Podcast – The Black Vault

Missouri. It's the 19th most populous state in America; and it boasts more than 6 million residents. But hidden within its nearly 70,000 square miles — is an area known as Marley Woods — but its exact location, remains a total mystery. 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.

For thousands of years, humanity has looked to the stars and wondered, are we alone? 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.

These are just some PRELIMINARY thoughts about the UFO/UAP report released TODAY by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 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.

February 21, 2021. At 36,000 feet above northeastern New Mexico, American Airlines flight 2292 had an unusual encounter. 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.

Last minute, impromptu livestream, that took place on Saturday June 12, 2021. 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.

Description 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.

Description 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.

Description 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.