas, who happens to be also as we all know, a friend of Senator Harry Reid. So George has great connections to secure those types of interviews. And and kudos to him because a lot of information has come out from them. But you don't go beyond that. Right? We don't see him on 60 minutes nowadays being pressed on what happened during a tip and OS app. Why not? And and those are all things that I have really no answer to. I'm also curious to why not a whole lot of people are pressing. The fact that Robert Bigelow got in with move on, started funneling money into them in exchange for the database of sightings. Now, I won't pretend to know that I know all the ins and outs of that deal. But I know enough to know that when people submitted sightings to move on, I highly doubt that they did so with the expectation that it would wind up with a government contractor and turning over their information, potentially to a US government intelligence agency. Did that happen? Well, Your guess is as good as mine. But it was during the time that that Robert Bigelow was doing OSS app, that he was also funding the move on Star team, and they were going out and collecting this information and seeing what was out there. What were witnesses seeing physical descriptions, characteristics, potentially even,

you know, UFO

debris, if you want to call it that. And and, and learning from that, never knowing or telling most of the people involved, hey, by the way, it's potentially taxpayer money that's going towards this. I'd like to know the details of that. I think we all deserve to know the details of that was the $22 million, or a portion thereof, used to essentially get in with move on, take that money that you and I paid for through tax dollars, and start purchasing information on UFOs? Does that negate any results? Of course not. But it all gets put into proper context with context, once we get those particular details? We, we can't be afraid to ask those questions. I want to know I want to know the relationship between all of these players involved. We know some but we don't know all. And when pressed, it seems like some people may get a little uncomfortable and they don't want to talk about it. So I'm not going to point fingers with that. But I hope some of you pay a little bit of attention on when people are being interviewed. And they start talking about the connections between X, Y and Z how some of these key players are connected. You can see some people get very uncomfortable. And I find that incredibly telling. One of the other things about this whole issue is trying to connect again more of the paranormal stuff less about the UAP. But more of the paranormal stuff with all SAP and that whole accusation that they were doing the skinwalker Ranch stuff. Where I again lean towards a sweetheart deal that Robert Bigelow was going away from what DEA actually wanted, is the fact that none of that would fit into the CIA's mission purview at all. They're an intelligence agency and an intelligence arm of the Department of Defense if you're not aware, this is a quote from their essentially mission statement online. At DEA we provide military intelligence to warfighters defense policymakers and force planners and the Department of Defense and the intelligence community in support of US military Planning and operations and weapon systems acquisition. We plan, manage and execute intelligence operations during peacetime crisis. And more. You can see where potentially UFO information would be maybe valuable. But yet, that's wasn't really what was going on at the CIA. The rumor the allegation was it was more of the paranormal stuff through us app, the UAP stuff then according to Luis Elizondo was essentially branched off into what ultimately became a tip. It was a separate program, and it went to OSD. Okay, so even though I can see a connection with UFOs, and uaps, with DEA maybe. And obviously, they have a lot of documents that I've talked about on this channel before. That's not what the story is. The story is, they were at skinwalker Ranch, doing research on cryptozoology creatures and stuff like that, that that's the story. And I don't buy it. I just don't, if you were to take out the dye and put in the FBI. Okay, maybe if they were investigating crimes on domestic soil, that would be the FBI is jurisdiction, and that would fit into their mission purview. But the DEA doesn't have an interest on US soil, of what what's going on like that. They don't care if there's a werewolf running around in Utah. That's not their mission. That would be something else that would be another government agency. And that's proven with history. You look back, you look at government documents, you can fit the intelligence reason on why they were researching, let's say, Mind Control, with the CIA, that was an offensive maneuver. That was something that they wanted to utilize against captured Soviet agents, and so on and so forth. You can see that you can see why the Defense Intelligence Agency going back to them would would research remote viewing, and why they would want that for an intelligence standpoint for planning. So you can see the connection between all of that. Interestingly, the head, you know, one of the main people involved with

the remote viewing in the Stargate program was Dr. Hal put off. So it's a very small, tight niche world that we live in here when we talk about these types of programs. But I digress. So the difa that made sense fringe, totally fringe, something out of the box, but fits into the purview, cryptozoology, skinwalker Ranch stories and lore legends and stuff like that. I don't see it. So that's why I've had this huge problem with really kind of understanding what all these different stories mean, because there are so many contradictions and things that don't make sense. When you put it back to the do D with Luis Elizondo that makes sense. The question mark is, why is the Pentagon doing this? If they are 100%, lying across the board about Luis Elizondo, and a tip not having UAP investigations, but sure they utilized UAP reports. Let's just assume for a moment that they are 100% lying, which isn't far stretch, but regardless, let's say that's all a lie. What's the end game? Why don't they just leave it alone? And yet they haven't. A lot of people are very excited about the UAP Task Force. And the the report the you know, the coming report here in June, which I think is going to be late. But regardless, everybody's so excited that that something is going to come out of that. My question is, is why? Now we have the Inspector General investigation. Some people think that that will reveal a lot, yet the Department of Defense and I am a witness to this. The Department of Defense is still sending out these types of statements, not only the one that I'm talking about, but even the one that took their shot at Luis Elizondo, so to speak, and attacked his credibility, they are still giving that out even after the Inspector General announced their investigation. Now, why do I point that out? Because of the AIG had any kind of concern? over these types of statements? I would imagine that the DOJ would be essentially ordered to say, look, stop giving out statements. We need to evaluate what you guys are doing. That makes sense. If the AIG is doing an investigation, yet, that apparently hasn't happened. There was a rumor online that I even saw that Susan golf got fired. She didn't By the way, I'm not saying that. I'd obviously talked to her yesterday. But regardless, like that's the type of stuff that gets put out to the internet. And people really glom on to it and they want to hear that Susan Gough, you know, the the evil character in the saga was was sacked, you know, and somebody else is coming in. But in reality, that's not true. The AIG announced their investigation yet the DOJ is still moving forward with putting out this information on a tip as early as yesterday. And they are still giving out the information about Luis Elizondo, and that also is a fact in the last week. So there's this crazy agenda here. But to what end, is the intent to create this massive amount of confusion and and i don't pretend to have the answer to that. But it is something that I think is is worth pursuing and continuing to ask these questions. Because I don't I'm not taking aside in this battle, but I am intrigued by that motivation. One other thing that came up was recently that kind of plays into this statement with with the Pentagon is Luis Elizondo was asked by my friend and colleague Steven Greenstreet over at the New York Post. Very cool guy if you don't follow him on on social media, he's very active, works for the New York Post and he hosts the show called The basement office. You'll see Nick Pope on there a lot as well. But Stephen is the the host of that. He's the he did a sit down with Luis Elizondo and asked him about essentially the Pentagon saying no assigned responsibilities on a tip. They are standing by that they have not faltered from that, that viewpoint, they haven't changed. So Steven asked, Luis Elizondo that this was his response. There are some people in the Pentagon that still don't like me very much. I think they're pissed at me for the way I left. They're now trying to thread the needle saying he had no assigned responsibilities with a tip. I had no assigned responsibilities because I was working get mo for the Department of Defense, these assigned duties exploring the reality of UFOs. Were coming from the legislative branch.

This is one of the first time I think maybe the only time but the first time that I've seen Luis Elizondo say that his orders were from the legislative branch. I'll be honest with you and say, I had no idea the legislative branch could give a do DEA Special Agent orders. And we know that you know, the legislative branch is going to include the Senate and the senate at this time obviously included Harry Reid. We know Harry Reid has gone to bat for Luis Elizondo with his own letterhead and stating this this was kind of a reissued statement he had told George Knapp a year or two ago that he said Luis Elizondo headed the program. He now put it official this was for gadi Schwartz, and his reporting at NBC. And this was put on online as well to support Luis Elizondo. And essentially he said, as one of the original sponsors of a tip, I can state as a matter of record, Lou Elizondo his involvement and leadership role in the program. So he's negating the Pentagon. Pentagon hasn't changed their stance on it. And I do know that they have this letter. I do know that they have commented after, and that this hasn't changed anything. So it goes back to that question, What in the world is going on? And I, I will probably go to my grave trying to pursue it. Because at this point, I'm so invested in it, because it's a big riddle, and a puzzle. Because when you start digging in, you have to dig in at every little detail and every little, you know, nook and cranny of this, you can't just blanket statement, anything you can't blanket conclude meaning there really isn't one conclusion, there's not one answer, you have to drill into every little bit. And you can start drilling into Harry Reid and start asking quite a few questions also. Because that letter where he's talking with authority on a tip, and he knows Luis Elizondo, and so on and so forth. That kind of goes against what he has said in the past. And what he said in the past was about being briefed on the program that he never was. He never understood what they were we're never was briefed to fully understand what they were going through New York Magazine and asked him in 2018. Were you ever briefed on it in Harry Reid's own words? He said, No, I left everybody alone. Nope. is what he said. And so the the journalists who wrote that followed up again, you were never briefed, not once, and and read responded, that's not my style. Nope. So he knows a lot about a program that he wasn't essentially briefed on. So why would giving orders. Now I'm assuming that it was Senator Harry Reid. But who else would? Who else was pointing the fingers and ordering Lewis Elizondo around? Right? And that doesn't make that doesn't make sense. It would be anybody else. I mean, we can see a clear, not only interest, but involvement from the inception of it to whenever he got involved and started giving orders to OSD. So again, I fall back on that surprise that I had no idea the legislative branch could dictate orders to a DOJ Special Agent, who was also working get Mo. So there's a lot of weirdness there. But why was he calling the shots or at least creating, you know, the shots for him to to pursue? If he was never briefed on the program? How would he know? So those types of things when you start drilling down are so weird, it doesn't really make sense. Another thing that came out in this interview that I really have been confused about for for two and a half years. This is what Harry Reid said, let me give you something that the press has totally failed, and conjured. We have hundreds and hundreds of papers, pages of paper that have been available since this was completed. Most all of it 80%, at least is public. You know, something? The press has never even looked at it Not once. And then he goes on from there. 80% of a tip related material, he says is public. But where is it? It's 2021. So he's been been saying that the majority of a tip is all on classified and public, yet has never produced anything. I have reached out to Harry Reid's office multiple times in the last quite a few months, if not a year plus trying to get answers never once have received over sponsor callback. So for whatever reason, I call this mud. Because if you say 80% about a program is is public, there's no reason that the Pentagon could not get their story straight on something. If we were talking about the next generation, stealth fighter,

sure, I can understand how things will get money, you're talking about highly classified secrets, going into the private sector with programs that were probably authorized with black money, so on and so forth. But that's not what this is. All for all the evidence put together. There's a lot of stuff that's very public about this, all SAP was always posted online. So you you have those very public elements. So I would believe this statement. But nobody's ever produced anything. So what I would recommend to you guys is continue asking questions, I will hopefully have a story coming out very soon. That will be very interesting. We'll put it and leave it at that. But it will add to this narrative that there is something weird going on. There is something about this program, whatever it might be, that they don't want to talk about. The God is not afraid to say uaps to say they have a taskforce to say that they are investigating them to say that they've investigated him in the past. But what is their problem about a tip? Why is it so secretive? What is their problem with Luis Elizondo? Why is that so muddy? So it doesn't matter what side of the fence you fit on? I know some people hate me for bringing up the questions. But you got to ask the questions. Because the answers that are coming out, it's creating a much bigger picture, something that we haven't fully grasped or understood yet. That is what's going on and unfolding with these questions. And I think that the story that that I will push out to you guys pretty quick, will also add that there are some very interesting elements that have yet to unfold. And I'm excited to bring it to you. So I hope that wasn't too long winded for you. But I hope you guys got a little bit of a background on not only the new statement, but obviously some of that supporting evidence and the material that's been around for the last couple of years. But as I can attest to sometimes it's largely forgotten about until we make a video like this and kind of refresh all of our memories about it. So until next time, I look forward to the next time the Pentagon wants to throw their own bucket of mud sludge into the water. But I will do my best to try and make sense of it. I am always thrilled to see your comments whether good or bad, just be nice. And I'll be nice back to you. Put them back down there if you're watching on YouTube. And of course, a big big thumbs up is what I aim for. Make sure you're subscribed to the channel. And the biggest help of all is sharing the content if you find it valuable. I know sometimes it's long and it's a lot of information. But if you find it valuable sharing it is the biggest help to me and for those who are interested into pitching in To support the site I have a Patreon as well, that also is in a link below. That being said, this is john Greenewald, Jr. Signing off, and we'll see you next time.

The post Ep. #74 – Pentagon Now Admits AATIP Utilized UAP / UFO Reports appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

To some, the Nimitz UFO Encounter defies all scientific explanation.

It has everything you would want for a UFO case to be credible… from powerful eyewitness testimony from those who were there to a video recorded by the U.S. Navy of an object that simply cannot be explained. The abundance of that evidence proves to some who look at it, even to one of the fighter jet pilots who engaged the object known as the “tic-tac,” that this may be an encounter with an object from another world.

But others say not so fast. They believe that the mysterious object chased by multiple f-18 fighter jet pilots is simply a misidentification of a known object. And the video that has circulated around the globe fascinating many who have seen it? One of three videos that has caused an international super storm of curiosity about the UFO topic? Well, skeptics believe that is easily explainable once you dissect what the video is actually showing.

So, which side is right? Are we finally looking at undeniable evidence that we are not alone? Or does that evidence that seemingly proves such an explosive revelation, fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny?

My guests today, both think they have the answer to those questions. And after vigorous scientific analysis, testing and scrutiny by both sides, they are convinced that they solved the majority of this puzzle.

However, their conclusions are miles apart.

On one side, you have Mick West. A noted and self-described “debunker” of extraordinary claims who has spent countless hours producing video presentations that offer scientific breakdowns and analyses on this very case. Within these YouTube videos, he explains why he feels this case and many like it, are simple misidentifications and easily explainable that don’t stand the test of science.

But on the other side, you have Robert Powell, Executive board member of the Scientific Coalition for UAP studies. His organization produced a 270-page scientific paper on the Nimitz UFO Encounter. And within that report, the authors, all with various scientific backgrounds, analyzed the video, the witness testimony, and the available radar notes, and subjected the evidence to their own scientific scrutiny. They concluded that the unknown object was traveling at extraordinary speeds which were “beyond the capability of any known aircraft in the public domain.”

Now, both sides are about to come together. These two gentlemen about to step into the vault to discuss with each other for the first time ever, their findings. And along the way, probably express why they feel the other, is wrong.

Stay tuned… you’re about journey INSIDE THE BLACK VAULT.

Show Notes

o The Nimitz Encounter Movie by Dave Beaty

o Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies
o Metabunk

o THERE I WAS: THE X-FILES EDITION
o SCU Interviews with Kevin Day and Gary Voorhis

o Mick West Interview with Kevin Day (w/ Transcript)
o CVW-11 EVENT SUMMARY Referenced by Mick West

** Note: When referenced, with no visuals, it was believed that Mick was referring to the leaked Nimitz “Executive Summary” document, first published by George Knapp at: https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document_dev/2018/05/18/TIC%20TAC%20UFO%20EXECUTIVE%20REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf

However, after the show, we learned it was the 2007 summary, posted on AboveTopSecret.com. Either way, the documents (both of them) have not been OFFICIALLY confirmed as genuine, US military records of official summaries.

Also, my locking of screen share is a default Zoom setting, and not intentional. I opted not to chance screwing something up in the middle of the show to enable it. Although an easy setting to turn on, I had both of my guests with their windows locked, and my broadcast program recording that particular window with both guests, and I did not want to chance losing the setup for the interview, and needing to reset and break the interview midway.

This was for time and technical reasons.

Live Stream Version

The post Ep. #73 – Robert Powell and Mick West on The Nimitz UFO Encounter appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today, I recorded an interview with Tony Bragalia. You’ll remember him from not too long ago, making the claims about how the Pentagon admitted to having UFO debris, and the fact they released the test results through FOIA.

Well, viewers of this channel will know, I didn’t think his interpretation was accurate at all and I felt it was more sensationalism, so I explained that in a video post weeks ago.

That didn’t go over too well with Tony. So, after he continued to release information, but I felt it was not accurate, I invited him on this show.

I have respect for anyone who will step into The Vault, even if we don’t agree, so we did the interview.

And as you can probably expect… at times it got a bit heated. Stay tuned… you’re about to journey INSIDE THE BLACK VAULT.

Show Notes

o UFO Explorations
o PENTAGON ADMITS IT HAS UFO DEBRIS, RELEASES TEST RESULTS
o Murky Waters Drowning “UFO Debris” Claims
o Ep. #68 – Pentagon UFO Debris? An Analysis of the Claims

Live Stream Version

Transcript

Transcripts published for The Black Vault are approximate, and done by AI, with a quick human pass through. There are often some minor mistakes, or grammatical errors, especially when guests talk about each other. These errors are not intentional. 

John Greenewald  00:08

Hey everyone, john Greenewald here with theblackvault.com. Today I recorded an interview with Tony Bragalia. You'll remember him from not too long ago, making the claims about how the Pentagon admitted to having UFO debris, and that they sent him the test results through the Freedom of Information Act. Well, viewers of this channel will know, I didn't think his interpretation was accurate at all. And I felt it was way more sensationalism. So I explained that in a video posted just weeks ago, as you can imagine, that didn't go over too well with Tony. So after he continued to release additional information, but I felt it was still not accurate. I invited him on the show for a friendly and respectful discussion. I have respect for anyone who will step into the vault, even if we don't agree. So we did the interview. As you can also likely expect, at times it got a little bit heated. Stay tuned, you're about to journey inside the black vault. That's right, everybody. As always, thank you so much for tuning in and making this your podcast or your live stream of choice. I'm your host, john Greenwald, Jr, founder and creator of the black vault calm. And you'll notice that today's show is just a little bit different. Now, my guest, Tony magalia. You've heard about him on this channel, before I talked a little bit about the headlines that he has come out with, and I extended an invitation. And to his credit, despite our respectful disagreement with each other, he accepted. And here he is via telephone. Tony, thank you so much for taking the time out of your day to speak to all of us.

Anthony Bragalia  02:20

Hi, john, I appreciate the opportunity to do that. And to have the opportunity to talk about the FOIA and help to clarify anything that folks have questions about.

John Greenewald  02:31

Well, very good. Well, I'm looking forward to it. And again, thank you for your time to do it. Now, before we get into the FOIA and to get into everything. You did choose not to do this via video, and you had said that you're okay to address that. Would you like to tell everybody why you prefer not to be seen, because I couldn't even get a picture of you that

Anthony Bragalia  02:52

just really prevents me from having my image broadcast widely. And so I've elected to instead, simply do audio. And in fact, before very recently, I've never even had my voice over the air. But I'm, I think obligated to because of the nature of this story come forward in a way that's a little more direct than I have been in the past. So I'm here to talk but not to show my face.

John Greenewald  03:21

Fair enough. Well, I at least wanted to give everyone a chance to hear that side of it. Now, before we get into the story that you're really here to talk about, which is the UFO debris in the documents that you received. Can you give everybody a little bit of background about how you got into UFO research, because this isn't your first entry into it? You've been around for quite some time. Let everybody know a little bit about your background and UFOs and why you got started in it.

Anthony Bragalia  03:49

Sure. Well, like many people gone It began with a personal sighting. When I was a preteen living in the New York City metropolitan area where I grew up. And I had observed a crafted about age 12 or 13 cigar shaped craft, which was actually near Ryan, New York in Westchester County, and I had seen what could not possibly be a plane or a vehicle from this planet. Even at that very young age. I knew that. And so like many preteens, I got involved in the UFO magazines of the time and began reading the literature and became immersed in it to the point where I also began filing FOIA requests at a very young age. So you and I have that in common. And it isn't a vocation though. My real location is an executive search. I find CEOs and CFOs and CEOs for major companies throughout the country. And in fact, some of my work is done in the defense and intelligence sectors. And so it's kind of interesting how The my professional life and my avocation have kind of blended together in many ways.

John Greenewald  05:07

Very good. And let me ask just with your experience and your many years you have me beat we were talking before the show by a couple years and kudos to you. It's always exciting to hear somebody who utilizes the FOIA but on top of that, starting at such a young age, you said that you would started at 13, which is what I

Anthony Bragalia  05:26

did, I filed a FOIA request, asking for information on something I had heard about from a neighbor. And it was a agency called the National Reconnaissance Office or NRO. And keep in mind this is in the mid 70s. When the NRO is not acknowledged as an agency, it so happens that one of my neighbors father's work for the NRL, and I had to find out what reconnaissance meant and how to spell it even. And I put in a FOIA request asking for information on the National Reconnaissance organization or NRO. And I remember the FOIA completely, in fact, it's on my website. I retained it all of these decades. They denied that section office existed back in the mid 70s. Through FOIA, which I don't have a lot of faith in john FOIA request, basically told me that the response rather to my request, was that such an office did not exist, that there was no NRO. Of course, today, we know that there is and that they lied to us.

John Greenewald  06:34

Great story about the NRO with them existing for so long, it really does go to show you that not only will the government lie about all of this stuff, but they have things funded and fully operational for decades, and the general public doesn't even know. But that's right. That's a whole different show in itself. But

Anthony Bragalia  06:50

It sure is, I live here in Florida, and I could tell you about some retirees who have worked at the NSA that have told me things you couldn't believe a lady who has a neighbor with since passed at work for the NSA. And for 30 years could not tell her own family worked for them. She said that they worked. Using a different name entirely, I forget what it was, wherever the mountain is that they put the NSA. And that's where she went. And she never even told her own husband, that she had worked for the NSA for decades, until they acknowledge the existence of the agency.

John Greenewald  07:25

Yeah, secrecy is is such an amazing thing, when you start getting into those types of details that not many people would even know about or think about that. That's what they have to do and the lengths they have to go. But let me let me ask you just to kind of set the stage here about your personal beliefs. And I don't know the answer to this question. With your experience of having the sighting that you did, and the years of research that you've had the people that you've met, the things that you've seen, are you 100% 100% convinced that this phenomena is truly in an alien phenomenon. Extra dress?

Anthony Bragalia  08:05

Well, it's not an easy question to answer, because certainly there are classified research that is terrestrial, very terrestrial, that might appear Extra Terrestrial to those that aren't aware of that kind of research. And I'm in a unique position to understand that in that I find the folks that design, many of the aircrafts that won't be seen for 20 or 30 years from now, john. So, in fact, the way in which I recruit in that area is another story. And I think it dovetails into the foyer thing very nicely. But yeah, I happen to believe that there is an alien presence, but I am not prepared to say it's extra terrestrial or ultra terrestrial. There is something that is not from here that comes here.

John Greenewald  08:54

Okay. Good. And, and I appreciate you kind of setting that stage just so we get an idea of where you're coming from now. Yeah, let's get into your recent headlines here that you have written. And that brings us together here on this show, but also, with some conversations elsewhere on the internet and so on. And that's why I wanted to bring you on just to kind of get away from that social media drama, and and bring you aboard and and kind of get your side. Now, can you summarize your FOIA request and what you got? And ultimately what you did that for you? Yes, please,

Anthony Bragalia  09:29

for your listeners. Back in 2017, I made a FOIA request to the DIA the Defense Intelligence Agency asking for physical descriptions and properties and composition of UFO or UAP on densified aerial phenomena material that was held by the government and by its contractor, Bigelow Aerospace. And I became aware of this because as you know, john about 2017 late 2017 The New York Times, Leslie clean Kane had an article that talked about a previously covert UFO study program called a tip. And buried within the article was a mention of anomalous debris being held at Bigelow Aerospace in Las Vegas and Nevada. And that there had been specialized rather modified facilities that were to contain this material. I couldn't really understand why folks weren't talking about that more. So I filed a FOIA requesting the debris test results. And the FOIA that I read, the FOIA request was very specific. And it requested, test information on physical debris recovered by personnel of the Department of Defense, as residue or flotsam or shut off material or crashed material from uaps or From UFOs. And the documentation that I requested was very specific, and only mentioned UFOs uaps debris and Bigelow Aerospace. At no time whatsoever was the word weapons, weaponry, advanced weapons weapons programs ever mentioned within the foyer request. And so it related only to UFOs. Only to crash debris. Only to Bigelow Aerospace testing that debris. It probably was one and I'm sure you'd agree one of the most specific FOIA requests written Let me clear, it cannot ambiguous. Yeah. And let me just Tony funded to in kind.

John Greenewald  12:00

And let me and I don't mean to step on ya, because I want you to finish that. But for those listening and watching, do you mind if I read your your item list?

Anthony Bragalia  12:09

the FOIA?

John Greenewald  12:10

Yeah, I've got your FOIA

Anthony Bragalia  12:11

It's on there you can read.

John Greenewald  12:12

Yep, no problem. I want to make sure everybody, we're all on the same page. So this is Tony's original FOIA request, I'm flashing it on screen for those that are watching, as you were talking, and, and I want to go through the because you're right, it was very detailed and and nothing wrong about it, when it comes to the structure of the FOIA. So that's not where I'm going with any of this, but I want to read what you wrote. So Tony requested the following number one, physical description of all held material number two, source of origin of all held material number three, circumstance and method of obtainment of all held material, ie float Sam residue shot off material crash material. Number four custodian US government agency of all held material. Number five, the title, and authors of all technical and analytical reports conducted on all held material. Number six names of private contractors to the US government engaged in the storage and study of all held material. Number seven test results on UAP recovered material to include physical properties, chemical and elemental composition of material and determination of the material as of terrestrial or extraterrestrial origin. Thank you for bearing with me on that, Tony, because I want to make sure that we're as clear as possible. So let me pass it back to you. So you said that they responded in kind to your FOIA request.

Anthony Bragalia  13:42

They did. And they understood that it only referred to UFOs, UAP, Bigelow debris. All those key words were in the vfio official that responded, Steve Comiskey, who heads up foyer for the DA was the one that responded to my request. And he attached 151 pages of technical papers in response to that request.

John Greenewald  14:15

Right. So that leads us then to the headline that you had written that the Pentagon had admitted to UFO debris and released the test results. Now, when I had contacted the Pentagon, and I know you didn't like their their statement, and I don't blame you. But I know you didn't like their statement, they had told me that the FOIA request was amended. So I had gone back to you and to your credit you had sent me the back and forth between you and the DIA. Now for those in the audience, amendments on foils are very, very common. There's nothing wrong with that. And in fact, it's actually encouraged. You get things sometimes quicker. So you know, none of that is out of the ordinary. What it amended to, and correct me if I'm wrong, Tony, was that it seems like from the emails that there were telephone conversations, and then a follow up of confirmation from the DI Absolutely.

Anthony Bragalia  15:16

And I can right speak to that very directly, Steven Timiski, who is the chief records management and Information Services Officer for the DIA. And I had several phone conversations which are alluded to in the emails, which are included in the articles that I have online. And Steven was very clear that I was referring to UFOs and uaps. I told Stephen that I didn't want to play games, that if he was going to send me material from the AATIP, but it really was with a another program, similarly named AAWSAP help me there, john asked advanced aerospace weapons, those kinds of games wouldn't be tolerated, that he understands completely, what I'm referring to, that the program has gone under different names that I am referring to UFO material. Steven to Minsky, to me specifically said he understood the request, and that he would get the material I seek. Right? So here would be my only friend who he was not under any, at no time. Did the DA ever mentioned to me the word weapon or weaponry. So I don't know where this is coming from? Well, at all, other than the fact that I think that as you know, john, they are one in the same? Sure. I think that we're actually

John Greenewald  16:44

if you're if you're talking about

Anthony Bragalia  16:46

memory, as well as to extraterrestrial Materials Research, and this is what has made it so very difficult to penetrate the many layers of this whole issue. And I'm not saying that it doesn't have to do with weaponry, in fact, wouldn't that be the very first place that you would look to place this material would be for military applications? Sure. I mean, it's very simple. the Wright brothers when they created the airplane, 10 years later, we had guns on them. We were using them in warfare. So it's, there's a history of this.

John Greenewald  17:23

Yeah. I mean, the the program name when it comes to AAWSAP, and this is this is been a gripe of mine for quite some time on the on the government side of their naming mechanisms, in that it depends on who you listen to on whether or not AAWSAP and a tip were the same. You have those that have claimed to work on or or that worked on it. Excuse me, we know that Dr. Hal put off worked on it through Bigelow Aerospace. He said AATIP was a nickname. Mr. Luis Elizondo, who says that he headed the program said that they were two separate programs. According to the Pentagon, you have story number three, which is AAWSAP was an offshoot of AATIP, and AAWSAP was the contracted out. So why

Anthony Bragalia  18:08

it was so confusing, so very direct, because of precisely what you just said, I didn't want to play games with acronyms, or program names. He full well knew what I was referring to. There's no doubt. In fact, I'll bet this man is in a lot of hot water. I'm sure you'd agree. He, in fact, in his response to me, refers to UAP material, he refers to Bigelow Aerospace. JOHN, I talked to the man directly, and I referred to it in the emails that are included in the articles that I've written. There is no doubt whatsoever that Steve Kaminsky understood my requests thoroughly to mean, unidentified flying objects or unidentified aerial phenomena, that I was referring to debris from those. And I was referring to debris that was stored at Bigelow, right? He understood it completely, there was no ambiguity whatsoever. And I'm perplexed at the whole thing, because if I asked you for a turkey dinner, and you gave me a hot dog, that's not what I asked for. What if it was a turkey, come back and say, Well, this has to do with weapons? That was the UFOs is ridiculous. It's outrageous.

John Greenewald  19:22

Well, let me let me jump in. And I don't I don't think I'm going to convince you on this. But at least if you could indulge me for a moment, absolutely. Where I think the the confusion comes from is item number five on your original request. And that is the titles and authors of all technical and analytical reports conducted on all held material. Now hold on, bear with me here. When you do a multi list foil like this. There's nothing wrong with that. You did everything right. I'm not saying that you did anything wrong. However, those lists are in a legal sense or not, and meaning It doesn't have to apply to numbers. Well to

Anthony Bragalia  20:03

God, come on. I know where you're going. Well, I've The man knew fully well what I was referring to.

John Greenewald  20:10

Okay, just now bear with me. Now, you said that it's in his letter. But if you read and here's the letter, I've got it here and again, in the interest of accuracy. Let me just read that one part, because you're out, you're right on what he said. This was the official response to you this response to your freedom of information act request dated December 27 2017, that you submitted to the Defense Intelligence Agency for information can Okay, excuse me for information concerning requesting all information on test results from the UAP material from Bigelow Aerospace. Now, if that sounds weird to everybody, it's because it is. And I even got Tongue Tied reading it. The requesting all information is, in my opinion, a copy and paste. Do you agree with that? No. Okay. But that No, I do not john, in fact that why it doesn't?

Anthony Bragalia  21:02

To me, you're talking about a response on a very serious issue. And unless these people have issues with basic reading comprehension. I can't understand how anyone could misunderstand my request. It's so clearly written, there is no ambiguity. Okay said I don't understand what you're talking about, about bass. What's the Well,

John Greenewald  21:28

I'm happy to explain

Anthony Bragalia  21:30

There's some other things I wanted to talk to you about and bring up.

John Greenewald  21:32

Before we get too far ahead, hold you at the time that you'd like, don't, I'm not trying to cut you off. But I want to make sure we don't get too jumped around here. So just to kind of finalize this thought, because like I said, I don't expect to convince you. But after seeing 1000s and 1000s of these letters, most of the time, they have a summation of a FOIA request, especially multi item ones. And they're not only internal working logs, if they are differed from the FOIA case, logs that they will give out. And a lot of times, they will, they will summarize, you know, multi seven 810 12, I've seen 30 items on a request, not by myself, but in foil logs and stuff like that, to where then they just kind of condense it. And in my opinion, when you have the capitalization the way that it is, and the fact that when you talk about grammar and comprehension, it doesn't make sense. And it's like they have a template. I just got a letter The other day I tweeted it out. It's unrelated to this. But it's my same point where it said, Dear ex, ex, ex ex ex, that was my foyer response. Now, that's not my name, obviously. But they use templates, they copy and paste. So so let's move beyond that. Because again, I don't expect you to be convinced of it. But at all at all, which is which is which is fine.

Anthony Bragalia  22:53

Because I'm the one who actually talked to the man. If you didn't I actually talk to Stephen, Tim and co direct with him as I am with you right now. Okay, there was no ambiguity whatsoever, he knew exactly what I was referring to. And why in the world would they elect to send to me, in response to my request 151 pages of highly technical information without understanding that this has to do with UFOs? Well, it makes no sense whatsoever.

John Greenewald  23:21

Let me bring up another…

Anthony Bragalia  23:23

truly perplexed.

John Greenewald  23:24

Sure. Well…

Anthony Bragalia  23:25

and also, john, I must interrupt here and explain to your reader or your listeners that you made it sound like I was not aware that these were unclassified documents, you made it seem to your listeners, like I was unaware that these materials were published over a decade ago. But in fact, that isn't true. In my very first article, I talked about that very thing. In fact, I showed a text block with the data on it. Wait, can I ask it I even said that this material had been published on small websites, including George naps in the past. So when you started to tell folks that Oh, these were unclassified materials, and all these had already been released? Well, that really took a lot of the wind out of the sails in it. But it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that this has to do with a response to a request on UFOs. And I made it very clear to everybody that this material had been out there that it had been unclassified. You made it sound to your viewers, like I was trying to pull one over on everybody.

John Greenewald  24:26

No, no, no, no, no, yeah,

Anthony Bragalia  24:27

that's the way it came off. The video that you had is called nails in the coffin. Well, we have a guy and that is not a very nice title. Well, in fact, the very day that that I'm going to tell you something, john, the very day that the nails in the coffin video came up, my aunt died of COVID. So the word nails in a coffin and not calling me or contacting me before you put that video on. I'd like you to tell listeners why we're doing this now and why you didn't contact me before. Oh, that's easy.

John Greenewald  25:00

First video I'd be well, first and foremost, my condolences. I mean, if you think that that was some kind of shot on something I didn't even know about.

Anthony Bragalia  25:07

But in the age of COVID, we don't talk like that right now,

John Greenewald  25:10

it was pretty clear that it was about a story. But if you took it that way, I mean, I clearly don't know about what happened to you.

Anthony Bragalia  25:21

We can't assume anything. And I don't use language like that. Well, he and I, here's a pretty hyperbolic as you know, but that was really beyond the pale, right?

John Greenewald  25:30

But to be honest with you, you know, that was never an intent. But if that's how you took it, then I sincerely apologize, I appreciate but it's pretty, in my opinion, was pretty clear. I was referencing nails in the coffin of a story. And we will get to those in a couple minutes, because we haven't even talked about them. But I'm happy to address your question to me, and I'll address any ones that you like, and why I did that video without contacting you. You had did and to your credit, and I even complimented you on this. You had published everything. So there was nothing that I could go after with you because a phone call is not going to change my mind. And I'm sorry to say that. But I mean, unless you handed me a recording. And Stephen Tamulski from DIA said, Yep, that's my voice, then great. We can deal with that. But obviously a phone call is not going to change anything. But it was never stated in your original reporting that you would amended the request. And yes, that actually does change things I

Anthony Bragalia  26:27

did not amend

John Greenewald  26:28

Hold on, Tony…

Anthony Bragalia  26:28

is the whole point. I don't know where you got that either. That's

John Greenewald  26:31

misinformation you amended. The

Anthony Bragalia  26:33

recruiter amended the request. They have the I had asked for everything about AATIP. And I reminded Stephen that no, I'm only asking about test results. So don't put me in with all the others. That's what happened. So what you're referring to about amending?

John Greenewald  26:49

Sure. So here's from DIA to you, this is what you send to me. This is from Steven to miski. Please excuse me if there's been a misunderstanding I had understood and you had confirmed in our last email exchange that you accepted narrowing your scope to, quote,

Anthony Bragalia  27:08

test, but I never accepted it. I was the original request, as you know,

John Greenewald  27:14

okay. Hold on to it. I'm trying to read this not if I was paraphrasing, I can understand your frustration. But let me at least tell the viewers and audience what was said. So you had according to DIA's message to you accepted narrowing your scope to test results from the UAP material from Bigelow Aerospace under

Anthony Bragalia  27:36

I have to interrupt you, john, I'd never accepted anything. The original request What?

John Greenewald  27:41

Well, Tony, if you'll let me keep going here. This is, this is the letter, this is what you sent me. And I'm just trying to give everybody a little bit of background, I will give you all the time in the world that you would like. But if I could just finish what you had sent me. Because again, I don't like to paraphrase when whenever I have a disagreement with a guest. So I'll say again, according to the email from DIA, you accepted narrowing your scope to test results from UAP material from Bigelow Aerospace under contract to the DOD slash Pentagon, your confirmation per the thread below. Now you responded your email. Looks like 18 minutes after he sent that you said yes. That is the general request, quote, test results from the UAP material from Bigelow Aerospace under contract to the DOD Pentagon. However, the specifics of that request were also included in the original 2017.

Anthony Bragalia  28:38

Exactly

John Greenewald  28:41

So now let me paraphrase and correct me if I'm wrong. With all of that said, because I don't want to get into the weeds of reading every single email here. But you would agree to a rolling release. Is that correct?

Anthony Bragalia  28:53

I agreed to getting the information I requested.

John Greenewald  28:57

Correct. So in order for him to feel…

Anthony Bragalia  28:59

I don't how how they got it to me, when they got it to me sooner, the better.

John Greenewald  29:03

Okay, so. Right. So so in the legal sense, that's called a rolling release, so and that

Anthony Bragalia  29:09

whatever it's called, okay. And we can talk about it and use different words. But bottom line is the man knew what I was looking for. I'm not I mean, we're playing around here.

John Greenewald  29:18

No, not at all.

Anthony Bragalia  29:19

It is, is a clear is the nose on my face?

John Greenewald  29:22

Well, you said that I was using different words and using what I want to call

Anthony Bragalia  29:28

the original Freedom of Information Act request.

John Greenewald  29:31

I understand that but it was a you know,

Anthony Bragalia  29:33

it never asked for everything about AATIP. There was never a request for amendment.

John Greenewald  29:38

I haven't seen where you're referring to that about you asking for everything about AATIP so so

Anthony Bragalia  29:42

Exactly. And that's what he thought I was I don't know, but

John Greenewald  29:45

even from his word, so I'm not sure about that side of it. You didn't send me any of that. And that's okay. That's I'm not arguing any of that. But what I am trying to go for here is my one last point if I can get to it, because you said that you publish these emails and it's okay for me to ask about him. He said, The Let me see here. Where is it? Where is it? Here it is. This is from Steven to you. I am not concerned with your statements regarding press or legal actions I have dealt and will continue to deal with you in good faith and I hope that you will do so with me. Now, may I ask for clarification, because nowhere did you send me anything where you had talked about a legal action other than what you posted? I

Anthony Bragalia  30:30

actually did though, john.

John Greenewald  30:31

No, no, that's why I'm asking

Anthony Bragalia  30:33

attorney's that I'm consulting about that very thing.

John Greenewald  30:36

Okay. Hold on. Let done. Let me finish that thought. What I was trying to say was not the one that you posted after I'm talking about when you were communicating with Oh,

Anthony Bragalia  30:44

let me clarify. Yeah. JOHN, in the conversation I had with Stephen, I said, Stephen, I'm have means I'm able to hire the best attorneys in the nation specializing in FOIA. Okay, if they're if I'm sensing any kind of delay or distraction or anything like that, I'm prepared to take legal action. And I've already consulted an interview to attorneys in the DC area. Great. So you, because after three and a half years, and then him sending me back a letter of lies that I'm amending and requesting all information on a tip, which of course is not correct. I felt that I had to push the up button. And if it required legal assistance, I can do it.

John Greenewald  31:29

Great. Okay. So that then that's totally fair. So with all of that being said, You were telling him You didn't want to play word games, you were telling him that there's potential legal action, all of that fine. I'm not harping on you for it. You don't think that he was trying to be transparent, because that number five in your FOIA request, which did not mention uaps or UFOs, but talked about hold on Tony lip? Hear me out?

Anthony Bragalia  31:57

Okay. You know what I'm thinking is funny.

John Greenewald  32:00

So number five, you didn't mention UFOs or uaps? In a legal sense, it's not and it's or meaning it doesn't have to include every item on your list. You, again, stipulated you didn't want these games that you were upset, because he apologized a couple times in these emails.

Anthony Bragalia  32:19

He sure did…

John Greenewald  32:21

Which great I mean, I I don't employ that tactic. But if that worked for you, awesome,

Anthony Bragalia  32:27

but it did, didn't it? And there you go to john, you and I finished totally different way. But you're an archivist. I'm a journalist,

John Greenewald  32:35

you need to let me…

Anthony Bragalia  32:36

I am a little bit more forward and bold than you are. I think you acquiesce to these folks. Because you want to be an archivist. You want to maintain your relationship as the black vault to the government agencies, and therefore you have to be very careful about how you approach these folks. And the relationship that you maintain with them. I don't have that obligation, or that interest. My interest is only in truth.

John Greenewald  33:01

Okay, if you're insinuating that my interest is not, then you don't

Anthony Bragalia  33:05

No, no, no, no, no, I don't say that out. No, I am. Now that you didn't say that yours wasn't right. I simply said that. I think that you tend to kowtow to these folks. And don't want to in any way disrupt your relationship with them by being forward or bold like I am

John Greenewald  33:24

What, What relationship do you think I have? I mean, I've filed over 10,000 requests, I have archived 2.4 million pages. I've tried to do through FOIA appeals and so on and so forth. Getting these document I

Anthony Bragalia  33:39

think you're too trusting of these people, John.

John Greenewald  33:43

Well I'm not really sure what to tell you with that, because most of the time, I'm not even dealing with spokespeople. But on top of that out of 10,000 requests, I pretty much understand how their templating works. I know how that part of the system works. Why can't you be open to the fact that maybe under threat of a lawsuit, and him trying to be a little bit transparent with you, so you can't accuse him of playing games? He gave you material that met your requirements of item number five on your request. So you have completely shut that down. But

Anthony Bragalia  34:19

why I really still after all this time, I still don't sincerely I don't get what you were talking about?

John Greenewald  34:25

Well, we can move on. Don't let me I'll give you I'll give you an example. I did a FOIA request to the US Army asking for all UFO material and use some of the keywords like flying saucers and this and that. That was my request. Okay. I sent that in and I received hundreds of pages as a response to a request for UFO information and flying saucers, okay, that's what I requested. However, in there was the majority. The majority of what was in there was a schematics from the Nazi Horton brothers and a flying wing design. Now would it be fair for me, Tony to say that the Horton brothers design was all UFO or flying saucer in relation to extraterrestrials? Would that be fair?

Anthony Bragalia  35:13

I don't know enough about the FOIA request, I'd have to see it view it view the replies, I'm not going to send it to you that I don't know enough about like that, john.

John Greenewald  35:21

Well I sent it to you.

Anthony Bragalia  35:22

I know is the FOIA that I received that I re requested. And the reply that I received only referred to UFOs, uaps, and Bigelow and debris, and we really need to hone in and why they would be talking about weaponry. And why would they choose these 151 pages to send to me when they could have sent me anything from anywhere at any time, why he chose. The one pages that relate to exotic materials that can induce in visibility, compress electromagnetic energy, can perform shape and memory properties similar to the material found at Roswell, which is an extraordinary coincidence. Why would they send that to me? Of all the things in the world they could send to me? Why would they send me 151 pages, which were authorized by the DIA's ufologist. And it's an incredible thing. He was both a rocket scientist and the UFO point person for the DIA. David let cat ski when I found out that he was the one that was program manager that authorized all of these 151 pages, I was floored. And I can't believe that you aren't. The very man who authorized the release of these rather the initiation of these studies and who created these papers? is also a UFO point person for the CIA or was okay, he was forced out.

John Greenewald  36:56

Okay, can I ask you to clarify because and, by the way,

Anthony Bragalia  36:59

if you want to see that actual article that appears on my website, UFOexplorations.com, you can read all about it, but it kind of closes the circle. The fact is that all of the material that was sent to me was approved by the DIA is UFO point person.

John Greenewald  37:15

Okay, so let me jump in there because there's nothing. And I want to ask you to support that with evidence. But the man who actually was in charge of the AAWSAP program, which, in the DIAs eyes, they lumped together AAWSAP and AATIP whether they were officially separate programs or not, at this point, it's irrelevant to our conversation. However, Dr. Hal Putoff was the lead scientist and engineer for Bigelow Aerospace's BASS, and he has gone on the record and nobody has disputed that it was him that chose the topics of the DIRDS. And it was him that farmed it out. Now, James

Anthony Bragalia  37:50

name does not appear on it. David locat. skis does.

John Greenewald  37:53

It's James Lacatski

Anthony Bragalia  37:53

interestingly enough, and I want viewers to know

John Greenewald  37:55

James… James Lacatski…

Anthony Bragalia  37:56

the material that I received redacted David locat. skis name correct. Yet it has been out there for many years and in different formats on different websites on a leak. Very, very curious. I think everyone would agree, I think you're reading it. And then we find out that in fact, a cat ski was kicked out or forced out because of his belief that this was extraterrestrial in origin. And others didn't like the conclusions that he was reaching. He left the government service and is now retired and wants nothing to do with anyone.

John Greenewald  38:28

Right. However, nobody's ever named Lacatski. So you're referencing Elizondo. Now, here's the deal, I actually probably think

Anthony Bragalia  38:35

I'm not referencing anything, it's on the document, the unredacted document uses his name and chose him as the program manager

John Greenewald  38:43

On DIAs side.

Anthony Bragalia  38:44

And that is just extraordinary. Really,

John Greenewald  38:47

it can be extraordinary. That's great. But he's not the one that made the dirt. And if you want

Anthony Bragalia  38:52

to decide the matter, he's the program manager. He's the guy whose name appears on all of the documents done. It does. I mean, I don't know about how put off he's got a history which I don't want to get too much in the weeds, but I would not trust how put off as far as I can throw him.

John Greenewald  39:08

Well, since we're on Hal he chimed in as well. And again, I mean, it doesn't sound like you by back up,

Anthony Bragalia  39:13

I'm not prepared to talk about Hal I'm prepared to talk about this FOIA.

John Greenewald  39:17

Well, but But Hal was the one who chose the topics?

Anthony Bragalia  39:21

Anything about him? Other than that he's not a reliable, credible, and many people have been issues with him. Well, he's the real deal. Okay, I'm

John Greenewald  39:30

gonna have to deal. Okay, it's James Lacatski. Hey, James.

Anthony Bragalia  39:34

James, what's

John Greenewald  39:35

right, okay. And you may want to look into Dr. Hal Putoff because again, it's not disputed that he was the one that chose the topics, the quotes that you're citing his name on them and I have to let other people talk. I mean, where where is the material?

Anthony Bragalia  39:48

Where's his name on the material? Where's here's you're making things up? I I don't see his name on this material.

John Greenewald  39:53

I'll show it to you. He authored multiple DIRDS…

Anthony Bragalia  39:57

Oh, he he authored somebody but the program manager was Lacatski…

John Greenewald  40:01

I don't care about the DIAs side. I'm talking about what bass created. And I think that this goes into the bigger confusion on what BAASS did in the private sector for their contract was Lacatski involved. Yes. I'm probably not even going to argue with you on that at all because I agree with you. The problem is, is that you can't say that Lacatski was the UFO point guy, because nobody has said that and on top of it, it wasn't him that chose the dirts. And if you think that it was great, all I'm looking for is evidence, but no one has said that it was him. You would cite it in your article that Elizondo was talking about Lacatski you had talked about Senator Harry Reid was talking about Lacatski, but you have to admit those were assumptions. There's no quote where they named Lacatski, right.

Anthony Bragalia  40:53

Dr. James Lacatski is a DIA rocket scientist and UFOlogist. Dr. Lacatski's conclusions about UFOs cost him his job. Luis Elizondo knows that

John Greenewald  41:04

because Elizondo

Anthony Bragalia  41:06

had said that certain senior government officials thought our collection of facts on UAP was dangerous to their philosophical beliefs. In fact, my a tip predecessors career was ruined, because of misplaced fear by an elite few. Rather than accept the data as provided by a top ranked science rocket scientist. They decided the data was a threat to their belief systems and instead destroyed his career because of it.

John Greenewald  41:31

Where did he say Lacatski?

Anthony Bragalia  41:36

What do you mean?

John Greenewald  41:37

Well, because according to Mr. Elizondo, AATIP and AAWSAP were two wildly different programs. So his predecessor on AATIP…

Anthony Bragalia  41:45

when Harry Reid said that he had been visited by the PhD rocket scientists, the DIA, who do you think he was referring to?

John Greenewald  41:54

But but that's irrelevant? It doesn't. It does.

Anthony Bragalia  41:56

And again, we've done this, but I'm quite certain that Dr. Lacatski was involved. In AATIP. I'm quite certain that he went to Bigelow Aerospace. I'm quite certain he went to the skinwalker Ranch.

John Greenewald  42:10

That's that's fine, Tony. But where I'm going with this is I don't necessarily disagree if I can finish the sentence and the thought, I don't necessarily disagree with you that I'm sure I've been trying to say for 10 minutes. I don't necessarily think you're wrong. But you've jumped to too many conclusions on whether or not Lacatski is truly the guy. And then on top of that, and I mean, no offense, you're saying the wrong name. And on top of that, you don't even want to know.

Anthony Bragalia  42:34

Lacatski, Okay?

John Greenewald  42:35

You don't even want to deal with the guy who actually was involved on the Bigelow Aerospace side, who was in charge of all the DIRDs. Now for the record, and that's fine. So let's move on. We don't have to keep beating the dead horse, your headline and I want you to explain that this one to me. Your headline when you had talked about Lacatski was Pentagon's UFO debris study manager found et connection confirmed. Where is the ET connection confirmed.

Anthony Bragalia  43:09

I'm not following you.

John Greenewald  43:10

Well, that's your headline. You wrote that. Right?

Anthony Bragalia  43:15

Yes.

John Greenewald  43:16

Okay. So where's the confirmation of ET?

Anthony Bragalia  43:21

I'm not understanding what you mean. Okay. So

John Greenewald  43:24

you wrote this, sir. So, ET connection confirmed..

Anthony Bragalia  43:28

name is Tony.

John Greenewald  43:29

I, I'm sorry. I said, Sir, is that an insult? Anyway, I apologize, Tony, I'm, I've grown up trying to show respect to people. But regardless, you wrote the connection, ET or excuse me, the headline ET connection confirmed you wrote that, not me.

Anthony Bragalia  43:48

Yeah. study manager Lacatski was the study manager for both the AATIP as well as for UFO work. That is correct. Great. That is

John Greenewald  43:57

no, ET you said ET extraterrestrial connection confirmed?

Anthony Bragalia  44:01

Well, we are thinking that these are terrestrial materials.

John Greenewald  44:04

Absolutely. They could be

Anthony Bragalia  44:06

okay. And that's where you and I differ is where the central problem is, in some way you believe that they were going to provide to me chemical and elemental analysis on you unique materials, what they did is provide to me the applications of these materials. And that's why I want to initiate a lawsuit because they did not reply to my FOIA request, in the way that I had requested.

John Greenewald  44:37

Okay, so there's many things

Anthony Bragalia  44:38

that are not included. And that's exactly why I wanted to move forward

John Greenewald  44:41

because I want to make sure that I understand you if you could, as quickly as you can, because I don't I don't know how much more time I have a lot. 10 minutes, but eight minutes here. Okay. So then let me rush through this. What is the what is what makes the metamaterial analysis alien

Anthony Bragalia  45:01

I have a lot of time. I mean, this is so very deep that I don't even know where to begin.

John Greenewald  45:08

I mean you can you can summarize alien

Anthony Bragalia  45:10

In the impetus of this material is alien inspired. It's not in and of itself alien and this is where the problem okay, so

John Greenewald  45:20

where's the inspiration

Anthony Bragalia  45:21

coming john we're talking about an event that happened 70 years ago, the folks that are involved in scientific work work on this kind of thing weren't even born then. Over the decades, this kind of work has been blended into arrow research and weaponry, research, and artfully done. They've they blended it in so it's very, very difficult to separate the two. But when you look at the material that is referred to in and that was sent to me, we're talking about material that exactly matches that of UFOs the ability to become invisible the ability to morph the ability to compress energy. All of these kinds of things are UFO like, but that

John Greenewald  46:09

doesn't make an alien what I'm looking for is the confirmation…

Anthony Bragalia  46:12

John this is the problem.

John Greenewald  46:14

You said inspired by…

Anthony Bragalia  46:17

A elemental analysis or chemical analysis of alien material that's evident it's so obvious. These are this is information gleaned from decades of work. Okay, on material that was recovered I don't know how more clear I can be.

John Greenewald  46:37

So is this because it is all inspired by Roswell?

Anthony Bragalia  46:39

I'll make it very clear here sure. One of the reports received was about netanel sometimes called nitinol shape memory alloys very similar to the debris recovered at Roswell I have actually create created a table of 40 witnesses to memory metal found at Roswell for them to to then send back to me about 12 to 15 pages on shape memory alloy used in the human body as a biomaterial was more than curious. Why would they send me information about shape memory alloys and memory metal? Much like found at Roswell?

John Greenewald  47:23

because those were the because that's, that's responsive to your request. And it's…

Anthony Bragalia  47:29

Exactly.

John Greenewald  47:30

Okay. But But I think your your

Anthony Bragalia  47:33

There is a long history about memory metal, and that is a whole nother issue. We could take another hour or even three hours about, but as we as listeners know, or may know, I have worked on the memory metal issue for years and years. And the fact that they sent back to me, very advanced technical papers on using memory metal in the human system as a bio material was extraordinary.

John Greenewald  48:00

Yeah, but I mean, and again, that's the root of all of this that you don't want to look at which if Dr. Hal Puthoff truly had that intent when he brought up the topic, you'd

Anthony Bragalia  48:08

Hal Puthoff has no idea why he was working on it. Why would a man in 2021 know about material recovered in 1947. This is ET inspired research was done under the cover of aerospace and weapons research. These folks have no need to know about Roswell, they have no need to know whatsoever about the circumstances involving the recovery, how it was obtained, where it's been held. And all of that is ancillary.

John Greenewald  48:38

So in the last couple of minutes, just so I can, again, I can urge I'll give you more time if you want it but you're putting it all

Anthony Bragalia  48:45

we're gonna have time on Wednesday, you will tell folks about that.

John Greenewald  48:48

Sure. That being said, I know your apparent disregard for Dr. Hal Puthoff which is fine. The Pentagon obviously you're not siding with but the the man who headed the BAASS has come out and said they never had any material. You're the one that wrote the headline about UFO debris. It sounds like you might be trying to shift that a little bit was saying that it's expired but Okay, so they had UFO debris is your claim you really quickly because I'm running out of time.

Anthony Bragalia  49:21

Absolutely. 100%

John Greenewald  49:24

Have you been in possession of UFO debris for at least 70 years right through AAWSAP through these reports is what you're saying? That was your headline.

Anthony Bragalia  49:34

I'm saying that that the material received confirms this.

John Greenewald  49:39

Okay, so we've already dealt with like I'm trying to get where the confirmation is, but we don't get it but but but you're saying that Dr. Hal Puthoff the Pentagon who actually agreed to help.

Anthony Bragalia  49:51

If all I know is that I requested information on UFO debris and this is what I got.

John Greenewald  49:56

Well, again, item number five didn't mention UFO But yeah,

Anthony Bragalia  50:00

I don't, I will not agree with you on that I don't understand

John Greenewald  50:03

Which is fine

Anthony Bragalia  50:04

That I we could talk about it for hours probably. So Dan Kaminsky in the da fullwell knew I was requesting information on UFOs or uaps. And on debris, everyone that has read the request, everyone that has read the reply agrees it's unambiguous and that to say anything else is misinforming.

John Greenewald  50:23

Well, I mean, I have to ask this question, because I feel in situations like this, and I commend you for getting the documents I have since day one, I think they're important to come out officially, I think they were misinterpreted. Do you think that there is a chance that you are misinterpreting kind of I mean, you have the Roswell slide

Anthony Bragalia  50:42

is so unambiguous, I was able to talk to the DEA fire chief. I'm the one who heard his responses he knew full well, I was looking for UFO material. And john, you just don't? It's almost like we're talking past each other. Where in the world did I ever request information on weapons?

John Greenewald  51:03

Again, I'm not having asked you about weapons.

Anthony Bragalia  51:06

What were the title? weapon? Where did I request information on advanced weaponry?

John Greenewald  51:11

Okay. See, that's that you answer

Anthony Bragalia  51:13

that for me? Where is it that I

John Greenewald  51:15

should know? clarify? So you can ask the DIA that but regardless, it was,

Anthony Bragalia  51:21

I'm asking you, because you've been reading all of the material more than anyone except me. You've really gone through and I have commend you for having done that. Where have I ever mentioned the word weapons, weaponry or advanced weapons program?

John Greenewald  51:35

But where did I ask you

Anthony Bragalia  51:36

about it? Where did it? Where is it?

John Greenewald  51:39

If you can talk about it? If I could talk? I don't know. I mean, you want people to finish

Anthony Bragalia  51:44

waiting to hear from you?

John Greenewald  51:45

Well, if you allow me to the AAWSAP original bid, solicit solicitation talked about advanced aerospace, aerospace platforms, forward looking program, where

Anthony Bragalia  51:57

Where was my statement of weaponry?

John Greenewald  51:59

Tony, you got to let other sides speak if you want them to answer a question. And I'm trying to answer it for you. Going back 30 or 40 minutes ago, when we started talking about AAWSAP, I was the one that brought up how confusing these naming mechanisms are. Because really, when you look at the description for AATIP, or excuse me for AAWSAP, and it talks about advanced aerospace platforms and technology forward looking into the future by 40 years, that may or may not apply to weapons, but it sure didn't seem it was primarily about weapons, it seemed like it was primarily about Aerospace Research. Hence my concern hold on Tony, hence my concern, and has been for quite some time that this had anything to do with UFOs in the first place. You keep dismissing doctor Hal Puthoff, but to be honest with you, it actually may play a role. You guys might even find an intersection somewhere with you thinking that this is inspired by something. I'm not speaking for him. But the fact that you didn't even talk to him is kind of telling that you didn't want ultimately the whole truth. You keep talking about truth.

Anthony Bragalia  53:02

Oh, my heavens, I would be careful there, john, then why haven't you said the whole truth.

John Greenewald  53:10

So why do you think that I talked to the Pentagon,

Anthony Bragalia  53:13

this Hal Puthoff guy. I don't know what you're referring to here. I'm talking about material that I received from the DEA from Steven Kaminski. And then the Pentagon backpedaling through their Pentagon spokesperson, Sue costs, costs. And I'm sorry if I mispronounced it. So that's all I can talk about is what I received. And all I know about is I asked for and I think that I never asked about anything to do with weapons. I asked about UFO. I don't know why I never asked for anything about advanced weapons programs, per se. I asked for information on UFO debris. And when I received this material it was was that understanding. It couldn't be more clear. And I am really perplexed how you can even defend or try to have people understand why they would provide to me this material and then backpedal and say it had nothing to do with UFOs when that's all I talked about. Looks like going to a restaurant and asking for a turkey dinner and they give you a hotdog. I that's the second time you've used your hotdog analogy. Well, better to say it it's that obvious. Okay, but after one thing and they give me something totally different.

John Greenewald  54:31

Okay, so in the last couple minutes here and again, I'll hang out with you if you wanted to give more time

Anthony Bragalia  54:36

I'm unable to we got a hard stop here in about a couple minutes as we record.

John Greenewald  54:40

So I've given you real world citable examples prior to this show. You have commented on my video and articles. I'm asking you about the FOIA request that I did to the Army asking for UFO related material. And I got flying wing schematics from World War Two and Nazi designs. My question to you here in the end is why can't you acknowledge that in the FOIA, I call it exactly responsive or loosely responsive, that why can't you acknowledge that there is a chance that possibly this FOIA officer the action officer released something to you, because he saw materials it fits exactly. To item number 5.

Anthony Bragalia  55:19

Why wouldn't Kaminsky, then clarify and come forward and explain because he doesn't speak for the agency and

John Greenewald  55:26

the FOIA doesn't allow for you or

Anthony Bragalia  55:28

I to ask questions give me he doesn't allow him to respond. That is

John Greenewald  55:31

correct. Because

Anthony Bragalia  55:34

he and I had many sessions over FOIA by best and his reply..

John Greenewald  55:38

No, no, you're mishearing what I'm saying. When when you're asking about clarification, the Pentagon who is tasked to clarify something on that action, has you've dismissed it, it's not the action officers job. And I've dealt with that situation multiple times. Because when the final determination is made, it can then go either to an appeal, as you well know, or judicial review. At that moment, the action officer has to step back, and those that are tasked to respond will in this particular situationm that would be Pentagon spokesperson, Susan Gough, so you keep asking for clarification while you have it. That was well, Susan Goff has

Anthony Bragalia  56:24

She has refused repeatedly, to talk to me to answer my emails, and instead has left me out to hand…

John Greenewald  56:30

If you're threatening lawsuits everywhere… Tony, I don't blame her.

Anthony Bragalia  56:34

Wait a minute. Now, the word threaten. What is threatening about a lawsuit?

John Greenewald  56:39

When you threaten a lawsuit, it is an expression.

Anthony Bragalia  56:41

I'm sure you filed some yourself.

John Greenewald  56:45

Okay, like I said earlier in the show,

Anthony Bragalia  56:49

threatening, you know, you and I view these guys in a totally different way, john, and again, I have to go back to the fact that I'm researching journalism, you're an archivist, you depend on a relationship with them to provide to you the FOIA dumps, and you don't you wouldn't do what I do. You wouldn't contradict them. I can tell by the way you're talking. You wouldn't do it,

John Greenewald  57:13

then you know nothing about me. No offense…

Anthony Bragalia  57:16

I guess not. Because

John Greenewald  57:18

Do you know how I've spent almost 25 years showing how how public statements and public documents and FOIA responses, a lot have been lies,

Anthony Bragalia  57:30

you know, John I'm going to tell you that in the people that I've talked to in the information I've received from other folks, they cannot understand how anyone could see this any differently. It is so evident that I request in the request was so specific, it probably is one of the best FOIA requests ever written. It is so very good here and you agreed, his responses were clear, you

John Greenewald  57:53

really want to get on the record and say this is the best FOIA request ever written?

Anthony Bragalia  57:55

to me it has to do with weapons, and then for her to not even respond to me or to clarify, and leave me out to hang is so obvious. The only person that's not obvious to is you.

John Greenewald  58:05

So why aren't you on 60 minutes, or Fox News? Or CNN…

Anthony Bragalia  58:08

Oh I will tell you about that! I really do have to go here, your video or show that you did the nails in the coffin? There's no, there's no doubt that mainstream media often consults the black Vault for information related to UFOs and soya when they saw that video. And again, I want your listeners to know that you didn't even bother to contact me before you released it. Already. When mainstream media saw the videos on my show, when they when they when they saw the video, it's evident that they didn't want to pursue it any further. And you've done a disservice to me and to others by having sent out that video and the nasty things that have been said, resulting from that video. And they walked away from it. Yes, I did receive headlines, but they were from the Daily Mail and from you know, many, many newspapers around the world. Would I have preferred to have been on 60 minutes or Tucker Carlson? Yes. But I do believe that you're putting up that video may have prevented that from happening.

John Greenewald  59:18

I don't have that much power, but I appreciate you//.

Anthony Bragalia  59:21

You don't but they

John Greenewald  59:22

Well, you're accusing me of being a stooge…

Anthony Bragalia  59:24

videos and they see what you've put out. And when they see it, then they turn off from it. And that's been a disservice. I can give you another example there's a YouTube channel called fake or fiction or fact and fiction gentleman whose name I can't remember. And he had a YouTube on this voice and he refers people to you and to your boy

John Greenewald  59:46

oh you're talking about Bill's Channel. Oh yes and hello to all the bills channels viewers. I really appreciate the

Anthony Bragalia  59:50

channel Thank you Bill's channel. So hey, Bill's Channel i love you guys. I wish that Bill didn't do that because he just referred people over to JOHN and there's an example a great example, where they see your video and they don't hear from me and my reply, well, what

John Greenewald  1:00:08

What are you doing now? Okay, well, look, cuz I know I know what I'm talking about. You know, I

Anthony Bragalia  1:00:13

don't I don't mean to embarrass you, in front of your viewers, but you know that that is what happened.

John Greenewald  1:00:18

Okay, well, you're not embarrassing me. I I'm starting to think you're not listening to what I've said. I already explained why I didn't invite you on, you published everything. When I learned that there was

Anthony Bragalia  1:00:27

no sense belied by the fact that you have me on now.

John Greenewald  1:00:30

You published everything.

Anthony Bragalia  1:00:31

If you felt that all the answers were there. Why do you have me on now? Because you came out with more information, Tony, exactly, and as people will know I am continuing investigations. My Battelle investigation is going on in its 17th year. I mean, these are things that continue and continue and for you to immediately hop on it and put out that video did a disservice the apology?

John Greenewald  1:00:56

Well, I'm sorry to hear you say that. But like I said, I backed my stuff up with evidence and I can't even get you to agree with station john, you or you came out, that's fine.

Anthony Bragalia  1:01:05

Now understand that you've had well over really rather viewers understand that a real journalist, a professional would have contacted me

John Greenewald  1:01:13

We going to start insulting now?

Anthony Bragalia  1:01:15

and then put out a video not the other way around, where you put out a video a damning video, and not consult me and then later asked me to come on, but nothing of the way that it went down.

John Greenewald  1:01:27

There's nothing that has come forward, that hasn't updated what I originally put out, and I stand by it, I don't change anything

Anthony Bragalia  1:01:33

It doesn't matter,  John.

John Greenewald  1:01:34

No, it does.

Anthony Bragalia  1:01:35

A professional would have contacted the individual they are going to talk about first, I'm not that difficult to get ahold of you. When I share similar connections and contacts. I have an email on my website, the least you could have done was to contact me first, before you did the video, I would have done that for you. I do that in all my reads my

John Greenewald  1:01:58

– overlap –

Anthony Bragalia  1:02:00

And I have worked on many cases together, where we act in the best interest and we try and get the other side of the story before we release a video like that. And now I think you understand why I am angry.

John Greenewald  1:02:15

Well, I'm sorry that you're angry. You shouldn't get that worked up over it. I don't have that my

Anthony Bragalia  1:02:19

couldn't get that worked up over it.

John Greenewald  1:02:21

Can I can I talk on my own show? Or is that a

Anthony Bragalia  1:02:23

yes, you can get.

John Greenewald  1:02:25

So you can get as angry as you'd like. What my video wasm was about your FOIA request and response which you publish in full. That's all I was talking about. And I even cited other parts of your article and said, I'm not going to go into that. Why? Because I wasn't going to start nitpicking all the errors that you had. And I'm sorry, there were quite a few. But my whole intent with that video was to talk about the foyer responses and these exaggerated headlines when you submitted or sent out whatever you want to call it your second article. I then yeah, I extended an invitation to you because I

Anthony Bragalia  1:03:02

know the third article it took three articles for you to do that john,

John Greenewald  1:03:05

Regardless. Okay, I sent the I sent the annotate my points they sent them I sent them to

Anthony Bragalia  1:03:11

Anybody who does an investigation tries to get both sides of the story before they release anything. That's just good business that's professional

John Greenewald  1:03:20

Yet here you are and you're still angry.

Anthony Bragalia  1:03:22

Like you were not being professional, you could have gotten a hold of me. And instead, you didn't and it caused some issues because yes, mainstream media now is avoiding this story. In largest there's

John Greenewald  1:03:37

There's no evidence. There's no I'm sorry, Tony. There's just no evidence there's not. And if there was

Anthony Bragalia  1:03:44

no evidence of what john, what you're gonna do, it was lambing. I asked you even consult me on beforehand. I don't need to publish everything.

John Greenewald  1:03:54

Okay, but when but when you put stuff out, I'm just I decided to give you a chance. There was a three articles in as you and nothing that you've produced has showed me anything I asked you to clarify your headline. And you You gave me crickets there for a little bit. Hold me

Anthony Bragalia  1:04:12

you have you can interpret cricket. Yeah, I mean, listen, you want to characterize every little tiny thing, which you tend to do. I'm gonna go into some of the other comments in the video, which had absolutely nothing to do whatsoever, including visuals I had in the in the articles. Yeah, it's misleading, quite understanding that at all. And I have to get going. I have a kind of a hard stop here because I have a business. But john and I will be talking Kevin randles radio show on Wednesday, and we're going to pick up here and john will let you know more about that.

John Greenewald  1:04:47

Yep. And that's it. Tony as I said in the beginning of the show, I do appreciate you taking the time I know it gets heated because we don't know I do agree on everything here but I do admire those who will have the conversation nonetheless. Thank you for that. Thank you. I

Anthony Bragalia  1:05:01

appreciate it, john, and I really look forward to talking to gun and Wednesday. And really again, appreciate it so very much

John Greenewald  1:05:09

anytime and thank you all for listening and watching. This is John Greenewald Jr signing off. We'll see you next time. I don't think he wanted to talk to me anymore.

The post Ep. #72 – The Pentagon, AATIP & UFO Debris: The Interview appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The case has become legendary.

Complete with numerous witnesses telling compelling stories, and yes, even this video that the US Navy calls “unidentified” – the Nimitz Encounter continues to fascinate and intrigue anyone with an interest in the unknown.

But what is the true science behind what we know? Some know the facts; few dissect the science. My guest today, has done just that.

Robert Powell, who co-authored a 270 page scientific breakdown of findings relating to the Nimitz event, is here to share what they found.

Stay tuned… you’re about to journey INSIDE THE BLACK VAULT.

Show Notes

o The Nimitz Encounter Movie by Dave Beaty

o The Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU)
o 2004 USS Nimitz Navy Strike Group Incident Report
o Aguadilla UFO Case and Video
o Robert Powell's Book co-authored with Michael Swords – UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry

Live Stream Version

The post Ep. #71 – Robert Powell on the Science Behind the Nimitz UFO Encounter appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

November 22, 1963. Dallas, Texas.

At exactly 12:30pm, while riding in a presidential motorcade through Dealey Plaza, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald.

In the decades since, conspiracy theories have flourished about what really happened that day. And even in 2021, numerous documents remain classified and hidden from the public which may reveal more of the story. Yet, the U.S. government won’t let you see them.

Although no one has conclusively solved this mystery beyond a shadow of a doubt – my guest today thinks he may be able to do just that. Ambassador James Woolsey, the former Director of the CIA under President Bill Clinton, is about to step into the Vault.

In his new book entitled Operation Dragon, he makes his case for what he feels is a “codified” message embedded within the Warren Commission report. Once deciphered, he believes it tells us exactly who was behind the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Oh yeah, and you don’t think I would get a guest like this without asking about UFOs, do you? Because that is all on the table.

Stay tuned… you’re about to journey INSIDE THE BLACK VAULT.

SHOW NOTES

* There is an obvious jump cut or two in the edit. This was not omitting anything Ambassador Woolsey said, rather, correcting a technical issue which he was aware of. The rest of the interview is unedited and as you watch it, is how it unfolded.

o Operation Dragon: Inside the Kremlin's Secret War on America

o The Black Vault’s JFK Document Collection

o CIA UFO Document Collection

o James Woolsey / Dr. Steven Greer Alleged Briefing. I was referring to Dr. Steven Greer, and here is a link to his site with Amb. Woolsey's letter that I reference, along with Dr. Greer's rebuttal to it, as published in 1999.

The post Ep. #70 – Amb. R. James Woolsey on the Cold War, JFK Assassination & UFOs appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

After decades of denying interest in the UFO phenomena; the U.S. government has begun to come clean.

Beginning in December of 2017, rumors of a “Secret Pentagon UFO Study” was reported by the mainstream media. The result was an avalanche of UFO stories throughout the next couple of years; each one increasing the hope that Disclosure of some sort of alien existence, was about to become reality.

As a result, Congress wanted answers.

Now? They will get them from the intelligence community in mid 2021. But will it all be public knowledge, or just something for our elected leaders behind closed doors?

And what, if anything, will be revealed?

It may just be that the 1960s foreshadowed what might expect. But, is that a good thing? Stay tuned — you're about to journey inside The Black Vault.

SHOW NOTES

• Gerald Ford Presidential Library UFO Documents
• The Road to a Congressional UFO Hearing, 1960’s Style
• When Freedom of Information and Public Affairs Collide On The UFO Issue
• Hearings Before and Special Reports Made by Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives on Subjects Affecting the Naval and Military Establishments, 1966 (Full Congressional Hearing Transcript)
• Here Are The Navy Pilot Reports From Encounters With Mysterious Aircraft Off The East Coast

LIVE STREAM VERSION

The post Ep. #69 – The Coming 2021 UAP/UFO Report: A Historical Perspective appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Wild sensationalized headlines and misinterpreted FOIA results has all landed a new UFO story that is, well, just not accurate. Although at the recording of this, mainstream media coverage has not commenced, the blog in question has found itself posted throughout multiple social networks such as Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter; all resulting in many questions. This is addressing the rumor, while adding a few more tidbits about AAWSAP that you may not be aware of.

Since I created the first video, I spoke with the Pentagon; got a quote from the one in charge of the program that led to the creation of the reports; and am pulling a quote from Robert Bigelow himself that he recently gave to George Knapp in an interview. Together, this makes the three strikes to dismiss this story once and for all.

This podcast is a compilation of both videos. Something a bit different than the norm, but hope you enjoy the audio presentation.

SHOW NOTES

PENTAGON ADMITS IT HAS UFO DEBRIS, RELEASES TEST RESULTS by Anthony Bragalia

DIRD Report Research

Wayback Machine AAWSAP Bid Solicitation

Robert Bigelow – AAWSAP, the Tic Tac incident, Weird events on Skinwalker Ranch

Murky Waters Drowning “UFO Debris” Claims

LIVE STREAM VERSIONS

Part 1

Part 2

The post Ep. #68 – Pentagon UFO Debris? An Analysis of the Claims appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

DESCRIPTION

It happened more than 44 years ago.

A UFO event seen over Tehran, Iran, defied logic, or explanation to highly trained pilots, tower operators and military officials.

The government intelligence report that documents the story is only four pages in length – but back in 1996 – this one document became the motivation to create The Black Vault, and it continues to serve as the inspiration to keep it running now for nearly two and a half decades.

Stay tuned… your about to journey Inside The Black Vault.

SHOW GUIDE

00:00:00 – Introduction
00:01:38 – Show Beginning / Background
00:04:14 – Slideshow Start
00:07:19 – Reading of the 1976 Iran Incident Document
00:14:51 – Why Page 1 Is Important
00:17:06 – Captain Henry S. Shields
00:21:45 – The Transmittal Slip
00:25:40 – Subscribe to the Channel!

SHOW NOTES

o The 1976 Iran Incident Documents

The post Ep. #67 – The 1976 Iran UFO Incident – The Case That Started it All appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

DESCRIPTION

Nearly a quarter of a century ago, The Black Vault was born.

I was fifteen years old when I started what you’re seeing now, and it was at that same age back in 1996, that the CIA quickly found out the name John Greenewald.

I tried to gain access to documents on UFOs that the CIA had already released to the public at the time, but the CIA pushed back on my efforts by charging me money to get them. And that was money I just didn’t have as a teenager.

So, I switched gears. I targeted the information the CIA had never released before. It was more recent, and quite possibly more interesting. But I had no idea what else they would have in store for me.

In an in-depth and convoluted tale that stretched over the course of years, The Black Vault would finally pry loose thousands of UFO related documents that at the time, had never seen the light of day before.

And recently, a data CD-ROM also obtained from the CIA by The Black Vault which compiled most of these records, was put online in effort to make the most simplistic and straight forward way to download them all at once for public consumption.

And the internet… went wild.

It took only a few days for The Black Vault’s servers to be hit more than 101,000,000 times by nearly 1.7 million people. A record hit of traffic ever logged in 25 years of operation.

What is in these records? Why is the public so fascinated? And WHAT did the media get wrong?

Stay tuned – you’re about to journey INSIDE THE BLACK VAULT.

SHOW NOTES

UFOs: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Collection

Vice News: You Can Now Easily Download All CIA UFO Documents to Date

The Black Vault: “All UFO Documents From…” Collection

Dr. Leon Davidson's FBI Files

The FULL Robertson Panel Report

Chief Armed Forces Medical Examiner Saved One Single 1994 UFO Article – This Was It

SHOW GUIDE

00:00:00 – Beginning
00:02:46 – Introduction after the credits
00:05:02 – Origin to the CIA's release of UFO documents
00:14:20 – The Media Coverage
00:20:00 – Were the CIA documents all released before and available?
00:26:02 – So what's in the documents?
00:28:15 – Record proving physical evidence of some kind, piqued the CIA's interest
00:35:46 – Heavy redactions and lost documents…
00:40:30 – Dr. Leon Davidson, the “Space Message” and his persistence
00:48:46 – UFO Encounter in Russia over Sensitive Biological Weapons Facility?
00:53:01 – UFO Encounter in the Belgian Congo
00:58:25 – The CIA's Robertson Panel report and the 1952 era
01:04:27 – The CIA's Monitoring of Global Media: the FBIS and JPRS
01:14:07 – What's this all mean?

The post Ep. #66 – Inside the Release of the CIA’s UFO Records appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In October of 2017, this counterintelligence officer and trained special agent by the name of Luis Elizondo, stepped out of the shadowed halls of the Pentagon and into the public spotlight. Whether he intended it or not, by doing so he would become an instant celebrity to UFO enthusiasts for saying something that would soon shake the entire world.

Luis Elizondo: “By far the most interesting effort I was involved with was the topic of advanced aerial threats. For nearly the last decade, I ran a sensitive aerospace threat identification program focusing on unidentified aerial technologies. It was in this position I learned that the phenomena is indeed real.”

Within minutes of speaking these words, The Black Vault used this once insider information to file numerous Freedom of Information Act requests to see what documents could be dug up. The idea was that in the eyes of the law — if this former government agent was talking about it – the documents may just be ripe for the pickin’ if one    were to ask for them. So that’s exactly what I did.

This unfolding saga brought me hope that after more than 20 years of pushing for the truth, the veil of secrecy surrounding the UFO phenomenon might just be lifting once and for all – and things were drastically changing.

Evidence of that change was revealed just two months after Elizondo stepped foot on that stage. That is when the mainstream media covered Elizondo, and his story, was a viral sensation all over the world.

But as excitement exploded worldwide about this “Secret Pentagon UFO Study” known as the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program or AATIP; controversy had already begun to percolate inside The Black Vault about what was really going on.

Just three weeks prior to the NY Times running their now world-famous headline; the Pentagon told The Black Vault they had no records on any program that Elizondo had described. Not a single piece of evidence whatsoever.

A couple months after that; the Navy denied they gave anything to the AATIP program, despite what Elizondo had claimed.

And then just months after that; the Pentagon issued a statement that was the most damning of all. They claimed that Elizondo “had no assigned responsibilities” on the AATIP program that he had brought to light.

As the months, and years, passed since the initial headlines; The Black Vault became highly critical of Elizondo’s claims. That is not a popular stance to take, and as social media can easily prove, that type of stance can come with a little bit of heat!

But it wasn’t just Elizondo on the receiving end of criticism. The Pentagon and the entire U.S. government has had a history of covering up UFO data for decades; and it appeared that’s what they may have been doing again. But to what extent?

My guest today, is the man who started it all… Luis Elizondo himself. Despite The Black Vault’s criticism, and admittedly the nitpicking of every detail in order to find the absolute truth, Elizondo has agreed to step into the Vault and share his side of the story in a special one on one interview.

Stay tuned – you’re about to journey INSIDE THE BLACK VAULT.

Transcript

SUMMARY KEYWORDS

people, tip, contract, luis, government, program, solicitation, resigned, classified, pentagon, knew, bit, intelligence, information, point, sap, counterintelligence, aerospace, question, decision

SPEAKERS

Luis Elizondo, CNN News Anchor, John Greenewald, George Knapp

John Greenewald  00:10

In October of 2017, this counter intelligence officer and train Special Agent by the name of Luis Elizondo stepped out of the shadowed halls of the Pentagon and in to the public spotlight, whether he intended it or not. By doing so he would become an instant celebrity to UFO enthusiasts for saying something that would soon shake the entire world.

Luis Elizondo  00:34

For nearly the last decade, I ran a sensitive aerospace threat identification program, focusing on unidentified aerial technologies. It was in this position, I learned that the phenomenon is indeed real.

John Greenewald  00:49

Within minutes of speaking these words, the black vault use this once insider information to file numerous Freedom of Information Act requests to see what documents could be dug up. The idea was that in the eyes of the law, if this former government agent was talking about it, then the documents may just be right for the picking, if one were to ask for them. So that's exactly what I did. This unfolding saga brought me hope that after more than 20 years of pushing for the truth, the veil of secrecy surrounding the UFO phenomenon might just be lifting once and for all, and things were drastically changing. Ever evidence of that change was revealed just two months after Elizondo stepped foot on that stage. That is when the mainstream media covered Elizondo, along with his story, and it became a viral sensation all over the world.

CNN News Anchor  01:45

Right now the former Pentagon military officials who ran the covert government program up until this last November, Luis Elizondo, we thank you so much for your time tonight

George Knapp  01:54

Until he stepped out on stage last October alongside rock star Tom DeLonge. And other former government insiders that most of the world had never heard of Luis Elizondo, which is how he liked it.

John Greenewald  02:09

But as excitement exploded worldwide about this secret Pentagon UFO study known as the advanced aerospace threat identification program, or a tip, controversy had already begun to percolate inside the black vault about what was really going on. Just three weeks prior to the New York Times running there now world famous headline, the Pentagon told the black vault they had no records on any program that Elizondo had described, not a single piece of evidence whatsoever. A couple months after that, the Navy denied they gave anything to the a tip program, despite what Elizondo had claimed. And then, just months after that, the Pentagon issued a statement that was the most damning of all. They claimed that Elizondo had no assigned responsibilities on the a tip program that he had brought into the spotlight. As the months and years passed since the initial headlines, the black vault became highly critical of Elizondo his claims. This is not a popular stance to take, and a social media can easily prove that type of stance can come with a little bit of heat. But it wasn't just Elizondo on the receiving end of criticism. The Pentagon and the entire US government has had a history of covering up UFO data for decades. And it appeared that's exactly what they may be doing again. But to what extent. My guest today is the man who started it all, Luis Elizondo himself. Despite the black vaults criticism, and admittedly the nitpicking of every single detail in order to find the Absolute Truth. Elizondo has agreed to step into the vault and share his side of the story in a special one on one interview. Stay tuned. You're about to journey inside the black vault. That's right everybody. As always, thank you so much for tuning in and making this your podcast or your live stream of choice. I'm your host john Greenwald, Jr. And to say that I am well beyond excited about the next hour or so. That would be an understatement. I've been looking forward to doing this with my guessed doing a sit down for quite some time now, I guess approaching probably about three years. And he has been nothing but gracious and a gentleman despite my high criticism and my skepticism about some things that have come out, I don't want to waste any time I want to bring on to the show Mr. Luis Elizondo, I really on behalf of everybody watching and listening. Thank you for taking the time today to talk to all of us.

Luis Elizondo  05:28

Well, john, thank you, I appreciate it very much. You know, I certainly appreciate your audience as well. And I don't say this frivolously. And I've told you this before privately, you have managed to do things in this this arena that very few other individuals have have ever been able to accomplish, particularly your working employer. You know, for those who may not know, for you a Freedom of Information Act was enacted in order to ensure transparency for the American public and to government workings, if you will, because in the past, there had been some some issues with that where the government may have overstepped its its authorities and as a result, so Congress enacts FOIA process, and I think there has probably never been anybody who has sat who has been as savvy in the FOIA process than you. So thank you also, for what you do, it's sincerely appreciated. I know not just for folks like me, but on behalf of everybody out there. Your work over the past, well, past few decades really has been been pretty incredible.

John Greenewald  06:34

I really appreciate those kind words, and as my audience is already seeing, and I'll say it again, despite that, that that skepticism from me, you have always been that that gentleman and a scholar, you've always been open to me. You've spoken to me on the telephone, and now you're doing this. But But I want to return that respect to you. And I hope everybody realizes that I've tried to say that on social media, but also the fact that you're here. And I want this as kind of a housekeeping note for those listening and watching. I asked all my guests this and all of them can attest to it. However, I did ask the same question to you, which was, is there anything you don't want me to go into? And you have never once told me even though I've asked you quadruple check that through the last few months, as we've set this up, you've never once said, Nope, don't go here. Nope, don't go there, you've always said the same thing, which was, everything's on the table. So My respect to you for that, and for being here. And let's just kind of jump right right into it. What I want to do and how I structured This interview is, essentially take a chronological look at some of maybe some stuff that you've already talked about, but also filling in the holes, some questions may be a little bit sensitive, we might get into some areas where you go, sorry, john, I'm going to talk to you about that. And and, and so I'll apologize in advance if I start pushing those buttons. But that's who I am, I have to push them. So take me back to the beginning, if you could, on how you became involved in a tip and exactly how that came to be.

Luis Elizondo  08:07

Yeah, I'm gonna do that. And but before I do that, john, let me also offer one one, Mia Copeland apology also to you, and I'm not sure that, that we really ever had a chance to address this. But the bottom line is that years ago, you try, I tried to make myself as approachable as possible. And years ago, I know, several years ago, you tried to reach out and try to have a conversation with me. And unfortunately, that message never got to me. And I want to apologize, because I do. I do think we should have probably had this conversation three years ago, and probably through every year after that as well. And because that information never got to me. Unfortunately, we never gave you a reply or response that you deserved. And so I want to, I want to say here, and now I'm really, really sorry, we never had a chance to do this earlier. I think this conversation is a longtime company coming and I really do appreciate sincerely your patience. Thus far, I promise you it was not intentional on my part. I just never knew you had even inquired to speak with me until after you know, we actually talked the first time and you had said, Hey, Lou, I've been trying to get ahold of you for, you know, X amount of months. And, and I had no idea. So I want to apologize here, you know, on air, just so you know, that was never intention.

John Greenewald  09:27

Well, I appreciate that. No, you. Somebody taught me a long time ago. You don't know what you don't know. And there's no need to apologize but accepted anyway. But I appreciate you pointing that out. Thank you.

Luis Elizondo  09:38

So back to at&t, how did I get involved? Let's rewind the clock to about 2008. Now give you kind of the synopsis of how all this evolved. I was working prior to that at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. I was a senior intelligence officer working policy strategy, things like that. To be quite frankly, frank with you, the drive was killing me. I was living on Maryland's Eastern Shore at the time, and you're looking at a three hour commute one way. I love my job. I love the people, but the commute was killing me. So at the time, it was then Undersecretary of defense for intelligence, Jim Clapper was over at the usdi. And he was the undersecretary of defense for intelligence at the time, and a man I respected greatly. And I was given an opportunity to come back to God for about a year to to work some some new efforts, particularly in intelligence sharing, law enforcement, information integration. And so I came back very eager, because my, my daily commute was cut about half all of a sudden, and I had my little bit more of my life back. So I went back to God. And it was at that time, I was working in the National Capital Region, NCR region, where some people would come to my to my desk, we were working, I wasn't in the Pentagon at the time, we were working at a remote location, but still connected to the Pentagon. And, you know, it's kind of bizarre because like out of out of a movie. These two people I still remember today very clearly from what they were wearing, very nicely dressed. And I remember someone knocking on the door and Mr. Elizondo, there's some people here to see you, which is not uncommon, you know, you, you're always working issues, so you're trying to fix things. So sure, bring them on. And they came in, and they said, hey, you're you're Luis Elizondo, and Yes. Can we talk to you? And I said, Sure. And one of them shut the door behind my door. Okay. This is probably not a good. You know, I often joke, you know, what did I do now? Right? I probably upset somebody. And they sat down. And they started to say, you know, hey, look, we are part of the intelligence community. We're part of a program, we're not going to tell you much about it. But do you mind telling us a little bit about yourself? And I probably was a little rude. I probably was a little bit standoffish. But I don't particularly like talking about myself, especially if I don't know who you are. And they start asking very pointed questions, specifically about you know, we hear that your your, your counter intelligence guy, we hear that you did some background, before you have some background, in advanced avionics and aerospace industry. Is that true? Yes. Do you mind sharing with us? I said, Well, I'll share with you at the unclassified level, the type of systems I've worked on, but I'm really not comfortable going into any more detail. It's a long story short, they agreed to to, they would come back and have another discussion with me. And so when they left, I ran some trap lines to find out that they were legit, they were part of a special program, but I didn't have clearance into it. So I really didn't know. But they really were who they said they were, they were part of a small organization. And I presumed that the time had something to do with aerospace. But I really didn't know. And then a couple more trips, they came by we talked, got a little bit more comfortable. They got more comfortable with me, I certainly got more comfortable with them. And finally, they said we'd like to have you meet our director. And I said, Okay, sure, no problem. It might have been john, probably, seven or 10 days later, we had an appointment to go meet that I was hoping the director would come see me, I thought I was sufficiently senior enough where you know, you want to come see me, you can come see me instead of like, okay, be at this location at this time at this place. And don't tell anybody, you're coming. So again, a little bit unusual. I'm like, you know, I'm sorry, who are you? So I decided to go ahead and do it. And I told my deputy that time, hey, I'm going to go go to this meeting. I went to it. And it was an undisclosed location, and also the National Capital Region. look just like a normal office building, really, until you go inside. And then you realize that you have, you know, guards and whatnot, you're like, Okay, this is probably a little bit more more sensitive. I remember going up the elevator up to the floor, and it looked like it looked like an office building you would see like on Wall Street, really, you know, cubicles all over the place, and people kind of making copies and doing work diligently on their computers. And there was just corner office kind of looked like that. Well, last, you know, the individual sitting back in there. And what struck me is that the individual was I don't want to stereotype but if you would ever think of what a rocket scientist looks like. He was your quintessential rocket scientist glasses. You know, very, very lewd, appeared very astute and very, no nonsense. So I went I introduced myself should contain, hey, glad you're here. He didn't smile. He was just very serious. And he was mad. He looked at me, he was staring at me. I felt almost a little uncomfortable because I know he was assessing the hell out of me. And I was trying to assess him as well. But obviously, he probably knew a little bit more about me than I knew about him. Which is never really Good to go into a meeting like that, as an intelligence officer, you know, you're kind of one, if you will know thy enemy, not saying he was my enemy by any stretch, but you know, you want one who you're dealing with. And he introduced himself. And I'm sure at some point, his name will become become very public I have, I have a lot of respect for him. I've never mentioned his name. He's asked me never to mention it. until he's comfortable with with his name being out, so I won't. But we talked, we had a very good candid conversation. And that's when he asked me, I mean, started, he started with my background in, in aerospace and the type of technologies I've worked on. And you know, this is a guy who I really knew his stuff. And he was like, literally a rock literally, by definition, a rocket scientists, and probably one of the best ones that we had in the government. And that's when, you know, he asked me said, what do you what do you think about? No, john, he looking straight in the face. And looking back, it was so weird, because I wasn't sure if he was like, testing me, or if it was legit, but he said, What do you think about the topic of UFOs? Now coming from my world, you know, will to test somebody, we will use provocative statements sometimes, and then gauge their body language and, you know, micro behaviors and neuro linguistics to see if, you know, they're prone to, you know, flights of fancy and things like that. And, but he wasn't listening very serious. And they said, Well, I, I don't really think about UFOs This is what you don't think they're real. I said, No, no, I didn't say that. I just, I never really had the luxury to think about UFOs. You know, I'm not particularly a huge science fiction fan. I never really watched X Files or anything like that. And I've been so consumed with my work that when I'm not working at my home, and I'm a father, but those are really the only things I ever have time for work, and which didn't involve anything at all involved in the photos clearly, and, and raising a family. So he said, Okay, that's, that's fair. And he said, but let me let me just caution you, to caution you at warning something to that effect, let me caution you that, don't let your analytic bias get in the way. And he said, you're gonna, you're gonna see things that you may not, you may have a hard time reconciling. Now, at this point, I hadn't even accepted it, I think hadn't been offered even really a job, right? Yeah. I'm thinking to myself, are you? Are you just a pitcher, you offer me a job, or this just is just just advice for life, you know, to take with me and what the hell's really going on here? So I've not ever had to know. But I've, you know, very, very fair point, right? I don't really have an opinion yet on it. And then we agreed, have another conversation. But he said, Look, I'm looking for a counterintelligence guy. For those in your audience who may not know what really counterintelligence is, and a lot of people think they know what CIA CIA is, is really knowing what the enemy knows about you. Right? So so foreign intelligence collection is, is learning what the bad guys know, counterintelligence is knowing what the bad guys know about you. So if you think of a chessboard, if you are playing chess against an opponent, you know, foreign intelligence is knowing what their pieces can do on the chessboard and how they plan to move. Counter intelligence is knowing what they know about your pieces, right, and how you can move. So it's yet another layer of playing chess to some degree, I guess, you know, not any better or worse in other forms of intelligence. It's just, it's a very nice way of doing business from an intelligence perspective. So instead of looking for a counter intelligence guy, because we know that there are some foreign countries, foreign adversaries out there that probably know what we're doing. And I need a good counterintelligence and security program, which, by the way, it's not unusual. Anytime you have a sensitive program, you know, you you want to have, you want to have good security and counterintelligence expertise. It's just, it's just an extra layer of, if you will, insurance to have to protect your program. So it wasn't unusual that I was that I was being asked to provide counterintelligence expertise, I wasn't being asked to do anything with UFOs, per se, it was just to come in and provide, you know, the background that I already have just used that in this capacity. So ultimately, long story short, it was obviously the rest is history. No pun intended, I secure alcohol, I'll accept the job. And it was at that point, through through various conversations afterwards, I began to realize that these guys are legit. They're real. I mean, they have like real data. And the individuals at the started that were part of this effort, I knew from before, like people like help food off and whatnot that were, you know, they were kind of legends in their own time anyways. So I knew this was a serious legitimate effort, and then I began to see the documentation. From the Senate and Congress, and I really began to recognize that this was a full fledged program. But they really didn't need counterintelligence expertise. They didn't have anything. So they were kind of they were kind of vulnerable from that perspective. Yeah, I know, it's probably a long winded explanation. No, that's okay. Um, yeah, that's,

John Greenewald  20:19

I mean, yeah, yeah. No, I appreciate it. Because I want the groundwork here. Now, in this next question, I want you to kind of clarify, you can do it quickly, if you could, the difference between what we learned of the advanced aerospace weapons. Now I'm drawn on that. Yeah, thank you the offset program and I get tongue tongue tied, versus the program that you joined, that you just described the advanced aerospace threat identification program or a tip. What was the difference between the two? Because this has been an area of much confusion not only by myself, but it seems like those that even worked on the program, which I'll explain in

Luis Elizondo  20:58

a moment, absolutely not, not not only you, but I mean, honestly, probably to all of us, to some degree in the beginning. So in the in the, in the very beginning days, there was very little difference between all seven, eight, there really wasn't a clear line distinction. There were there were focuses of the same effort. And what it was you had portions of all SAP, which of course, now know, Bigelow Aerospace was part of had some incredible scientists working at at the at the ranch facility. And by the way, other places, it wasn't just the ranch.

John Greenewald  21:31

And it just jumps. Just to clarify, you're talking about skinwalker Ranch. Okay, so so you're, and this is another one, but since you brought it up, I'll just ask it really quick. So so a tip or OS app are both operated on the grounds of skinwalker Ranch in Utah?

Luis Elizondo  21:50

I want to be clear, I don't want to answer for Bob Bigelow, or the former director of the program, because those are probably nuances, you'd have to ask them, I will say that it didn't involve the ranch, all SAP was that it was looking at looking at the phenomenon through through a very broad lens. And, you know, that's, that's what they were doing. And by the way, there was some pretty compelling data. And I'll share with you that it was there was some fairly compelling data. Some of it was was a little bit disturbing, to be honest with you. But in 2009, a decision was really made to formally if you will, partition off that that part of the study involving the UAP phenomenon under a tip and the reason why is because we were getting data from all different sensor platforms that weren't necessarily ranch related. These were, you know, of course, everybody knows Nimitz and all these other other cases. But, you know, you had, you know, strategic carrier groups out in, in, in certain ao ours, areas of operation, if you will, were where we were picking up UAP activity. And so we realized that there was a really a concerted need to, to focus on the topic of ua peas, from a nuts and bolts perspective. Now, let me caveat a lot of people when I say that they kind of retract and say, Yeah, but you can't look at these from a nuts and bolts perspective, you have to, you know, look at this from this perspective and that perspective. And you know, that that could be absolutely right. But in the Department of Defense, we had to be able to, to do two things, and that's qualified and quantify data. Otherwise, for us, it was useless. I'm not saying it is useless. I'm saying, for our purposes, and Department of Defense briefing, senior leadership, that unless I can qualify and quantify data, it's it's conjecture. There's, there's no there there, I can't do anything with it. So. And there was enough sufficient data coming in where we could, I mean, we could say there were these many incidents occurring in this particular month, and these particular parts of the waters with these particular assets, you know, these are videos or pictures that were taken and radar information. So it helps you paint a compelling picture to leadership, an event that is occurring or events that are occurring. And so that decision really started to occur started to solidify 2009 and that's why you see I think in the in Senator Reid's now now infamous letter that came out everybody's now knows about all way back in 2009. He then Deputy Secretary land that he wants to take this portion of eight tip that you actually see the advanced aerospace threat identification program become a formalized effort and put that into into SAP channels to protect it. Because we knew based upon the efforts that were going on with Aw, SAP, that you had two camps, you had some people that really supported the effort. And then you had some people that really didn't support the effort. And by the way, this is just a loss at least All this before with how poodles program with Stargate and the remote viewing program that, you know, anytime the government was dealing with something that was maybe maybe a bit unconventional fringe, it would tend to be considered by some fringe, it ruffled a lot of feathers. And so, you know, the, I guess the solution, then the mindset was let's, let's take this program that's kind of exposed, and let's put it under this umbrella of sapper, we can protect it. And, you know, we can still continue to collect the information without fear of people on the outside not understanding what we're doing, and having this knee jerk reaction to just shut it down. So that's, that's kind of how that all evolved. Gotcha.

John Greenewald  25:43

So then all SAP, from what it sounds like, was was completely different. A tip was branching off on just UAP investigations fair to say that

Luis Elizondo  25:54

I mean, from my perspective, I mean, I'm sure if you talk to people that were in all SAP that were still doing stump stuff in the a tip side of the house, and vice versa, they would probably tell you, it was more of a gray area, there wasn't really a heart and the early days, and yet it was but in the early days, there wasn't really a hard transition, or if you if you will have an event horizon. Yeah, separating the offset program and the a tip, there was kind of a blurry line there. That's sometimes shifted, but by 2010, we were firmly by 2010. Nine, really, but 10. It was, there was no question about it. A tip was its own focus area,

John Greenewald  26:30

I want to ask you about the some of the public documentation, the verified information that has come out. And that is involving aos app. Now, I know that you didn't lead aos app, and sometimes you don't like to talk about it. But I do want to ask you something that also encompasses a tip, which is that public documentation has absolutely zero mention of paranormal UFOs uaps unidentified craft and so on that rather it was more of a forward looking program. At least that's what the public bid solicitation stated. Where I have a very big question on this is that disconnect from what we know, to then bass getting the contract? It's a UAP study. And then that bores out? A tip, and voila, we have the rest is is history? What What am I missing just by looking at that documentation? So

Luis Elizondo  27:25

what? That's a great question. So anytime you look at any governmental solicitation, we call these service contracts elicitation. This goes out to the public sphere, right. And that means anybody and everybody can look at it to include Russians because the contract you're spending american taxpayer dollars to do job XYZ. So even when you want to build a B two bomber, right? In Air Force contracts, you don't put out a contract saying, Hey, we want somebody come up, build a super secret spell the space, stealth, you know, technology. Let me repeat that again. Sorry about that. Even when you're doing the B two bomber, and you want to do a solicitation for someone to build you a super secret stealth bomber, right? You don't you don't in the solicitation that will never say that. It will say very nebulous, ambiguous language, because you don't want to tip off to your foreign adversaries key technology that you're trying to develop a bill. So it's the same thing with this. When when the solicitation which by the way, for the record, I wasn't part of Sure, yeah. But I can tell you from general perspective, how we do this. At the unclassified level, you're going to see these solicitations always very generalized. And that is specifically because you don't want to tip your hand unnecessarily to your foreign adversaries that you're working on project ABC are doing. So that's why you said I would I would I would challenge anybody in your audience to go ahead and look at other solicitations. You know, now we can look back and you know, look back 1015 years, look at some of those technologies back then that were really protecting whether it's drone technology, right for to help us on the Global War on Terror. Those solicitations when you read those unclassified solicitations, almost read nothing like the classified portion of what the job really is you In fact, when you look at it, you're gonna see, you know, I've read this solicitation six times, I still have no idea what it's for.

John Greenewald  29:16

So ambiguous in general, and let me jump in there because I get a lot of heat for bringing this up. And I don't think it's as bad of an act, quote, unquote, accusation. I'm not accusing anybody, but I don't think it's as bad of a thing as people make it sound like when I posed this, but if there's a classified portion of a bid solicitation, right, and you have that public setting, and then you have something behind the scenes that only cleared personnel can see when contractors come in. I'm with you on all of that. However, in kind of digging into that area, where I get myself into trouble from some people, is that Bigelow Aerospace, who obviously has a vested interest in this personal interest has invested a lot of his own money away from A tip and OS app and all that into the UAP phenomena. If he's not right upfront, getting that classified description, he sees the public part they bid on it. What are the odds that that organization gets this contract to secretly? In a classified setting? Investigate uaps. And according to the Defense Intelligence Agency, he's the only one out of every government contract IE that contract or that that could actually bid on this. He's the only one. And that leads to a discussion about a sweetheart deal. I doubt you want to comment on that. But I bring it up just simply because that's the disconnect that I still don't understand. Because he can't grab that classified portion of the solicitation, or correct me if I'm wrong, before he gets granted the contract.

Luis Elizondo  30:50

Right? Well, I can't comment on it, because I wasn't there. But I can come at it from the perspective of a couple things. So first of all, I do know, Mr. Bigelow personal. He's an amazing human being anybody who who's never had the chance to meet this guy. He really is an American hero. He has he has contributed more to this topic. Behind the scenes, I think that done just about anybody, certainly even more than certainly more than I have. So that's the first thing. Second of all, I think if you look at aerospace, in general, look at Lockheed Martin, look at Boeing, look at Northrop Grumman and all these others. You know, there's only certain companies that can build an F 22. Right. And at the end of the day, it's up to two companies. I think you had Lockheed, and then you had, you know, the other guys that they wind up going with. You know, a lot of times there are contracts where you might tell somebody ahead of time, look, we're gonna write this contract, you're probably the only company that can do it. So just be advised that this contract may be coming out at some point. Because there's only certain amount of certain certain companies that can do certain things you wouldn't expect, for example, look at the early days when we had Jeep, I'm a Jeep guy, right. So I love old war, Jeeps, Korean War and World War Two jeeps. A lot of people don't realize people look at a jeep and say, Oh, that was you know, that was a Jeep product. But there were a lot of companies that were making jeeps in the early days of World War Two, you had Ford making them. And then you had, of course, you know, the overland Jeep overland company, and you had some other organization that were bidding for a contract. And at the end of the day, it turned out to be only only two companies from my understanding that actually got the Jeep contract, and then later want to be just one, believe it or not. So it's it's a bit convoluted the way that contracting world works. It's not perfect. But at the same time, I think there's enough oversight. Now, when you look at how, how contracts are selected. They're not selected by anybody who's connected really to the contract or connected by an outside independent organization. And there's a reason for that, because you have to be fair and unbiased. Now, I don't know this to be true. But I've been told that apparently, Bigelow was the only one Bigelow, bass was the only one to actually bid for the contract. So, you know, naturally, if you only have one bidder, and they have the qualifications are probably at the contract. But I, unfortunately, like I said, that occurred before my time. Sure, I came in really in 2008, that that ship had sailed back in 2007. So I, I truly, honestly can't tell you exactly how it went down. Only because I wasn't there for

John Greenewald  33:37

I gotcha. Fair enough. During the a tip days, I want to talk a little bit about the the controversy. We're about halfway through the interview, and I want to make sure that I give you ample time to address some of this. And that is the government's reaction to you coming out, you resign, you come out, you become a part of to the stars Academy, you bring videos along with you. I'm going to combine like 700 of the questions that I have here for for, for time reasons. But I want to talk about that controversy. Let me ask first quickly, if I may, at what point you were resigned October 4 2017. If I remember correctly, you had submitted your your resignation letter. At what point did you meet Tom DeLonge and plan to join to the stars Academy and bring all of this information to light?

Luis Elizondo  34:29

Yeah, I had made a decision to leave actually, I'd spoke with my dear My dear colleague and friend Chris Mellon. And it was you know, it was a soul searching moment for me. And finally, I made the decision. I said, Look, you know, I I can't fix this. On the inside. I can. This is a guy this is Secretary Mattis is a guy that I had been been in combat with, served with and just an amazing human being. And, and, you know, the bureaucracy unfortunately was such It just wasn't getting the information to the right people. And so sometimes, you know, in a situation like that, you do what you have to do. And in order to fix the problem, I, I felt that I had to I had to leave the organization, because I knew they wouldn't be able to stop, the one thing they couldn't stop would be my resignation memo. And, by the way, let's let's not forget that almost a year later, to the day, Secretary Mattis did the same thing he resigned, right. So rather than cause problems inside the system, in the Department of Defense, you know, if if you can't solve it, you need to get out of the way. And don't don't stay in a system that you don't don't agree with. If it's if it's really problematic, then resign. So the organization organization can continue doing what it's supposed to do, and you don't become, if you will, a friction point. That's just kind of a code of honor we have in the department, it's common, you see it in all the services, it's just what happens. As far as meeting Tom DeLonge. It wasn't till afterwards, actually, once I resigned, it's when I was approached to say, hey, Lou, you know, there's this little organization over here, led by some guy, some some rock star, which, for the record, when you're when you're a guy like me used to living in the shadows, that's the last thing you want to do is ever be in any kind of spotlight or it's just, it's not our character, the way we operate. But what I realized that it was how and Steve justice and Chris mallet and Jim semi van onboard, whoa, now, those are people I do know, now don't get me wrong. Tom's a great guy. But I never knew the guy, you know, for that I'm being in the intelligence community, you know, I might been able to pick out a song, but had no idea who this guy was, and really didn't pay attention to it. But when I saw who else was on, and you had the advisors like Dr. Norm Khan, and some of these other really big names that I had a chance to work with, while I was in the intelligence community. Whoa, now that's, that's significant. This guy may be a punk rocker, but he managed to get these folks together in the same room and support this cost. You know, that's, that's, that's a hell of an accomplishment. You know, so I was like, wow, that's, that's really hard to say no to. Especially when you have those people on board, that, and there was a lot more people that were affiliated with ttsa. That's not publicly known. But again, some some pretty significant people who had the honor and pleasure to serve with back in my day in military and Department of Defense, and later on in, in the intelligence community. So that was really for me, I had a conversation with my wife and said, Look, you know, what do you think and, you know, she says, Well, you know, these people and you know, do you trust them? And the answer is, you know, and statically Yes, I do. trust them with my life. So that was kind of an easy decision for me.

John Greenewald  37:56

So you had known Christopher Mellon prior to resigning. It sounds like you had a conversation with him but did not did not know anyone else. When it came to to the stars Academy until after he resigned. And it was it seems like no, I

Luis Elizondo  38:09

knew how put up I knew how it worked. For sure. He

John Greenewald  38:12

was part Yeah, and I'm sorry. backtrack. Did Then did you know that he tell you about to the stars.

Luis Elizondo  38:19

Before you it was Jim semi van. Who, who actually said hey, why don't you consider jumping on board with us? If I we met up Don't hold me to it. But and we were going back three years now. I'm pretty certain it was Jim who who actually was one to offer me a position,

John Greenewald  38:38

pre resignation or post just for chronological post

Luis Elizondo  38:41

post post.

John Greenewald  38:43

I gotcha. So you

Luis Elizondo  38:44

Yeah, cuz I think they knew that I was gonna wind up working at I gotta be careful, though. I don't want to put a plug in for it. I was gonna wind up working, you know, at a probably at a supermarket, just to just to pay my bills afterwards. Because, you know, even though I had left the department, I'm not the age of retirement yet. I can't collect my pension. So you know, I still I still needed employment.

John Greenewald  39:08

Gotcha. Okay. So you joined to the stars Academy. It all seems to happen pretty quick after you had resigned because a couple of weeks go by and you're on so very fast. Yeah, it was very fast. Sounds like it. So and you brought with you a couple videos. I want to focus in on that now. And then we'll we'll get more to the do.

Luis Elizondo  39:26

Just to be clear, I didn't actually bring those videos. That wasn't me. I did not I facilitated the process of getting them releasable through Department of Defense channels, but I didn't actually bring them that was somebody else.

John Greenewald  39:40

Okay, so you would file the paperwork, obviously, that

Luis Elizondo  39:43

yes. Okay. Good. And, and by the way, with after having a long discussion with my team, because I was a senior guy, I'm the one who had to request it, but it was a mutual decision that we would go with. So the initial intent, john was to have a unclassified repository because that was my experience before when I've worked in department events is really setting up these special enclaves, where you could share a very sensitive national level intelligence via what we call a terror line. And getting that information down to a level could be consumable by by anybody out there. That's, you know, local law enforcement, state authorities, anybody like that? That's, that's actionable information. But it was super classified. So you have to come up with a mechanism where people who don't necessarily have security clearance can access really, really classified information. So there's a mechanism to do that. So that kind of was my forte for some time. So we wanted to build an unclassified repository where information could be put on that was not super, super, super sensitive. There wasn't any like, classified metadata, or call signs or locational information. But we could create this database that allowed other people from the outside to look at this and say, oh, because we didn't we really, we went through analysis after analysis, and we were still coming up with a goose egg. We had no idea what the hell the things were. We were hoping that maybe some other people say, yeah, you know what, we picked that up too, and, and maybe some some state authorities and you know, Kansas said, Yeah, actually, we've been seeing these things over our nuclear facilities, or just as an example, let's say just Kansas, a nuclear facility where I got to give you this example,

John Greenewald  41:22

a lot of people are going to read into that and go in Kansas nuclear.

Luis Elizondo  41:26

Right. That's what I'm saying. It's anecdotal. anecdotal. Yeah,

John Greenewald  41:29

there's gonna be blogs about this in about an hour. So

Luis Elizondo  41:34

I know God, I promise you, I don't really mean can't ya say? compensation. But my point being is that we're trying to create a an enclave that allowed us to share this information that came from US government sources, to a broader audience in industry, the, you know, the big boys, Boeing's of the world and the Raytheon's and try to get more people into the conversation because we really had no idea what we were dealing with, and and even the folks that we're working with, and other agencies, were scratching your head. I mean, to the point where I remember one meeting, john, we we, we did such mental gymnastics, trying to come up with there was one particular video I won't go into detail, but it was so so incredible that we were doing these mental gymnastics trying to come up with a what if scenario, what technology? would this have to be to be able to do this? Yeah. And it was one of being so preposterous, so so ridiculously over the top, we all just kind of looked at ourselves and said, All right, that's, there's no way that that was, you know, that could be what it is. So that was, again, a long, probably a much longer winded response that you were looking for, but that Oh, no,

John Greenewald  42:49

you mentioned a video. Lou, can you tell me what video that was?

Luis Elizondo  42:56

The ones that we got released? Yes.

John Greenewald  42:58

So it was one of the ones that you came up with the explanation not to step on you.

Luis Elizondo  43:03

Oh, oh, unfortunately. Can I?

John Greenewald  43:07

I knew I'd get let her know if I didn't try

Luis Elizondo  43:09

no longer the US government now. Yeah, I, I I have to be careful. Those those, you know, I want to be be very clear that. You know, the, it's US government's business to determine what is releasable and not not mine? Okay. I gotcha. And anything that I may have been then exposed to back in a tip I really, until the government is gives the green light. I just, I just,

John Greenewald  43:36

I just had to push on that one. You mentioned. I had to I had to go. So let me ask you, one of the few sensitive questions that that I talked about in the beginning, and that is the paperwork that came out through FOIA. I went after those documents, as you know, we've talked about this privately. But I went after those documents for those listening and watching that aren't aware and found the emails that you were sharing back and forth with what is called Doppler and that is the arm that essentially will authorize either public use or essentially them declassifying something or something's unclassified and clearing it for release, and so on. Just kind of quickly summarize it. Those documents come out in the form that had already leaked in part had come out. But that was kind of re verified on an official level. And the way you would describe the videos is what what really kind of intrigues me in a way that is a big fat question mark. And that is that you described the FLIR, the gimbal, and the go fast as balloons, drones and UAS is and what kind of confuses me about that is Doppler is cleared at the top secret level. So they've got the, you know, J, which protocols to send them to, let's say top secret data, and they review it. They can say Nope, you can't use this whatsoever. But they have those channels. I've heard but I want to ask from you because I don't think I I've ever asked you this part before, I've only heard from others through, you know, third hand info, that you felt that you couldn't inform them properly. But again, I want to ask you this, why were the videos described in that way if they would be cleared at the top secret level?

Luis Elizondo  45:20

Sure. So if you look at the way dogs are worked, you're actually supposed to do the request at the unclassified level. So there's several God instructions and direct actions, instructions, and manuals, and then there's some some brochures on how you're supposed to request something for publication of meaning that can be disseminated out. And that is through an unclassified document. 1910. And when you ask Dr. They say please send it to us unclassified level. So we had just gotten over the this this awful situation with Wikileaks, where we knew for analysis adversaries were hacking our systems. That's a fact that's, that's that's not conjecture. And the US government acknowledged that. And then, of course, you had insider threats where you had I don't want to get political here. But there's, you know, whether you're for or against folks like like, private Manning, that that took some very sensitive information and released in an unauthorized manner. So because we were dealing with something that was so sensitive, and there was so few people that were read onto the program, and I couldn't even brief my boss at the time about this, this program. I couldn't very well, brief doctor who's two and three degrees removed from my own chain of command. And mentioned the word UFO. So, the UAS, we had coined for unidentified aerial systems, some say unmanned aerial systems, but literally a UAS is an unmanned or system that's not manned by a human being. So that's, that's actually a legitimate term that we could use without saying UFO or UAP. Knowing that the OCA, the original classification authority, who adopts would have to go back to anyways, right to get the approval was read onto the program, and knew exactly what this was about. So So, you know, a lot of people say, well, was that disingenuous? We're trying to mislead? No, no, no, everybody was about everybody knew what we were talking about. But it was a way that we could protect this from having some sort of what we call an inadvertent disclosure, this information getting out to somebody who wasn't read on. And all of a sudden now the whole department is aware of what's going on. So that's, that's how that's how that if you will that process, gotcha occur.

John Greenewald  47:42

Okay. So one of the other things on the the same form was your intended use. Now, for those just tuning in or maybe missed the part earlier in the show, you had said you did not bring these videos out? Somebody else did. So I want to make sure that I repeat that. But internally, the paperwork showed that you only intended this for internal government use only not in

Luis Elizondo  48:03

corrected initially correct initially. That's what we were, we wanted to create a an internal enclave unclassified. So you know, the public, could we put industry partners, because that's broad enough, where if you're working with the United States government, in any type of capacity, you could be labeled as a type of industry partner. So whether you're local law enforcement, or your FAA, or you're one of the services or, you know, whoever, if you're working in some sort of kind of official capacity, we wanted to get people who had a had certain expertise, open the aperture so we could get more scientists, more people to look at this data and help us try to figure it out. And

John Greenewald  48:43

that was what you internally called the community of interest REITs or COI, which,

Luis Elizondo  48:49

which was Yeah,

John Greenewald  48:50

I've always once those emails kind of revealed themselves through FOIA. I was always intrigued by that, because that sounds like wow, why didn't they do this prior? So you know, I've as Yeah, one would think right. So that in, by the way, I've gone after, I think I may have told you privately, but trying to find more information, if any, is there that they take that idea? Because from what I've seen, when you look at these types, there's a

Luis Elizondo  49:12

lot more info john?

John Greenewald  49:14

Well, that plugging away That's right. That's what I'm, that's what I'm going for. So, so but at very admirable intention there. But again, I just wanted to ask, according to the do D anyway, that those videos had to adhere to what was on that what they call the DD Form 1910, which we didn't label it yet. But the DD Form 1910 was, again for that that private, US government use only and when Christopher Mellon had come out recently, he had said that he supplied those videos to the New York Times. Then in the James Fox has great documentary getting rave reviews around the world. James, I've known for a very long time. So quick shout out to him. Make sure you watch his new documentary called Yeah,

Luis Elizondo  49:56

he did a fantastic job. He really did.

John Greenewald  49:58

Yeah, he's he's a he's a Great human being, I know how much blood sweat and tears went into that just from knowing him personally. So my kudos to him. But in that Christopher Mellon came out and said somebody didn't name them. But somebody bent the rules. That was, what his wording was. Which I want to juxtapose that with how we were shown the videos from to the stars Academy. I don't expect you to speak for to the stars. I'm not asking you to, but I do want to ask about what they called the chain of custody, because that's another one of those disconnects where paperwork says internal use only cleared for that, then we see the videos, and they were kind of advertised at Well, not kind of they were advertised as going through the declassification process through God. And they had Chain of Custody documentation. And that has always confused me because that, for me anyway, I found the do D Chain of Custody forums and stuff like that. It just wouldn't apply. Is that accurate? So what is that show?

Luis Elizondo  51:01

study? You know, I can't speak for Chris Mellon. And quite frankly, I've never asked Chris I don't want to know, you know, there's a just a plausible deniability is sometimes a good thing. But out of respect to Chris, I, I've never asked him this source. And I don't really plan to to be honest with you. That's between Chris and whoever he talked to, you know, the, how ttsa wound up putting them forward? I will tell you, if you were to ask me, you know, I, I probably would have been more hesitant to do that. But, you know, it happened. And it happened without me knowing that really what do

John Greenewald  51:45

you had no idea that they that they were going to release those videos?

Luis Elizondo  51:50

Not until the New York Times article. Yeah. That was not I was not, I was not aware.

John Greenewald  52:02

Were you aware they had them? If I can ask that.

Luis Elizondo  52:10

Now, actually, let me think. JOHN, I don't recall I really don't i don't think because I remember being very surprised. Because the intent originally was for a community of interest and unclassified. But for official use only, if you will, community of interest. And I didn't, I wasn't the one who provided them. So I really don't know what ttsa was thinking you probably want to talk to them as you know, I no longer publicly affiliated with with ttsa. They're, they're great people. Tom's great guy, you know, it was Yeah, they'll talk. But I can't speak for teachers,

John Greenewald  52:54

I got you know, I and I understand that and respect that. And and I want to actually ask you about that. But I do want to make sure I have enough time to ask you this kind of round of questions, which is the do Dee's reaction to all of this that after you resigned after these videos came out in the way that you did, which you've already outlined? Obviously, internally, this created kind of a riff we can see Oh, yeah.

Luis Elizondo  53:19

Oh, hey, listen, life was very uncomfortable for Lou Elizondo for a long time, I would imagine. It was, well, first of all, you had the problem. Most people didn't know the program is real. So they thought blue went deep sex, he went blue went crazy. And then as I started to unfold internally, they're like, Oh, crap, this program was real. And, you know, we never got briefed on it. Because Lou was going to the much higher levels with this program. Then they got some some people in there, well, to two camps, one said, oh, wow, you know what? Yeah, we better we better not treat them so harshly. Because he had very, very senior people in the loop. He was actually doing his job. Then you had another faction of people say, Well, he still should have told me, so let's burn him to the ground. Let's launch an investigation. Let's pull his security clearance. And let's, you know, let's do everything we can to blow up his credibility. And there are still some pockets of those that are those individuals that exist. I think that's probably why you see, you know, despite the senator and all these people coming up saying, Yeah, it was real and yeah, we would push the guy running it and all these now obvious things that people look back and say, well, that's obvious back then. It wasn't Yeah. And there were people there were factions in the in the d. o. t, that were not very happy with me. And those are the same factions that are still influencing some of your FOIA process, where you know, something exists, but they come back saying, Man, nothing to see here. Yeah, and you might have to try three or four times before you finally get something and you're like, you know, what the heck hockey puck I'm now believe. I'm only getting this when I requested. Did you know two years ago? Yeah. During a tough spot, and I don't want to disparage the DMV, because I do think I don't think we can hold accountable a few people there for for that dysfunction and blame the entire department because because the Department of Defense is very, very good at what it does. The Acting Secretary right now is a fantastic human being the guys is a national hero, I won't go into details, because you may be watching this, but but the guy was there in the early days of Afghanistan, I mean, super, super key person. And, and that is representative of most of the Department of Defense. They're good people that want to do a good job for the American people. The problem is, you get some bureaucrats in there and people that are, are political. And, you know, there, there becomes an issue about ego. And just because I wasn't told about something, therefore, it must not exist. Well, that's not necessarily so. And it wasn't up to me to tell because when you look at that 2009 memo from the Senate, the access list to that program was super, super small. I can't just go out and brief somebody, I know the authority to do that, again, trouble. So that created a lot of a lot of challenges for me. And, you know, I often tell people say, Well, why don't you just back then say A, B, and C? Well, because I made a promise to certain people. And I wasn't going to, to violate that trust, I knew damn well, getting into this, that this was going to be an uphill battle, I had probably a 5% chance of mission success, which isn't very good. Those are not good odds. Don't go to Vegas with those odds. But I had a heart to heart with my team members. And we in order for this, for this topic to to finally get the light that it deserved. Someone had to step out. And that's someone I being a military guy had to be me, I was a senior guy. So and let me ask

John Greenewald  57:04

you, this, focusing in on the do D what I call they took a shot at you. And I apologize if that phrasing is not appropriate. But essentially, you know, they took a shot at your credibility. And they're challenging you as a person as a dedicated military, then later civilian employee of the Department of Defense, they are by name, taking this credibility shot at you. And I will admit, when that story broke, I was surprised it despite my again that that criticism, which you have not shied away from that you've always spoken to me about. And I want to point out again, for those who missed it in the beginning how admirable that is to you because you're not afraid of these questions. Nor were you privately when we chatted on the phone or through email. But when they did that, I just kind of like took a step back and like, Okay, I'm not this isn't about Lewis Elizondo, for me. This is about what is the truth behind what I believe is this active UFO cover up. After they did that? This let's zero in on the spokespeople because they did that we don't have to name names or make accusations. But sure, you know, the spokespeople did this. And they took that essential shot. Why? Why don't you take a shot back and just say, look, here is the irrefutable proof. And let me just quickly preface why I'm asking that is that I've seen that there are a very, and this is posted posted publicly, a small list of people that include a couple journalists and at one UFO what I would call like a UFO blogger, in particular, that have made reference to you showing them documentation or what they call irrefutable proof that you are who you say you are. Now, I'm not challenging that. I believe that they saw something. Let me just quickly ask yes or no. Is that classified information?

Luis Elizondo  59:02

It's not classified. No, but understand that I'm not going to give up the identities of other individuals just to save my skin. I've never been really I'm not that guy. What I could have I could have settled this three years ago. And you know, there when you talk to Senator Reid himself, that for the record, he's telling you, yeah, Lou is the guy running the program. When you talk to how put off who was working for me? Who's clearly part of it. Yeah, I worked for Lou. I mean, these are I don't need to go toe to toe and get into a mudslinging contest with the Pentagon when they've already flipped flopped on the position six times. Firstly came out said yeah, he was real about UFOs. And Lou ran it. Then they came back and said, Well, no, he wasn't about UFOs. Then they said, Well, he was about UFOs. But he didn't run it. I mean, it's, if you look at the track record, and I know, I know, you've seen this over and over again. Sure. You know, my position has been consistent and I've been backed up by by everybody that needs to back me up. This isn't about Lewis It's not about me if I make it about Lou Elizondo, then we take away from the progress we've made. Look how far we've come in three years. In just three years. JOHN, we have now the videos coming out that were official government videos never before release the acknowledgement that they're real, the acknowledgement that they are some sort of unidentified aerial phenomenon, the establishment of a UAP Task Force Congress being briefed at the classified levels. By the way, if you don't think I was part of that program, How the hell do you think ever made it on the hill to brief people? I mean, it's, it's at this point, it's kind of silly I know and I don't need to rehash all this because if you go for half an hour a laundry list of laundry lists the bottom line john, it's not about me. I don't really care what people think about me never have never will. This is about this is about this, this incredible movement for for transparency and real meaningful disclosure. Yeah, I mean, that's what's more important me going up and saying, hey, look at me and I'm you know, gonna go ahead and, and make the government look silly now, because we still need to work with the government. If I did that, then we run the chance of just to just so I can go ahead and quote unquote, prove who I am, which I don't need to prove anybody don't really give a damn what Sure. Yeah, I guess just to prove that I risk now putting my guys that are still there in the program, where now all of a sudden, it gets shut down because it becomes too hot of a topic. Yeah. Now the Pentagon's getting sued by Lou Elizondo, now there's defamation, Karen and others this, nobody wants to touch that hot potato. Nobody does. So and by the way to come out and say, Here's document 12345. It's not classified, but it's legit of what it is, with with there's people on those emails that are still engaged in those efforts. And I can't compromise them. I won't do it. I never have I never will. So until those people come out, which at some point, I'm sure they will, then people come under documents, and oh, wow, look at that, that isn't that interesting. But until that occurs, I'm not I'm not going to do it just to say face. I'm not that guy never happened. I'm not going to come out there and say that, because this isn't about Lou never has been about blue. And this is why I try to tell people, you know, people say well lose. Now the face of these UFOs I'm not the face. Look in the mirror, you're the face. It's everybody out there in your audience. They're the face of this. I just happened to be one of the tools in the tool bag, like Chris Mellon and other people. But this is this is a long game we are. You know, I hate to say we're in a running gun battle here. But this is this is a long war. Not a short word. This isn't about instant gratification. This isn't about, you know, Lou going up there and making the Department of Defense looks stupid. They've already had they've already put themselves in that box. I don't need to help them with that. Yeah, you know, in fact, what they need is a solution. So they can continue to tackle this problem without people coming in and getting mad at because that's, that's really what they need. And if I do anything to poke the bear, all it's going to do is, is make the situation worse, when really we're trying to help find a solution. I got, by the way, if it's at my expense, I'll take it, john, I'm okay with it. If the cost of us getting this far in three years, if people say man, loose full of it, you know what? Fine, I'll take it, because enough people know exactly who I am. And what I did. And by the way, this story is still unfolding. It's just not over. So there's a lot more to this narrative that when comes out, people are gonna go. Wow, okay, that's interesting. I had no idea

John Greenewald  1:03:33

what I only have a couple minutes left, I again, appreciate your time. And I want to work this in if my audience has heard me talk about these types of issues a lot. passing it to you. If there's one thing that I haven't covered, but you want to talk about or say, or a message or anything, what would that be?

Luis Elizondo  1:03:59

You know, boy, let me let me say this. I believe as dysfunctional as our family of UFO enthusiasts are, whether it's UFO, Twitter or UAP, research group, etc, etc. We have achieved this together. And yes, even the naysayers, even those contrarians, even those skeptics, we need you. We need them all. come on board because this is a conversation that affects all of us. And no one owns the narrative. I'm not out pushing the book. I'm not just anybody who wants to have a conversation with we can have a conversation. We are achieving this together. And that is the success here. It's not that john Greenwald is doing the foil or Lou Elizondo is out there, doing TV shows or anybody else. It's everything. Buddy doing what they do best in this sphere that is creating this moment in time that we have never seen the likes before. We need it and it's okay. I don't mind if I have haters. That's okay. If that's the cost of doing business. And that's the cost of doing business, the truth has nothing to fear. So I would encourage people to to know that, that the second success we are seeing right now is a result of all of our contributions, not just one person. And, and I think everybody plays a vital role in this. You know, we would not be where we are today, john, if you hadn't done and are doing the things you're doing, from your perspective, that by the way, nobody's as good as doing it as you are. Just like, there are certain things that I can do because of my access to to help happen and Chris Mellon and and yes, even everybody on out there in the in the UAP, Twitter world, they're making a difference there. They're campaigning, the look at Marco Rubio when he just came out and said not too long ago. That's because people are telling him, it's okay to have this conversation. We want to know, it's interesting, right? We're not going to talk about Elvis on the mothership anymore in tinfoil hats. This is a serious topic that deserves serious attention. And, and whether you realize it or not, john, people begin to look at you. And if you want to know what the face of disclosure looks like, you're looking at it. It's it's, I'm looking at it right now, you're part of that people out there, like, you know, the I gotta be careful. I don't want to plug any particular people out there. But there's a there's a huge sea of of advocates out there in social media that are writing the congressman writing the government they're doing they're learning from you. I mean, how amazing is that? Right? People are now learning from john Greenwald's playbook and FOIA. And it's working. I mean, it's at some point, you know, you can't stop the tidal wave. So I would, I guess my, my final thought on this would be, don't stop doing what you're doing. You know, you don't have to be in anyone's camp. Just keep doing what you're doing. And then I would also say, beware of those selling the snake oil, beware of those who are telling you about these preconceived narratives that they have in their mind, and are saying, Don't pay attention to those guys. That's the real threat, when someone tells you don't listen to that person. That's the real threat. I encourage you, you know what, listen to anybody and everybody you want to listen to, and then make up your own mind. That's my word of advice to anybody out there who wants to know about this topic? And by the way, no, there is no expert out there. I don't care who you are what you say, I was in it for 10 years working for the US government, and I'm not an expert. So that would be my advice to people. And by the way, when they say, well, do you're pushing the threat narrative? No, I'm not pushing a narrative that they could be a threat if they want it to be because we don't have enough information. That's what I've always maintained. And if you think it's fear mongering, well, then fine. I mean, if you think you have some sort of special relationship with a UFO, and, you know, you want to charge people money, so they can have a, you know, close encounter, you know, while you're paying pilots to drop flares, okay, fine. I don't know, do whatever you want. I just, I think I think we need to, I think we need to have a conversation where everybody has a voice. And we stop trying to mute each other. I think that's the real danger

John Greenewald  1:08:29

of the great words. And by the way, the threat potential narrative. I have agreed since day one with you guys that ttsa as a whole, obviously has dealt with that a lot. I've done FOIA requests upon FOIA requests on that, but that threat potential, it's very real. I don't know why people are afraid of the T word. I know I'm out of time. If I could ask you just one more question. Yeah, absolutely. Because I want you to have the opportunity to respond, because this is all kind of unfolding right now. As you mentioned, you've decided to as you put it, not be affiliated with ttsa. Although you still have high respect for them. I've been kind of waiting. I've reached out to them unrelated to the show, but reached out to them to get like some type of, you know, risk response press release. Are they informing their investors only because I know my listeners and watchers want to be updated on that. So can I ask you just kind of a two parter here. Is there a reason why you've decided to not be affiliated anymore? And the second part which is the most important to me, is where does that leave off on the credo agreement with the US Army where you guys are taking pieces of uaps that you have collected over the last couple of years? created legend? We

Luis Elizondo  1:09:46

don't know let you get there. Actually. I just want to be fair, but let's, let's have you out that you know, we really don't know we want to just make we're doing our due diligence. We're

John Greenewald  1:09:57

trying to find out gotcha and and thank you for that and So you've got these these alleged pieces of UAP that you're going to have analyzed through this army agreement you're listed on there, you're the main contact, I forget what the exact wording was, and the agreements Been a while. So that's my last question to you is, why did you choose to leave them? Where does that leave us with that crater agreement? And was there anything that transpired thus far? Yep.

Luis Elizondo  1:10:20

So I, again, I people are gonna get mad at me for saying this, I can't speak for ttsa can only speak for myself. What I have mentioned before is that ttsa is a company and they owe their investors a results, right. She's all good companies should do the storage of investment. Where my expertise lies, specifically me and reselling. shondo is not necessarily in the entertainment division, which is where ttsa does a lot of its focus areas on and for me, my skill sets are probably better used in a different capacity. So that decision was made. My, again, all my friends at ttsa I love them dearly, great people, great human beings. But, you know, this is battlefields evolve. battlefields change, they're not static, right? They're an evolving situation. And sometimes you have to move troops around the battlefield, in order to, to, to to win the battle, right? That's not uncommon. You don't just sit there in rank and file and just march forward, you have to adapt with the environment and the situation as its evolving. And that's very much what what I'm doing this is, again, a long game, let me remind people that, you know, we have achieved a lot in three years, but I think if we want to achieve more in the next three years, we have to adapt, we have to adapt, we have to continue moving the ball forward, and sometimes look at a football game, right? The quarterback doesn't do the same thing every time. The quarterbacks got to change plays, otherwise, you know that the guys know what you're doing, and then they figure you out and you lose the game. So you got to you got to you can't ever take for granted the battlespace that we're operating in. And I say battle spaces. Again, people say, oh, there's a threat narrative again. No, no, that's just the way I talk. I'm a military guy. Right? So I look at everything as a military style campaign or an intelligence campaign. Right? It's a multi pronged, it's it's a multi dimensional battle space. I tell people, you know, there's several ways you can look at the battle space, some people look at battle space, like the game Connect for some people look at the battle space like checkers, some people look at the battle space, like three dimensional chess. And that's kind of the way I think, you know, we need to look at this, this, this is no different. This is a very complex, highly evolving topic where we're learning every day more and more and more. So we have to maintain our our momentum by always adapting to to the environment, anticipating not just the environment of tomorrow, but the environment next week, next month, next year. So we can stay ahead.

John Greenewald  1:13:09

When you ask me another question I didn't want Will you stay connected with that crater agreement? Or are you essentially out of that out?

Luis Elizondo  1:13:17

Well, okay. So, again, as it relates to ttsa, I can't speak about that, I can tell you that we're always looking for opportunities for new partnerships, right? This being perfect example, you and I are having this conversation. This is a partnership. This is this is what it is, you know, whether you like me or hate me, or I like you or hate you or whatever. We're working with each other because you realize, I'm sorry,

John Greenewald  1:13:42

I said you hate me. No, no, no, no.

Luis Elizondo  1:13:46

I'm just saying I'm just general terms. Either way, you know, whether we like or hate each other. No, actually, for the record, actually, I like it. But that's inconsequential. Doesn't matter if I like you. That's my point. The point is that we each have a role to play and and we we need each other if we want to continue to push the ball down, down the field, just like we need everybody else right now, on social media in this in this crazy grassroots effort. We need to call UFO Twitter, right or, or the UAP research enclave? I mean, it's working. It's working. Again, I can tell you don't look now but you're achieving what you what you're setting out to do. So I think people shouldn't be surprised that by continue to, to engage certain elements of the US government for the purposes of research, that that that's probably a no brainer. I think most people should if they see that, that shouldn't be a surprise.

John Greenewald  1:14:41

Well, look, I can ask you questions all day, I'm down to 6437 left to go. My guess is we're probably not you know, in a position to ask them all right now. So tell you what, I hope that after this last hour or so that you will come back that that you will continue this conversation with me because I hope that you've realized not only through this last hour, but obviously we've shared a lot of conversations privately. You know, and I hope you know where I'm coming from. And you started with an apology to me, and I want to end it with one to you. I caught myself by critiquing the story that was coming out, then starting to shift towards it being personal, not by intent, but it came off that way. And for you, I apologize. I've already done it privately. But I want to do it publicly.

Luis Elizondo  1:15:34

No worries, no worries. Where this is, we're in this together, man. And and this is something that I think, you know, my concern for you My biggest concern, I told you this privately, just having me on your show, I'm concerned that there going to be some of your your followers fans. You know, folks, your associates, that may criticize you for this. They may say, oh, you're drinking the Kool Aid. Oh, you know, you're, you're falling for misinformation for Lou, I hope that's not the case for you. I really hope that by doing having this conversation together, people realize on both sides that, you know, we we can work together, we should be working together. I hope this doesn't have any negative impacts for you. If anybody out there is listening, and they think that this is some sort of scheme you and I came up with. It's not what you see is what you get. This is very frank. JOHN Did not you did not load me with any questions beforehand. Everything you've asked me, you've asked me without me knowing ahead of time. So hopefully people see that level of transparency. And, you know, maybe we can show them that, you know, we all can work together.

John Greenewald  1:16:46

Yeah, we should be working. And I hope that this serves as an example of that. You've been so gracious with your time I blew through the agreed amount. So I appreciate your willingness to take a little bit more time with me. You're welcome back anytime you know my number, you know, my email, please know,

Luis Elizondo  1:17:01

you got mine. So I think people know Just give me a call give me give me a couple days head notice because I do have a honey do list I have to stay on top of but I'm happy to have a conversation anytime. Absolutely been my honor and pleasure. And I really appreciate it. By the way. Thank you for what you do. I'm telling you you are and I've told people this privately I told him publicly. There is only one john Greenwald that can do what that does what you do. It's it's amazing what you've been able to achieve and accomplish using the government system against itself. That takes a high degree of savvy and sophistication that not everybody really understands and appreciates. But, you know, I see it with you and you play a vital role. So thank you for what you do.

John Greenewald  1:17:45

Well, I appreciate that. I always love ruffling feathers wherever those feathers may lie. So thank you for that.

Luis Elizondo  1:17:51

And you're really good at it. Thanks.

John Greenewald  1:17:53

I appreciate that. And thanks again for your time and your graciousness, and thank you all for listening and or watching this is John Greenewald, Jr signing off. We'll see you next time.

The post Ep. #65 – Luis Elizondo & John Greenewald, Jr. – 1 on 1 appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Located on the southeast corner of Cuba, about 400 miles from Miami, Florida, this base stretches across 45 square miles of land and water.

But located within this area, lies a highly secretive, and highly controversial detention camp often referred to as: Gitmo. Established by President George W. Bush in 2002, horrifying tales of torture and death have plagued its short history.

As this military prison housed some of the world’s most dangerous terrorists, at least eight of them died while incarcerated. The DOD claims at least 6 were by suicide. But were they?

My guest today is author Jeffrey Kaye. In his book Cover-up at Guantanamo, Jeffrey explores two of these mysterious deaths, detailing meticulously, declassified military documents; horrifying tales of drugs possibly used for interrogation purposes; the lack of basic human rights; and strong evidence of a massive cover-up of the truth.

Buckle up… you’re about to journey INSIDE THE BLACK VAULT.

SHOW NOTES

o Guantanamo Truth

o Jeffrey Kaye's Articles on Medium

o The Black Vault's Archive on Terrorism

The post Ep. #64 – Cover-up at Guantanamo – Special Guest: Jeffrey S. Kaye appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Note: There is an awkward start to this, and not my normal show open where I welcome you all to the show. I had an audio hiccup on the live feed for about 30 seconds, which I trimmed out. Obviously, I make references to visuals, as this is the audio version of the video presentation. If possible, I always recommend the live stream over the audio-only, which is available below.

Show Notes

o ‘FAST MOVERS’ AND TRANSMEDIUM VEHICLES – THE PENTAGON’S UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL PHENOMENA TASK FORCE

o LEAKED PHOTO SURFACES OF PURPORTED UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL PHENOMENA

o The Black Vault's Twitter Thread on the Developments as this unfolded

Live Stream Video

The post Ep. #63 – The “Leaked” UFO Photo. The WHO, WHAT and POSSIBLY the WHY appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It has brought us a global pandemic; riots in the streets of America; and a Presidential impeachment trial that turned the United States upside down. But in between those world changing events – the UFO phenomenon has increasingly been given more credibility and more serious exposure on the nightly news programs.

But maybe most of all – the phenomena has revealed itself again to be not only worthy of scientific scrutiny but also worthy of respect by the general public.

My guest today is Stephen Bassett. For nearly 25 years, he has aimed to end what he calls a “government-imposed truth embargo behind extraterrestrial related phenomena.” He organized a Citizen Hearing on Disclosure at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. and he spearheaded political initiatives that injected the ET issue into the 2016 Presidential campaign.

Pending lawsuits and controversy aside, with a new Presidential administration about to take over, how – if at all — will that change the landscape for the UFO issue that has picked up steam in the past couple of years?

Stay tuned… you’re about to journey INSIDE THE BLACK VAULT.

SHOW NOTES

o Stephen Bassett's Paradigm Research Group

o Election 2016 – PRG Political Initiative

o CITIZEN HEARING on DISCLOSURE

The post Ep. #62 – The Road To UFO Disclosure — Special Guest: Stephen Bassett appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A topic that continues to fascinate the public, and has, for decades.

Now, after more than nearly 50 years of denying interest in the topic – the U.S. military, and certain members of Congress, want answers.

Recent documents obtained by The Black Vault prove that more is going on behind the scenes than has been reported.

From classified briefings… to Pentagon spokespeople who clearly don’t want to talk – what’s this all really mean?

Stay tuned… you’re about to journey INSIDE THE BLACK VAULT.

Watch the Video

SHOW NOTES

o March 11th, 2020, House Armed Services Committee Received Briefing on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs)

o This Is The Letter The Navy Sent A Congressman Who Was Demanding Answers About UFOs

o U.S. Navy drafting new guidelines for reporting UFOs

o U.S. Navy’s UFO/UAP Guidelines to Remain Classified

o Navy Officially Releases UFO/UAP Videos; Calls Them “Historical”

The post Ep. #61 – The UAP Task Force and Classified UFO Briefings appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Officer Lonnie Zamora witnesses a craft of unknown origin, two humanoid like figures beside it, and a mysterious insignia printed on the ship.

With physical trace evidence left behind in the area, the US Air Force would later try, but fail, to explain what happened. The case remains unexplained to this day.

Now, the FBI releases some new information to The Black Vault which sheds not only some new light on the encounter but more so, the UFO subject as a whole.

Stay tuned… you’re about to journey INSIDE THE BLACK VAULT.

Live Stream

SHOW NOTES

From the Desks of Project Blue Book

FBI Files on the Socorro UFO Landing, April 24, 1964

The post Ep. #60 – FBI Documents on the Lonnie Zamora Case / Socorro, NM UFO Landing appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 2019, the NY Times reported multiple Naval encounters with UFOs. And although evidence exists they tried to verify that on an official level, The Black Vault just received documents that show they may not have been able to.

Did the NY Times hide UAP related information they did receive for a year? Did they change the date and timeframe of a UFO case they previously reported on, in an attempt to connect evidence to it that was unrelated?

It’s time for you to decide if you’re hearing the whole truth.  From my side – here’s what I found out.

Stay tuned… you’re about to journey INSIDE THE BLACK VAULT.

Live Stream

——–

SHOW NOTES:

ARTICLE: The NY Times and the Unreported UAP Encounters

The Black Vault's FOIA Request and responsive records

The post Ep. #59 – The NY Times and the Unreported UAP Encounters – Why Accuracy in UFO Reporting MATTERS appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

And since then, they have oddly chosen to rarely tackle the issue.

But recently, they published a new article that offered bombshell revelations about “Off World Vehicles” being recovered by our U.S. government.

Yet, is it all accurate? With multiple corrections by the New York Times being posted, and with other changes to their original article without any acknowledgement at all, who knows what to believe any more?

Join me – as I dissect the claims put forward by the NY Times… and you can decide what it all may mean.

Stay tuned… you’re about to journey INSIDE THE BLACK VAULT.

——–

SHOW NOTES:

– No Longer in Shadows, Pentagon’s U.F.O. Unit Will Make Some Findings Public

– Systems Engineering in DoD PowerPoint Presentable Example

– Do We Believe in U.F.O.s? That’s the Wrong Question

– The Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) DIRD Report Research

– Dr. Eric Davis, TTSA and the BLATANTLY FALSE Information Being Touted – Along With Out of Line Insults Towards Various Researchers

Subscribe for notifications on upcoming shows:

– The Black Vault on FaceBook
– The Black Vault on Twitter
– The Black Vault on YouTube (Originals – Channel 1)
– The Black Vault on YouTube (Archival Videos – Channel 2)

– Order INSIDE THE BLACK VAULT: The Government's UFO Secrets Revealed
– Order on Amazon
– Order Secrets from the Black Vault: The Army's Plan for a Military Base on the Moon and Other Declassified Documents that Rewrote History
– Order on Amazon

– Support The Black Vault on Patreon

The post Ep. #58 – UFO Crash Wreckage, Off World Vehicles & the NY Times appeared first on The Black Vault.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.