رونوشت کامل Ep. #143 – The Black Vault’s Week in Review

profile some of the stories I wrote this week, but later in the video, a lot of you saw 7:33 my comment on a YouTube thread where they were asking about the Mosul orb 7:39 footage that surfaced from another uh foyer requester. And that is an awesome story. Don't um I I want to preface all 7:46 of this with that. It is it is awesome that there are are people utilizing the FOYA and the tools that are available to 7:52 them to get information out. What's unfortunate is how others take that 7:58 information and then essentially exploit it for their own gain and on top of that 8:04 make it something that it's not because in the end it cheapens 8:10 what that triumph is for that particular person. But on top of that, it takes away from the true importance of what 8:16 they did and essentially just makes it a little bit uh well tainted uh and and 8:22 and sadly diminishes the importance of it. So, we're going to talk about that later because I had decided not to do 8:28 the video based on your reactions and your questions and the amount of comments that I got on YouTube and X. 8:34 We'll be going over that as well. So, let me go ahead and bring up the 8:42 presentation here because I was able to to make a PowerPoint and kind of throw a lot of these visuals in. That way, we 8:48 will uh uh be able to, you know, better talk about this as as we go through. So, 8:54 let me just kind of switch a window here in the background. Sorry about this. One more. 9:00 It's Saturday. I love my iced tea on a Saturday. All right. All right. So, first story we're going to talk about is one of the 9:07 newer ones. Came more uh later in the week, but very important. And I think 9:13 that it created a lot of excitement and then a lot of confusion and then a lot 9:20 of, oh, it's just airplanes. It's not drones. So, I want to start here. Now, what did I get? Well, last December, for 9:28 those of you who watch the UA UAP space and how drones kind of infiltrate that 9:34 that discussion, and I truly believe that drones are a part of the UAP discussion. I'm sorry, that doesn't mean 9:41 it's everything UAP is all drones. Um, but it's a very important part of this 9:47 discussion because we are seeing an influx of this type of technology. Uh I 9:53 know a lot of people try and say, "Oh, this is a a phenomena uh that needs to 9:58 be looked at and and and they don't see it for what it is." These drone encounters, I think, are a national 10:04 security issue. I think we should look into them and they are part of that broader UAP conversation that truly does 10:11 encompass a a strange and unexplained aspect of whatever it is that's at the 10:17 root of this. But these drones are kind of coming along with it. And I'm not on 10:22 the bandwagon of trying to say these are the true UAP mystery. On the contrary, 10:28 for those who do follow my work, UAPs, UFOs obviously are very popular on this 10:33 channel, uh, and something I love talking about, but it is definitely not 10:38 the majority of actually what I file. In fact, the black I've said this a couple times, a lot of people don't believe me. 10:45 the the the the the archive that I've built over 30 years, almost 30 years. I 10:51 started in 96. Um which is literally millions and millions of pages now. It 10:58 is less than I think 5% UFO related. So 95% 11:06 plus is is other stuff. And so the national and it surrounds like national 11:12 security secrets. um yes, mysterious phenomena and other angles away from 11:19 UFOs. Um so I I deal with kind of that that those fringe elements as well. But 11:24 my point being is that the majority of it is national security related issues. So I'm really super intrigued by a lot 11:30 of these topics for that reason. But it again, sometimes the audience on social media, those that really want to 11:36 believe, uh, they will kind of conflate all of it. And when they hear drones, they boom, instantly go to that 11:43 mysterious unexplained phenomena aspect of this. And yes, I use plural for a reason. I I know there's a lot of people 11:49 that love to correct grammar. Um, I do use the plural version because I think there's multiple facets of of of this 11:55 whole topic. So, phenomena, I think there's multiple things. That said, I I 12:00 kind of separate the two. And I think that we need to deal with that. It's important to see these documents as well 12:06 because then you get kind of that inside look at what is truly going on when it comes to those drone incursions. 12:14 Now, my whole long- winded diet tribe there, there's a reason for it. And that reason is is because when you can start 12:19 to see the documents come out and the witness testimony either declassified or 12:26 uh if it's unclassified for official use only, then it's reviewed for release and and obviously redacted in some areas. Uh 12:33 because again there's a differentiation between the two. That said, when you see all of that, 12:39 then you really start to see in the eyes of the government and the US military, 12:46 what the difference is between those drones, which are again a national security concern, uh, and and a problem 12:52 and something that needs to be dealt with. But there's a difference, and that's where you can really get those 12:58 quote unquote debunkers. I hate that term, but essentially get them in those debates and say, "Well, wait a minute. 13:04 You kind of lean towards all this drone." Well, now we have a perimeter to look at, right? To me, I see these as 13:09 keys to kind of unraveling a lot of these mysteries because when you can start to read this and you look at drone 13:15 incursions and quadcopters like this one, I saw four quadcopter drones with 13:20 red and green lights and a tight diamond formation. So, these things are flying in formation according to the witnesses 13:26 over secure military installations like Wright Patterson Air Force Base. But we can read all of this and we can see 13:32 those details. we can see what the

witnesses are saying. You'll see that there were videos released, too, and we'll get into that before anybody 13:39 starts screaming about airplanes and analyses done. Uh we we'll get there, 13:44 but you start to see that difference. Look at this. I used my car's spotlight system and placed the light on the 13:51 quadcopters. When I illuminated the drones, it then lowered in altitude, gained altitude, and flew away at a 13:58 rapid speed, and I lost sight of the drones. So, these are really fascinating inside looks at what they were seeing 14:05 through multiple nights at Wright Patterson Air Force Base. Now, specifically, these were on 13th 14:11 December, 2024. There was also a second wave of sightings on the 16th of December. That's key. And if you look 14:18 close enough, the media mostly reported roughly the 13th and 14th. Uh the 16th 14:26 came obviously uh a little bit later from the majority of the reporting and that's also where all the videos came 14:32 from. But the 13th is when they actually even closed the airspace of Wright 14:37 Patterson Air Force Base. Now, I'm sorry, people make mistakes, but 14:43 a right Patterson Air Force size base is not going to shut down because they see 14:49 a couple commercial airliners and a few people accidentally mistaken them for 14:55 drones. That's just I I'm sorry. I just don't see it happen. And and if that was going to happen, we would see it happen 15:01 more often. So these were very specific incidents that caused on the 13th of 15:07 December aerospace or excuse me um the airspace to be shut down over Wright 15:14 Patterson Air Force Base. This particular witness talked about uh three additional UAS's or drones flying in a 15:22 diamond formation. So these things obviously were under intelligent 15:27 control. I mean again don't read into that. Uh but but clearly flying in formation. There were multiple I use the 15:33 word swarm um uh just because you know you've got these multiple witnesses talking about multiple drones on 15:40 multiple occasions over the course of multiple nights. Uh that's a huge a huge 15:45 issue. And in all of these uh uh testimonies, you can see exactly what 15:52 those on the ground were seeing. And there were quite a few. I'm only showing you a couple so you can kind of get an 15:58 idea. Um, here's another one where they saw four quadcopter drones with red and green lights. Um, and in fact, that that 16:04 may be a repeat on the slide. I apologize. That might be a mistake there. It's live, so I can't cut that out. U, but regardless, there's a lot 16:10 more. And so, you'll be able to download all of these types of of documents uh to 16:16 see exactly what they saw, but also timeline breakdowns of what happened. 16:22 And that's also key when you're trying to unravel this mystery. Is it drones? Is it commercial airplanes? So, put a 16:27 pin in this slide here where you have the timeline and all the timestamps 16:33 and how it all kind of played out. So, again,

there was those events on the 16:39 13th. Aerospace closed on the night of the 13th. Now, we've got incidents on 16:44 the 16th. We've got multiple witnesses with multiple encounters with what they 16:49 described as UAS's even here hovering in place over gate 26A 16:55 um moving across the flight line. I'm sorry. I mean, do we really think that everybody is just mistaking a FedEx 17:02 airliner um that's that's four, five, 6,000 feet up, 10,000 feet up, and they 17:08 somehow uh mistaken that for for for a drone? maybe once, maybe twice, but all of this 17:15 information was very fascinating uh to see. Um, when I said that it was 17:21 primarily the 13th and the 16th, if you look close enough, there was actually a report on the 11th of December, uh, 17:28 talking about a patrolman in area A, uh, who had relayed that there was a, uh, 17:34 drone, an unmanned aerial vehicle, unmanned aerial vehicle flying above the tree line near the fire fire training 17:40 area on Riverview Drive. So this had started it seems on the 11th where they 17:46 were seeing these uh these UAVs. So very interesting look to see these documents 17:52 because most of the media again reported that 13th. It seems like that 13th was 17:57 key because they shut the airspace down. Uh but that that's probably where a lot of it happened. But obviously the 16th 18:04 and then obviously documents revealed the 11th as well. Now I said that there were videos as well. There were seven of 18:12 them actually. As with these videos, as with UFO 18:21 videos, there's always like nine pixels and you have to squint and turn on your 18:27 head and close one eye and then maybe you can kind of see something and that was very true with these videos as well. 18:34 So, it was very unfortunate that the quality was so bad. But in in the same 18:39 respect, you have to understand uh you know they're not there with television broadcast quality cameras. Uh these that 18:46 took the vid those people that took the videos are stationed at Wright Patterson Air Force Base. Um there's a there's 18:54 obviously an issue here where they're seeing unmanned aerial uh I keep getting 18:59 tongue tied there, but unmanned aerial vehicles in the air and seeing drones. 19:04 So they're using their cell phones, pulling them out of their pocket, pointing them to the sky, and trying to get some type of intel for their 19:12 superiors to look at. And so these videos, I think, were a product of that, that they weren't shooting a 19:19 documentary, but rather they were trying to capture whatever these things were. 19:25 Now, you can see here too with the documents, there were seven videos. Like I said 19:31 on the left hand side, this particular one references seven videos. Now it says 19:37 disc. Now anybody who loves UFOs immediately went to discshaped objects. 19:43 Is that what we're talking about? Well, I don't think so. I think that what this memo is saying is that they could not 19:50 add seven videos to this system

called the Air Force Justice Information 19:56 System. Now, I didn't put this in my written article for a couple different reasons, and that is I don't exactly 20:03 know yet what it it's trying to say because obviously the the videos were 20:09 available, assuming that the seven videos are the same that came from the 20:15 16th. So, you can see the 16th December. And yes, all those videos were from the 16th. I'll show you proof of that in the 20:22 next couple of slides. But why they couldn't be put into this system, I I'm 20:28 not I'm not aware of why and I'm trying to find that out. But you can see here that there was another video. So let's 20:34 just say the assumption is right and that's what was released. There is another video from that night of the 20:40 11th. So what's interesting to me is the 11th was really never talked about. Then 20:46 this report pops up and there's a video of it. There's also an exclusion memo 20:51 that they mysteriously can't add it for whatever reason. Uh and then they um 20:58 didn't send it to me in the foyer response. They also didn't say they omitted any videos either. So that's 21:05 kind of a key part here. Where's this video? So I am also going after this video through appeal to say hey uh where 21:13 is it? I I need, you know, this is clearly in existence because these seven 21:19 over here were released. Um, let me get my pen so I don't keep advancing here. 21:27 So, this side here, assuming that those are the seven videos were released, there's one more. If I'm 21:34 wrong with the assumption, then there's eight videos and I need to know where they are. My guess is these are the 21:40 seven released because the date matches. And then we've got one more from the 11th which we haven't seen yet. So now 21:47 let's get into that analysis that I was talking about because this also makes waves. Now I'm going to say the same 21:53 thing I did in my social media post that I'm going to say here. I have a lot of respect for Mick West. I don't agree 21:59 with a lot of what he says, but I think his voice and his contributions are very very valuable to this conversation. 22:06 There are some things that I absolutely agree with while a lot of times I don't. And of course, we sometimes get into so 22:13 some social media back and forth. But again, I I stress that he's an important 22:18 part of this conversation because if he's wrong, then we can prove it. If 22:23 he's not wrong and we can't prove it, then we should consider what he has to say. If we don't want to believe it, 22:28 then fine, just don't listen to it. But regardless, I think that he's an important voice. In this particular 22:35 instance, he had contacted me uh uh privately and uh and I'm glad he did because I usually will post all of the 22:43 videos, documents, everything in their raw format and I h I struggled uh just from a technical boring thing that I 22:50 won't bore you with, but uh struggled getting the seven videos embedded into my site.

So, I just kind of fell back on 22:55 the standard YouTube embed uh because it's a it's very universal and and it works. So I struggled there and in the 23:02 process of getting the the article out I forgot to add the zip file and so he had contacted me and said hey can I get the 23:08 originals and then it dawned on me hey I forgot. So I said okay hold on added the zip got him all the originals which 23:16 carries all of the metadata which shows that every one of those videos is from 23:21 the 16th and everyone had a timestamp. So what's nice about that is remember I 23:28 was talking about how the documents talked about the time you know the timing of everything kind of broke down 23:34 that timetable. Now we can kind of put these visual elements in that timeline 23:39 and see where they match up and what was going on. Um so at this point Mick had 23:44 done no analysis. Uh he just wanted this information and I was glad I could get it to him. I think again it doesn't 23:51 matter if you if you agree with him or not. uh we should have all of this information out there so those that have 23:57 the capability to utilize that information have that at their fingertips. So I gladly got it to him 24:03 and and made sure that the website had that zip file and uh was glad that uh that that all worked out. Now I don't 24:10 talk about this software a lot on this channel. I I think maybe it's worth you know having Mick on to talk about it 24:16 because this software that he created is super cool. Um, I am not going to 24:21 pretend to know exactly from a technical standpoint how he did this, but what he 24:28 did was he was able, as long as you have the data points to put in and the 24:33 regional locations and geographic points and so on that you can import that data 24:40 into here and essentially match up, let's say, a cell phone video with the 24:45 time of day, location, and so on and and essentially integrate the data of flights of commercial airliners going 24:53 over and matching up if you have certain things in there. He does the same with uh stars, uh satellites, space station 25:00 movements, and so on. Um, we talked about Chris Bledsoe briefly on the last stream that I did that that's a prime 25:07 example that Mick based on witness testimony and people posting their videos, he's able to get locations, time 25:14 of day, direction, put that into what he calls sitrec and then match up, hey, you 25:20 saw this satellite go over and you can see here where he's got kind of the 25:26 three elements of the software here side by side. This was a video he posted uh online that that essentially puts all 25:33 that together and and syncs it all up. I think that is super cool. That is 25:39 something that we absolutely need in this space because you can given you have that information put it into 25:45 software use third-party data like flight um logs and and and uh you know 25:52 flight paths and stuff like that and plot it. Same with star movements and

25:58 satellite uh flyovers and stuff like that. That is all crucial to the discussion in this space. So my kudos to 26:05 him. If you haven't seen it, check it out. If you're a geek like me, you'll appreciate what he what he did there 26:11 because it is super cool. So what he did was he took all that metadata from the 26:16 Wright Patterson Air Force Base stuff and matched it up to what he says are uh 26:25 flights that he can match. Now I don't have any reason to doubt him. Uh so I'm 26:31 going to operate off the assumption that he's correct that he was able to match up the seven videos that came out to 26:38 commercial airline flights. Okay? So, don't kill me for that assumption, but for the sake of this conversation, I'm 26:44 going to operate off of that because I I don't I I'm not going to sit and like, you know, try try and go into the data 26:50 and prove that whatever data sources he's using is wrong. I don't there's not enough hours in the day. So, I invite 26:57 anybody else to do that. But operating off the assumption that he's correct, what exactly does that mean? Does that 27:03 mean that the drone incursions at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in December 2024 were 100% all airplanes that were 27:12 misidentified in the sky? And it climbed up the chain to the point where they 27:17 shut down the airspace over Wright Patterson Air Force Base. And on top of that, one thing we haven't mentioned 27:24 here yet is the fact that they contacted the FAA, talked about the uh sightings 27:30 that they were having, asking what authorized flights are in the area. 27:35 According to the FAA, there were none. Are we to believe that that they're that 27:42 inept across the board that you have all of that happening? Maybe the answer is 27:49 yes. Some of you probably said it out loud as you're watching this. Yes, John, they are. You might be right. I'd like 27:55 to think that that is not true. I hope that is not true. But regardless, I 28:01 follow the evidence. Okay. So, despite what I just said and what I think, let's 28:06 look at what the actual evidence is. And I go back to that timeline. Now, again, we know every video was from the 16th. 28:13 So, we can actually plug in based on the timing every one of those videos into 28:20 the timeline here. Now, I had asked Mick privately, did you match up? He said he 28:26 did one. Um, and I was able to to figure out which one he was referring to, but 28:32 he says that he did not match up any others. So, so I looked to try and do it 28:37 and could not match any of the timings except one. And what's interesting about 28:43 that is there's a couple different things here. Why is that? So if we we 28:50 have to put up front what we know and what we know is these videos came 28:56 through the Freedom of Information Act on a request that looked for all information about the drone encounters 29:02 at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in December of 2024. 29:09 What we don't know is the context of why the videos are considered responsive to my request. They could absolutely be 29:17 identified as commercial airlines to the United States Air Force. That those that 29:22 took those seven videos absolutely did mistake commercial airline flyovers for 29:29 drones. They submitted it to their superiors. It wound up in this file. But those on the uh the upper echelon of of 29:36 these investigations on that night said, "No, no, no. That you know, that's okay. That's normal air traffic, but we've got 29:43 a diamond formation over here. We've got four flying over there. We've got one 29:49 hovering over the flight line over here. Are all of those commercial airlines?" 29:54 So, what's important is, and I tr I was trying to say that a couple times on social media, and I think when people 30:01 were seeing Mick solve some of the videos, again, operating off the assumption he's right, they were 30:08 ignoring a key part of the document where it said that they already figured out that some were 30:16 authorized aircraft flying above Wright Patterson Air Force Base. They even identified some as 30:23 shooting stars that were produced by a meteor shower that night. So, they had already done this investigation. Now, 30:29 Mick brought this up. Um, again, we were kind of exchanging and and having just a friendly back and forth behind the 30:34 scenes, but he had brought up that this was about the 13th, not the 16th. So, this potentially is 30:42 not pertaining to the videos. And he's absolutely right. But my point is made 30:48 even stronger now that we don't know the context of the videos. But I will point out one other thing in response to that 30:56 and that is even though it says in relation to the 13th that some were 31:01 considered authorized aircraft, you can actually see this is not a sworn 31:07 testimony document. This one is a information report by a reporting 31:14 officer but not signed off until January of 2025. 31:20 Why that's key is because this absolutely could have been updated. And 31:25 that's not malicious. They're just probably lumping together the events 31:30 from December 11th to the 13th to the 16th. And then they referred it, you can 31:37 see on the bottom here, to AFOSI for a full investigation on what in the hell 31:43 was going on. Now, this sounds all like a moot point, but it's really important because what I 31:50 was seeing was we don't know the answer. That's the bottom line. That's the truth. I'm not here to tell you if it 31:56 was drones or aircraft. I don't have a dog in the fight either way, to be honest with you. I care only because 32:02 it's I want to know the truth behind it, but I'm not hurt if it turns out to be 32:07 airlines. But we have to figure out why so many failures piled up to get to that 32:14 final product of so many misidentifications shutting down a major um air force bases 32:21 airspace because of it. And all at the same time, the FAA is completely 32:27 clueless and blind to what is flying over

restricted airspace. That is a heck 32:33 of a lot of really unlikely scenarios all piled on 32:39 top of each other. So, we have to know if that's true or if there really are 32:45 drone incursions on these sensitive installations. And I feel it's the latter. But what interests me is why are 32:53 so many people opposed to that idea? It's like they think if we're saying the 32:58 dword drone that we're talking about aliens. And you're crazy if you're 33:05 thinking that this is aliens. Don't they call that the straw man argument? So 33:10 they start making fun of anybody who actually considers that they these were drone incursions. and I posted it out 33:17 there. And again, you know, social media is really disgusting in some areas, but 33:22 the same, you know, select group of very loud people um you know, went after me 33:28 for saying, "Hey, remember those people that said all those drone sightings were commercial aircraft?" And I posted part 33:34 of the timeline talking about uh you know, Wright Patterson Air Force Base. I said, "Yeah, I remember that too." And 33:40 just, you know, essentially laughed about it. That had nothing to do with the videos. It has to do with the witness testimony. 33:47 These drones flying in formation, quadcopters flying 500 feet off of a runway, hovering over a gate. All of 33:54 this is in in testimony that's submitted. And I think that they just go 33:59 ahead and argue, well, a couple videos were explained, so that's case closed. 34:05 And I don't understand I truly don't why people are so adamant 34:10 about being let me rephrase it. I don't understand 34:17 how people are so anti-investigation of something like what's the big deal if 34:24 these are drones from a national security perspective. Absolutely that's a big deal. We got to deal with it. But 34:29 they're just out there I think fighting to fight. They troll to troll. They 34:34 attack to attack just because that's their only contribution to this conversation. So, it's really 34:40 interesting for me because you you kind of look from the outside in. You see all 34:45 this information and then they kind of pull that straw man in and go, "Aha, see it was all planes." It's like, well, no, 34:53 that there's a lot here. Let what what about the 13th? What about the missing video from the 11th? But they're so 34:59 shallowminded that they don't see past their own bias. And that's what's really unfortunate 35:05 because the reporting was there. The reporting was there in December. The war zone, which I speak highly about 35:12 on this channel and and rightfully so. They they got a great outfit over there. They do great work. This particular 35:17 piece was December 15th. Howard Alman, they were right on top of it. So, if you don't watch the war zone, definitely 35:23 check them out. But Howard Alman did a great write up on it. And he was he was getting statements around that time. the 35:30 Air Force base was admitting to the drone incursions. So why so is this some massive conspiracy that these debunkers 35:38 are saying not only did all of those witnesses misidentify commercial airliners, they're all dumb. Not only is 35:44 the FAA completely blind and dumb, but uh Wright Patterson Air Force Base has 35:50 concocted this entire story by saying I can confirm, this is a base spokesman, I 35:55 can confirm small aerial systems were spotted over Wright Patterson between Friday night and Saturday morning. 36:01 Today, leaders have determined that they did not impact base residents, facilities, or assets. The Air Force is 36:07 taking all appropriate measures to safeguard our installations and residents. This was around, you know, December 15th. Are you telling me this 36:14 is all some huge conspiracy to give the illusion that drones were encroaching under Wright Patterson? That's what some 36:20 of the debunkers want you to believe. And that to me is hilarious. I maybe I'm 36:26 just weird in that respect, and you know, don't answer that. I probably am, but that's ridiculous. All the evidence 36:33 is there and yet a couple videos get identified and that dismisses the whole thing. It's beyond me. I just don't get 36:39 it. But it's pretty cool. Definitely go check out the blackvault.com. It's one of the recent stories uh and you will be 36:46 able to um uh download all of the videos, all of the documents, read through them. I 36:53 always invite you to do that because um it gives you access to the raw 36:58 information. So even though I love writing and and and and love bringing 37:04 that um element to you where I can, you know, again look at a 100 pages or 150 37:09 pages and kind of condense them down. I love doing that, but I also love giving you all the raw information as well. So 37:15 that way you don't have to take my my word for it. Um you can just kind of check it out for yourself. Uh, let me 37:21 take a couple live questions here. Again, if you are on YouTube, please I I see the super chats a little bit easier. 37:27 If you that's not a ploy to get your money. I apologize if it comes off that way. On my side, they're a lot easier to 37:33 see. They get categorized. I can pull them. I'm the only guy at the black vault. It's just me. Uh, so I don't 37:39 have, you know, a team here helping me out. Uh, so super chats I'm going to pull first. I will definitely try and 37:46 see normal uh questions in the chat. Just put them all in caps. Uh, so I appreciate that. Sparky pilot. Thank you 37:52 so much for your work, John. Throw this in the foyer fund. I appreciate that, Sparky. Yes, 100% again goes directly 37:59 into that, not into my pocket. All regular air traffic, no reason for media. Um, 38:07 hey, if uh if I understand your comment here that you feel that it was all uh 38:12 regular air traffic, maybe that is um in my opinion, n and thank you so much for 38:17 supporting the channel. If I'm understanding you correctly, uh 38:22 I think the evidence speaks to the contrary with all the

documents, but I invite you to go take a look at it and 38:28 and definitely see for yourself. Um so, moving on to one of the other 38:33 stories. Uh this particular one, you'll recognize the name and uh this was about 38:40 multiple we're talking about drones again, but this this kind of is leaning back towards the UAP stuff that there 38:46 were multiple drone incursions over the Pantex nuclear facility. New documents 38:52 came out late last night, which was totally bizarre to me. 38:58 Some of which had never been reported before. Now, Pantex, it's going to ring a bell 39:04 for you if you pay attention to Jeremy Corbell and the Weaponized podcast and George Knap. Uh, I believe it was on 39:11 their TMZ special called UFO Revolution. And um 39:21 what was originally reported, and I want to make sure I I kind of have this 39:26 right, was a September 2015 drone encounter, 39:32 which I don't want to sound I I I don't want to sound aggressive the 39:39 way that I'm going to say this here or rude, but in the in the normal fashion 39:46 of exaggeration. It was kind of blown up that this was 39:51 one of those UFOs, those those the phenomena aspect of all of this kind 39:58 of intertwined into this incident. And and I I didn't understand it based on 40:04 their description. Why are you kind of building this up to something that it's not? Because UAV incursions over 40:10 sensitive installations go back since the beginning of UAVs. um not only from 40:15 a military standpoint, but those that you fly in your backyard. I remember years ago I was looking for UFO related 40:22 stuff and uh and it was through NCIS, so the Navy Criminal Investigation Service. 40:27 These documents are on the Black Vault. I want to say they were probably it was probably 10 12 years ago. Um I should 40:34 have brought them up for this presentation, but again, these things can go on for hours and hours, so I try and condense it. But to tell you the the 40:40 the story real quick, these documents came up of unidentified objects that 40:46 were seen around base installations, but they were uh even and they captured some of the the UAVs, these little drones, 40:54 and they were just commercial, you know, drones that people were flying uh around too close or sometimes in some cases 41:01 over into the military base. Uh and then sometimes they would actually crash them inside the base and then they would go 41:07 out. auto crash retrieval. You know, that's a headline you're probably going to see on a tabloid tomorrow. U but uh 41:14 it was picking up these, you know, hobby drones. Um but it came up as responsive to these requests because they were 41:19 unidentified. In some cases, they couldn't track down who was actually operating them because I mean, think about it. You fly that thing over, 41:26 you're a hobbyist, you get it over and you crash it into something, you can't get it. It's behind a gate. What are you 41:31 going to do? And you just hightail it out of there. So I

if I remember correctly, one of them was kind of just 41:37 like that where they felt that the person just kind of ran uh while others, you know, got cited and ticketed, but 41:42 that was why the it was a criminal investigation through through the Navy. So my entire point is is that those 41:48 types of incursions are nothing new. Those documents have been out for years and years and years and it's just a 41:54 harsh reality to base security. people with a hobbyist drone or even those with 42:00 a little bit more of a nefarious intent and having a more expensive one, they can go out and do these types of things. 42:06 So, that's been a big concern and you see a lot of um you know uh uh 42:13 counterpoliferation tactics and stuff like that to to kind of fight this problem and um 42:20 it's an issue. So anyway, going back to the Pantex thing, I was really I I kind 42:26 of confused why they were conflating it, but eventually documents came out and uh 42:31 in fact they were profiled again on TMZ and through Jeremy Corbel and uh a Foye 42:38 researcher by the name of Dustin Slaughter who was on season two of uh 42:44 UFO Revolution. and uh they had gotten one of the photos of this thing and it 42:51 it's um pretty hard to tell what what it it's worse than the videos from Wright 42:57 Patterson Air Force Base. I'll say that and why that is is because it was actually a product of a analysis that 43:04 Sandia Labs did and it was essentially just a layer of the drone and um and it 43:09 was just a kind of a blob of uh of a picture. It wasn't even anything that 43:15 you can discern. Now, I I'm not diminishing the foyer find. That stuff's awesome to me. But again, it's kind of 43:22 that that buildup and the misrepresentation of what may have really happened there, 43:28 which was just kind of a normal drone going through. They caught it on camera. That's key. Um and uh they they did 43:35 analysis of it and then the screen grab from the video surfaces. I think it was January of this year. Also, some of the 43:42 documents came out. Now, here's what's strange, right? So, now that's a little bit of backstory of where the Pantex 43:48 connection comes in, but it all surrounded that September 2015, 43:54 September 1 to be exact, uh, encounter of what they described as an unknown 43:59 object flying in a non-threatening manner west of Pantex facilities in a norther northerly trajectory. And it 44:06 goes on, I won't sit and read the whole thing to you, but again, these documents are now online. and I invite you to do so. But at 8:30 p.m. last night, Pacific 44:15 time, uh the NNSA, so that's the uh was it 44:21 National Nuclear Security Agency, NNSA, gave a foyer response. So 8:30 p.m. 44:27 Pacific on a Friday night. That's really bizarre. And uh I believe their specific 44:34 location is New Mexico. So, you're probably talking about I I forget 44:40 exactly what time zone their city would be in, but either 9:30 or 10:30, but you're talking about very late

on a 44:45 Friday night. I get this document dump of these uh records. Now, the backstory 44:52 for me is it goes back to I, you know, look, I I may harp on certain people, 44:58 Jeremy Corbell included, on how he hypes these stories. Um, but I don't let that get in the way of, hey, what can we 45:05 find? And so I had filed in January of 2024 uh to get these records, but I didn't 45:13 specify just the September 2015 incident. Reason being is I wanted to 45:18 branch out. So I cast a wider net. So the other foyer requester, so Mr. Dustin 45:24 Slaughter, I don't know. I tried to to to talk to him. Um and I'll show you 45:30 kind of the tweet later. It for whatever reason, he doesn't want to chat with me. probably because I'm critical of Jeremy 45:36 Corbel and their best buds, it sounds like. So, I I guess he just didn't want to talk to me. So, that's fine. So, I 45:43 was trying to piece together what did he ask for uh when he got this particular image because what you're seeing on the 45:50 screen is what he got and then the document dump last night lifted a bunch 45:56 of the redactions and gave a lot more. So, over here is what came last night. 46:02 over here is what he published I believe in January. So again I I I wish you know 46:08 I wish there was a team effort element to some of this but but some people are very territorial uh which is 46:14 unfortunate. I I love to learn um you know I love to talk about this stuff but I love to listen too. I I mean I I 46:20 definitely don't have all the answers. So I'd love to know like how people do things. We can you know god forbid work 46:28 together and maybe achieve something. So, I was kind of trying to piece together what this was. Um, and I the 46:35 only thing I could think of is this is what he got uh from asking for the September 2015 46:42 uh encounter. But these redactions B3 UCI, now UCNI is probably an abre a 46:49 acronym you don't see a lot. It's unclassified um 46:55 nuclear information. So what it's essentially it's it's unclassified but they still protect it 47:02 under FOYA exemption B3 because it's related to nuclear IM information and so 47:08 that is something um and and the full acronym if I misspoke there unclassified 47:14 controlled nuclear information and that's UCNI. So, that's what came, you 47:19 know, what it sounds like just six months ago. But yet, my release last night lifted the majority of those 47:27 reactions, uh, redactions, and it was B7 in just a 47:32 few areas. Here's another page. This one, I assume, I don't know why he 47:37 cut it off, but this is the same page. You can see all that information is now 47:43 revealed here. It is not. Why? your guess is as good as mine, but it was 47:48 pretty interesting that now we have a lot of this information out. So, I published this last night. I think I was 47:54 going crosseyed like trying to get everything on because I I I you generally start at 4:00 a.m. with my 48:00 normal day job. So, I think it was like 10:30, 10:45. That's way past my 48:06 bedtime. I don't care if I sound old saying that. I mean, I'm up at 4 anyway. And so, that's a long day. So, I'm just 48:12 going crossey trying to get these documents out. But I thought, look, if they're going to dump them at 8:30 on a Friday night, there's a reason why. So, 48:18 let's get them out to the general public and uh and and get some eyeballs on this. That's another page. So, a lot 48:24 more came out about that September 2015 um drone encounter. And you can kind of 48:30 see that there wasn't really anything anomalous about it. Um I know some 48:36 people kind of instantly think, well, how do we know it's real? I mean, look, if you're going to start talking about 48:41 how things are fabricated and and documents and narratives are fabricated, um, you're going to have to prove that. 48:47 I I mean, the why I say that is secrecy is a gigantic problem, but it's also a 48:54 necessity. And so, why I say it that way is that they overclassify a ton of stuff 49:00 that you'll never see. They don't have to create narratives and go to the trouble of creating documents and all of 49:08 that stuff. It's a silly extra step that they don't need to do. The ability for 49:14 them to redact everything and keep it under lock and key is already there for 49:19 them. So, they don't need to fabricate. Will they? Sure. I mean, that's a possibility. Um, and I and I ask myself 49:26 that every day when when documents come. So, I don't dismiss it, but you have to 49:31 understand if you're going to make that claim, you got to prove it. So, I don't see anything anomalous here, but hey, 49:37 it's fun that we have access to it now. That's awesome. But also in the drop last night was that that September 2015 49:45 encounter wasn't the only one. That there were actually multiple drone 49:50 incursions at Pantex over the years. Uh that you can see here was October 5th, 49:55 2022 was another one. So about 7 years later that you can see UAS's were 50:01 encroaching in and again just looking like they're what surveilling the property. I mean you know we can all we 50:07 can all try and take a guess. Nothing real anomalous descriptions including very similar to what we were hearing 50:13 about at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in 2024. Four rotors, no distinguishing 50:19 marks. Um that kind of those kind of details. So again a lot less anomalous. 50:24 nothing we should really build up as some kind of phenomenon that we need to make a documentary about, but it's all 50:31 interesting information. 50:38 There was another one from June 25, 2023. Same deal, 200 ft uh drone that 50:44 was seen 200 feet high. Uh and you can again read all of the witness testimony with these documents. 50:51 Sadly, no additional videos or footage. However, there was a video that was 50:56 connected to that September 2015 one. That's intriguing. That video has never 51:02 been out before. Um, and also that analysis, we now have a bigger picture

51:08 of what they did. Pardon the pun. uh but rather I'm talking about a a a textual 51:13 picture of the fact that Sandia Labs was doing the analysis on behalf of um of 51:19 Pantex trying to figure out what this object was and that they make specific 51:25 reference to a video. I uh filed an appeal for that. I also filed directly 51:33 with Sandia a different case to go after it on two different fronts. That's kind 51:38 of a safety net for me. Um, I do that primarily because one may come in before 51:43 the other. Or one may not work, but the other does. So, one is through um, 51:50 uh, obviously the the the Pantex facility operator. It's like a LLC. I forget their full name, but um they 51:56 adhere to the Freedom of Information Act, but they obviously process the the Pantex side uh to where the Sandia Lab 52:03 side is through NNSA directly and then likely Sandia has their own team. So 52:09 you're talking about two different FOYA offices. The one over at the Pantex 52:15 facility, they may say Sandia has to do it and Sandia may say Pantex has to do 52:20 it. So that's a trick of mine that I pass on to you. file both. The worst they can say is, "Hey, you got to go 52:27 that way and okay, then you go that way." But for me, I go both ways first. 52:32 That way, I don't have to deal with it later because sometimes you will wait three, four, five, six months for 52:37 something to come in. So, those are the new documents. Let me take a break, switch back here. 52:45 All right. 5x5 News. John, your work is truly appreciated. If 52:51 you need unredacted versions of the Susan Goff emails for clarity, let me know. Best regards, Mike Turber. Uh, 52:57 hey, Mike, I appreciate your your support of the channel and your comment there. Um, yeah, I believe that you're 53:03 probably talking about uh some of the Susan Goff emails that came up that included Jack Sarf's list. Um, I get CCD 53:12 on a lot of that. In fact, their lists have become so excessive with volume. I 53:19 mean, I I rarely actually check one of my addresses now just because of that 53:24 just because there there's so many emails. Um, so I appreciate the offer, but I 53:31 I don't I don't I don't there's too much. I mean, if if there was some kind of official correspondence from the 53:37 government side, I'd be a little bit more interested if I didn't have those. But, um, but yeah, I I appreciate it. 53:44 I've seen a lot of them and, you know, they're just mailing lists. Uh but but but do appreciate that support of the 53:49 channel. Truly truly appreciate it. Jay Feller, thank you. #foya uh thank you 53:56 for that support. Yes, hashtag foya all the way. Uh huge advocate for that. 54:01 N uh good to see you again. To elaborate, I think it was an incursion and airspace from whoever, 54:09 but then flooded with friendly drones as a cover up. So nothing to see. All good. 54:15 Okay. Um, well, I appreciate that feedback. Yeah, there's a lot of lot of 54:21 speculation on what happens and that that will if I can just say this one last point because I know we kind of 54:26 moved on from from the drones uh uh story, but that being said, uh when you 54:38 trying to find the best way to say it. Tell you what, I'll put a pin in. I'll 54:44 come back to it. I I appreciate your your your feedback there, but let me I may deal with it later on one of the 54:51 other slides. So, let me hold that thought. But I do appreciate the uh um 54:56 you know that that that extra feedback and and in fact just I will say it at 55:02 this point. I I think that the biggest point that I 55:07 want to make about those drone sightings at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, and yes, I call them drones. I think the 55:13 evidence is there. We don't have all the pieces of the puzzle. And although I 55:19 touched on it earlier already, I'm going to touch on it again. There are too many people without having all the pieces of 55:26 the puzzle trying to claim that they have the entire picture. And that is the 55:32 most unhealthy thing that you can do on any topic. And this is one of those instances. So, I appreciate your 55:39 speculation. I think that I'm I think that I'm reading uh it correctly and although I may respectfully disagree 55:45 with it uh regardless it's the only thing I can do too because we don't have 55:51 all the pieces of the puzzle. So where I kind of was you know second guessing do 55:56 I really want to go here? Um, just be careful with who you listen to. And you know, I I just I see it more and more 56:03 every day that it's the mindset of if it explains one, it explains all. 56:12 And that's not true. But to some, they give that impression. If it explains one 56:17 thing, then it explains all things. And and I think that even Mick had the opposite phrasing, which I think was 56:24 great. He I I don't know what the root is, but I think Mick said it once and it stuck with me. The reality is an 56:31 explanation for one thing is not an explanation for all things. That's the 56:36 right way to look at it. So, I remember Mick saying that, so I'm going to credit him here, but if it was somebody else, I'm sorry. Uh, whoever said it, kudos to 56:43 them. But that mentality of the complete opposite has become a growing issue. And 56:50 so I I was just trying to find the respectful way to say it because I do get incredibly frustrated by people that 56:57 do that. And and I truly believe at the end of the day they think that they're 57:02 like doing good that they're out there being trolls on X and attacking people 57:08 with beliefs other than their own. they, you know, it it borderline docks people 57:15 because they have fringe beliefs and uh they have to profile them and they have 57:20 to reveal who they are and talk about their LinkedIn and and essentially force them off their their respective social 57:26 media channels because they are trying to profile anything and everything they 57:31 can to make the topic and the discussion look bad.

And those are the types of 57:37 things in my opinion more from the simple-minded people in this conversation that they already have 57:43 their mind made up. They can never grow beyond that decision they've already 57:50 made on what all things are because their explanation for one is an 57:57 explanation for all. And so that's what they do. So, they are just completely on 58:02 a one-way track of, well, I'm I'm just going to attack everybody. I'm going to 58:07 be a jerk to everybody because that's all I have to offer. And how dare they 58:13 think differently than me? And that insecurity that those people have is is again a growing issue because their 58:20 voices are not quiet. They're loud. Some of them even have a a platform where 58:25 they can reach those those audiences and they're completely in my opinion 58:31 malicious in their intent. They may not even realize it, but the maliciousness 58:37 comes from that narrow-mindedness. And it has jaded them so much that they 58:42 attack on a personal level somebody who has different beliefs than them and attacks the crosses on their wall or 58:50 will attack their religious beliefs all because they have an insecurity about something. And I think that those types 58:57 of things, albeit uncomfortable, have to be said. I may not agree with certain 59:02 people. I may talk about formerly taxpayer paid uh individuals that uh did 59:09 something on taxpayer dime because I'm a taxpayer and that's what I do. I'm an advocate for transparency and I look 59:15 into it. It's not personal, but rather it's about accuracy. It's about looking into what taxpayer money went to. There 59:22 is a line, however, on the on the personal side of it. And you have to 59:28 skate it very very carefully because sometimes when you're looking into those people and you do find some myths truth 59:34 mistruths out there and them changing the facts to their own reality, it 59:39 becomes very sensitive. People get fired up. But for me, I try and keep it not personal. Others do the quite opposite. 59:46 Quite the opposite. And it's gross. I mean, if those are the types of human beings they are, that's cool. But we 59:52 have to start having those conversations. Why is it that there are certain people that even openly admit, 59:58 hey, I work for the DoD that are on X all day long attacking others? Hey, I've 1:00:03 got my and and you some of you who use social media probably saw some of these exchanges, but but I I mean, it went 1:00:10 back and forth all day and I thought, wait a minute, you're openly saying you 1:00:16 work for the DoD. Is that what taxpayer dollars are paying you for to sit on X 1:00:21 and attack David Grush? Like look, I I question those types of things, too. But 1:00:27 you don't see me on X all day questioning David Grush. I mean, I'll have a comment here or there. It's 1:00:33 because it's newsworthy, but every day, like during normal business hours, is 1:00:39 Uncle is Uncle Sam paying for that? So,

I'm not on those like you're working for the government and it's a big scop and 1:00:45 that's what your, you know, your your your uh job is. I'm not on that bandwagon. But it sure does make you 1:00:52 think like do you guys have a job that you actually do work at or is like 1:00:57 literally trashing Brandon Fugal and Travis Taylor and 1:01:02 David Grush and Luis Alzando. Is that really what you think about all day? And that's coming from a critic of some of 1:01:09 those names. some, not all of the names that I just said as somebody who led the charge on questioning some of those 1:01:15 stories. And even I sit back and go, dude, you have got a weird obsession. But it's gotten worse. So, thank you for 1:01:22 letting me go off on that little tangent, but I think it needs to be said. It's an important part of this conversation that people are out there 1:01:30 thinking that is the best contribution that they have. And it's sad. It really is. 1:01:37 All right, let me go to another story here and switch back because I'm sure getting probably slaughtered in the chat 1:01:44 channel by people. All right, let me see if there's any 1:01:49 questions I can pull. Um, I appreciate that. Love your show 1:01:55 for the facts. Truly appreciate it. Hypersonic, I deleted my ex account 1:02:00 because it's a show. Look, absolutely. It It really is. It's not for the faint of heart. Um, if you are a 1:02:07 a sensitive person, and and I'm not harping on you if you are. I am. I like I I get offended. It's it's awful some 1:02:15 of the things people say on there. Uh, X isn't for you. I mean, it's it's ugly. 1:02:20 But that's that's seemingly where all of like the cesspool of trolls congregate. There's a lot of great people there, 1:02:27 too. So, don't let me don't let me say it's just completely not worth your time. It is, but you just have to get 1:02:32 used to the fact that um you know that's that's that's who they are. Like that's 1:02:38 where they go and that that's all they have and and that's what uh you know is is truly kind of sad about it. 1:02:47 All right, so let me switch back away from the chat now. Navy withheld nearly 500 pages about UAP videos uh about 1:02:54 their UAP video release decision. Records show foyer pressure drove disclosure. Disclosure in the sense of 1:03:00 foyer. Um I know it in UFO talk has a little bit of a different meaning, but disclosure is like a foyer disclosure. 1:03:07 Um this is specifically about the fleer, the gimbal, and the goast video. And as 1:03:12 we know, I have followed that for years from 2017 to date. And I have pushed on 1:03:18 those angles a lot because I am fascinated by it. I have looked at document and information leaks for 1:03:24 decades. um not just with UF UFO stuff uh but rather again it's that national 1:03:30 security angle that that uh that I that I research a lot and look at what happens to people who do get into 1:03:37 releasing information in an unauthorized manner uh taking classified information 1:03:43 and putting it out in the open. Even unclassified information for official use only was put on on uh Discord, you 1:03:51 know, this was like a year ago or whatever it was. And you look at how the DoD 1:03:56 reacts to that and there's press releases and we're getting to the bottom of this and we'll figure out who did it 1:04:03 and it's a big deal. UFO stuff leaks and it's like ah no big deal. And I've long been intrigued by that. And now although 1:04:11 I was very much rad over the coals for saying it for so long, it's now been beyond a shadow of a doubt proven that 1:04:18 the Fleer, the gimbal, and the goast were all leaks. that that whole it was reviewed for declassification by the US 1:04:25 military, all of that was made up. Um it it it was just a story like none of it 1:04:31 was true. So now we have all the proof that we need and and even Christopher 1:04:37 Melon years ago conceded that people bent the rules to get these things out and that somebody handed these videos to 1:04:44 him in the Pentagon parking lot. Now, even though he never said who that was, pretty sure most of us can guess who 1:04:50 that was, but regardless, they were leaks. So, I've long pushed on, well, why is it that the DoD just seemingly 1:04:57 doesn't care about these particular leaks? Now, we do know that uh AFOSI uh 1:05:03 did investigate the leaks uh specifically with the Fleer um because that was the first one that actually 1:05:11 leaked years prior. It uh showed up I believe on uh the above top secret forum 1:05:16 first linked to some German server. It was hosted uh in Germany and um it's a 1:05:22 very interesting kind of side story which I won't get into today but very 1:05:28 interesting side story that uh shows that they did look into at least the fleer at the time and there were just 1:05:35 too many essentially sailors on board that could have got their hands on it. So, in other words, too many suspects. 1:05:42 They couldn't round it down. They did determine it was unclassified, so who cares? When AFOSI looked at all three 1:05:48 going in the open, although the names were redacted, it was pretty easy to figure out that Luis Alzando where his 1:05:55 name kind of fit in. um and and that it it essentially was was not authorized 1:06:01 for release and that um although he wasn't 1:06:07 punished, it was still bad. And during that investigation, they they discovered 1:06:12 that the Navy, who authorized only for use internally at the DoD, because that 1:06:20 was a key part of what Luis Alzando wrote, they determined that if they ever knew 1:06:26 that it was going to the media or anywhere outside the walls of the Pentagon, so to speak, that they would 1:06:31 have denied the request. So, it was clear as day that all of this was not supposed to be out in the open. uh and 1:06:38 the entire narrative that people were saying for years uh was completely bunk. 1:06:44 Now to this uh story with the 500 pages withheld and

why it's interesting. I'm 1:06:50 sorry my earpiece keeps falling out. I started going after the documents of 1:06:55 what led to the eventual addition of the three videos to the online Navy site. 1:07:03 Now to some of you that might be boring. It's like well who cares? They added it to the Navy site. we've got access to it. You know, who cares? We even saw him 1:07:10 before. So, is it really anything new? What's key is figuring out why and how 1:07:15 it happened. At least for me, because then that tells you the inside look on 1:07:21 what they were thinking about these videos. And over the years, various foyer requests have touched that. But 1:07:28 this particular case was specific to the Navy's decision of adding the Fleer, the 1:07:34 Gimbal, and Go Fast to their online foyer reading room. They claimed with a 1:07:40 press release and it was even published in the mainstream media like Forbes did a story on this that it was a byproduct 1:07:46 of their essentially their transparency. I quoted it in my article exact. I'm paraphrasing now, but essentially they 1:07:53 were giving this aura that, oh, we're proactively releasing this, even though 1:07:58 Greenwald had a case for it, and I'm sure other people too, but they did this press release. They made it seem like 1:08:05 they were being proactive and transparent, and then literally like within a couple hours, the case that had 1:08:11 gone on, I forget exactly how long, it was like a year or two, got answered. And then I got the videos uh as well. So 1:08:20 this isn't this case again, this is the previous one. So it was a really bizarre chain of events because normally foyer 1:08:26 releases are just that foyer releases. They're not accompanied by press releases and any type of show of 1:08:32 transparency, but rather it's a foyer release. This one was quite different. So previous cases would sometimes get an 1:08:41 email here or there that was making reference to this decision. And you could see it actually stemmed from the 1:08:47 argument that I had put up that they should not and could not uh conceal 1:08:52 these videos based on public uh statements that the US Navy Navy gave me 1:08:59 directly. And so I put up a legal argument that said, you know, I it was 1:09:05 what I call a preemptive appeal. That's not an official term. uh but essentially I was kind of appealing it in my letter 1:09:12 and essentially said, you know, here's the reasons why these should be responsive. Now, you may ask the 1:09:19 question, why does it really matter? You already saw the video, so why are you fighting for them? Keep in mind, there was a lot of talk about at least the 1:09:26 gimbal having a larger version of it within the United States 1:09:32 Navy's archives. So, what I was going for was everything. It turned out that 1:09:40 it was to the second of what had already leaked that that was the only thing that existed or so they claimed. But 1:09:46 regardless, that's what came out. Well, I filed an additional case after all that to go after all of the records. And 1:09:53 this this one took years to get, and it was all the records that pertained to 1:09:59 the release of those videos. You would think them being unclassified, 1:10:04 them not revealing much of anything that hasn't been out already in the open that 1:10:09 they would just kind of show you that inside baseball minus the privacy stuff and maybe minus, you know, whatever 1:10:16 technical system or classified system or whatever, you know, might come come that way. Sure, that's that could be 1:10:23 redacted, but you'd think they show you. On the contrary, they actually denied 1:10:29 almost 500 pages of that material that was all about them 1:10:36 declassifying those videos. And I say declassified loosely. They were unclassified, 1:10:41 but reviewing them for release. 500 pages. What is there to talk about? Now, 1:10:49 you can probably say quite a few of those are repeats. You can probably say quite a few of those, you know, are just 1:10:56 boring administrative stuff. Sure. But 500 pages and exempted from top to 1:11:03 bottom. That's ridiculous. Now, I did get quite a few pages released. I did publish all of those. You can download 1:11:09 all of those as well. So, those do exist and those are online and those are ready to go. But 500 pages were withheld. 1:11:19 Some of the exemptions that they used include included and they bolded it deliberative process privilege which in 1:11:25 the foyer realm that's what I refer to and and I didn't coin this phrase but uh those that that are in the foyer arena 1:11:31 say the the exempted if you want to statute and attorney client privilege. So they obviously had a bunch of lawyers 1:11:37 involved that were looking all at all this stuff. Why you look at those videos are they really that impressive? 1:11:44 So, these are the types of pieces of the puzzle that again may seem boring to some, but to me it tells a bigger story 1:11:51 that those kind of grainy videos that albeit were interesting for a bit and now it's just kind of snoozy. We see 1:11:57 them all the time. But the Fleer, the gimbal, and the Go Fast, all of that 1:12:02 went into just putting those that had already been in the public domain. It 1:12:08 turns out 100% of what they had was already in the public domain. 500 pages. 1:12:14 That's insanity to me. But it is incredibly telling because then you start looking at all those other cases 1:12:21 that talk about FOYA uh that that the FOYA cases that talk about UAP photos 1:12:27 and UAP videos that are entirely exempted because they are classified. 1:12:33 And I have cases with the United States Air Force and the US Navy that proves that that they just will not release 1:12:40 anything. What are those looking like? Because if 1:12:46 all of that deliberative process privilege, attorney client privilege went into some grainy videos that were 1:12:53 unclassified and that had already been online for years. What's in

this other 1:12:58 stuff? Now, that doesn't mean aliens, okay, before those certain people attack 1:13:03 me for for making a big deal out of it. But it is a big deal because it shows you the lengths that they have to go to 1:13:10 to hide these things and the lengths that they go to when they finally come out in the open. And if those grainy 1:13:16 videos produce this, I want to know what they're hiding. Now, the last story I'm going to deal 1:13:22 with, let me switch over, see if there's anything else here. 1:13:29 Sorry, these are already uh Okay, Gan Dolph. Gandalf. I just watched The Lord 1:13:36 of the Rings, all three movies with my 11-year-old son, and I was so excited that he loved it. It's one of my 1:13:44 favorite of all movies. Um, so Love Your Name. Thanks, JG. What you make What do 1:13:52 you make of Wall Street Journal's lack of response rebuttal to the extreme criticism? Is there a hidden message 1:13:57 behind their dialing up the absurdity to 11? 1:14:05 Look, uh I if you haven't seen it, I did a video on this channel 1:14:12 all about that Wall Street Journal article. Uh you may have seen it, which is kind of maybe prompting your question 1:14:17 here, but for those who are watching that have not, uh go to the YouTube channel if you don't know how to get there. It's the blackvault.comlive. 1:14:27 Um I know this is being broadcast on X, it's being broadcast on Facebook. Um, so if you're not subscribed to the YouTube 1:14:33 channel, definitely go check it out. But that being said, I'm not surprised that they're not 1:14:39 responding to it. In my opinion, they look foolish. 1:14:45 And I think that that that's why part two came out on the night that it did. There was a major world event and it was 1:14:53 like they just like, "Okay, let's just get this out." You know, it was done in the can, but uh, get it out. And they 1:15:00 did so unlike it just essentially got buried and rightfully so. I mean it it 1:15:07 was kind of a joke. So what do I think about their lack of response? It just it doesn't surprise me. The mainstream 1:15:13 media is wrong all the time when it comes to not only UAP issues but a ton of other ones. Do they really care about 1:15:20 their corrections? Um I refuse to pay for a subscription to Wall Street Journal. They obviously have a a fat 1:15:27 payw wall on the article if you want to go read it. Um, I use that archive.is 1:15:34 that allows you to bypass those those payw walls. And I invite you all to do it too because it's not worth paying for 1:15:40 and it and it's kind of ludicrous that they feel that they can charge for it because it is wrong. Now, why I bring 1:15:46 that up is I don't know if they have since posted a correction. I'm guessing if they did, I would have heard about 1:15:52 it, you know, through social media channels and stuff like that because usually that kind of stuff would would would bounce around quite a bit. I 1:15:59 haven't heard anything. So, if any of you have your subscription to Wall Street Journal, um, consider canceling 1:16:06 it. But then on top of that, before you do, look to see if there is a correction posted because I I'm curious if they 1:16:13 ever did. I think that there were a couple correction worthy uh aspects to it. Um, but be that as it may, I mean, 1:16:20 you can argue that into the ground. What I what I will say comfortably is that it was completely misleading. And the fact 1:16:27 that uh they didn't comment or or respond to the rebuttals doesn't 1:16:32 surprise me one bit because um they don't care. And and that's not just the Wall Street Journal. I I think a lot of 1:16:39 outlets don't care uh about these types of stories. And people are hired to go 1:16:45 in. They're freelance journalists. They get their their money for doing, you know, x amount of stories or per story 1:16:50 and they go in and they do it and then they just move on to the next one and they don't care what Joe Blow from the 1:16:56 UFO community has to say or what blogger X has to say or what John Greenwald has 1:17:02 to say. They don't care. They got their money and they move on and then they are writing about Iran or or Pakistan or or 1:17:09 Russia or whatever on their next one. Who knows? But um yeah, bottom line is they they just don't care. 1:17:17 All right. Uh let me see here. Getting through and Cody, could the cover up be they don't want you they don't know what 1:17:25 this stuff is either. Always appreciate your efforts. That's a great comment. And you know, I remember years ago I was 1:17:32 uh interviewed by George Nory and it was a show that he did. I think he still does it actually um on Gaia. And it was 1:17:40 uh you know I really I really like George. I've I've um uh George Nory and I've known each other 1:17:47 for many many years. I mean we don't talk every day but I mean we've obviously have corresponded quite a bit over the years. I've been on Coast quite 1:17:54 a few times and uh and I had a great time at this interview and I remember it came up and I floated the idea around 1:18:01 this time and I can't believe the amount of hate mail that I got for it and I said something to the effect of the 1:18:07 cover up may absolutely be the fact that they just are clueless as we are meaning 1:18:12 we just don't have all the answers. The amount of vitrial that came from the 1:18:17 audience on that show was something that I'll never forget. So, whenever this comes up, I always instantly go back um 1:18:24 and and let me just state for the record, it had nothing to do with George Nory. He was a very gracious host and 1:18:29 and uh did not say anything negative whatsoever to my viewpoint. Um but again, the the the hate mail definitely 1:18:37 was excessive after that. So, um so I think you you nailed it. I think that that's a huge possibility. I wouldn't 1:18:43 bet my house on it. I don't know. But um yeah, I believe that there's an aspect of this that they don't know and that is 1:18:49 a

national security risk. Plain and simple that could absolutely 1:18:55 play a role and them not wanting to get into any of this with any of us because 1:19:01 if they did then uh they would reveal that weakness and 1:19:07 they can't do it. So, I think a lot of people want, just to close that thought, 1:19:12 they want the government to be all- knowing. They're evil. They cover everything up and they're lying. But 1:19:19 like there's some kind of powerhouse all- knowing entity that knows everything and and runs the world and 1:19:26 and controls information and this and that and um giving them too much credit 1:19:33 if if that's your mindset because I I think it's a huge possibility that they're clueless that they may have an 1:19:40 idea that there's something there that they that they they just can't combat but they but they can't figure it out. 1:19:46 And and whether that be Russia, Iran, China, whatever, aliens, fill in the blank, that's not where I'm going with 1:19:52 this. The point remains, no matter what variable you put in there, the point is the same. The concern that national 1:20:00 security risk um is the issue and I think that's a big possibility. So, um 1:20:06 yeah, I think you nailed it. That's I love your thinking. Um it's uh pleasure to see your comment. 1:20:13 All right, so let me kind of switch back here. 1:20:18 If you do have I want to pull from the regular chat too. So if you are in it looks like there's uh between all the 1:20:24 networks almost 1,900 people watching live right now. So thank you guys for doing that. Um YouTube uh and Facebook 1:20:32 and X your comments will come in on my screen. Uh but they do go fast. So put 1:20:37 them in all caps if you have just a standard question. Um the uh super chats 1:20:43 if you're on YouTube they do get put to a different window. I'm able to see those a little bit easier. Uh but again 1:20:48 I will pull from that chat the most that I can. Back to the last story that I'm going to talk about. Now this is based 1:20:53 on as I said in the beginning of the show based on some of your questions and then your kind of request that I do this 1:21:01 video. And I thought today was going to be a great day to do it because it kind of fits into something I talked about 1:21:06 earlier. Same foyer requester. um but also about the overall scope of 1:21:12 transparency and essentially how is the government changing if at all with the 1:21:19 transparency when it comes to the UAP issue. 1:21:24 Now, I've talked about the exaggeration and the fabrication 1:21:31 when it comes to some of these stories and how it's very hurtful to the 1:21:37 conversation. And this is actually an example, I believe, of just that. Now, 1:21:42 as I said earlier, I'll say it again here. I decided not to do the video 1:21:48 because of the fact that for whatever reason the foyer requester who I will praise right now who deserves credit for 1:21:55 this. I am excited to see other people use Foya. And anybody

who knows me, not 1:22:00 only on a personal level, but just if you watch this channel, I am constantly giving Foya tips, advice, and sidebars 1:22:09 because I encourage, I advocate for other people to use FOYA. 1:22:15 So, I will, you know, again, uh, absolutely complement that effort. But 1:22:21 what needs to be dealt with is how the result was skewed which created very 1:22:27 much a false impression because of the platform that this ended up on. Now you 1:22:34 all know or at least you may not know the full backstory but the Mosul orb was 1:22:40 something that came out from Jeremy Corbel and George Knap. they 1:22:46 quite a few years ago had quite a few UAP link uh leaks and on this channel 1:22:52 and I'll say it again that was an era I was really intrigued by Jeremy Corbel 1:22:58 and George Knap to me it was clear at that time that they had connections 1:23:03 within that were giving them interesting stuff and I paid attention I still pay 1:23:09 attention I'm not going to lie and say oh I don't even care I very much fair, but my viewpoint of them is very 1:23:17 different now. And I believe that there is enough embellishment that we have to 1:23:22 question what are their motives. That that's not me talking bad about the two guys. I'm sure they're great guys. In 1:23:28 fact, I knew George Knap for years. Um I I feel that it's not the same anymore, 1:23:35 but that maybe that's just me. But we have to question why, like when you look 1:23:40 at the 29 palms uh case and and the in my opinion intentional omission of 1:23:47 information that could have helped us solve that case in an hour. And yet that was absolutely intentionally withheld 1:23:54 from you. And there are other cases uh that I can go into, but that being a prime example because I was actually 1:24:01 very much connected to that whole story. And in fact, Jeremy Corbel um played 1:24:08 into a conspiracy that I was fed information by the government. This 1:24:13 allegation was made by by then a growing number of people that because I was able 1:24:19 to find the Flare photos and videos so fast, which I'm sorry. I mean, I've used government archives for a long time. Uh 1:24:26 that's not patting myself on the back. That's just because I'm used to it, you know, like I can find information. I 1:24:32 didn't need Foye to do it. It's just you need to know how to use it and it's as simple as searching which is difficult 1:24:38 for some. So, you know, hey, I don't hold it against you. But the conspiracy was the fact that I was able to come up 1:24:44 with it so quickly that I was working with the DoD uh and that that 1:24:49 information was fed to me to discredit this massive flying triangle going over 1:24:55 29 palms. All of that is ludicrous. All of that is generally from, you know, 1:25:01 ex at the time Twitter nobodyies. But for Jeremy Corbel to like, you know, 1:25:06 play into that and comment on it. Um, those types of things are are ridiculous 1:25:12 and and very hurtful uh to the conversation. To me, I couldn't care less at this point. I've been accused of 1:25:18 being an agent for a long time. I don't really care. Um, my paycheck comes from 1:25:23 my hard work on a business I built selling headphones. So that's what I do for a living. Um, whoever wants to say 1:25:30 anything else about what I do, that's on them. But my whole point with this is what is their intention when you play 1:25:37 into those types of conspiracies? When you are, in my opinion, maliciously holding back information from your 1:25:43 readers and viewers so you can essentially have a viewpoint that is not accurate, but it's more popular. That to 1:25:50 me is problematic. So, when the Mosul orb thing came out, again, this was that era I was very interested in. The the 1:25:57 Baghdad Phantom was another one. Um, you know, there was a couple leaks there that were very interesting to me. This 1:26:03 was one. So, in the last two weeks, story broke 1:26:09 that the Mosul orb video was released through the Freedom of Information Act 1:26:14 and the government was sued in order to get this out. Now, that to me is 1:26:20 awesome. like hey praise from top to bottom like no negative here. So I am 1:26:25 not poo pooing that at all. That that is very very cool. Let me show you the video here. Hopefully I can play it. 1:26:35 If I can can I give me one second should play. 1:26:43 I can draw on the screen. I don't want to draw on the screen. Bear with me. Oh, I can zoom in on the screen. And I don't 1:26:49 want to zoom in. Hold on. I don't know what's going on. 1:26:55 There we go. That's it. They called it a 4 second video. It's actually 23 frames total of 1:27:02 the UFO. So, uh, that's not even a full second. It's about 30 frames per second. Uh, depending upon how you view it, 1:27:09 people may come up with a frame or two short if you do drop frames, stuff like that. Regardless, 1:27:15 second 08 to 205, that's what the Mosul Orb was. That's it. That's the extent of it. Still very cool. Still an awesome 1:27:22 foy you find. So cool of a story, but that's what we're talking about. 1:27:30 Now, this hits the internet and the buildup to these 23 frames of video 1:27:38 was intense. Like I thought because we didn't know exactly what was going on 1:27:43 with the Mosul orb, we just knew it was coming back. I was expecting like a 12 minute closeup, you can see the writing 1:27:51 on the side uh version of this. And why I was so excited was because this was 1:27:59 the one video in 2023 that I had determined was likely 1:28:05 classified, despite what people were saying. I got a lot of heat for saying it, but it turns 1:28:11 out it was a classified video. that this was something that was denied through FOYA in 2023. 1:28:19 So when this resurfaced and the way that it was built up, I'm super intrigued and excited. It doesn't matter the source. 1:28:25 If it's provable, that's super cool to me. So I was excited to see it. The 1:28:30 question

I had though was what exactly changed? So 2023 classified fully exempt 1:28:37 from release. I appealed and lost the appeal. Now I'm told that litigation brought it out again. Super cool. But I 1:28:43 couldn't get any details. Watched the video and it was weird. It was like there were some details, but the case 1:28:50 didn't go after the Mosul orb video. It came from a Justice Department attorney and it was kind of like sent out of the 1:28:57 blue during the process of this appeal. None of which sounds right to me. Still very cool. But I really wanted to get 1:29:03 the answer because it was like, well, wait a minute. What has changed? Is this a new era of transparency? Because we 1:29:10 know that Arrow is putting out videos even along the same lines as the Mosul 1:29:16 Orb. So what they label as Middle East object, they consider it unidentified. 1:29:22 It is much longer than the Mosul orb and they've put this out and again say it's 1:29:28 un unidentified. That's their official designator and that's key. So put a pin in that. 1:29:33 Official designator is very important here. and they see this, you know, object flying through and you watch it 1:29:40 for a little bit. So, they're putting out videos like this before. And here, let me let me kind of show it to you now 1:29:46 that I can figure out how to press play on this thing. It's not long, but this one as well. 1:29:53 This was officially released by Arrow, and they say it's it's uh unidentified. You could see it gets tracked. You could 1:29:59 see um I'm going to keep my my pointer off the video just because I don't want to block it. So you guys can see that. 1:30:06 But again, these they're releasing these things. So I'm thinking great, this may be a way that this le litigation opened 1:30:13 up the floodgates and the buildup was extraordinary. The 1:30:21 Freedom of Information Act is fundamentally broken. And I think journalist Dustin Slaughter just 1:30:28 single-handedly fixed that. fixing 1:30:33 chapter 5, United States Code, section 552, all with a UFO request. That is extraordinary. 1:30:39 So, I'm like, okay, what are we about to see here with their 4-se secondond clip? 1:30:46 That's I I'll move on. Your mind is about to be 1:30:52 blown, he says. Put on your UFO battle helmets, y'all. This UFO revolution is 1:30:58 about to be televised like right now. I don't know what we're gonna see now. 1:31:04 They've at least said a 4-se secondond video. I was hoping for 12 minutes, but I'm like, "Wow, this must be the most 1:31:10 extraordinary 4 seconds ever." And it didn't stop. I mean, the the the the I 1:31:16 mean, the the the extraordinary element of all of this was palpable with with these social 1:31:22 media posts. It kept going. This moment sets a historical precedent not only for 1:31:28 government transparency but for investigative journalism itself. What Dustin and Slaughter achieve proves 1:31:35 journalists can penetrate even the most fortified walls of secrecy. This

is a 1:31:41 watershed for the field where journalists and the public can force accountability, demand answers, and 1:31:47 reshape the future of UAP research. From this point forward, silence is 1:31:53 complicity. Why I'm highlighting this is this completely damages 1:32:00 Dustin Slaughter's win because what he did absolutely deserves 1:32:08 praise. Period. There's there's nothing to add to that. It deserves praise. when 1:32:14 you cheapen it and just blow this out to like he invented sliced bread, 1:32:21 it absolutely cheapens it and damages it because, and this is why I decided to go ahead and and do this, many of the 1:32:29 comments that I saw believed that this case fundamentally changed FOYA. 1:32:36 Now, I I'm not laughing because of Dustin's work. I'm laughing at the claim. Litigation is nothing new. In 1:32:44 fact, there are stacks of FOYA litigation cases every year. So, that 1:32:50 part didn't stick out. But what I was super intrigued by and I really wanted to get the answer to was what changed? 1:32:58 How did you do it? Let's share. Aren't we all advocates for transparency? What argument did you say to get out 1:33:07 classified information that was classified but get it declassified and 1:33:12 released? And that was super intriguing to me. And I reached out. I wanted to do a story on it. I wanted to do a video. 1:33:19 Reached out. I emailed direct messaged. I even tracked down Dustin Slaughter's attorney. I sent him a nice note. Uh 1:33:26 congratulated for the win. Uh just said, "Hey, I've got a question or two about the process. I'd love to profile it for 1:33:31 you guys." Full credit to all of you. Um, can I ask you a question? Ignored across 1:33:38 the board. Nobody owes me anything. So, let me stress that. I'm a nobody. I get it. Like, so please, I I'm I'm stressing 1:33:44 that before I can see the comments by my haters now. Well, they don't owe you anything. You're absolutely right. But 1:33:50 in the interest of accuracy, I needed to try. I wanted to try because it was important to spotlight. There's been 1:33:56 quite a few FOYA people that I've highlighted on this channel and and um in written articles and I wanted to add 1:34:03 Dustin to the list. So, ignored across the board, but I'm like, what justifies these comments? I'd love to know how 1:34:09 FOYA has been fundamentally changed. And then I got this weird uh tweet. Hey 1:34:15 John, sorry I missed your earlier post regarding how I know the object to be unidentified. The object in question is 1:34:20 unidentified because the original foyer request sought records of unidentified objects. Thanks and take care. So that 1:34:26 just pretty obvious of of what one of my questions was because I wasn't getting responses privately, but they were 1:34:34 saying that the Mosul Orb was unidentified, that that was the official 1:34:39 uh designated designator for it. That is actually really important. That's an important distinction. You're saying 1:34:46 that the in

the eyes of the DoD, they said it's unidentified. Cool. Where did 1:34:52 Arrow say it? Did the foil letter say it? Did a statement say it? Did it have a tag on the video? Like, you know what? 1:34:59 What was this being based on? And when I wanted to do the article on it, it's an 1:35:04 important find. And yeah, if it came out that this was still un unidentified, that is a cool element to highlight. So 1:35:11 now I'm being told, well, the foyer request said UFO, so this has to be a UFO. 1:35:17 That is not true. So let me just kind of put that out there. That's not Dustin's fault. I'm not attacking him for it. 1:35:22 It's just fundamentally not true. He can check with his attorney there. And the reason I say that is because somebody 1:35:27 can take a picture of a watermelon that they threw in the air, call it a UFO, tag it as a UFO, submit it to Arrow. 1:35:34 Arrow goes, "You idiot, that's a watermelon." Depending upon how you write your Foyer request, you can actually get that video of the 1:35:40 watermelon. They're not going to tell you, "Hey, by the way, there's a watermelon. Hey, by the way, we determined this was a watermelon." No, 1:35:47 Foya doesn't. That they don't answer questions. They don't have to. You get the responsive records. So depending 1:35:52 upon how you word the request, all important factors and and accuracy here, 1:35:58 um you can come up with now obviously the watermelon video is a stupid silly example, but I'm trying to prove the 1:36:04 point here that it depends on how you word the request. So, you know, hey, let's go back a little bit when I was 1:36:10 talking about the drone videos. They came up because my requests were were about drones. But what if they 1:36:16 determined they were commercial airliners? Would they still come up? The answer is yes, they would be. So they're 1:36:21 not drones. So let's just say Mick West assuming is true is right. Um they would 1:36:26 still come up. So it would not be accurate for me to turn around and go, I don't care what your data says, Mick. My 1:36:32 FOYA says drone, so it's a drone. And then just dismiss it. That's not how it 1:36:39 works um in in the in the eyes of the FOYA. So something was really off with all of this. And you'll kind of see and 1:36:45 and why I decided to do this was to explain a little bit more that sadly FOYA hasn't fundamentally changed. So 1:36:51 don't get your hopes up. So spoiler alert on that one. Uh but also it was very interesting to see how this was 1:36:59 kind of relayed to the general public. But it really didn't talk about what the case was even about because they made it 1:37:05 seem like the secrecy was actually uh being battled through litigation and that was fundamentally changing. the 1:37:12 secrecy wasn't even an issue. Um, and that's what I found really interesting because you go through the documents. I 1:37:17 tried to get um some some answers here and and I uh at this point this was the 1:37:22 dis the dis dismissal and why I'm showing this is because I I often will get why didn't you reach out to Dustin? 1:37:28 I did and publicly he had stated uh I think the peace and work speak for themselves. Hope you have a great 1:37:34 holiday weekend. Uh cool nice short sweet message. No complaints. If he doesn't want to talk to me, no problem. 1:37:40 Moving on. Uh, but I still want to highlight his work. So, I went to his 1:37:46 blog, downloaded the one document that he did uh, actually publish and try and 1:37:52 piece this together for you guys. Uh, because again, it really kind of plays a few roles here. not only shows you how 1:37:59 that foyer litigation worked and and why, but also how it was so misrepresented 1:38:06 uh that it's problematic to this discussion because the some of the comments that I'm seeing again you get 1:38:14 um persuaded by these types of you know overinflated dramatized tweets when you 1:38:22 have a platform like that um it changes people's perspectives but it changes it 1:38:27 to the wrong way. And and it's not because I disagree or anything like that. It's provably wrong. And that's 1:38:35 what's very unfortunate because now it's like you're constantly combating the 1:38:40 false misinformation and disinformation that's put out there by the same people 1:38:46 preaching that they want transparency and truthfulness and accuracy. And it's 1:38:52 like it's a full-time job just to battle the misinformation that's being put out there. Now, we know that there was 1:38:58 litigation that brought the Mosul orb out. It was filed in March of 2024, 1:39:04 but it was not to battle the secrecy. It was to battle the delay. And the delay 1:39:11 was what they were trying to say was was why they were essentially litigating. 1:39:16 Now, under FOYA, you can absolutely do that. I choose not to. Um, in 29 years, 1:39:22 I have figured out that they are incredibly backlogged. And by filing 1:39:27 litigation or even in an an appeal if they take longer than the um the 1:39:33 statutory time that they're allowed to to answer you, it delays the process more because then in most cases, not 1:39:40 all, but in a lot of cases, a FOYA appeal or in this one, a a filing with 1:39:46 the courts goes to a different office that is in large part a lot less staffed 1:39:51 than some of the FOYA offices. So even though you're going to court and yay, uh 1:39:57 the problem is is that you may actually end up waiting longer. So for me, and 1:40:02 this is my opinion, not against the actions here, but you got to put it into proper perspective. The appeal was or 1:40:10 excuse me, the litigation was the time the appeal was taking to process. So 1:40:15 let's go through a couple points just for those who want to learn a little bit more about this process. You can glean 1:40:20 this from the documents that Dustin had put on uh his website. I'm not going to 1:40:26 read it all to you. It's a lot of legal stuff. Uh but these are the key points. The original request went

into to NASC, 1:40:33 which they did not publish the exhibits. So the exhibits are like, you know, they're making reference to a letter or 1:40:39 something like that. They didn't publish that. So again, we just kind of have to uh fill in the blanks here. But April 1:40:45 5th, 2023, Pliff submitted a foyer request for records to NASIK. Exhibit 101 is pliff's foyer request language 1:40:52 and defendants confirmation of receipt and it is attached and made part of this complaint. Planiff made an initial 1:40:58 request for all quote all documentation submitted by US Air Force personnel to 1:41:03 the to NASC pertaining to unidentified aerial phenomena, unidentified aerospace 1:41:08 phenomena, unidentified flying objects, and unidentified unmanned aerial systems 1:41:14 and vehicles. The time period of the request is from March 1, 2022 up to and 1:41:20 including the date this request is officially processed. Now again, I don't want any of this to come off that I'm 1:41:26 harping on anybody, but for educational purposes, just going to throw in my couple cents here if it's worth that. If 1:41:33 you recall a couple slides ago, I had asked, how are you guys advertising this as unidentified? What is the root of 1:41:39 that? How can you confirm that? And this was the part that was cited as the 1:41:44 confirmation. The foyer request asked for unidentified flying object material. Ergo, the responsive records are 1:41:51 unidentified. Uh sadly that is not true because in there is unidentified unmanned aerial systems and vehicles as 1:41:59 well. So all of that is kind of treated as an or uh in the eyes of the foyer 1:42:04 even though there there's the word and here um that's kind of a broad scope. So 1:42:10 the Mosul orb could absolutely be a drone. I don't know if it is but it could absolutely be one and that would 1:42:17 technically be responsive. But what's interesting even more so about this is 1:42:23 March 1, 2022 up to including the date of this request. The Mosul Orb was from 1:42:29 2016. So technically it shouldn't even be responsive to this request. Now check 1:42:35 this out because then this part makes sense. Originally on November 14th, 1:42:41 2023, NASC emailed PLIFF and stated that the OPR, that's the Office of Primary 1:42:46 Responsibility, was not able to locate any records. NASC also attached a final 1:42:52 determin determination letter that it referred to as a no records found form. 1:42:58 The letter stated, "A search was conducted to locate any records you requested and no records could be 1:43:04 located. If you interpret this no records response as an adverse action, you may appeal it to the Secretary of 1:43:09 the Air Force. Exhibit 113 is defendant's final determination letter dated November 14, 2023, and it is 1:43:16 attached and made part of this complaint. Why is that key? What they got isn't responsive. So, I think what 1:43:23 they're trying to do now is fulfill during this litigation process part of 1:43:29 it because none of the secrecy had anything to do with it. They didn't even find anything to to fight anyway. Now, 1:43:37 you can appeal and you can litigate on a no records return. Um, so if you have 1:43:43 proper reason to say, "Well, wait a minute. I know for a fact, NASC, you do have UAP or UAV videos or whatever from 1:43:52 the 2022 date to today's date. Uh, and so I'm going to litigate based on that." 1:43:59 Cool. Yeah, that is absolutely your right to do it. But what they got didn't fit into the time frame. So it makes you 1:44:05 wonder, does NASC have anything? Here's another interesting tidbit that I've learned since Arrow came about is that a 1:44:13 lot of times the data that they get is essentially um 1:44:20 let go from the originating agency. So what's referenced here is the OPR. They 1:44:25 essentially will send it over to Arrow. it will stay at Arrow's side and then 1:44:30 the Navy they just usually because there's no investigative arm over there now it's Arrow uh that they may dump it 1:44:37 on their side. So essentially they're transferring that data over. Now if it comes up in a FOYA review uh for 1:44:44 declassification or review to make sure there's no exemptions or whatever, then it will go back to the OPR, but the data 1:44:51 itself no longer exists at the Navy because there may be a respective 1:44:57 retention schedule that deletes it. Good God, it gets completely boring. I get it and it's nitty-gritty, but you have to 1:45:04 look at it from the eyes of not only the Freedom of Information Act law, but how 1:45:09 these offices operate. So, where did NASC and and the Justice Department 1:45:14 attorney get this? I I'm not really sure. Um, but I'm not there yet in the 1:45:20 timeline, but I'm I'm wanted to kind of show you that originally they had this no records response, which they appeal 1:45:28 uh appealed. I want to first though show you the processing time. Now, this is where I 1:45:36 say litigation is absolutely your right as a foyer requester to do it. There will be foyer requesters out there that 1:45:42 may disagree with me, and that's cool. I don't think that there's a right or wrong answer. This is just my two cents. 1:45:49 It took 222 days for Dustin to get a response to his request. he had in that 1:45:55 legal document. I didn't go over every point, but kind of the dates of the back and forth. Hey, what's the status of my 1:46:00 request? Can you guys give me a ECD or what's uh called an estimated completion date? All of that is kind of normal FOYA 1:46:07 inside baseball stuff. You do it if you want to stay on top of a request. I try to um but it doesn't, you know, there's 1:46:14 not enough hours in the day, so you just kind of, you know, let it go and then check in from time to time. So, it took 1:46:20 222 days. the average processing time for the United States Air Force, the average for the complex track is 119 1:46:25 days. Uh, but some of the higher cases go into thousands of days. So, is

222 1:46:32 days all that off-the-wall? To be honest with you, not really. Um, so again, he 1:46:37 didn't litigate based on that. He litigated off of the no records response, but I'm kind of giving you 1:46:42 guys an idea that this is kind of normal. Um because then when you get to the appeal track on December 18th, 2023, 1:46:50 plainif mailed his administrative appeal dated December 13, 2023 via certified 1:46:56 mail to to the address listed on the final determination letter found in exhibit 113. 1:47:03 Exhibit 114 is pliff's administrative appeal and it is attached and made part 1:47:08 of this complaint. Sorry, it's getting a little bit warm under the lights. Need a little bit more 1:47:15 beverage to get to the end. Sorry about that. Um 1:47:20 tea can get a little bubbly. On December 18th, appeal goes in and he 1:47:29 waits. Now, by law, you have about 30 days. On January 31, 2024, defendant 1:47:35 confirmed receipt of plaintiff's administrative appeal. So, they confirmed receipt. 20 days passed on 1:47:40 February 29th and uh at that point the 30 days passed on March 14th, 2024 and 1:47:48 obviously they filed their case based on their lack of response uh within that 30 days. Not a wrong thing to do. I'm not 1:47:56 going to harp on it at all. Uh my on my side, I would not have uh simply because 1:48:02 uh then you start getting into now a much lengthier process in my opinion. 1:48:08 uh that when you look at the appeal response times uh that uh the DoD has, 1:48:14 it was very hard for me to find a specific number for you guys on you know like US Air Force specific issues or 1:48:21 especially NASC um but DoDwide um your litigation may end up lasting longer 1:48:27 because none of this is time-sensitive where stuff gets expedited lives have to be in danger so you have to show you 1:48:33 know medical issues or something like that you're suing for records you know there's a lot of other cases where um 1:48:40 you get into FOYA and privacy act issues that justify 1:48:45 um expediting in the courts and then the courts will agree with you. We're talking about UFO videos. As much as we 1:48:51 all love that, you can't really do it. So that's again in my two cents why I 1:48:58 don't do those paths at this point because you appealed, you submitted your appeal. Um I don't know what the appeal 1:49:05 said so it's a shame. I would love to see, you know, what is it exactly that you're appealing? Because that one video 1:49:12 that came up was again years outside the scope. But regardless, that's that's why I kind of don't do it at this level 1:49:19 because um 222 days for a foye to to um 1:49:25 United States Air Force and then Nasix specifically. Yeah. I mean, it's kind of long. It's obviously over the average, 1:49:31 but not unheard of. And um uh appeals, you know, I I don't think I ever get 1:49:38 appeal decisions within 30 days. So, should I sue on everything? In my 1:49:44 opinion, no, because that'll prolong it. You know, I kind of

sit tight and then you just ask for those uh for those 1:49:49 dates and kind of keep on top of them and and go from there. No right or wrong answer. Just my two cents. the end of 1:49:56 the the complaint that was filed with the courts. What they wanted to have done was declare that the defendant or 1:50:02 the you know government side violated the FOYA order defendant to conduct a reasonable search for all records. Order 1:50:09 defendant to issue a determination. Order defendant to make all non-exempt records or portions of records promptly 1:50:14 available to plainif and join defendant from withholding all non-exempt public 1:50:20 records under FOYA. award plaintiff's attorney fees and costs and award such other relief the 1:50:25 court considers appropriate and just. So apparently after this was filed. I 1:50:33 assume it was recent. So this is March 2024, 1:50:39 March 26, 2024 that this goes into the courts. I assume, unless they sat on it, 1:50:47 that Dustin in July, quite possibly the end of June, all would be great to get 1:50:53 clarification on, but um at that time, got the video. 1:51:00 So, well over a year, they got a video that wasn't even in the scope of the 1:51:06 original request. Doesn't make sense. But since the actual 1:51:12 case had nothing to do with secrecy, the question mark is would it have played out differently? 1:51:18 There was absolutely no legal argument for releasing information. It was just the demand to do so. On top of that, it 1:51:27 was just fighting the delay. It was not fighting a denial. All of those are incredibly important. 1:51:34 That is not fundamentally changing FOYA. that is utilizing FOYA as it exists. 1:51:41 These tools are available to us. Foyer is not broken. Foya is hurt, has band-aids, and needs help, but it's not 1:51:48 broken. It's not dead. It's incredibly useful. And thanks to Foya, this process 1:51:53 was afforded to Dustin to utilize. So even though it's frustrating you have to 1:51:59 go to these lengths, it's there for you for a reason because FOYA exists. So, 1:52:06 I'm an advocate for FOYA. Again, think it needs a lot of help. But the way that 1:52:11 this was portrayed to the general public was 1:52:17 wrong. It was inaccurate, misleading, and I don't know why there is a trend of 1:52:24 doing that because you're taking a great story. This is a great story. You're mad 1:52:29 that you're waiting. Foyer affords you the tools to fight it. you fought it and 1:52:35 you're getting a response. Is it quicker if you just would have waited? H you 1:52:40 know, you can argue that both ways. Um but regardless of what I feel it is, 1:52:46 hey, it's a win. So to cheapen that and to make these grandiose statements is 1:52:53 ludicrous. But to close it with this, in the podcast it unweaponized when all 1:53:00 this came out, Dustin Slaughter was told, "Don't talk to anybody else. Tell 1:53:06 me," this was Jeremy Corbel saying it, "Tell me what you got." In other words, 1:53:12 sit on

it. let me do it and announce it 1:53:17 and essentially get the credit and then you can publish your blog. And that's 1:53:24 exactly what happened. He waited until, according to the show, a minute before 1:53:29 they aired to press publish that article goes out and then they did the interview. That to me is also wrong. 1:53:37 Now, that's my advocate for transparency side talking, but you should never 1:53:44 embargo somebody who got something through FOYA. There's no reason for that. And I saw the argument that he 1:53:51 would have gotten more exposure by doing what he did and letting Corbell take it off. That's not true at all. Um, he 1:53:57 would have got the same exact exposure if he published his blog that day, the day prior, a week prior, whatever. When 1:54:02 Jeremy Corbel wants to profile it, and rightfully so, he should be profiled. he would get the same amount of exposure. 1:54:09 So that argument is completely silly. So that's what cheapens this conversation. It hurts it. It puts an inappropriate 1:54:17 and absolutely erroneous context to everything. It misleads the public and 1:54:23 it creates a hell of a lot of confusion. And it's unfortunate because a good 1:54:28 story is ruined in the process. And yes, I do get fired up about it because I can 1:54:34 truly appreciate somebody using Foya and getting a good result. So to have it 1:54:39 cheapened all the sake for podcast clicks, that to me is stupid. This was the quote that 1:54:46 came out. It kind of arrived out of the blue, meaning the Mosul orb video. My attorney and I got an email from a 1:54:52 Justice Department lawyer who's representing the Air Force in the case. He just attached this video, sent it to 1:54:58 us and said, "By the way, here's this video that they found." 1:55:03 Why? I would love to ask questions about that, but why? How did did the scope of 1:55:09 the of the case change? Like, why is a 2016 video coming up? Did you agree to 1:55:14 have the scope change? Did they say, "Hey, the scope that you had was was narrow, but we do have some that's 1:55:21 outside of the scope." There are foye offices that want to help. They're not all bad and evil. So, there's a lot of 1:55:27 context missing here. And the way that this was again built up was completely wrong. And when you look at the actual 1:55:33 evidence, you realize, oh, okay, still a very cool story. Absolutely not what it was led led to be. So, to close this and 1:55:41 I'll I'll see what other um questions I might pull from you and I'll hang out with you guys for as long uh as you'd 1:55:47 like. But, you know, this is this is hurtful. I've said it quite a few times now in this video and I'm beating that 1:55:53 dead horse, but it needs to be beaten. It's hurting the conversation. You're creating a false narrative about what 1:56:01 really the UAP issue is all about. You are exaggerating claims to points of it 1:56:08 being just incredibly unhealthy because it's delusional. You are maliciously 1:56:13 withholding information. I went over the 29 Palms thing. There was a whole part 1:56:19 of that story that was just omitted that that was not told to the general public. 1:56:25 That's that's wrong. That that's not journalism. It's activism. And you have to start at some point 1:56:32 asking what is the intention here? Do you want just a cool podcast with a lot of clicks and make a, you know, side 1:56:38 income or even a full income? I don't I don't know what they make, but I'm sure it's not nothing. They got a lot of 1:56:43 different products and books and appearances and uh they get a lot of views. They've got a big audience. That 1:56:49 translates you you get on TV, that's your brand. You've got a full sold 1:56:54 series to TMZ, that's that's not five bucks. Um you're talking about a a nice 1:57:00 paycheck. So when it when it benefits 1:57:05 you monetarily and I'm speaking broadly here, but obviously I'm also speaking 1:57:11 specific to this uh show and the way that they handled some of these stories. 1:57:17 Now you have to ask what really is that intention? And I can comfortably say now that it's 1:57:24 not to inform you and I the truth. It's just simply to get you hanging on 1:57:29 for next week. What is it that we're going to tease in the video next week? Whose help are we 1:57:36 going to solicit so we can hang on to stuff so we have content for weeks and months to come? That's not transparency. 1:57:44 That's not being truthful to anybody. That's being self-serving. 1:57:49 And although that's a business model that may work for some people and hey, we live in the great country America 1:57:56 where we've got the freedom to do whatever the hell we want. We can be as successful as we want to be. We can work 1:58:02 as hard as we want to work to be successful, but it's how you get to 1:58:07 success that really defines you. And that's where I struggle with stories 1:58:13 like this and elsewhere where I see people getting tons of money thrown at them all for what? Lying and misleading. 1:58:22 And that's wrong. It is incredibly hurtful to this conversation. And I 1:58:28 don't care if I beat that dead horse multiple times over and over. I'll continue to do it because more people 1:58:34 should. And if you don't believe me, just look around at some of the claims that are out there and try and fact 1:58:41 check some of them. Me included. If you think something I said is wrong, fact 1:58:46 check it, please. And and and if I'm wrong, I'll correct it. Somebody on Reddit pointed out to me something that 1:58:53 I wrote and he thought I was going to get all mad. I was actually wrong. I I had a word in there called multi-our and 1:58:59 it was a descriptor that means a lot to me when I'm wrong. I want to fix it. And they had commented back to me. They're 1:59:05 like, "Wow, thanks for not being a I won't use the phrase they used, but you know, jerk." I forget exactly what they 1:59:10 said, but it was like, you know, I thought

you'd be a big jerk about it. I was like, "No, I I looked at it. You're 1:59:16 right. I I I made a mistake, you know, and we all make mistakes. It's it's how you correct them is is the issue." And 1:59:23 uh and and to me that's where I get fired up because people are being misled. And that's that to me is what I 1:59:30 get fired up the most about is people that are misleading. And that goes for multiple sides of this conversation. 1:59:37 those that are profiting off of these outlandish UFO exaggerated claims, but also the 1:59:44 people that are trying to brand themselves as that debunker side, whether they have a platform on a 1:59:50 tabloid or whether they have, you know, just a YouTube channel or ex account or 1:59:55 a former Tik Tok, whatever, you know, whoever they are, whatever they want to boast to be, it goes both ways. And 2:00:03 those are the types of people that get me fired up because they just want to 2:00:10 mislead and that's what's frustrating. All right, that's my diet tribe. That's my 2:00:15 that's my vent session for the day. Uh let me um 2:00:22 let me switch over here. John, thank you so much for this. You're 2:00:27 one of the very few left with integrity. I I appreciate that and uh very much 2:00:32 thank you for for the sentiment. Uh but I also mean it to to everybody, you 2:00:38 know, that we're in this together. It should be teamwork. I know I can be snarky on X, but I'm usually only snarky 2:00:43 to those who deserve it. So, when people don't want to, you know, share information and stuff like that, to me, 2:00:49 it's kind of a red flag. What is going on here? And uh look, I want to keep an open mind on what's going on with some 2:00:56 other people that are out there. Sometimes it's hard. Um, I can only do the best I can. I really appreciate, 2:01:02 John, your compliment there. It means a lot to me because look, I'm not perfect. Um, but I try and be the best I can for 2:01:09 this channel. Learn as much as I can and uh, and pass on as much as I can as well. So, thank you for that. Don't 2:01:18 touch Melm crazy. Topic went from flying saucers and spacemen to a bem movie spy 2:01:23 thriller about foyer requests. I don't care anymore. Thanks for any thanks for everything, John. 2:01:31 Well, look, foyer requests are important, but I'm also biased when it comes to my love for foyer. Uh, but they 2:01:38 can be really boring and and I get that and which is why I try and, you know, make some of these videos much more 2:01:44 interesting and try and keep uh a little bit more um I don't want to say excitement because 2:01:50 I'm, you know, I'm not I'm not making a TV show here, but you know, make it interesting and and highlight that stuff. But sometimes you got to deal 2:01:57 with the boring stuff to truly understand it and it comes along with the territory. But your broader point here is topic went from flying saucers 2:02:03 and spacemen to a be movie spy thriller. I don't care anymore. Part of me thinks that's the point. And I don't know why. 2:02:09 For some of these people, they don't want you to care. They're so offended by you caring or you having a different 2:02:15 belief. I talked about beliefs earlier and how some people are very offended by 2:02:20 um opposite beliefs of their own and so on and so forth. Um 2:02:26 that's what they want. And I don't understand it. I really don't. uh because I I see these exchanges back and 2:02:32 forth sometimes or other social media networks and admittedly I get in the middle of some of them as well. Sometimes I just can't resist pointing 2:02:39 out when people are acting stupid. But uh that being said, I'm joking. I'm really not trying to be malicious there. 2:02:45 Um but sometimes end up in the middle of these exchanges, but it's it's just 2:02:50 mindblowing and mind-boggling to me that people can be so offended at other 2:02:56 people's beliefs. Now, I have a little bit of a different idea when somebody is again maliciously 2:03:03 misleading, even though they may even believe what they're saying. That to me is a little 2:03:08 bit different. But I'm talking about just beliefs that that some people have different levels of of thresholds that 2:03:16 they have to meet to believe something. And others get so offended at that. It it is mind-blowing to me and and is a 2:03:23 complete show of insecurity if you ask me. But um you know it doesn't bother me one bit if you have different views than 2:03:30 me. In fact, I love hearing that because that's the audience I want. I I don't want an echo chamber here. Um but again, 2:03:37 where I do get fired up is when people are are misleading or saying things that just blatantly aren't true. And that's 2:03:43 um that's what we don't need more of. So don't give up. Um don't not care. I I I 2:03:50 hope you stick around because we need more people that care about the details and care about the the the accuracy 2:03:56 behind it all. Alex Modelling, do you think the current UAP narrative 2:04:02 largely driven whistleblower politics and media 2:04:07 personalities is less about actual disclosure and more about self-promotion? 2:04:13 Greetings from Portugal. Uh Alex, thank you for that question. Look, I I believe 2:04:18 for some it absolutely is about more about self-promotion. Absolutely. I 2:04:25 think that's a given. You know, you look around and and people name everything they do after their own name. Like they 2:04:32 have to have their own name on everything. Um it's Joe Blow this, Joe Blow that, Joe Blow this. Look, I the 2:04:39 black vault is I'm the entire thing, but I've created it separate than me, you 2:04:45 know, because I feel as cheesy as this will come off that it's all it's kind of 2:04:50 all of us, right? I mean, it's it's we're all in this together trying to figure it out and and that was the root 2:04:57 of almost 30 years ago naming it what I did. I mean, it is a vault of 2:05:03 information, but it's dark and you have to you have to

look around and we're kind of in this 2:05:09 together trying to figure out what's there. So, a brand is one thing. Self-promotion is an entirely different 2:05:16 thing. And I think for some it is absolutely that that they believe they 2:05:22 have the answers and no one else does. They believe everyone else is crazy 2:05:28 except them. They believe that everyone else is wrong except them. They think 2:05:34 that they're the best this or the best that and no one else can can can be near 2:05:39 them. The descriptors pile on and on. And yes, for some it is more about 2:05:47 self-promotion, but thankfully not everybody. I think that there's a lot of people out there and I'd like to think 2:05:52 of myself on this list. We just want to know the truth and and we just want to know the answers. We want to know what's 2:05:59 really going on. And if it's something we've long believed, if it's something 2:06:04 that we don't believe, um, never thought was a possibility, whatever it may be, 2:06:10 I'm in the group that wants to figure it out nonetheless. And that is where I think a lot of 2:06:16 people do stand. Sadly though, the entire arena is muddied by those that 2:06:23 think different. And that's what's truly truly unfortunate about the whole thing 2:06:29 that you do have so many of those out there. Um, let me now switch back to the 2:06:35 other one. 2:06:44 Nah, you tripping, bro. Jeremy and George are legit. They've done a lot for the topic. They make mistakes. It's 2:06:49 bound to happen. Uh, no doubt. I I will not disagree with that one bit about 2:06:55 making mistakes. It's how you deal with making the mistake that really is the 2:07:02 definition of who you are. And I've seen enough that you may not agree and that's 2:07:08 totally okay. Not a problem. They clearly have a huge following. There's going to be a ton of people that don't 2:07:13 agree with me on this. It is not a popular thing to say, but I do believe that there is a intent to not give the 2:07:22 full story. There are certain elements to stories that they've even broken that I've given them credit for that they 2:07:29 will omit or never touch because it doesn't coincide with the original 2:07:36 image they had about a certain case. Uh Mosul Orb is a prime example. I mean 2:07:41 that was clearly a classified um product and the proof was there but 2:07:47 the narrative stood that it was unclassified and so on. All of these are important distinctions. To some it's 2:07:53 small, to others it's very important and it shouldn't be too much to ask for accuracy. The 29 palms thing, I'll go to 2:08:00 that again. That that was intentional. They they completely 2:08:06 omitted the fact that there was a full training exercise launching flares the 2:08:11 night of their of their u flying triangle alleged triangle and and then 2:08:18 it took me literally I think it was 45 minutes to an hour at best to come up 2:08:23 with a video that matched and it was an official DoD video and they tried to 2:08:29 claim that again that was planted. It was a big conspiracy. Jeremy Corbel played into that online. That is 2:08:35 unhealthy. That those aren't mistakes. That's malicious and and that's problematic. Not popular. I'll get hate 2:08:42 mail from this. Somebody will clip this and put it on X and say, you know, Greenwald's a big old meanie and so on 2:08:49 and so forth. But it does need to be said. Um, I respect 2:08:54 your opposite point of view, no doubt, but uh just respectfully disagree. 2:09:03 Some of these I can't put on. Sorry. I'll scroll up though. Um, 2:09:12 yeah, if you can help me out and put them all in capital letters, that would be a huge 2:09:18 a huge uh help. Good morning, UFO. Always good to see you here. Hi UFO friends. Hi John. Hello back to you. 2:09:24 Always good to see you. 2:09:32 I appreciate this. Dell Dell Sky. Um you are so so far from a nobody, John. You 2:09:38 have searched for facts for decades no longer uh now longer than most researchers. You're an important part of 2:09:43 this UFO community even if you don't think so. I appreciate that. Um, again, I I I know nobody owes me an answer or 2:09:51 anything like that. So, I I do reinforce that part. And, uh, look, I consider myself a nobody. I I don't have any more 2:09:57 answers than anyone else. I just love this topic and, uh, you know, want to bring the best, uh, to to you guys and 2:10:03 learn as much as I can along the way. 2:10:10 I appreciate this, Chamomo. Chammo, not not sure how you pronounce that. I think you do a great job, though. You're also legit. Keep up the good work. And I 2:10:16 appreciate that and thanks for listening to my uh two cents about respectfully disagreeing with your comment above. But 2:10:22 I I appreciate that. 2:10:28 I disagree, John. I don't respect anyone who takes Qubell seriously. Uh look, 2:10:33 yeah, there I mean there's something to be said on that. Um, I I think there are some that that will 2:10:40 definitely ignore what you shouldn't be ignoring and and it's unfortunate, but uh it look I'm going to step away from 2:10:47 from, you know, making it seem like I'm just harping on him. This has been a problem for a very long time in the UFO 2:10:53 conversation longer than I've been alive. There have been people that have infiltrated this space that do uh make 2:11:00 it all about them that want to have the newest book, the newest whatever product 2:11:07 that they're selling. Their main income is the book. Um, look, I'm an author. I 2:11:12 fully support authors and those that write books. So, I'm not harpened on that. But you can kind of tell the 2:11:18 difference between those that are writing to inform. And yes, profiting is okay. There's nothing wrong with that. 2:11:25 So, please, I'm not saying that that people can't make a business. Make an honest one, though. And and I think that 2:11:31 that's what's missing with a lot of these people. And that has stretched on for decades. Years and

years ago, again, 2:11:37 it was the books. It was staying on the tour of the speaking circuit uh in in 2:11:43 this realm. Um it was uh making sure that you always had a new book coming 2:11:48 out. Hold on to information. Uh sometimes your story would get better as 2:11:54 it's like a fine wine. So you had to do another book because you remembered something new and so you have to come 2:12:00 out with a new one, you know. And for 1999, you too can be privy to this 2:12:06 information. You It's a tough It's a tough thing to wade through to try and 2:12:11 separate um those things. That was then, this is now. Now books have been replaced with what's the next new 2:12:18 podcast. Now, instead of a book every six months to a year, it's a podcast every week. How can I do a YouTube show? 2:12:25 How can I this and that? Again, profiting is not bad. I fully support it 100%. Um, I I have nothing no bad thing 2:12:33 to say about any channel that's monetized or even a payw wall if if if your information you feel you should 2:12:40 payw wall. I don't support payw walls because again, I'm an advocate for transparency, but I'm not going to harp on you for having one if you feel like 2:12:46 you do. just be honest. So again, those books have morphed into the 21st century 2:12:53 way of keeping your business alive and that is the YouTube chose the you know 2:13:00 what's my next viral video. You see that on X a lot. There's select accounts that 2:13:05 you know they may not get a lot of traction on YouTube because the algorithm hates stuff like that but they get a lot of traction on X because the 2:13:12 algorithm loves the views on X videos. So, you see that a lot with uh very I 2:13:18 won't give them any publicity, but you know, there are certain ex accounts, they have hundreds of thousands of followers and they have the cheapest 2:13:25 ridiculous looking CG videos. Um, and that's how, you know, they stay alive 2:13:31 and they they've got no face. It's just a a nickname or an avatar and uh and 2:13:37 that's how they do it. And they just don't put anything out. They don't care about reputation. They don't have one. Um, but they get the clicks and views 2:13:44 and they make that money. So look, I may in this video have harped on a certain select few, but I can tell you just from 2:13:50 experience for 29 now years into this field specifically to UFOs and and UAP 2:13:56 and stuff like that, it's been a problem for a long time. And not every author fits in that category. Not every YouTube 2:14:03 host fits in that category. Not even uh every podcast or exus user who has 2:14:08 popular accounts fits fits in that category. But it is an issue and it is something that has to be pointed out. 2:14:14 And like I said, I wish more people would do it. I wish more people would would talk about it because you have to. 2:14:20 You people should be held accountable and I put myself in that list. Um I don't have the biggest audience, but I 2:14:25 have a audience and

it's my responsibility to be truthful. And if I screw up, um then I will own up to it. 2:14:32 And again, I use that Reddit example. I um uh misrepresented the event to say it 2:14:38 was multi-our and what I was referring to fit in one hour. And my descriptor was wrong. Cool. I corrected it. Thank 2:14:45 the guy publicly and, you know, apologized. I What else can you do? Um, 2:14:50 so it's it's those types of things that I think separates those that that really do have a true intent with all of this 2:14:57 and those that don't and just care about themselves. Juan Rodriguez, thank you for uh that 2:15:03 support. I think maybe you also supported in the beginning of the show. So, thank you for that again. I truly 2:15:08 truly uh appreciate that. 2:15:14 Sorry, just getting caught up here. 2:15:20 I need a auction. John, you have you been able to talk with Grush for any 2:15:27 foyer ideas? I wish I could. Um, look, it's it's no 2:15:35 secret that I have my uh reservations about certain claims that he's made, but 2:15:41 as I've proven with those that I may have reservations believing uh wholeheartedly everything that they say, 2:15:46 I still act on it. Um, in the very beginning, I did try and and talk to him. It was kind of before I ever voiced 2:15:52 any opinion or concern or whatever on his uh stuff. Again, doesn't owe me anything, but uh didn't return calls or 2:16:00 whatever. uh where I started to kind of turn a little bit on my viewpoint because he really does strike me as 2:16:06 somebody who's uh genuine and that he genuinely believes. Uh I I don't get the 2:16:12 malicious vibe from him. I've long said that. Uh but that's not to say that he hasn't been misled by certain 2:16:18 individuals that maybe, you know, led him to to believe certain things or certain ways. I'm interested to hear 2:16:25 about his firsthand, you know, experiences, uh, should those ever come out in that op-ed that was, you know, 2:16:31 teased a year or two ago, uh, that that never came to fruition. But where my thoughts kind of changed a little bit 2:16:37 was a lot of his claims about the Doppser process. Um, and, uh, this tied 2:16:43 into something he said on his Jesse Michaels interview. And I feel very very 2:16:50 strongly that it's it's wrong. And again, I I don't want to equate that that he's maliciously misleading, 2:16:57 but the fact that word had gotten to Jesse Michaels, which I have no problem with, so I'm not harping on him, but he 2:17:05 went on a space and talked about what I said and talked to Grush about it. And 2:17:10 apparently Grush said maybe, I'm paraphrasing here, but it was something to the effect of, oh, maybe I am wrong 2:17:17 on that, which I give a lot of respect to. I mean, look, I could be wrong, too. 2:17:22 So, I just don't think I am in this instance. It's more procedural than than belief. So, let me stress that. But, um, 2:17:29 can respect him being open to being wrong. And then in this space, Jesse Michael says, "No,

but I think Greenwald's wrong." And then just went 2:17:36 on to why I was wrong, but never proved why I was wrong. And so, again, it's that's not a personal attack on Jesse. I 2:17:42 like Jesse. I've talked to him a couple times, but that video clip I I've posted before where it's like, wait, then let 2:17:48 me just chat with him. If he thinks I'm wrong, then let me hear it. You know, we can clear this up. But there's no desire 2:17:56 um to communicate. And then, of course, he's just largely disappeared. So, he doesn't owe me or anybody anything. 2:18:02 Really doesn't. But I think that how you lay that bombshell out even to the point 2:18:10 of testifying before Congress and then just disappear. Um to me that's a red 2:18:16 flag especially when you're when you're advertising a an an op-ed that was 2:18:22 already cleared by the US government that was supposed to come out again like a year or two ago and then you just like 2:18:28 you ghost everybody. Well, that's that's not right because everybody you're ghosting is what gave 2:18:35 you kind of that gas to get to where you were. You know, it was the public's 2:18:40 reaction to David Grush that I think kind of excelled him to the point of 2:18:46 getting all that attention. I mean, you you can't just be a nobody and come out and make a claim and and all of a sudden 2:18:52 you're world famous. I I do think that that we the people played a role in that by and I'm not even saying me. I'm just 2:18:59 saying the general populace and their reaction to the original story going 2:19:04 back to the debrief and news nation. And I think that reaction 2:19:10 kind of pushed him more into the spotlight because I I mean no offense to the debrief and news or news. 2:19:17 Those are not the biggest outlets out there. So if you really have the meat behind your claims, why would you start 2:19:24 there? God, it sounds awful to say it out loud, but my bigger point is it was 2:19:31 based on that that pushed him to the bigger outlets all the way to being under oath with Congress. So again, I 2:19:39 mean no offense to the other outlets I named here, but he had to kind of start there. And it was the people themselves 2:19:45 that got him going and and gave him that oomph because if nobody really gave 2:19:52 anything g I'm again trying to watch my language here, but if if nobody really 2:19:58 cared when he came out in the debrief and then the news nation article, would he have ended up in front of Congress? 2:20:04 No. I mean like if if honestly if people were just like that guy's full of it, you know, who really cares? and and 2:20:10 there was no traction to the articles and nobody picked up on it uh talked about it because they didn't believe it. 2:20:17 Uh then you wouldn't have that traction and uh and yet the opposite happened. So again, I think the the public deserves 2:20:25 uh a little bit more respect when you lay that type of a bombshell and then say, "Hey, more is coming." and they 2:20:32 dangle the carrot and the DoD approved this Doppser stuff uh for his op-ed and 2:20:40 you refused to show it. Uh to me that's that's incredibly problematic uh if you 2:20:47 ask me. Um so yeah, I I'll close the thought there, 2:20:54 but um I I I wish we again it's that team element. 2:21:00 I feel, and I'm not speaking for Mick West here, but I'm going to bring him up again as an example. I have nothing 2:21:07 against him, and I feel despite disagreement between him and I, uh, on 2:21:13 on a lot of issues, we're still on the team of trying to get to the truth. I know a lot of people hate him because he 2:21:19 bursts the bubble of a lot of people, you know, and he comes up with stuff that's that's great in some cases. Other 2:21:24 stuff I disagree with, but regardless, there should be communication there. And 2:21:30 so Mick, if you ever see this or whatever, I hope you don't mind me saying it, but that's an example of what 2:21:36 what I think we where we should be in the conversation. Respectful disagreement. Mick and I have exchanged 2:21:42 stuff on X that's not all puppies and rainbows, but it ain't rude. It's not us 2:21:47 going at each other's throats or blocking each other or whatever. And yet, we largely disagree on a lot of 2:21:52 stuff, but we agree on others. and we can have the conversation both publicly and privately and figure out stuff just 2:21:59 like the videos. I'm glad he brought it up to me because I forgot. But regardless, even if I didn't and he wanted them, I was super happy to give 2:22:06 it to him and and share that information. That's what we need more of. So, um, for him to, you know, just 2:22:13 tease and drop carrots and stuff like that. And it's not like he has to work with me. There's lots of people that use FOYA out there. But if you know stuff 2:22:20 that Doppser has approved and even though you're not going to publish your op-ed, work with some of those people. 2:22:26 See what you can get out. Is he? I don't know. I hope so. But I've asked around. I've searched around. I don't see any 2:22:33 evidence that he's trying. And that's unfortunate. It really is because there should be more of a, you know, a team 2:22:40 aspect of all of this. And there's there's not. The U the UFO community as it was when I started 29 years ago is 2:22:47 dead. full stop. It's unfortunate. I remember I MCEd uh the MUFON 2:22:55 symposiums, the international MU muon symposiums for about a decade and I was the MC. I got to it was awesome. I loved 2:23:01 it. I I love conferences. I don't I don't harp on anybody speaking at conferences whatsoever because I love 2:23:07 them. There is a human aspect of it that we are largely missing with social media interaction. You learn things. You 2:23:13 realize we're just all people. uh you realize people have experiences that are not on TV every day that they're not 2:23:20 asking for your money that they're not ask they don't even want any exposure whatsoever but they're in the back

row 2:23:26 of some of these conferences sitting very very quietly very rarely opening their mouth but they want the truth and 2:23:33 that is one of the coolest things to see especially for me who's who's very skeptical about those big claims I've 2:23:39 talked to people uh that have had all sorts of experiences had dinner uh 2:23:44 dinners drinks, you know, you hang out at a bar. Those that's some of the funnest times at these conferences, you 2:23:50 know, because people realize, hey, we're all just human. You don't get that on X. You just get a bunch of on X. 2:23:56 Like, sorry, you just do. But when you go to these conferences, you realize, okay, for the most part, everybody is 2:24:02 just trying to get the answers. And and that's what's what's a lot of fun. Uh and and that's what we need more of 2:24:08 today. It's kind of dead. Um with kids, it's very hard for me to travel. uh 2:24:14 super super hard primarily because I love my kids dearly. Um and I don't want 2:24:19 to miss anything and you know I'm kind of a geeky dad like that but it's like if I miss a soccer game or I miss you 2:24:26 know a gymnastics event for my daughter now like it it kills me inside. Like I don't want to be that dad who's 2:24:32 traveling all the time and you know they grow up to be adults and go yeah just worked all the time and never saw him. I 2:24:38 work a lot but I make sure that I'm there. So it's very very tough for me to travel. So, I'm hoping that some of 2:24:44 these conferences are like they were 10 years ago. But I can tell you that the entire community the way that it was is 2:24:52 dead. It's not the same anymore. You know, and we're losing a lot of those people that made it the community that 2:24:58 it was. Um, look, I I may not have agreed with all of Stanton Friedman's conclusions, but I'll be damned. That 2:25:04 dude was a gentleman and he worked hard. He was one of those people that was 2:25:10 physically going to these archives, making phone calls, picking up the phone. You know, there's others who 2:25:15 think they're doing good work and they sit on the computer and go to LinkedIn and find somebody to contact and all of 2:25:21 a sudden, you know, they think that's work and and they're, you know, supposed to be glorified for it. No, you look at 2:25:28 like the Stanton Freriedman's, the Ted Phillips, both of which I hope are laughing in a better place than this 2:25:34 about, you know, what Euphology has become, but those guys were awesome. And 2:25:39 I had the pleasure to be friends with them for years. And uh that's the UFO 2:25:45 community that I that I miss that I wish, you know, would would come around 2:25:51 uh again. And we've lost that. And 2:25:56 admittedly, again, me getting sometimes entwined in some of these exchanges, I've lost part of that. And and that's 2:26:04 very difficult for me to accept because I look back at, you know, the dinners, the private dinners that I would have 2:26:09 with Stanton Freriedman and

stuff when we were on the road together and we would lecture at conferences and we'd, 2:26:15 you know, sometimes I remember uh one conference, I think this was the Kimber, it was Kimberling City, Missouri, right? 2:26:21 It was like in the middle of, you know, nowhere, but some of the most beautiful country you could ever see. And Stanton 2:26:27 and I were staying at this bed and breakfast. And I come out of my room, you know, and he's like staying right 2:26:32 right uh um away from me uh uh right across the way from me. And we were both 2:26:38 kind of like, you know, startled each other. We're like, "Stan." And he said, "John," he's like, "I didn't know you 2:26:43 would be here." Uh cuz the way that Kimberling City was, they didn't really have, you know, a ton of of places to 2:26:49 stay. So people were just kind of scattered all over the place. Stan and I were right next to each other. So we got 2:26:54 a taxi because Uber didn't like exist at the time. Uh and and went to this 2:26:59 Chinese food place and uh just chatted, you know, and and had a probably we were 2:27:05 there for an hour and a half or so and you know just just chatted. Those are the types of things that again I I miss 2:27:13 dearly. um being able to call them, you know, on the on the telephone and and say, "Oh, I got this new document. Yeah, 2:27:20 I want to run it by you because you're a hell of a lot smarter than I am. So, what do you think?" You know, and Stan 2:27:25 would look at he was so gracious with his time. um that's what we're missing, you know, and so those types of 2:27:32 experiences have led me to be the jaded that I am today because I see 2:27:37 the people that absolutely forget about that community and they forget what it's 2:27:43 like to share information and learn from each other. And the bottom line, it's okay to have beliefs that are different 2:27:49 from each other. That's all part of this conversation and so many people have lost that. So anyway, I I digress. Um I 2:27:57 I I hope one day and it probably won't happen. Um to go back to that. 2:28:05 Uh 2:28:10 okay. Um half of this not to me. John, what's your take on Skywatcher? So I've talked a little bit about Jake 2:28:17 Barber on this. I assume you're you're meaning, you know, that whole effort of, you know, skywatching and and being able 2:28:24 to summon and that whole thing. Look, I need hard data when it comes to those types of claims. 2:28:31 Um, if somebody has that capability or they have methods to do that, then it 2:28:36 should be very easy to prove. Um, so I'd like to see more. I'm I'm very open to 2:28:41 it. Um, but it doesn't to me it just doesn't look good. the optics of how 2:28:47 that whole story came about was was not necessarily the best in my opinion. The 2:28:53 roll out and then all of a sudden there was this big organization and they were doing things that could summon UFOs and 2:28:59 all that. Look, if if if there is some information that comes out where they can prove what they said, I'm all over 2:29:05 it. I would love to look at it. I'll even profile it if it's if it's legit. But uh but until then I I'm very very 2:29:12 skeptical about that. Omar C, next one is on me. I appreciate 2:29:18 the work you do. Well, Omar, I will raise my glass of iced tea to you. I truly appreciate that. Uh thank you. 2:29:28 I knew I'd be on here for a while, so I I put one in my glass and then kind of 2:29:34 lined up another one for halfway through. And then that's where I kind of like leaned over when no I thought no 2:29:41 one was looking. I don't know. Apparently there were 2,000 of you looking. But um 2:29:48 I appreciate that Omar. Thank you. All right. So I'm still looking for I'm looking for the the questions. So 2:29:53 forgive my awkward moments of of silence here as I look 2:30:02 for some of the some of these are always funny. 2:30:08 Alex modeling. Since Mr. Stanton T Friedman passed away, UFO world went dead and almost void. Sorry to say he 2:30:15 was uh Yeah. Uh you know, not to go off on a tangent again on him or about him, 2:30:20 I should say. Uh absolutely. You know, I I think that he was very much even 2:30:27 though like he he believed in obviously that Roswell had happened and not 2:30:32 everybody believes that and they believe, you know, it was a mogul balloon, whatever, you know, he obviously nobody can argue he didn't put 2:30:39 the work into that. But there was a there was something about him that 2:30:44 really was that glue that kind of held things together, you know, that despite 2:30:49 the hey, I believe aliens crash landed in in 1947 element to him, which today 2:30:54 is like come on, like you got to show more than that. Uh that's the reaction that you get. He brought with him just 2:31:02 that that credibility to him. Um but he brought it for the field as well and the 2:31:07 whole conversation and it's interesting to see how that's changed because if you 2:31:13 you know deleted Stanton Friedman alto together and then somebody came out with Roswell claims I don't think anybody 2:31:18 would give them the time a day. I don't you know I don't think that that anybody would put the amount of work that 2:31:25 Stanton Freriedman did uh into that today. I I I just I don't believe 2:31:30 there's anybody around. I and and I don't believe people have the knowhow anymore. I mean, Stanton was was the 2:31:36 type that picked up the phone. A lot of quote unquote researchers, they don't even know how to dial a phone number 2:31:41 anymore, you know? I mean, they think they Google something and they've made, you know, the next biggest discovery of 2:31:48 eupfology and they need to write a book about something. But, uh, in reality, Stanton was, you know, that guy that 2:31:56 picked up the phone, that went to the archives, that drove around. Yeah. There was an element of all of this that died 2:32:02 with him. And that is truly unfortunate because he was, I hate to use the 2:32:07

expression, a dying breed of people that covered every base. And I've told the 2:32:12 story before uh on this channel. It's been some time, but I'll I'll just briefly bring it up. But sitting in a uh 2:32:18 the National Archives at College Park, Maryland, across from Stanton Friedman, 2:32:24 it was an absolute trip. I mean, it was insane to see the man in his element. 2:32:30 And I was just learning the element, you know. I I'd never been to uh an archive at that point. I think that was probably 2:32:36 my first time, if not maybe my second, but but first and learning, you know, he would tell me about the finding aids and 2:32:42 kind of helped me and and then passed uh um on that knowledge, you know, absolute 2:32:49 amazing experience. But there's not a whole lot of people like that anymore, you know. I mean really look around, 2:32:54 look at the researchers. Do do they really do that research? Uh do they really go to the archives? Yeah, a 2:33:00 couple of them absolutely do. Uh but do many and the answer is no. It's a a very small pe the number of people that go 2:33:07 out there and do it. So uh you nailed it, Alex. I I wish you didn't. I I'd 2:33:12 love to disagree with you, but sadly uh you're absolutely spot on. Grant from 2:33:18 down under. Uh always good to see you, buddy. If you guys haven't seen uh 2:33:23 Grant, Grant, I'm going to embarrass you for a second. If you guys have not seen Grant's exac account, Grant uh put it in 2:33:29 the chat if I forget how YouTube works on the chat. If you can put URLs, look up um I think it's Bigfoot Disclosure 2:33:38 Diaries and it's uh Grant started making these videos. I'm sure you've seen the AI, you know, funny Bigfoot videos. Uh 2:33:46 Grant made a spin-off of Bigfoot Diaries and one of the first ones he did really 2:33:52 I think hands down it's going to be hard to beat that but they're all worth watching. He's made a couple thus far. 2:33:58 Uh it's brand new but throw him a follow. It's well deserving. It's a fun 2:34:03 break uh from the madness that is X. It's why I stay on X. One of the reasons 2:34:09 I stay on X that people do awesome stuff. Very creative. Grant, uh, you're 2:34:14 on that list. Not only because you're a cool dude and I really like you, um, but when you started doing this, uh, so 2:34:20 cool. So, uh, definitely go check it out. If Grant I have that wrong, I think 2:34:25 it's Bigfoot Disclosure Diaries on X. Um, please post what it actually is if 2:34:30 I'm messing that up. But, uh, yeah, embarrassment over, but Grant uh, well 2:34:36 done. It's It's very funny. Um, 2:34:44 Love these comments. 2:34:50 Uh yes, thanks for that friendly reminder. Hit that like button. It really does help. Uh no matter what where you're listening, obviously the 2:34:56 majority of you on YouTube, hit that thumbs up. Helps with the algorithm. Like, share, all that good stuff. Really 2:35:02 does help me. Make sure you're subscribed. Um I'll give you your money back if you hate the channel, but it is free. So feel free to to subscribe and 2:35:09 uh obviously turn the bell on so you can get notified. A lot of times I am last minute. Today I gave you I think like a 2:35:16 an hour heads up. That was like a long time. Uh because usually it's like I'm going live in four minutes and that's 2:35:22 about the extent of it. So I I try and plan for you guys. But you know that's uh that's the craziness of my life, but 2:35:30 it does help. Yeah, definitely hit those thumbs up. I appreciate you reminding everybody. Safety Edge, you're so right. We're in the dark age of eupfology. 2:35:37 Another comment I'd love to disagree with, but sadly we absolutely are. 2:35:42 um working on an article on scientists from an AFRL air force research lab NASA 2:35:48 flying saucer project. Scientists also appeared on UFO shows. Also Eric Davis connection. Any update on the history 2:35:54 channel FOYA. So 2:36:00 lot to unpack there. Scientists from an AR a AFRL NASA flying saucer project. 2:36:08 I'm not sure what you might be referring to there. 2:36:14 the Eric Davis connection. I remember I dug up years ago uh Franklin me 2:36:21 um and what he he was connected with I believe if I remember correctly it's quite a few years ago that I drew this 2:36:28 line but u that he was connected to project outgrowth and project outgrowth 2:36:33 was very much like OAP where it was a forward-looking program 40 years into the future looking at advanced 2:36:40 technology and all that jazz and uh Franklin me was was a part of that. And 2:36:46 then fast forward, there was another a um 2:36:53 Air Force Research Lab project that included Franklin me as one of the co-authors, but the author was was Dr. 2:37:01 Eric Davis. Not sure if you're talking along the lines of that or maybe I'm completely off base, but I wouldn't call 2:37:08 it a flying saucer project, but project outgrowth, I think, dealt with advanced propulsion systems and stuff like that. 2:37:14 Even using telepathy, uh, and controlling propulsion with your mind, uh, as one of the more advanced ones. 2:37:20 So, yeah, not sure if you're referring to all that. Um, when it comes to the History Channel FOYA, that I'm not sure 2:37:26 what you're referring to. I did post that in one of the document dumps that I'll be posting on the black vault. In 2:37:32 fact, the article was written. I just shifted gears because that Wright Patterson stuff came in. Um, but that's 2:37:39 written. Uh, I did post the document and that was how they viewed internally at 2:37:44 the DoD the show Unidentified and essentially said, you know, we don't help conspiracy 2:37:52 theory shows. And, you know, they obviously had a very bad idea of what the show was. I'm not uh So, that wasn't 2:37:58 a History Channel foya, but rather that just was a History Channel reference. Feel free to to comment again. Uh 2:38:07 because I'm not sure what you mean there. So, hopefully I I addressed it, but I'm not sure. John, do you think

the 2:38:13 New Jersey drones have anything to do with UAP? I just don't get why we got basically no answers that made any sense 2:38:18 at all. Uh Allan, great question. Um so, I'm not sure how long you've been on the 2:38:24 video. I know that uh well, it's been a while now. two two hours 40 minutes. Awesome. Um, thank you. There's almost 2:38:31 2400 of you watching now on the uh the software stats here uh through X YouTube 2:38:37 and Facebook. So, I appreciate that. Um, always recommend subscribe to YouTube because that's where the majority of the 2:38:42 videos show up. Uh, that said, do I believe that has anything to do with UAP? I don't know. Secrecy absolutely 2:38:49 intrigues me. Uh, Allan, I I I don't have the answer to that. I know that a lot of stuff, especially when it came to 2:38:55 the New Jersey drones, were very much unidentifi or excuse me, identified and not considered unidentified, that they 2:39:03 were commercial aircraft, helicopters, very easily determined. So, I know that 2:39:09 there was a lot of that, you know, and that there was public hysteria, that any blinking light in the sky was ET coming 2:39:15 down ready to kill us. Um, so that really got muddied, but I think that 2:39:21 there probably were some elements to the new New Jersey stuff that probably hold 2:39:26 some kind of truth. What that is, I don't know. And does that connect to UAP? Likely. I mean, by definition, yes. 2:39:33 If you're talking about like an anomalous phenomena that truly lacks any explanation whatsoever, I'm not really 2:39:40 sure. um where the government kind of comes in and they give these oh they 2:39:45 were FAA authorized flights and stuff like that. Those types of things for me intrigue me 2:39:52 more. It's like, well, you know, you're not talking about a classified top secret mission to test X, Y, or Z. Um, 2:40:00 but rather if they were like some kind of FAA research programs, even if they had a level of secrecy, a lot of people 2:40:06 that were asking questions wouldn't have been asking the questions they were because they would have been notified of 2:40:12 all of that or if they were, you know, left in the dark, notified a lot sooner. 2:40:17 So, you did have a lot of politicians that were involved that should have known better if it was all just, you know, FAA authorized drones and flights, 2:40:25 but that's just speculation on my part. You know, I don't know. It the secrecy is weird. It's intriguing. Uh I've got 2:40:32 open foyas on it, but it also coincides with other events around the same time 2:40:37 that were happening elsewhere that in my opinion are confirmed. You look at the Wright Patterson Air Force Base material 2:40:43 that came out. To me, it's irrelevant that the seven videos I think it's cool that the seven videos, if they are, you 2:40:49 know, identified as planes, they're planes. But obviously, we're talking about a much deeper issue that prompted 2:40:55 the closing of airspace on December 13th of last year and obviously quite a few witnesses that were seeing clearly 2:41:02 drones. So, either they're all delusional on mushrooms and completely made up everything or that kind of stuff 2:41:10 really happened. But people also took p uh videos of airplanes and messed that 2:41:15 up. But something else was going on. I think kind of probably the the same is true with the New Jersey stuff. It's the 2:41:22 what else is going on is the question that remains and I don't I don't have the answer to that. Truly anomalous or 2:41:29 is it just a nefarious bad actor doing something? I have no idea. Uh wish I I 2:41:35 did but I I'm digging on it. Ah it's the lightcraft project. Okay. Okay. There's a flying saucer model. I published the 2:41:42 first article in series. Okay, cool. Um, okay. Along the Got you now on the same 2:41:47 page. Yeah. Well, then the Eric Davis Franklin me stuff is not pertaining to that. I I don't think on the lightcraft 2:41:54 stuff me played a role. He may have uh memory doesn't serve, but yeah, you may want to look it up just because there 2:41:59 was the connection between uh the Dr. Eric Davis, Franklin me line more 2:42:06 present day and then going back to almost an identical project that OAP was 2:42:12 originally intended um back you know 40 years and that was 2:42:19 project outgrowth. So it was very interesting kind of line to to to to draw. Red panda koala enjoyed the stream 2:42:25 today. Thank you as I worked on things. I appreciate that. Thank you so much. 2:42:31 All right. So, I think that I got caught up on 2:42:36 all those questions. So, if you have any other questions, please feel free to to put them now. If not, I'll go ahead and end it. I I can't thank you guys enough 2:42:43 for hanging out with me on a Saturday. It was a lot of fun for me. Uh I I have a blast doing these things and uh 2:42:49 answering your questions. But hopefully the more structured presentation part was interesting to you. You learned a 2:42:55 few things. And hey, look, I I will punch the line that we should all be in this together. I wish we were. We should 2:43:01 all communicate. Just from the bottom of my heart, remain respectful to one another. And that goes to me, too. 2:43:08 Sometimes it's hard to to remember all of that. I fall victim to, you know, getting into exchanges where, you know, 2:43:13 you forget there's a human on another side on the other side. And uh look, I'm in that category, too. So, I'm not 2:43:18 preaching to you. I'm uh preaching to all of us, myself included. Just stay respectful. But, you know, just 2:43:24 remember, we all have have different beliefs and some don't agree with this, but that's okay. I think it's just fine. 2:43:32 So, that being said, thank you so much. If you haven't already, make sure if you're listening on X or Facebook, go to 2:43:37 www.theblackvault.comlive, then that will bounce you to the YouTube 2:43:43 channel. Make sure you are subscribed. That is going to be the easiest way to see all the content that I post. I am 2:43:49 going to be much more active now that some personal obligations are now aside and in the past. So, I'm pretty excited 2:43:55 about that. Uh, so you will see me there the most, but when I do stuff like this, I will still continue to broadcast live 2:44:01 on X and Facebook. Uh, Facebook is weird now. They're they're dumping live 2:44:07 streams 30 days after. So silly. Um, but I guess may I don't know. Maybe they're 2:44:12 struggling for dis space, I guess. I don't know. But uh but that's why YouTube is obviously as long as I don't 2:44:18 get banned uh we should have those videos there forever. So you will 2:44:24 forever be haunted by my ugly mug for years to come. So make sure you're subscribed to that. If not, be nice out 2:44:30 there, guys. It's always a pleasure. Thank you so much for listening. Truly, truly appreciate it. This is John 2:44:36 Greenwell Jr. signing off and I'll see you next time.