Ep. #117 – The Upcoming UAP Report; The NY Times; And Drones n’ Trash

guide this a little bit? If you haven't really been paying attention, the reason why I switched, what I wanted to do was the New York Times published an article today that has got everybody upset. And I think that there's many different reasons to be upset with this. But I think that if you had high expectations with the pending UAP report that we all hope is coming on Monday, I always have my doubts that the government

does anything in time. On time, I should say. If you had high hopes for that, then this New York Times article is probably going to upset you. And here's what I think is going on. It was written by Julian Barnes from the New York Times. The title is many military UFO reports are just foreign spying or airborne trash. I'll get to the article in a minute, we'll go over it, we'll have some, some dissection of it. And I will try and watch

the chat for your questions, pull in as many as I can. With but a couple of kind of housecleaning notes here, as I do with the behind the scenes shows, I decided to broadcast this to all of my social media. So some of you I know are watching on Facebook, some of you are on Twitter, the majority of you, I believe are on YouTube. That's how I always recommend that you watch these simply because that's going to be the biggest chat. I know some of you all come here to interact

with others. So if you are watching live, go to www dot the black vault.com/live That will bounce you directly to the channel, you'll see the video is live as we speak. And of course, the chat is already bumping. The other note that I wanted to give you is I am happy to take as many questions as you'd like I have a little bit of time today, which is kind of nice. And this is why I decided to switch. It's because of all of the feedback

that I have seen online on this article. And I'm it it's it's getting a little bit crazy, where people are clearly upset. And I wanted to do this video to kind of put into context here what we're reading. Now, let me preface it all, by saying you're you're looking at somebody who has made dedicated videos, to the horrific reporting in the past by the New York Times. So I am not sitting here trying to defend the New York Times in any

way. But I want to be as fair as possible because so many are attacking journalist Julian Barnes, who let me just click here real quick. I forget his exact title. He's a national security reporter from New York Times covering intelligence agencies, I thought he had a bigger title. I should have looked for that. But did not but regardless reporter for the New York Times, you don't just walk into a job like that. He's obviously got a very big journalistic background. He's

done quite a bit for quite some time. So I don't go out of the starting gate just trashing somebody because they don't say what I like, I want to be fair here and give anybody I don't care if it's the New York Times or a blog site that no one's heard of, or anything in between. I give it time to be right. And I give it time to find the evidence to be right. But to go back what I said you're looking at a guy who has made these dedicated videos, essentially trashing previous

reporting. So I'm not here to defend but I'm also not here to trash it this time. I think the context once we get through it will give a little bit more of an understanding of where we should be instead of lashing out. So that said, I am always surprised at the reaction to these articles. Let me bring it up, just so you guys can see what I'm talking about. Do my best to zoom in, collapse this, I hope that it will stay on for me it goes to a paywall a lot of

times. So I'm hoping that's not going to happen. But here's the here's the article if you guys haven't seen it yet, that has created the ruckus. Now on Monday, we are supposed to get a public UAP report. I have confirmed that there will be a public version. There's some some question mark about that.

If that gets walked back, I'll be very, very surprised. To some of you that may not be a surprise, but I wanted to at least clear that up that there is talk about the public report and it should be delivered Monday to the general public, I have been able to also confirm, and this is not a shock to most including myself, that there will be a classified version delivered as well on the same day as those frequent watchers of this channel, you know that the day after that June report

from last year, I had filed a case on a mandatory declassification review of that classified version it took of it took until March, I believe, of this year of 2022 to get it but at least I got it and was able to kind of get a little bit more of a glimpse into the classified aspects of all of this, of course, redactions came along with it. But it came with enough detail that allowed me to kind of again, get that glimpse into

what else was going on. So for those of you who might be curious, I'll tell you right here, and now I've already drafted the case, request to once it drops, once the product is created, it will be filed, and I will go after that classified version as well. This time around, I would likely won't be alone. The last time I believe there was only one other request or that filed a couple of weeks after myself on an MDR

level. I know Brian Bender from Politico had later gone after it through FOIA, which generated a different version of it, but it was the same redactions across the board. But anyway, there's a lot more eyeballs on this. And just again, wanted to address those questions because I got that asked a lot in the last

couple of days on social media. So what I want to do to at least lay the groundwork to what this article then entails because I believe that what I just went over plays into the context of what we're looking for. So the header again, the headline, many military UFO reports are just foreign spying, or airborne trash. Keyword there is many. What what does that mean? We don't have a report yet. So obviously, Julian Barnes is getting that from somewhere, does many mean the majority, the

minority, the many that he was allowed to know about? So many unanswered questions there. But at least he didn't say the majority, at least I don't recall that word being used in here. And the headline said many that could very well be true. Forget space, aliens or hypersonic technology. Classified assessments show that many episodes have ordinary explanations. This is what gets interesting about that sub header. He's hinting that he is now privy to the classified

assessments and what they show. I can tell you just from experience on the last time around that the classified version of the report, just the page count, at the time of my filing was part of a classified document. They wouldn't tell me. I was able to later get that it didn't take too long. But I was later able to get that. My whole point with this is now depending upon Julian Barnes's sources, were getting into a classified arena. He may not know the classified technology or sensors

or anything like that. But my point is, is that when you deal with this, from a legal standpoint, just a page count is considered a classified or a. I don't want to say secret because that's the wrong word. But it's essentially a exempted piece of

information because it's part of a classified document. So whatever Julian Barnes is reporting and his anonymous sources because no one was named in this, except for Susan Goff the Pentagon spokesperson, they are talking to him about the classified version of this, this that will become key here as we go over it.

Government officials believe that surveillance operations by foreign powers and weather balloons, or other airborne clutter explain most recent incidents of unidentified aerial phenomenon Government speak for UFOs as when, as well as many episode episodes in past years. The sightings have puzzled the Pentagon and intelligence agencies for yours fueling theories about visiting space aliens and spying by a hostile

nation using advanced technology. But government officials say many of the incidents have far more ordinary explanations. I know a lot of people are upset his word usage of space aliens, whatever I mean, it is what it is. We can't really we can't really mince every little vowel here on the wording. It's clear, though, that he's dismissing that. And it's clear that that his angle here is that it's not aliens. It's many of them are explainable, he did say most

appear. Most recent incidents, again, I don't want to get playing into semantics, semantics and dissecting every character here. But I'm curious as where this is going. Because with that caveat of the classified assessments, I put a prediction out there on Twitter a few days ago that the public version which will likely reflect the classified one, if they get into statistics, I would imagine that their their rate of being able to identify the cases will be much higher.

Prior if you recall, they were only able to identify one, and they labeled that as a deflating balloon. But this time around the question mark is what are they going to be? So my guess and this is, I'm stressing guests speculation. It's not using anything that I know behind the scenes. It is literally just a guess. And I put a Twitter thread out there just for others to have fun as well, like take a guess what, how many pages? Will there be graphics, so on and so forth.

And one of my one of my guesses was that they would have these statistics, but a much higher percentage of identified. And I think the first time around in June of 2021. It was a bit of a learning curve for them. I think that they saw how the public reacted. I think they saw how Congress reacted. I think that what they did by that was going to adjust their public message for many different reasons. If you want to call that cover up conspiracy, whatever. That's up to you. But I think that they're

going to learn from that. So that went into my guess that it's going to be longer. I took a guess and said 14 pages versus the nine that it was prior. But it'll show more effort. I believe that the graphics, I said that there'll be four thumbnails, I didn't say what the thumbnails were. But I think that there'll be some graphics in there. Reason is, I think, though, they'll want to show more effort. Because to the public, I think that it looked rushed. I think that to

Congress, it wasn't adequate enough. So I think that there's going to be that effort to put in a little bit more to this. But in the same respect, they can use this. They can say now that they've done more investigation, they've allocated more resources, they've allocated more people, they've allocated much more to the effort to then identify more. And when you go back to the reporting here by Julian Barnes, if his sources are legit, which I really don't have reason to

doubt it, but I hate anonymous sources. I don't care what they add to the UFO conversation. I said that earlier today on Twitter, I don't care what side of the fence they're on. If it's an anonymous source, I hate it. It doesn't do us any good. I'm going to reflect the same sentiment to this. I'm not saying that I buy it hook line and sinker. But I also say I don't doubt it. What we're seeing here unfold with the New York Times reporting, if accurate, is exactly what we

should have expected. I pulled up an article posted that on Twitter today also that I wrote back in 2020. And obviously, it's a little dated, it was 2020 August to be exact. But it was essentially the run up to a UFO or UAP hearing 1960s style. I even have a video on this channel, I invite you all to look at. And in essence, what I did was I explored the run up to the previous late 1960s UFO hearings and congressional interest and Senate pushes for transparency, and let's get more

people involved. Well, in the end, we were left with the Condon report, Project Blue Book was cancelled in 1969 officially closed the door and I think it was January of 1970. And it wasn't until the last five years or so that UFOs and the government finally started, you know, essentially coexisting again. My fear in 2020, I believe is kind of playing out. And it is this this effort by the US government to finally have a refreshed ability to tell the general public Well, look,

we looked into it. There was a lot of unknowns, but when we put more research resources to it, we were able to identify everything That is not to say That's right. Or I endorsed that. For those of you who know me, you might be new to this channel. I know there's over 330 of you watching on the social medias live right now, which some of you may be new to this channel. I'm known

in some circles as being pretty skeptical, which I am. But I also say that there's something to these phenomena plural, that should be investigated. But I also have to be realistic of

what the US government is going to do. And that article showed that through the 1960s, late 1960s, and that effort that that they that they underwent, had the same positivity in the beginning to come crashing down later, when you fast forward to the last few years, you can literally match up even the characters, those that were politicians, the former military and government personnel that came out, it was like you could draw a line from the 1960s to the last couple of years. And it

really matched up like a playbook. I'm not insinuating that it is coming from a playbook. But rather, it's something to look at. And something to realize that this is a game. It has been a game for more than 75 years. That sounds conspiratorial, but I can show you reams of information that that supports, there is something again to these phenomena that we cannot explain not the military, not the government, not the general public. It's just reality.

That's what it is. On top of that I can show you reams of incidents where numerous government agencies to this day, consider UFO and UAP information at the highest classification levels of top secret and secret and will deny you access to them. I just posted a document today about our nuclear arsenals, and nuclear reviews and stuff like that, I can tell you after filing 10,000 requests over the last 26 plus years, UFOs and UAP has been some of the most elusive and most

difficult topics to to investigate. And on top of that, I see more games through legal ways of accessing that that information than I do others. Why is that? I don't know. And by the way, the majority of the requests that I do by number overall, is not UFOs. Okay, so some some may think and I think I saw Mick West here, MC friend of the show, I really do respect MC. And you should too adds a lot to this conversation. I

don't always agree with him. He's here in the chat, he would call that a five majority was requesting UFO information, essentially a bias and the numbers, that essentially I would see more problems with UFOs, because I request more about UFOs. And actually, that I wanted to point out is not a statistical bias. It's the opposite. I don't request UFO information as much as I do other. So I just wanted to kind of put that out there for for for our friend, Mick. And hello,

Mick. It's good to Good to see you. Wait, hold on, I missed it again. There you are. All right, MC. So welcome to the channel, I don't know how often you poke in. I always like to think that you watch everything and just can't touch what I have to say. Because you know, you can't debunk it. But no joking aside, it's always good to see it. So that being said, you have all that information. But when you look at the data, you look at the information, you look at the documentation. It is that

game. And this is what they are doing and what one of the things I wanted to accomplish with the show, and I'll get back to the article is to encourage you not to give up. And it doesn't matter where on the fence you are. There's a lot of you know, hardcore believers out there. That's not my audience. So you're likely not here. But rather, if you're kind of on the

fence, and you don't know what to think. And you're getting more and more frustrated, I had actually a couple private messages today from people that are like, this is ridiculous. This is I'm done. Like I am so frustrated. And I'm here to tell you that I've fired a nickel for every time I had that thought, you know, I'd be not only rich but retired with a private island somewhere. But that is exactly I think the effort here.

And in the last couple of months alone, I've seen some very good people with the best of intention to try and unravel this mystery gets so fed up with it, that they just go you know what I'm done, I'm out. And either they literally just go out, you never hear from them again. Or they turned skeptical to a point of just attacking anything that comes around, which isn't good in itself. So there's a lot of mindsets out there. And I'm here to just say, don't judge it by the New York

Times article here. Because even if it's accurate, even if everything that you read here and no, I won't read the whole thing, I invite you all to do so but even if everything that was printed here is absolute fact, which it's actually provably not but regardless if it was absolute fact that shouldn't deter you From from looking into what this topic is all about, because there is still ample evidence to support that we

should continue to give it attention. One of the things that I wanted to point out in the article, which again, plays into everything that we're talking about here is that attempt to explain. And I think that that goes back to the project Bluebook days, they wanted to give the impression it was all an investigation. But when you look at the actual evidence, the real documents, what they say at a press podium,

is not what the actual evidence says. And even though project Bluebook was largely a very transparent, quote, unquote, transparent effort, meaning journalists at the time could actually call the Air Force and arrange seeing the files, there was a lot of stuff behind the scenes that was going on. And that's some of the more fascinating material because you

realize that there wasn't really an investigation. But rather, it was an effort for an explanation that instead of investigating the UFOs, if you look at the actual correspondence, so not necessarily the case files, but some of the correspondence letters that go along with it, you can see the dripping bias from the investigators. I have a section on the black vault called from the desks of project Bluebook. And they are files from the one of the original project Bluebook military

personnel that was found by a researcher. It's an awesome story. I won't repeat it again. But I've talked about it quite a few times. But regardless, the bottom line is all these documents came from this original member of the Blue Book team toward towards the end of the effort because they had some turnover. But again, directly worked on the program took a lot

of the unclassified material with him. And when you look at that material, you realize that there was much more going on than an investigation that we were all led to believe, but rather it was an explanation. And it also showed insight into Dr. J. Allen Hynek, who, if you don't know, was the lead scientist that looked into the UFO incidents through the 40s 50s and 60s, he was the go to guy and went from this hardcore skeptic who explained everything or debunked

everything to someone who later became a believer. Now whether or not you believe everything that Dr. J. Allen Hynek had to say that's irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that a scientist properly trained properly credentialed saw what the military was doing, went in with essentially a job debunk and came out a believer. That's pretty interesting. Fast forward. Look at what we're doing now and an investigation.

Government military says we're looking into it. It's a potential threat, which by the way, I haven't said the T word. I don't think yet. That echoes what happened during the project Bluebook years. And potential threat, we're looking into it, we go from unknown, unknown unknown, hey, we need more money. We need more instrumentation, we need more

everything. Now, we come to another UAP report. And if what the New York Times is saying, well, that shouldn't be a surprise to any of you, because that is that cover up playbook that they have played time and time again. Does that mean that it's right or wrong? Not necessarily. But it does mean that there is a predictable pattern. So you guys got a lot of reading material today. But I invite you to go read that article I wrote in 2020, and then did a video earlier in

2021, about the same exact thing. And it really is fascinating to see the parallels on how all of this is playing out. Going back to that article and I skipped quite a bit. But they talked about the go fast, the gimbal and the FLIR ONE. Now just a quick preface for those who aren't familiar with this channel because now there's about 420 of you watching so the audience is growing. I assume some of you may be new to this channel. I was my connection to the gimbal, the FLIR and the go

fast after they leaked. People hate me when I call it a leak. But I think it's it's pretty clear. They were not authorized to come out when they originally did. When I was pushing the Navy at the time for answers is going back a couple of years. I had gotten in writing this was the first time ever that they were considered unidentified aerial phenomena. That was the tag that they had on all three videos. They could not identify all three. So I have paraphrasing there. But I have all of that in

writing. I wrote an article and went wildly viral across the world. It was a huge deal. Why? Because it was an official word. Never before that. Had they ever labeled those three videos. We were just told the narrative from to the stars Academy, and 12 billion media outlets that carry that story. But we never had word from the Military, I will admit, a million times over myself. I was floored when I got that I did not expect that at

all. And I expected a explanation of some kind. Keep in mind documentation internally that Luis Elizondo had submitted, called them drones and balloons. So you you had all these kind of weird things going on about it. Military says they're unidentified. Now back to the article.

Besides the images of green triangles, excuse me, they obviously go into those green triangles or green pyramids, as you likely know them as the other recordings released by the Pentagon have not been categorized as surveillance incidents, at least so far. But Pentagon officials do not believe that any of them represent aliens either. So again, New York Times is really kind of punching this, it's not

aliens, it's not aliens. And we'll we'll deal with that. And also in a moment, one of the videos referred to as go fast appears to show an object moving at immense speed. But in that an analysis by the military says that that is an illusion created by the angle of observation against water. According to Pentagon calculations, the object is moving only about 30 miles per hour. So want to deal with that first one of the

videos referred to as go fast. This was one that the US Navy told me they considered unidentified, they labeled it UAP, a few years back, and that was a big deal. Now they're saying the military analyzed that footage directly. And that it was simply an illusion created by the angle of observation against water. This is a moment where I wish I could bring MC in for at least some context on that MC if you're still here, feel free to type it. My guess is you have a video

on this. As MC knows, and as most of my regular audience knows, I stay away from all that video analysis. I'm just not

educated enough to get it. I can do you know, some analysis, but when it gets into math, angles, instrumentation, and some of those technical things that not only MC but on the opposite end of this coin as well, in this debate, both sides are when you talk about, let's say SVU and Robert Powell and his team and when they're analyzing everything, videos and speed calculations, hey, I'm here to admit way over my noggin, right,

so I stay out of it. But what's interesting to me is away from the analysis part of it whether or not that's right or wrong, this is a clear alter alteration of the military's view they went from we have this unidentified aerial phenomena video known as gimbal, a couple years back to military analyzed it, it's an illusion created by the angle of observation, observation against water. So very reminiscent to those project Bluebook days, they take in the report, it's unidentified, and they spin it

and identify, are they wrong? It's quite possible. They're not wrong. I have no idea. Again, not educated enough to start battling and duking it out from an analysis standpoint. But what's interesting is, why couldn't Why couldn't they figure this out years ago? Why were they willing to put that label on this at the time? If you believe all the rumors and stories, and we'll save the eighth tip UFO study for a different debate for a different day? Let's say for a moment,

yes, a tip was this UFO study? Are you telling me that they could not have done any analysis at that time? Or is this spin? And I don't have an answer to that. But I find it interesting that they have done a 180 on the label, and it doesn't stop at and I may have I may have misspoke on the gimbal and go fast. So forgive me if I did. What I just went over was the go fast video. And that was the illusion created by the angle of

observation against water. So I think I caught myself Miss speaking there labeling that the gimbal hopefully on the screen that made sense for you watching this visually. But they also talked about the gimbal. So it didn't just stop at the go fast.

It is on the gimbal as well. The gimbal shows an object that appears to be turning or spinning military officials now believe that is the optics of the classified image sensor designed to help target weapons make the object appear like it is moving in a strange way is a joys of live because if I screw up can't go back. So forgive me on the the misspeak there but obviously gimble there now explaining as well. Mick would be the person to kind of again give a little bit of context

from that skeptical point of view. I will let him and those that have done the analysis on the other end of the spectrum to Duke that out for the same reason. over my head. They also talked about the FLIR and I'm just gonna have to do a cheat here to find it. Least I think they did forgive me here as I kind of look around, why isn't this I'm not sure what happened Okay, some of you helped me out here when I was preparing for the show and I will fully admit I was kind of rushing in the

sense that this is this is all unfolding right now. I'm fairly confident that they labeled the FLIR ONE as the one that hovers over the water, and I was going to chat with you guys about the inaccuracy of that and it appears that FLIR ONE has been taken out. So TBD I'm not going to do this on the fly with you guys. Maybe in the chat if you guys want to do this. I'm, I'm fairly confident I read FLIR ONE in here, but it's not on there

anymore. FLIR does not exist, but it says now. Pentagon analysts remain puzzled by some of the videos collected by the military one where an object hovers over the water jumps are radically then peels away is more difficult to explain official said But analysts who have studied that video, as well as ones associated with eyewitness reports from aviators are convinced it is not a piece of alien technology here. Let me check something real quick. Let me see if there's corrections

already. Not yet. Okay. Ah, I'm Julian took it out. Thank you, MC. I. Oh, you're to blame MC. I knew it. Yeah, see, all of this is happening. All this is happening, kind of as we're dissecting this, so the New York Times is altering their description. I was going to point out the inaccuracy about that Mick obviously tweeted about it, and Julian Barnes took

it out. So okay, there you go. But it's not noted in the bottom I'm sure there's some journalistic rule that allows them not to have to list the correction but because that does create quite a bit of of confusion. So we'll deal with that in a later video. But thank you Mick. As always, I know you're on top of a lot of this stuff here. Hold on as we go here, Midwest also as about the paragraph is basically still

there. Just remove mentioned a FLIR ONE. So I'm curious MC if if there by the description, it doesn't seem like it would be the FLIR video, which I was going to point out. But are they now talking about a different video? Is that something that we haven't seen yet is that something will potentially see released with the public report or potentially aired and later hearing. I mean, who knows? These are all guesses, because as you can see, the New York Times is changing stuff, as

we're as we're talking. So that's that back on track here. I invite you to read the whole article. But I think what we're seeing here is potentially potential potentially accurate reporting. Bear with me in the context of how it's being reported, that if the government is going to take this stance, Julian Barnes shouldn't be crucified by UFO, Twitter or whomever is going after him. I posted on one thread today. And I don't want to, you know, talk ill of anybody, so no names

needed, but essentially name calling. Julian Barnes. I don't know Julian Barnes. And I just find it unfair that we start attacking the messenger, because if he's reporting on the stance of, of what the government is going to be saying in this report, if this is accurate, for the most part, and that was what I was going to reference was the FLIR reference about accuracy. But let's just say the core of this as accurate and what the government is going to say on Monday, or if the report is

late. Why are we crucifying reporter who's who's actually reporting accurately, you know, go after the government, but go after them with evidence and let's see what's going to happen. And that's the bottom line that I think a lot of people are forgetting on a couple sides of this, those that I had mentioned earlier, that are just getting so fed up with this, and they're just kind of piecing out and they don't want to deal with the conversation anymore.

We have to understand that the government side of this is only one small piece of the puzzle. And on top of that, what they say what kind of how I phrase it often is what they say at a press podium, but we all know that it's not always a press podium, but whether that be press statements, or public reports, or even a congressional hearing. That's not the end all be all. And that's not me, again, being a conspiracy theorist or conspiratorial, but rather that's being realistic.

That is using a documented history that what the gun Government and military wants you to believe is not always necessarily the truth. big shocker there I know, but it is provable. And we've seen that time and time again. Now does that prove aliens? Of course not. And I'm not here to say that nor should anybody, we really truly just don't know what's going on. But speaking of aliens, and how the this article essentially poo pooed, that whole idea go on, it's not space

aliens is not aliens. And there's, there's quite a few references to aliens, there's 12 of them to be exact if you do a word find. So alien or aliens appear 12 times in this article, Extra Terrestrial another one, maybe there's other forms of saying alien. So obviously, they're really pushing this narrative, meaning the New York Times that, hey, there's no evidence, this is aliens. And it looks like you know, many of them are drones, and foreign spying equipment or drones, or

trash. I don't know why trash came out of nowhere. I mean, if trash was that common, which I'm sure that there's going to be some type of cases that do that. We would have saw that more in the in the in the first report, which we didn't, we saw that as one of the categories, but none of them fit. But who knows, maybe something they've done in the last year now puts a large majority, or many or however you want to say it in the trash category. But that is all kind of a question mark. But here's

kind of one of the issues that I had. And I know another thing that I had tweeted out today, but just to kind of put it into context is that you see the New York Times and as I mentioned in the beginning of the show, do some horrible reporting when it comes to UAP. And I did then what I do now, and I do try and be as fair as possible, some of my biggest haters out there will

not agree with me. But truly do try and be as again, as fair as possible and give it time to either be true or for evidence to present itself. And when it's clearly not like for example, the New York Times article that talked about offworld vehicles, when you have quite a few corrections listed at the bottom of the article, you know that something kind of went awry, corrections are going to happen. I don't fault journalists if they have to correct something. But I do fall journalist for

being careless. And I think that that's one of the things that happened in that article. But in the effort to be fair, you have a article that says 15 times combining alien and extraterrestrial, it's not that but the same masthead, The New York Times had reported that in July of 2020, Dr. Eric Davis, who now works for Aerospace Corporation, a defense contractor said he gave a classified briefing to a defense department agency as recently as March about retrievals. From off

world vehicles not made on this earth. If you ask me they're insinuating aliens are extraterrestrial, right? I mean, you can't have an offworld vehicle that's not made on planet Earth, and have it be human. So and nor is that a natural thing. So okay, so we're talking about aliens, right? That's clearly what this article was putting so much on. For those who aren't aware in

here. Senator Harry Reid was quoted before he passed away as essentially confirming the notion that there was retrieved material of offworld vehicles that was later taken out and corrected. At the bottom of the article, I have a full video, dissecting that article, the corrections, the messiness of it, and I even show you corrections that were made well after it was published, and not just in the first hour or so. But well, after it was published that they changed things but

didn't note it. So again, I don't pretend to know every single journalistic requirement that they have to list corrections. I just think that that was pretty shady when you already have a list of corrections. But that being said, The New York Times reported this. This is I want to stress the New York Times and not you know, Joe Blows blog somewhere where an anonymous source comes around and says,

Well, you know, we've retrieved UFO Alien technology. I just can't tell you where or who I am or how I know that, but trust me, bro. That's not what this is. They named the person in this New York Times article. So you know, contrary to what usually is the fact where you have anonymous sources with

claims like this. You actually have someone and even though Harry Reid's support, quote was taken out, you still have Dr. Eric Davis, despite my personal thoughts on the validity of this, when you write for the New York Times, and it's not an op ed, I would think that the weight of the masthead that ran the article comes along with it. The editorial board is there for a reason that they look at the claims that their paper is printing and go, Okay, this may be an anonymous source. But can

you back this up? Can you back this up? Can you back this up? And between the journalist and that board and again, their their whole process of verifying the information, then they become comfortable putting their masthead on it. an op ed comes with a disclaimer. So that's totally different. It's an opinion editorial. It shows somebody's thoughts or beliefs about something. And that disclaimer says we don't necessarily endorse the ideas or beliefs in this article. That's

not what happens with reporting like this. And yet, even though it was a mess, Dr. Davis's claims stayed in there. So question is did the New York Times editorial board away from the journalists that were on the byline, which were Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kane on this particular article? July 23 2020, was when it was published. There's the headline for if you want to look it up no longer in shadows, Pentagon's

UFO unit will make some findings public. If they published that, don't you think that that should be referenced in an article like this? Where now they're saying there's nothing, no evidence to aliens? There's no, they didn't say offworld vehicles, but essentially no evidence of any of that. It's okay, if journalists contradict each other, but the paper itself are, is publishing these facts. And to me, and this is just an opinion, again, maybe there's some kind of, you know, written

rule out there that I'm just not aware of. But when, when a publication like this deals with a topic within 24 months of each other, and you have wildly different reporting, shouldn't that contradiction, at the very least be noted? I'm not even saying correct it. I'm just saying, note it, that all of the sources that Julian Barnes who he did not name, by the way, except Susan golf, and her tone was, you know, pretty much the same of what we're used to just there's classification for a

reason, no evidence of aliens, whatever. If that's what all of his sources are saying, Should he not have referenced his own mainstream outlet that he's writing for that contradicted that with a named source? I would think you'd at least want to note the contradiction. And this isn't just because I like

UFO is where I think you should do a certain thing. But in 2020, that was the stance of the New York Times, that if they truly vetted the information that they published, there was enough for them to say, You know what, there's likely enough truth to this, that we feel comfortable putting our masthead above it. So New York Times published the claim. Again, I'm stressing

regardless of what I feel about it. Fast forward to 2022. Now we're about to get a second UAP report, that same publication, prints an article that just completely destroys the hopes and dreams of everybody who thought offworld vehicles are being retrieved by the US government. So doesn't matter who's right or wrong? Wouldn't you note it? And they didn't have no idea why. So those are some of the things that I want to kind of point out that we are in a mess of a

situation. And if you think you know what these phenomena are, and you think you know, what we're gonna get either Monday or if it's late whenever we get it. You likely probably don't, I don't. None of us do it. It is an absolute crapshoot of what this is going to be. But I will say it don't have the, the outrageous expectations that I'm seeing some circles have. And and I had seen a post, I don't know if he wants me to, to

spotlight him. So I'm not but his first name is Kyle. And so he had written that other people were posting that it was going to be disclosure. And I like to try and stay on top of things, but you can't always. And I thought oh, come on, like some people are really saying like, this is disclosure like this, is it capital D. Aliens are here, type of disclosure. And essentially, he said yes. And I was like, Oh, come on, that can't be and sure enough, I started seeing these posts from

people with a small following. So it's not like, you know, one follower joined this month, and they're making big claims that people are out there thinking that that aliens are about to be admitted to in our entire planet, it's going to change. And I'm here to say that's not going to happen. And I look I cross my fingers. I'm wrong. But we have to taper our expectations down to reality and the reality is secrecy and a Active cover up that has gone on for well more than half a

century. And that is provable. There's evidence to that I don't think even the biggest debunkers would, would, would hide from that statement. The cover up doesn't equate to aliens. But what I'm saying is that that is what they've done. They've obviously skated this to death. So why would we expect any any

different. And the great thing about though, just to end that thought on a positive note, is the great thing about all of this is, regardless of what we get in the public realm, the public report or a public hearing, which is all great, but what goes into that is a paper trail that far outweighs what we hear and see. And that's why I always want to stress to people don't get discouraged. Just don't this is what they've done for decades, doesn't mean it's alien, doesn't mean it's not, it

just means this is par for the course. But that paper trail that's being generated, as they are doing all of this work is gold, it will keep me and people like me busy, hopefully, for years to come, simply because they are putting more money into this effort. And thus far, we are seeing a strengthening of the secrecy, which a lot of people hate me saying, but that's just the reality of it. But what does that show you is that just an instrumentation that's classified, they don't

want to show you? Well, I beg to differ. I've done a video on this as well, where I think that that argument is, is completely baseless, you don't, you don't over classify everything, just because the sensor that took something is classified, there's a lot of stuff that goes along with that, that would be at an unclassified level or something that wouldn't be exempt. That, again, is in a different video have already done and I'm likely

going to talk about that again. But these arguments that it's all just classified technology, or we don't want to tell our enemies, in my opinion, is provably bunk. And we can now prove that by looking at the information they have put forward already, some of which was like, like pulling teeth. But look at what they've put forward already that there was material there for us to see. And that they were able to release it. So for them to now alter that and go oh, sorry, we

can't show you anything now is ridiculous. And that I'm I'm highly not shelling a version of that argument. But I but I want in much more detail in a appeal to the US Navy. So I'm fighting their decision to withhold all UAP information, videos, photographs, and so on, which I do know now that exist, by their own admission, I just don't know how many, but they have withheld all that. So my argument was, the likelihood that we've already seen everything that's able to be

released is likely nil. And I, again went into much greater

detail. So don't get discouraged. Bottom line, whether you're a skeptic believer, or somewhere in between, this conversation is going to continue, it doesn't matter what Julian Barnes says, or the New York Times prints or or whomever posts on Twitter, or, or what you know, whatever it is, at the end of the day, this conversation is going to continue and whatever that report says, I can guarantee you it's not the end, it just isn't I think that there will be

enough question marks still, that will keep the majority of us interested. If you're looking for disclosure in Aliens, it's not going to happen if you want to keep pushing forward and motivate other people to take part in this whether it be more journalists or more scientists, more investigators, more researchers, more whomever stick around, because I think that there's going to be a lot more information that comes out. And in my opinion, the best evidence to support that was not given to

you or I willingly. It was not in the UAP report from last year. It was not in the UAP hearing. It was the documentation and even the photos and videos that have come out through the Freedom of Information Act that support why I say that and why I hold that belief. So stick around. I really want to stress that because it was so discouraging to see what I've seen just in the last four hours, five hours or so since this article came out. I think I woke up. Yeah,

I'm not sure what time it was. But regardless, it's so discouraging to see that because you can't let this get you down. And that is something that I'm not trying to beat a dead horse on, but rather tell you there's still Well enough evidence there that I guarantee will not be in the UAP report because I think they're just dealing with more recent stuff post, you know, they'll have the 2004 Nimitz. And then 2014 2015 or so encounters of gimbal. Go fast. But then, you know, maybe some

of the more recent sightings and so on. And truth be told that the majority of those, maybe our foreign surveillance systems, drones, maybe even classified technology, or Sure, I'll accept trash, whatever, if that's what they want to, you know, claim that a lot of these are. But I think that history now has shown us enough that there is something there. And if they want to go back and start to try and open those case files a

little bit. Great, that would be welcome. Although from an investigative standpoint, it's probably going to be hard, I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt some of the more interesting documents have been redacted, and the originals, quote, unquote, last, I've talked about UFO material that was found post project Bluebook in the CIA files, when I tried to get the CIA to address that the documents were gone. So the redactions stay, and will stay in perpetuity forever and ever,

until the doom of the planet Earth. And that's unfortunate. So maybe the current cases are all we have. And that's unfortunate. But anybody who's seriously looked at UFOs, knows darn well, that, that it's not the majority of them, that are interesting. It's just not, it's a minority, and it's a fraction of a percent, maybe, arguably. It's a fraction, though, and a small one at that. But that's what we need to find. That's what we need to look at. That's what scientists need to look at.

And just because they say many are explained, I don't care. I mean, I really don't if the government wants to claim all of them will have that conversation. But if they say many, we shouldn't be mad at that we should actually already know that being involved in this conversation. So I'm kind of surprised at again, that discipline disappointment by some that are just saying, forget it. Because we shouldn't be there. We should already know that what Julian Barnes printed

with a couple exceptions here and there. If it's accurate, it shouldn't surprise us, because that's been par for the course. Alright, so since we are live, as you guys are watching this on on, well, I've forgot that I'm broadcasting this everywhere. So YouTube, Twitter, Facebook Facebook group. Feel free to post your questions. The rest of this will be up to you how long you want me to stick around? I don't mind at all, how long, at least within

some kind of reason. It's Friday. But hey, wait a minute. Get that out of there. All right. So feel free to post your questions. I'm gonna do my best here and try and answer them. Or at least see them and answer them the best that I can. First one that popped out to me Richard Wolff, why no nga or NRO data at all? Richard, I actually disagree with that. There is Ng and NRO data, they're both listed in the classified report.

Let me go ahead. And some of this will be on the fly guy. So forgive me if I am jumping around, and maybe have to just kind of put you on hold here as I pull up what I am about to say. But the classified UAP report. And the agencies that were involved in that report. Why didn't it jump down? Hold on. These were all the agencies that were involved in the classified report. So you'll see the NRO and nga as contributing to that report. My nga requests are still open. And you've kind

of reminded me, Richard, to look into that. And I will, if I can find a piece of paper. I'll ask the NGA about the FOIA requests. But I do have open UAP related requests with them. With the NRO. You will you will see documents online, I also have other cases that are that I know for a fact are still ongoing, because that's unfolding, kind of actually as we speak in the last couple of weeks. There's been some updates on them. But I'll I'll publish everything when I actually get it. I just

have nothing to say yet. But things are moving. But with the NRO, I've already received documents about their contribution. And in fact, I believe it was the NRO release through FOIA that actually showed and proved that the UAP task force so this was prior to arrow. They had a advisory panel, the NRO had at least one member on it. So that advisory panel was kind of revelatory in the sense that even though it's kind of a good then you would think that they would have such

a thing. They they put it in writing. So I've been going after since the moment I got that for a list of that advisory panel and who was on it. And sometimes it is a little bit difficult to pry names loose. What I was hoping for was maybe positions, expertise, agencies that they that they were from, and I believe that was denied. And I've appealed it. But regardless, I just don't have any end result yet. But I've been going after it. So. So just to go back to your question.

They're definitely involved in the conversation. 100% It's undeniable. So hopefully, there you go. I see. I'm not sure what the right answer here is on questions. If you could put them all caps, that would be great. There's close to 500 people watching now. So my chat has every social media network. So every comment and chat goes up. So I apologize if I miss your question. Feel free to repost it within a reasonable amount of

time. Just try not to flood the channel too much. For the sake of other people, Black Dread Scotland, thank you so much for your support of the channel watching on YouTube. What role do you think electronic warfare plays in UFO sightings? I feel like it's a good explanation for some of the recent UFOs caught on radar. If you're talking about electronic warfare, like essentially spoofing equipment, if I'm understanding what you're what you're asking correctly, I think it plays a huge role. does

it explain everything? No, I doubt it. But I think that we have to look at that capability and that ability to essentially make your enemy think they are seeing something that they actually aren't. And the end result from that would be absolute confusion, and chaos. And and and them trying to figure out what is real, what is not what's really there. Is this something that is is physically there or just on our instruments. So yeah, I mean, I think that if I'm understanding

you correctly, there's there's absolutely something to it. So, great question. I think that these phenomena are explained in a lot of different ways. I think too many people want a catch all explanation. Something that goes across the board explains everything. It's all aliens, I told you, haha, it's not going to happen. There's no clear, single explanation. And again, that may be super obvious to

some of you. But it still surprises me that let's just say and this goes into your question about electronic warfare again, assuming that I understood you, right. Let's just deal with the Nimitz. And I was interviewed for the Showtime special JJ Abrams. Three, I think was three part series called UFO. And in there talked about the possibility that we were dealing with classified technology potentially classified

platforms. What if the guys on the Nimitz or whomever thought that they were seeing something dropped from super high altitude all the way down at a immense rate of speed? What if it just wasn't there? Because if I remember correctly, I don't think that there was a visual sighting on that aspect of the

case. But regardless, right, I mean, we have to have that as part of the conversation, that if I believe it was PJ Hughes saying that the Air Force came in and took the, the tapes from from, from the, from the instrumentation there, why would they? Why would they do that the Air Force has happened to have been around. So there's a lot of unanswered questions there. And even conflicting information that I think that we should look at that keeps that type of explanation in play. Now, why

did I bring that up? Well, simple because I brought that up, and then you get attacked from people saying, well, this case can't be that and this case, can't be that it's like, Why didn't say this case? Was that or that case? Was that? That people I think, just operate off the mindset that if you believe one case has an explanation, then you

immediately address everything. If you say one thing is a drone, then you immediately are labeled, that you just put a drone as everything and that you can't have that as part of the conversation. You literally have to drill down into every case every document every claim every everything and drill down to a microscopic level to see what may or may not make sense. But that doesn't mean that if it works for case A it's gonna work

for case B it did just just there's no connection there. And we have to keep that in mind and I truly feel like sometimes I make points like that. Or it's like God, John, like everybody's going to agree with you. Why do you even waste the time. But when you get involved with like the social media interactions, I'm not talking about just twitter or just Facebook, but rather, I like to communicate on a lot of different platforms,

because I learned a lot. But you see that a lot enough to where I feel you need to waste the time and pointed out and kind of get reminded, like, we just can't be in that mindset. So hopefully, that helped out. Polly Ratterman. What do you think about the latest leaked videos and photos from Virginia, Brazil? Thank you. So I'm working on hopefully getting James Fox on this channel. He's always a busy guy. I know that so we've we've exchanged some messages. So I'd love to explore

what the claims are. I haven't seen any leaked videos yet. I saw the leaked photograph that kind of, you know, made its rounds a little bit on social media. It looked hooky from the get go. And sure enough, like usually, if you just sit back for about 20 minutes, the internet takes over and they rounded it down to a screenshot from like our old older

recreation of the Virginia incident. So if that's the one, you're referring to the photograph of the alien that kind of look tied up and you see the big bulging eyes was just simply from a recreation of an older show, and somebody posted the screenshots. If there's something else I'm not privy to, though, Polly feel free to to let me know, because I'm not I'm not real. I'm not real sure that a video came out, but it could very well have. I mean, there's so much that happens in this

topic that you can overlook quite a bit. Archangel Reese, are you John, are you aware of the leaked Homeland Security FLIR footage of rubber duck? Yeah.

Good question. It goes back. I think what like last year or something like that, my connection to it was the guy that brought it out, I had reached out, they were having trouble disseminating the raw footage, like the uncompressed, I have been running the black vault for 26 years, I've got multiple dedicated servers, and whenever I can love to offer help to those that are kind of struggling, passing around big

files. So I reached out and still host the rubber duck footage, I think in the closest uncompressed format that I could. Personally I don't think that it's a anything extraordinary, sadly. And I mean, no disrespect, the guy does not like me at all anymore. But I think that the source of that is is not not credible. So I don't And again, I always hate saying stuff like that, because I don't want to come off as disrespectful. But there's been a couple of videos now that are

just kind of questionable where they came from. They could just be very explainable. But I just didn't see anything from that. And the analysis of that from from various people out there that really showed me Hey, you know, this is this is something extraordinary. So, regardless, you could still download the rubber duck footage, I invite anybody to do so offer your two cents, if you're an Anala. You know, as an analyst, feel free to post your analysis, if there's something that, you

know, other people missed, I'm always all for it. Chat, I'm a little behind, obviously. So I'm kind of scrolling through the all capital letters really helps me a lot. So I'm reading these on the fly here. Can any underwater info underwater info

be discussed in the report? Or is it all classified? Well, when the underwater UA, P, which, under underwater UFOs, I don't know how you would term it because it's they're not flying and they're not aerial but that phenomena underwater, which clearly they are seeing, when it came up in the hearing, they essentially pushed it to a classified or close session. So will anything be in this report, your guess is as good as mine, I

have no idea. But the precedent that has been set is the detail any detail for that matter about the underwater phenomena, whatever that might be, is classified and they could not say anything in that public hearing. So we'll see on Monday. It's one of those things that would the way I described it the

other day was essentially anything can happen. And whatever does happen, I will likely be surprised but have expected it but can't believe that it happened and will be let down you know like there's all these range of emotions is likely all true, but all not. We just shouldn't be surprised at anything anymore. So if it's in there, the underwater stuff is in there. I wouldn't be surprised if it's in there though. Like again, if it's in there, I would still be

surprised. I know that doesn't make sense. But it's like, again, these things when they happen, it's like surprising, but not, and then something else will happen. You're really surprised to happen. But then it's like, Oh, I'm not really surprised. So it adds to that confusion. And I know it sounds crazy to say it that way. But it's just kind of the best way that that I can term it. Sorry, going through the questions

here. Dobby Dazzler thank you for that super sticker. By the way, for those who are listening on other platforms have no idea what I'm referring to. On YouTube, there's something called Super Chat. This is a way to support the channel. I do point this out every time I do bring up the super chats. 100% goes to the channel itself. I don't take anything for me personally. It goes right back into the website. One thing actually, just so you guys know what, what stuff like this goes

for. I'm going to be doing another video on this. But I just recently posted the sixth and final release from NASA of

their internal communications about UAP. And there have been some fascinating revelations that have come out of that, about the UAP taskforce reaching out to NASA about NASA Administrator Bill Nelson getting classified briefings about how the fact that the classified stuff would be the only stuff that would show Bill Nelson something that the public material likely wouldn't I believe they they termed it scratch his itch. So he wanted to know more about all of this.

And they essentially said the public report public material was not going to be worthwhile. So it was a fascinating internal look at what was going on through through various NASA departments and personnel. I had kind of specifically targeted 10 or 12 different people, some of which were more, I don't wanna say more important, but they were, they were more prevalent, I guess, as the right word in the UAP conversation. So it was

fascinating to see all of that unfold. Another great fine that came out of that was a paper by Dr. David Spergel, who all of you guys have probably heard of by now. He's the chairman of the UAP study effort by NASA. Well, well, before he was announced or even became or probably was asked to do such a thing. He had written a paper that from my view, had never been released publicly before about UAP. And that also came out in the FOIA

request. So I'm going to be doing more of a deep dive video in that I've already highlighted some of those documents on this channel. But to go back to the super chats, that's what it goes towards that bill for that alone was just shy of about $400. So it was just one case, the next go around. And I'll have more on this soon. I expect the bill to be higher. The case only took me

through about June or July of last year. So there has been now another year and a half, which will include all of the material on the run up to and then depending upon when some of this is processed. The NASA UAP effort as it stands right now, that next case, I envision will likely have more material with a bigger bill. So the Super Chat, everything that you guys give goes right to that. So didn't mean to get long winded. But I

also like to show you guys I really appreciate it. And that's why all of you benefit from it. And I literally do show the receipts just so you know, I'm not making it up. On the on the NASA page, you'll see the receipt for the $400. So you know when they say you show the receipts, I literally do that for you guys. So thank you for all of those who have done the super chats. I see some more coming up here in the chat. So I'll I'll definitely get to those. I just want to get to as

many questions and comments as I can. Richard Wolff Richard, thank you. Thank you John, for all the info on your hard work. We really do appreciate it. Thank you Richard. I do appreciate your support of the channel thank you and forgive the pauses This is a huge chat with all all the people talking right now. So try and get through the video or excuse me get through to the questions how Hi John, where's this explanation slash video analysis proven go fast was only

traveling at 30 miles an hour? That's a That's a great question. And hold on. I just shut my window. There it is. I'm gonna pull this back up. For those who may have joined late, one of the videos referred to as go fast. That's when you're asking right because I got a confused before when I was talking about gimbal and go fast appears to show an object moving in immense speed but in an analysis by the military says that it is an illusion created by the angle of observation

against water. According to Pentagon calculations, the object is moving only about 30 miles per hour. So where is that? It's a great question, Stephen. We don't know. It. It insinuates from the New York Times that either in the classified world in the classified setting, per their sub headline, or in the public report, let's say that their sources, the New York Times the sources have some knowledge

about what's going to be in the public report. Maybe they will publish it, then I'm not saying that it's a they did a video analysis. And maybe I just misread, so analysis of the video, not necessarily a video of the analysis. I don't know what we'll see. But my guess is, if that's what they're gonna do, they will destroy, you know, what has circulated in the public realm now for five years or so. And they're just going to

say, you know, this is easily explainable. So if they do explain it, hopefully, they will have something that is verifiable, that there's some type of math or some type of something that got them to that conclusion. Now, for those who might say, well, it could be classified. So they'll just give the the summary why I don't believe that that will be true. And that they'll be able to release everything is, according to them the go fast video, in how it leaked, but then later

was officially released. It is the only version that exists. So there is nothing else that they can add, according to them unless they change that tune. But according to them, we have what they have. So if they're doing math calculations, visual imagery, tweaking whatever goes into their analyses, what they can do, they can show us, I don't believe there's any classified analysis software that they can put this in where they can't show us. So that likely won't be a video

breakdown, show and tell. But if they can maybe show some type of a report, or analysis, I think that that would go a long way. Doesn't mean all endorse it. But at least we'll have something that we can verify. All right. I mean, Michael Harkness if we keep eating the BS, they've been feeding us, then they will keep feeding it to us. Everybody always forgets this has been happening for decades. Hello, before any of us could even fly. You're right,

Michael. I don't think everybody though, buys that hook, line and sinker. So I don't think that at all. But I think it then is going to come down to the media, will people like Julian Barnes go beyond their reporting. And I don't fault him for reporting on the government stance. I don't claim to be a journalist. I don't tout to being a journalist. But I like to follow those standards when I do writing. And that being said, I

like in what he's going through right now. To what I go through, if I publish a statement by let's say, Susan golf, and I can't tell you the vitriol that comes along with it. Like how could you publish? Susan golf? Well, publishing something isn't an endorsement. And when you're doing a story on something, and Susan Goff is the voice for the Pentagon, how do you not do that, then you become just a biased journalist, that you have

to go there. So if his job here was to essentially cover the stance of the US government leading up to this next UAP report, I won't fault him for that. If the if the report comes out, and and and, again, lays the claim that a lot of these are foreign surveillance systems and trash. I'm not going to

follow Julian Barnes for that, or the New York Times. And I'll stress again, like I pointed out early on in this broadcast, you're taught you're looking at somebody who literally has torn apart some of the New York Times reporting on this very topic, but in the same respect, if he's accurate here, I'm not blaming him or the New York Times. It's the US government. So based on evidence, armed with evidence, let's go back at the US government in the military and counter what they claim. But if

if you go after the journalist, I mean, that's silly. If they're just again, reporting on what they're reporting on there, they're there. They're taking a story and showing you what the government is essentially gonna say. So is there a bias and Julian Barnes's reporting sure I'm we can look at some of his word choices and stuff like that fine. I mean, I that I really don't care. About because again, facts stand on their own. So you

can have a bias journalist. But as long as they're reporting the facts, you can at least zero those out with this, if this is the stance of the US government stopped with the name calling of Julian Barnes and the New York Times, you know, let's just figure out what the government is going to say on Monday or whenever that report comes out, and then go from there. If the report comes out on Monday, and I want to say this, too, because

I don't think I have. If the report comes out on Monday and completely contradicts Julian Barnes here, you better believe that I will absolutely challenge that. And go hey, man, like what's, what's up with that? Probably not those words or tone, but I will absolutely reach out and say, hey, you know, you reported all this stuff based on your your anonymous sources. The report really doesn't reflect the same

tone, what's up with that and kind of go from there. That's what I did with Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kane, I got their feedback on the removal of Senator Harry Reid along with some of the other corrections in their article. Again, in the interest of fairness, what happened? What why, well, how did this happen? Why is it going on? Same here, I'm not going to trash this until there's reason to trash it. I'm also not going to endorse it until there's reason to endorse it. It just is

what it is. The New York Times despite horrible having a horrible track record on some stories. It's still the New York Times and I wouldn't doubt the Julian Barnes has the sources that he claims. I hate the fact that they're anonymous, but it is what it is I got to deal with what's in front of me. So there you go. Jack O'Neill John now that it is likely to be confirmed its foreign drones. Do you think the Elizondo melon flavor graves etc crowd crowd will quiet down. Graves on the

Joe Rogan podcast sounded unconvincing. So, first of all, I think a lot of those names that you mentioned kind of have quieted down a little bit. Christopher Mellon, I would argue, has seen a little bit more in the last month or two, doing some interviews. But that was likely all stemming from the appearance that he did overseas at a conference. Louise Elizondo has largely disappeared, at least from his main Twitter account. You know, he said that that was planned. So I'm not really sure.

I mean, he has surfaced a couple of times to address what we'll just simply label as drama on the social media platform, which I'm always surprised to see, which is kind of silly. Oh, I'm seeing some spam in there. Sorry, for the YouTubers that are seeing that. You know, he's he's largely disappeared from the conversation, which is too bad. I know that it was reported he was contracting on classified programs not confirmed to be UAP. I know that that's the assumption by many. But for us,

SpaceForce that came out. I've been pushing pretty regularly to try and, you know, find out what what is he doing? But it's not too surprising. They're just not giving me that or anybody else. I know that I'm not the only one pushing for that, because everybody wants to know, is he doing any UAP work for the Space Force? And we just don't We don't have that answer. So that said, maybe he's busy doing that, and maybe we'll see him surface again. I the first part of your what you're saying there

that it's likely to be confirmed as foreign drones? I don't think that that's the catch all? I really don't I think that that's part of the conversation. But I don't think that's a catch all. I don't think that excuse me, I don't think that that what we're dealing with is primarily going to be foreign drones. And again, I want to stress like that's absolutely part of the conversation there likely are going to be cases that are

foreign drones that can be solved with that. There will probably be cases with classified technology that will likely be lied to about half. We don't know what this is. But in reality, they really do. Yes, they lie about stuff like that area. 51 is a prime example the time hasn't changed when it comes to national security. So if it's in their best interest to lie, I truly believe that they will lie. So it's not a

catch all. It's part of the conversation. And depending upon this report, will will that crowd you know, go quiet down I just with what I've already said I think I think they'll just kind of keep pushing forward. I do think Christopher Mellon has a very genuine I think he has a genuine interest in this and the

transparency to go along with it. But recently saw some comments by him that made me scratch my head and question that a little bit but I still want to be a positive outlook on Christopher Mellon and his interest in transparency when it comes to this flavor has kind of largely disappeared, I haven't seen him do something in quite some time. And Ryan Graves, obviously just on the Joe Rogan podcast, which is probably going

to light up everybody to contact him for interviews. So I think some of these names you likely may not hear from again, but we're already seeing that while others will probably stick around in the conversation and, and continue on. Alright, scrolling through here. See some repeat questions that I think I've already answered? Bruce Wayne, Batman in the house, Bruce, it's always good to see you. Do you think our government actually knows what

this is? Well, it's a million dollar question, Bruce. And to be honest with you, I think that there are different answers. And I believe comfortably, that I could say that the military and government doesn't have them all. I believe that there still is a mystery to some of this. So with that, does that instantly mean it's alien? No. Again, I just always say that in case some people want to misconstrue what I say not you, Bruce, but others that may not be familiar with with kind of my stance on a

lot of things. But I think that there's there's mystery enough for the government and military to put money into this, I think that there is a level of of mystery, I think in the same respect, there is a counter intelligence value. So they do know what it is they do know what the bottom line is, but they're going to use it, they're going to use it to their advantage. They're going to use it for counterintelligence purposes against their enemies. And I think that they will use

it against the American people. That doesn't mean it's a malicious use, but rather have it as a tool to shield other things, because I think those classified platforms would be involved in a part of this conversation. So long winded way of saying I think it's a little bit of yes in and know that, that they do to a point know what part of this is, but they also have an aspect of it that they don't. So hopefully that answered your question there Batman.

Project Monarch, Monarch truth seeker. Have you ever gotten anything on Project Monarch? Give me one second here. And let me before I misspeak. So on quick glance at the site, because I use that site, just like everyone else does for reference. Monarch is ringing a bell in my head, but I don't want to take a guess because I don't know off the top of my head. I looked for a page on it. I don't have one specifically. But let me get back to you Mark.

And, and see. Writing it down. So I don't forget. And let me see. I again, don't want to take a guess. I think I know what you're talking about. But it quick glance on my side. I don't see that I've posted anything publicly on it. Wolfie 250 Thank you. Would you encourage prior service members to reach out to you about potential FOIA ideas, ie people who are part of the 2015 tr Strike Group? Yes, absolutely. I'm not interested in classified information, those in the past that have reached

out to me know that. And I always make that clear, when people do reach out. I'm an advocate for transparency, but

respect secrecy. So I don't want anybody spilling that. But absolutely, the reason why people should reach out and even if it's not me, just anybody that can help is that getting that verifiable information, whether it be from a tip, or whether it be to support a pub public story, so if they wanted to come out, or they already came out, if they have certain details that potentially can be utilized for a FOIA request? Absolutely, I support that 150,000% I have always tried to

pay attention. This is why I communicate on a lot of different social media platforms to kind of pick up on people that do have inside knowledge to appoint I think there's majority of people that have quote unquote, inside knowledge have nothing of the sort that that we call them LARPers la RP, live action role players or role playing games that they kind of LARP this that that they go on there and pretend to know things and you'll see that I in my opinion, most prevalent on

Twitter, so you have that aspect to try and weed through all of the BS when it comes along with those types that are involved in this conversation. cuz they're just, you know, they're playing a game they want to have people think that they're someone that they're not. I think this has been proven quite a few times. But in the same respect, there are a select few that actually

do have knowledge. They're not here to tell you about aliens, and that Roswell was real, and they're blown over blown open some huge, you know, secret, but rather, they have inside knowledge enough to kind of tip Give, give tips or give pointers, and I always try and pay attention for stuff like that. And stuff has periodically panned out over the years. This isn't somebody with, like, inside knowledge, insider knowledge in the way that I think a lot of people think of

it, but rather on Reddit. I think it was about a year ago, somebody had posted an FAA UFO sighting. And there was a connection there. Well, if anything to do with the FAA, something's FOIA bowls, and I went after it. And sure enough, got the cockpit recordings, air traffic control log stuff like that verified. Yeah, something was actually seen, it later

turned out to be Starlink. But but the entire point here is that when you pay attention, you can start going after things that has now happened a few other times, where I have cases that I don't believe are Starlink, with the FAA, and hopefully those will, we'll come out with something. So you always try and pay attention to stuff like that, that are posted

not necessarily directly at you, but are out there. It's just unfortunate that the majority of what's out there is just bunk and people essentially playing a game and wanting others to think hey, you know, I'm at the Department of Defense, I work in intelligence. I'm this I'm that. And it's literally not anything close to that. And it's just, I'm sorry, most of the people and I think I would comfortably say most all of them. Very few

very few. There are a couple but very few would come out and start using social media and start saying I'm why work in counterintelligence I, I'm, I'm in the Pentagon as we speak. I don't think that that's how that works. I think that some are out there. And again, I know there are it's, yeah, there's some, but the majority of people making those claims now it's, it's all bunk. So going back to your question, yeah, please reach out. I'm happy to help when it comes to the

unclassified stuff. Forgive me just going through, man, I think I'm way behind. So forgive me guys. I'm doing my best here. And Brian, with super sticker support. Thank you. I truly appreciate that. Why do you think this is from div D IV? Why do you think the do E or Department of Energy hasn't been asked to provide

information. And I'll be honest with you and say, I believe that they have and I believe that that they are going to be part of the conversation to a point I think they're going to pull quite a bit. In their resources reach out to everybody, the DOE in different offices has UAP related information, some of which were were connected to a nuclear installation, Cooper nuclear facility is one that sticks out off the top of my head, that that was a brand new case never been revealed before.

Security Guard saw multiple UFOs, two different nights, multiple witnesses, visual observations, all sorts of stuff on into this. So I'm looking at the report, I pulled it off screen for you guys. But even though the DoD is not contributing to the report last year, I think enough has transpired since then, to probably get them involved in the conversation. If after Monday, if the report comes out, and they have a page like this that lists all of the

contributors to the report. If if it has that and DOE is still not in it. Then I then I'd love to revisit your question. If it's in there, though. I wouldn't be surprised because again, I think they're really trying to give the optics that they are reaching out to everybody. But it was yeah, it was a little bit surprising that last year, it was not it was not something that they that they contributed to, meaning the DOE Oh, I see there's some repeats so Okay, so I'm probably wildly

behind to 12 Alright, so I'm getting there. 15 minutes or so hopefully I'm not skipping too many here. Kay cage Snyder. John, did you get the follow up on the UFO logo taken down? Kate I'm going to be honest with you off the top of my head that doesn't sound familiar, but I will definitely look for For those who don't know what Kate's talking about, I did a video breaking down the UFO that appeared on the on the seal for

the NIMH aviation, and then later disappeared. Kind of a cool story, I don't really have a full answer to advocate, I'll look for the follow up, feel free to email me all the contact forms on the blackbaud.com go directly to me. Let me block this spammer if I haven't already. Sorry, guys, it's how you know you're getting somewhere when you get completely obliterated with spam on there. I do have a couple of moderators on YouTube, I'm not sure if they're here today. I

don't coordinate with them. So it's kind of a crapshoot on if they can help me out. And I always always, I'm so thankful when they do. B Jones, thank you for a balanced report and presentation, why aren't the pilots engaging the drones? Well, thank you for the kind words, I'm glad you enjoyed it, why aren't they engaging the drones? To be honest with you, I don't know if we can comfortably say that yet. There's a lot of things that go into when a pilot engages, there are rules of

engagement, especially when you're in a training. You know, like a training program, if you're on US soil, you know, you don't necessarily start engaging everything, you got to wait for orders. And again, it kind of all ties back to a rules of engagement, that there are certain rules for them to arm a missile to fire back to engage to chase to, to alter course,

and so on. But I can't say that we have or have not, I think that there's a lot of cases here that have not seen the light of day, we've brushed over a couple for the public report last year. Obviously, we're aware of a couple others in the hearing. But those were like, you know, quick food past a cockpit. And then the most humorous part of that UFO UAP hearing was them trying to like stop the frame that the UAP object was, you

know, captured on on video. But again, they you know, they struggled and they were doing this for a couple of minutes from what I remember. But my whole point with that is a lot of these encounters, they're not sitting there watching them for 20 minutes to engage. But rather, they're just very quick. But I'm going to again, stress that we have not seen everything. So we can't really say they have or have not engaged until they start opening up those files. But I would likely say that that

may not happen. And the reason is, is when you get into engagement, you now are potentially getting into a situation with an act of war. So if you have a Chinese drone, F 18 sees it engages it even fires at it. If that's Chinese technology, you're talking about firing on another country that we're not at war at war with. So there's a lot of factors, again, that go into these these types of things, and very, very hard to answer that simply because we don't have all of the all of the

files, nor will we likely. Oh, I love comments like these. I have to pull it up, resonate. The FOIA is not going to tell you much blacked out pages are often misleading. Oh, man, I'm the wrong person to say this too. And here's why. Even though I profiled the blacked out redacted pages, I can tell you some of the biggest discoveries to support that UAP are something that we should investigate come from FOIA. It

didn't come from the UAP hearing. It didn't come from the public report, but rather through FOIA and the MDR process. When you look at the classified version of the UAP report. There was much more to show there. Now granted, there were redactions. But when you start looking at the revelations that you can sometimes get from those redactions and the information that's not redacted. That all is thanks to FOIA. All of the documents through decades of documents not allegedly

existing about UAP, it was FOIA that showed us they do. It was also FOIA that showed that there is technology here being displayed by both instrumentation and visual observation, that defy explanation at this point. That doesn't mean alien, but it does mean that that we have no

explanation for it. That's thanks to FOIA. Those didn't get handed out by the CIA, but rather it was it was FOIA that showed us that I can only speak for myself obviously here but when you talk about interest that doesn't go away with with irrefutable evidence, it was FOIA that brought me that interest. It wasn't books by people. It wasn't somebody claiming an experience. It wasn't Luis Elizondo, no offense to his fans out there, but rather it was the documentation

and the evidence that came out through FOIA. And it wasn't blacked out across the board, you look at the 1976 arann incident, and the fact that it wasn't blacked out at all. And you look at that case, and you realize how extraordinary that event really was, again, not to beat the dead horse, not saying it's alien, but rather whatever it was, was something that to this day, has no adequate explanation, that to this day,

no one can definitively identify. And it was the NSA that produced additional information that was at one time classified, showing that the United States Air Force captain saw that case and said, This is something pretty rare in in a pilot's life, but it's something that we should look at. It was FOIA that brought that out. So you look at what FOIA really has done. And it's not just the redactions that tell the story. It's an extraordinary tool that is highly underrated,

to people out there. And I think that the underrated label comes from and I'm not speaking at you directly, but sometimes comes from people that in the same breath of trashing FOIA, are waiting for the government to hand them the answers, that they're saying that the politicians that somehow are always honest, are the ones pushing for answers. And that will get us what we what we are looking for, and FOIA will not.

But when you look at how the politicians operate outside of the UAP arena, what's really fascinating, and I just saw this a couple of weeks ago, again, reinforcing this belief that Rand Paul, Senator Rand Paul was trying to get information. This is unrelated to UAP. But trying to get information on something and could not as a sitting US senator, what do you think he turned to when the agency he was trying to get information was stonewalling him? FOIA. So the sitting senator couldn't get

what he needed, he turned to FOIA to get it. That is not indicative. The FOIA is not going to tell you something that's indicative that it is a incredibly powerful tool that even a sitting senator with the power that they have, when they cannot extract information because they are a sitting senator, if they can't, FOIA is what they turn to. So my whole point, don't trash it, because history and evidence shows you should. So hopefully, that gave you a little bit. All right,

hold on. I'm catching up here. I'm catching up. All right, RJ W el Singa. Are there factions in US Intel organizations fighting over disclosure slash secrecy? That's the rumor. I think that that always with any topic, you're going to have some kind of difference of opinion on what should or should not be classified or declassified. So in that respect, I think that you you will have that infighting and those factions involved. So no disagreement

there. But that's just conjecture. There's nothing verifiable that we can see like, this team is fighting this team to try and get UFO information out there while the other is trying to hold it back. No real evidence of that. Or at least not yet. Just rumors so won't be surprising that you have that level of debate but not necessarily proof that there's these warring factions on the inside. Alright, so good. Finally some blocked spammers. And sorry about that guys.

Oh, I don't want to put you on the spot. But Aaron, you have nothing to worry about. Thank you for your help by the way of moderating the channel now we all have work and jobs. Hopefully you didn't get offended by me saying that sometimes you guys aren't here. Please I never tell you when I'm doing this. I just trust you guys and gave you the mod

privileges whenever you are here. So you guys are the best that to help out so thank you for that all these comments I was getting a kick out of Justin I assume you're asking about what comments from Elon the ones that are making me scratch my my head a little bit. There was one let me see if I can find it real quick. Again, these live shows sometimes again, I'm kind of flipping around trying to find certain things so let me see if I can find none. We're gonna have to cut it a little bit short.

All no Missy depends on how much he posts on. I believe it was Grant Cameron that posted this. And I'm not finding a quick glance. Tell you what, I will find it. Yeah. Try one more thing. And for those of you who can hear sonar dog back there, she is still kicking. Here it is. Oh, come on. Alright, let me share this. Sure I'm not sharing anything, man. I have to use what's called knitter.net. For those of you who don't know what this is, I just want to make

sure no, nothing popped up on this. I use this because it allows me to search a little bit easier if you're not familiar with with knitter dotnet. So it's kind of like a way to search across Twitter, you could do it on Twitter itself. But this is a little bit easier interface. Okay, so grant Cameron, everybody thinks it's about disclosure. So here is I don't think I can get it to zoom in. But let me see. It's a little bit better. So this is from Mellon's. Real recent

interview, I think it's called exopolitics. Forgive me, I forget exactly the the name of the show. But he asks, so all the information that will be collected will be classified. What's the benefit for the rest of the world besides the US, Christopher Mellon, it's not being done for the benefit of the world. Follow up, it's being done for the benefit of the United States. He says it's been done for national security of the United States. So for me, it didn't, I want to pull the full

interview and see the context. But this is what I was talking about earlier that there were some kind of veering away from that transparency, because, again, there could be additional context here that I'm just kind of missing. But even grant Cameron thinks like, oh, a lot of this is about disclosure. And I think that we're seeing this from not only Christopher Mellon, but a couple of others, that we assume that that's what they've been going for transparency, leading to a

disclosure of some kind. But I've long argued it doesn't seem like that it doesn't seem like that at all, actually. And in these types of comments, this was just it was just weird the way that it was worded. So that's what I was briefly alluding to, but at least here's a little bit more of that. But in, in full fairness to Christopher Mellon, maybe there is more context in the broader scope. So I definitely want to,

you know, get in and dissect that a little bit. I just think that there's some things involved in this conversation that are unanswered. And I think that certain people are viewed in certain ways, and are given a label that isn't accurate. But the internet kind of takes over and creates a character out of a real person. And the character isn't accurate. And so I hope that makes sense. But I think that certain people, again, are just kind of viewed as doing certain things or having certain

views. But when you really like look into it, and really dissect what's going on, and what they say and what they've done in the past. It doesn't really bear that out. So yeah, I hope that makes sense. Like sometimes it's hard to explain, I just think that there's different faces for people out there. And I think that sometimes it's not even that they're trying to have the different face. But rather, the internet just kind of takes over

and creates the hero. And I think that that whole LARP thing that I was talking about about it being a game, when you look at that conversation, I'm not saying this is true for everybody. But when you look at the conversation, it's very true that there are characters here that there are good guys and bad guys, that there are the true heroes in the story. But sometimes, maybe those those labels aren't deserved. And I think that that that it's the creation of those kind of alter

egos, that doesn't help the conversation either. And I'm not saying that that is by the fault of either Christopher Mellon or Luis Elizondo, whomever that's been mentioned here, but rather, it just happens and people assume certain parts of the puzzle, and then to them, it becomes true. And then they'll assume other certain parts of the puzzle and then to them, it becomes true. And in the end, you have somebody that is highly regarded, and even though they may ish, and should be highly

regarded. The reason why the regarded isn't really accurate. So you have kind of that, again, multiple characters, multiple faces for multiple people. And that's nothing new by the way. Do you think there could be a new propulsion system that requires weapons grade uranium and plutonium? And without these, you can't reproduce the required energy? Wow. pugger 21? That's a killer question. You know, I will be honest, I don't have the background to start talking

about advanced propulsion systems. I've received quite a few documents through FOIA. Even Dr. Eric Davis wrote some on advanced propulsion systems that I've got on the black vault, that you're more than welcome to read. But I just would not be qualified to start getting into that. I only laugh because I just don't have that background. So there's no way I can even pretend to answer that. Pressing, I'm not a LARPer. I've certainly had real things

happen. And Preston, I wasn't likely referring to you in this. And that's what's hard. That's what gets uncomfortable about certain aspects of these conversations. And I'm glad I stumbled on your comment. No way do I want people to walk away from from this channel or the show thinking that I think everybody's playing a game? I don't? Sadly, there are people that are some do it for self gratification that they want to sit there and pretend that you know that they're some kind of,

you know, secret government person that knows a lot. You don't but I'll tweet about it. There are others that Yeah, I think may claim experiences that they know they didn't have. And then there are ones that actually have had experiences. And that's where the conversation gets uncomfortable, because it's the same thing about labeling UAP and trying to define what it is. There's no across the board answer. So the across the board answer with go into the LARPer. That doesn't

describe everybody. The problem, though, is that it describes enough people that make it an issue, it makes it part of the conversation, something that we have to deal with. And, and so again, to your comments, I hope you didn't think that that's

what I meant. But on the contrary, it is stories that likely I don't know your backstory, and I don't know you, but it's likely what you've experienced, that I'm more interested in rather that person who wants to sell you something, because somebody is telepathically sending them messages about something, they can't tell you details of it. But if you buy their book for three easy installments of 3999, you too can unlock the secrets, or pay $6,000 to go camping. And

I'll show you the secrets of the universe. So you can communicate with aliens. Those are the people that I think are problematic to the conversation, which hurts people like yourself that have had genuine experiences that are not here for fame and fortune. But rather you want to understand, and that's where I get fired up about it simply because the drowning out of the important voices is happening. And I believe that the and that's when it comes to experiences in the

same respect. The genuine interest from a lot of people in the public is starting to be drowned out in a different way. People getting discouraged is exactly in my opinion, if there is this massive cover up, which I believe if they create such a muddy pit of mess, it will get a lot of people to just give up and quit and go away and forget the conversation because they're

so frustrated that in a way is drowning out them as well. And that's where I get fired up because we don't need that we need those voices involved we need the people that have the genuine interest that want to know more, we shouldn't get to a point where we get so frustrated we just say forget it and go away. And also we need those that have had the genuine experiences that aren't trying to put a price tag on it that aren't trying to you know sell you something in exchange for

for cosmic changing information. But rather they should be a part of this and not be hindered in the process. So hopefully that explained a little bit more I'm glad I saw your comment because it gave me a chance to clarify Alright give me I'm still catching up here all right, RJ W L singer again do you feel Do you feel you are really getting closer to the truth over the years hope so. I'm not sure if that was directed to me. But if it was

I'll take a stab at it anyway. Yes, I believe I believe whatever the truth may be I'm not here to pretend that I that I know it. But every document every photograph, every video, every letter, every experience, every redaction every phone call that I get it all gets us closer. I don't think there's there's The ability for me to one day ever tell you what the truth is, I think a lot of people have to understand that the truth sometimes is, is something that they're going to

have to figure out for themselves. I'm not here to tell you what to believe, or what the truth is, I can just tell you what the evidence is. At the end, it's kind of up to you all, but it's to decide for yourselves. But when it comes to getting closer to whatever that is, absolutely, I mean, I honestly think every step you take, you get closer to it. Where we go backwards is when people give up, where we go backwards is where people are drowned out. And that's that's

one thing that I always advocate to stay away from. But we are getting there. Hopefully. Something big is coming. Yes. I have a hurtin if I've had a nickel for every time I heard something big is coming. Some more tweets just today, like oh, just wait, guys, big things are coming. I have no idea. Robert George, Ugh, why am I never notified until the end of John's live content. So frustrating? Robert? Well, I'm frustrated too, for you. Just make sure that the notifications are

turned on. If you guys are watching on other social media platforms, just know YouTube is definitely the way to watch this, simply because that is 100%, the busiest chat part of this, which is I know what a lot of the draw is for these live streams. So just go to the black vault.com/live, that'll bounce you to the YouTube channel and make sure you turn the notifications on that way you guys can get notified. The minute I click the camera on, it sends, you know, sends a message

to you guys that I'm that I'm live. Let me see. Do is indicated in the con Congress annual bill of UA PTF. Yeah, I off the top of my head I I can't really keep all the congressional language, you know, verbatim in my head. But I know that as they reform a lot of their processes, especially since the June report of last year, you know, I'd be surprised

if DoD wasn't in the conversation. Mars, first off, thank you for the support of the channel, I am surprised that people are not worried about the thought of one of these hidden programs making a breakthrough and using this newfound technology for themselves. The amount of power if real can corrupt the best person? That's true. So when you say so I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this where the classified program finds a breakthrough and

they use it for themselves? Are you talking about a rogue group of people using that technology for themselves? Are you talking about America as a whole that find something and utilizes it for themselves? If it's the latter, I mean, I think that that is a part of this conversation that if they are reverse engineering, something, whatever that may be whomever made the technology, but if they have this mystery, this this technology that they capture, it's unidentified, but then

later, reverse engineer it and exploit it. That is something that I think they will do. And I think that it's something that they will likely exploit. And I'll show you what I mean by that, to kind of prove the point. This is a security classification guide. It's something I've talked about this on this channel quite a bit. But when we talk about the technology, and what is there, let me bring it up on the screen. This is essentially what defines the secrecy behind UAP.

This was a big score. I've said it before I'll say it again, I think this is one of the more important documents that I've gotten Mars, I'm going to go ahead and take your comments off screen just so it can. So I can view it here. Oh, come on. Here we go. This defines the secrecy behind UAP. And you can see here intelligence collection, exploitation, analysis and products, this word exploitation is up for interpretation. But why I wanted to pull this up is that whatever exploitation means

in the context of this, it is being attributed to UAP. So they are exploiting it to some level what that is, I don't know, to your question about using the technology for themselves. Again, that's where I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that, but at least I wanted to show you that when it comes to exploitation and UAP they are doing so and then how they kind of break all that down as all classified. Be one is now Shanell security. So they don't want to tell you how they're

exploiting it. But they are. And that is something that we have to remember that no matter what the root of this is, they are exploiting this technology somewhere, some somehow and in some way, how that is I'm not sure. When we find out Monday, I highly doubt it. Oh, this is always a fun topic. I won't go into it too much here. If there's one species of aliens, there must be many, many. Yep. Absolutely. It's always fun to, to talk about stuff like that. Alien science must be far, far

beyond all ours. Yeah, if if they're coming to our neck of the woods, they've got to be a million plus Headstart, which then brings up that question, would they care about talking to us, but we'll save that for another day. We'll be interesting to see how Leslie Kane react to this. Absolutely. Obviously, this video was more of a hot take and kind of a quick put together of what's going on with the New York

Times. But yeah, I'd love for her to comment. I mean, I think it's important, although I again, feel that there were a lot of holes in that story. And it was kind of a mess. If she truly feels that they vetted it. And the editorial board at New York Times, essentially endorsed the publishing of it. I know, from a journalistic standpoint, they are putting the claim on the claimant. So it's Dr. Eric Davis. But I mean, you can't just go the New York Times and say whatever without them going.

Okay, well, we need to verify something, regardless of if them if they print that they have to verify it in some way for them to feel comfortable to put their masthead above it. So what's going on here? You know, was there any type of vetting did they have free? Free ranges do whatever they want? I don't know. But I think that that the hopefully that they will comment, party boy Patti name checks out based on your on your comment, John's drinking straight vodka. Just kidding. I

wish. But no, I don't drink on the air because I'll say something stupid. Or I should say stupid earlier than what I always say. I'm always flooding up something. But as you can probably tell by that, not a vodka drinker. Oh, I thought somebody was gonna come into my door. That is sometimes the joys of the black vault live streaming is that you never know what's gonna bus oops, bus through that door right there. One of the first times I did a live stream

my wife came busting through she thought I was dead. Because she was texting. I didn't text back. I didn't have my phone. Now I learned to keep my phone near me. But I was doing a live stream on the first behind the scenes. I think it was. And long story short. She kept texting. I wasn't texting back. She thought something happened. She comes busting through that door. Are you okay? And I was live on the air and there was quite a few people watching. So one of those things you never know. But

anyway, no vodka. That's that's a Scotch bottle right there. But I don't drink it on there. Let me see. We're gonna have to wind this up. Pretty quick here. But I'll take some more. Frank's legato. Thank you so much for that. I think the key question on this topic that to my knowledge hasn't yet been addressed? Have UAP been detected in space? So from? Okay, so there's a couple of ways to address this when it

comes to an official version of giving an answer to that. I don't think that there's been any kind of Yes, UAP have been detected in space. But there have been numerous cases of NASA film footage and stuff like that, that have been that have been captured. Sorry about that. This is another joy of life. Okay, so I'm gonna have to wrap this up pretty quick. Sorry, we have a sick kid, sadly. So I'm gonna have to break it. She's okay. My daughter, though four had to come home early from

school yesterday. So forgive me for that. Little sidetrack. Daddy emergency. So, let me go back to your question. So there's no official version of that UAP in space. But I can say that there have been those numerous videos and NASA encounters that lack any explanation whatsoever. So that is something that arguably to your question, you can say yes, I mean, it's unidentified, there are objects that are obscene

flying around, you know, STS 48 is one of them. STS 75 is another 48 Were the ones with everything was going all over the place. And arguably some people argue there was a space weapon that was fired. 75 was the tether incident where these allegedly big big objects were seen by going passing behind this long tether that broke. So all of those types of cases you know, they stack up. And of course, you can dissect them one by one, and try and get to it. But when it comes to an official

word not yet, will that be in the next one? Is that why NASA is involved? Will they come out with something? I you know, who knows? I'm not really sure. But but we will definitely see Gary for the vodka fund. Great job, John. Thank you. I appreciate that. I really do appreciate it, Gary. Thank you. And with that, I do have to I do have to end this. Red Panda. Thank you for this. Cheers, John. Hopefully the report is better than the New York Times article, any recommendations on how to

prevent Condon committee to? That's a great question. And we are going to have to probably shelve that for when the report is out. Let's see the tone of it. Let's see where we're going to go with it, and see if that's where we're headed. I do recommend if you missed it to go check out the article I wrote in 2020. And then the video that I did early in 2021, where I talked about that road to the Condon committee, so I hope not.

But is there anything we can do? Probably not. John, is there any way for you to reach out to Lou Elizondo, and make him part of your team as you work to make the government more transparent on the UFO topic? Sadly, some stuff happened behind the scenes that that likely would not happen. I generally don't have a team, in fact, ever. You're looking at the entire black vault. I don't have anything personally against Lou Elizondo,

in fact, I liked the guy. But sadly, some stuff was said behind the scenes that he decided to make public that we're, you know, not entirely the the team in the team spirit, I guess, you can say. But anyway, the ball is in his court. And, you know, he wants to chat. I'm always here. But some stuff was said that isn't cool. And done. All right. I think that that caught me up. But guys, I'm so sorry that I can't believe how many messages were on here. So I

apologize. I know I missed something. Well, over 500 At the peak, we're watching at any given time during the stream. That's awesome. I love seeing those numbers. Hopefully, I came through with you guys for the information, y'all learned at least one or two things. But I do appreciate it. And that said, I will update you guys, when that report drops. I'm thinking about doing if the timing works, a live stream when that happens.

And we'll go go from there. Just kind of see what happens. I'm sure there's going to be a lot that goes down from all sorts of corners once that thing drops. But I guess time will tell. That said Have a wonderful weekend, everybody. Thank you so much for joining me on a Friday afternoon. little over two hours, actually. So for those who have been here through the whole the whole two hours, thank you for that. For those who

joined thereafter, really do appreciate your support. Of course, all of the super chats, as I mentioned, go right back into the channel. And if you watch the post version, and it's not live, there are comments in order the I forget what they call it, but like a comment where you can support the channel as well. So I try and find those and answer any more questions that I have. Feel free to put the questions that I that

I missed in the comments below. And of course, the biggest, biggest help is to just liking and sharing these videos, spreading the word. let other people know this channel exists. That's it. Thank you guys. I really do appreciate it. And you have a wonderful weekend.