Ep. #119 – April 2023 UAP Public Hearing: A “Deep Dive” Analysis and Highlight Reel

me. While I just see numerous paper trails to follow and uncover where those paper trails lead is anyone's guess. But I will be here to bring it to you. Join me as I dissect last week's hearing to the Subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities of the US Senate Committee on ARM services. We will hear the highs, the lows, and maybe what's next. Stay tuned, you're about to journey inside the black vault. That's right, everybody. As always, thank you so much for

tuning in. And taking this journey inside the black vault with me. I am John Greenewald, Jr, creator of the black vault.com. And today we are dissecting last week's UAP hearing, many of you are probably let down because you wanted to have some kind of unbelievable evidence presented to us there was a lot of hype about this hearing. A lot of YouTubers and social media personalities, they were all

hyping it up. Some were saying that well, here we are taking another step to disclosure, while other ones were on the opposite end of the scale. They were saying, Look, don't get your hopes up. Because you're probably not going to see much wherever you were on the spectrum. At the end of the day, of course, it's going to be a letdown anybody that has interest in UFOs. Even if you're a genuine skeptic, but care

about the evidence, you're going to be let down. The problem with the hearing is there wasn't a whole lot that we didn't know with few exceptions. And that's what I'm going to go through in this deep dive. These deep dives I know are not for everybody. They can be long. In fact, I don't know how long this video will end up. But more likely than not, it will be longer than

the actual hearing itself. So what's the point? For me, I've noticed that a lot of you not everybody, but a lot of you like to not necessarily watch that raw hearing, because let's face it, it can get tedious and boring. But also, it's a way for all of us to just talk about it. I love your comments that you put in the channel. Anything that I say in these videos, when I label it an opinion or obviously speculate. I don't claim to be right, I never have. I don't have all the answers.

But what I like to do is throw stuff out there for you guys in these deep dives, those that like to sit through them. And then hear that feedback in return because I always learned something from all of you as well. So hopefully I can offer you kind of my perspective based on dealing with the government for so many years. But also, I'm interested to hear from you. So if you're watching on YouTube, there's obviously the comments

section. So make sure that you place your comments. And while you're down there, a pretty big help to this channel is to make sure you click on the thumbs up button if you feel that it's worth it. And make sure you're subscribed to the channel. If you're watching on any other platform, I stream behind the scenes shows, Facebook, Twitter, they all kind of get the stream. If you're watching on those platforms, great. I'll do this in the future. But it's definitely not getting all of

the content. So make sure you go to www dot the black vault.com/live That will bounce you to the channel that will make sure that you're notified when you turn the notifications on that is of all the future streams. And yeah, we'll we'll have a lot of fun in the future. So let's go ahead and bring up some visuals here. And let's just kind of get started. What I again I'm going to do is this deep dive analysis into the UAP hearing from my perspective, again, a lot of opinion and pure

speculation. I'll try and label those parts as such, but also play a bunch of clips for you as well. So we'll just kind of go through and hear from Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, the one witness, if you want to call him that the expert that came in he heads arrow that UFO office within the Pentagon that's investigating and identified a anomalous phenomena. At least that's the acronym of the day. Maybe a change this morning again, who

knows? But one thought before we really get rolling Something that I posted immediately on social media if you didn't notice it. And that is quite simply the attendance. The attendance was, I would say an embarrassment when it comes to

this type of an issue, not because we all love UFOs. But rather we know that the root of whatever this, this is, whatever you want to call it, foreign technology, Spy equipment, you want to call it aliens, or whatever in between, there is a national security aspect that Congress in the Senate should should worry about, like these politicians that represent us in care about our safety should have packed this room. Now, to be fair, there was a classified version of the same hearing,

just prior to the public hearing. Now, I've heard rumors, I didn't speak to the committee or staffers myself, but the rumor was that logistically, it was just better for everybody to do that, in that way. For me, I'll throw this thought out there. I think stuff like that is strategic. And here's why when you watch the last hearing, with Scott Bray and Ronald Moultrie, when they touched on things that were too sensitive. The responses were well, we can deal with that, but more in a

closed session or the classified setting. Even though we don't get the answer to the question, we know what the question was that tip that off that says, hey, wait a minute, we can't talk about this aspect. We can talk about it more in a closed session. Well, that stinks. Because we can't hear anything about it. However, we can understand what was getting into a classified territory, what was sensitive enough for them to say, hey, we can't talk about this because everybody's

listening. So we got to go in behind closed doors, with only people that have clearance. Well, sadly, we didn't have that this time. Not a single question from those senators that did show up had really anything that was sensitive, meaning Kirkpatrick didn't have to say, we have to do this in a classified setting. So that's the downside to that and whether or not that was strategic. Look, if you asked me I bet you it was because we, meaning people like me that go after that

information, know what's pushing that sensitive area. And we didn't get that in this hearing, which is an absolute letdown. But regardless, whatever the reason is, you look at all of this, let me turn a laser pointer on that. You can't see the empty seats here. Yeah, there we go. All those empty seats, all those members of the committee that didn't even bother to show up and this, these two here, Kirsten Gillibrand and Joni Ernst, don't look too incredibly thrilled in

the shot. So I mean, I only giggled because it was a little bit tedious at times to listen to the opposite end, you have the audience itself, not a whole lot of chairs in the room. And yet a lot of chairs were empty. On top of that you had people that were not from the mainstream media. There's nothing wrong with that. By the way, I want to point out my buddy over here, Dan Warren, who runs a great Tik Tok channel,

he's also on Twitter and, and so on. Great individual awesome human being kudos to him for showing up a color other a couple other people as well, that we're not part of the mainstream media. But we're there to essentially take part in this. Let's let's call it a historic event. But I don't see this back row lined with cameras. Why not? There was some cameras floating but But where's the attention? This is a pretty

important event here, a very important topic. Again, regardless of where you fall on the spectrum of what this is, but where is everybody? And that to me, is absent when you juxtapose that with the first hearing is a lot different. I saw a lot more cameras, I saw a lot more bodies, I saw a lot more attention. Now, we heard a little bit about this in

mainstream media, but not a whole lot. And I got into a lot of heat, which you know, happens a lot in my, in my neck of the woods on social media, but got a lot of heat for saying that maybe congressional interest is waning in this topic. I said this, I don't know, mid to late last year, simply because of the lack of push to get that report that was supposed to be out in 2022. Didn't come out till 2023. There was really like, no, no

one cared. And in fairness, maybe they were talking behind the scenes, but nobody came out and said, Hey, look, we know it's late. XYZ is going on. It's fine. We're familiar with the delay. On the contrary, it was just like no one cared. And that's what was the very frustrating thing. So is this evidence now that that statement is becoming more true? That not only from the other shot you have, you know, that lack of of congressional interest and the lack of senators that showed up,

but also the other side? That kudos to those two that had shown up in the room, but the mainstream media was not there. And that That's a shame, given the importance of what we're talking about and the implications behind it. One of the other broad stroke, things that I'll point out is the tone itself. I think if you're like me, it was kind of brutal and part. And I'm fascinated by this kind of stuff. And I am one of those geeks that actually watches these types of hearings.

But it felt forced to me. Now I know, scripted isn't the right word, because it literally was scripted in the beginning with opening statements, and so on and so forth. So that's not really the right way to phrase it. But forced is a way to say it for me, that he just seemed uncomfortable being there. Maybe he doesn't like cameras, maybe he doesn't like public settings. So I'm not bashing Dr. Kirkpatrick in any way

whatsoever. But all I'm saying is when you watch it, it was like, Oh, my goodness, like there was a couple parts, putting these clips together, that I would drift off, and oh, God, I didn't, I missed that. And I'd go back and I'd listen to it again. And I drift off again, going, why do you just say, go back again, and listen to it, because it was tough. Now, again, that's not meant to be insulting. But when somebody is essentially forced to be there and forced to essentially say

certain things. It's not as passionate, it's not as exciting. And that's what, sadly, was the outcome of all of this. Now, what if that was also strategic, make it just so got awfully boring, who would want to cover it? I worked in

television for many years, as many of you know. And when you're working for companies like the History Channel, and Discovery Channel, and all those guys, every single soundbite needs to work, right, you don't have fluff, you don't have extra stuff in there, you clip it and edit it to make it exciting every step of the way. Because if you lose your audience, what happens? So you change the channel. So you look for sound bites in the interviews, you go through transcripts first, then

you go to the video, and you see how exciting it really is. If it's dull, it, the words could be pretty cool. But sadly, the video will lose the viewer. This was hard to pick out those sound bites because you didn't have any anything really, when it came to the tone. It was just kind of monotone. And in my opinion forced is the best way to explain it. But when you get through all those kind of broad strokes, characteristics. In my mind, there were certain things that had come out that were

pretty interesting. First and foremost, the fact that Dr. Kirkpatrick had said that there is now as of the week of April 17, which happened to be my birthday. There were total of 650 cases 650. So those 650 are what arrow has collected in and essentially numbered and are in their system. So to speak. Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: This week, we are tracking over a total of 650 cases. So 650 cases. Now how does that stack up? Well, for those of you who read the articles that I published, I

think I did a video about this as well. I had received a list of the cases with nothing but the serial numbers, which yes, in large part is kind of useless. Unless you utilize the FOIA or are keeping track of how aro is putting all of this together behind the scenes, it's going to be a puzzle, we're not going to get the whole picture up front, we got to piece it all together. So this was a very important list of material that I got through FOIA listing all the case numbers, because number

one, it showed us how they were doing it. Number two, it showed us what serial numbers we could request. But then on top of that, it told us a number. And that number as of December 6 of 2022 was 511. Now to put that, in comparison with what we knew previous, that report that was published in 2023, had data through August 30 2020 to 2022. And that number was 510. Only one case, had been added to Arrow's database that they felt worthy one case, from October or excuse me, August 30, through

December 6 of 2022. Now go from that date to the week of April 17. Now we're at over 650 Not sure why there was a lack of a jump towards the end of 2022. And, in my opinion, a bigger jump in the beginning of 2023. But regardless, that's where we have. So that's kind of an outline of how faster growing and taking cases in only adding one case, by the way was really

intriguing to me. It wasn't a letdown. It was actually an encouragement that maybe they are vetting these things, and truly only going for the real anomalous cases, or they just went on vacation and didn't care one of the two, but that turns out to be about 139 cases. From December 6 of last year to April 17 of this year. Another interesting thing gleamed from the interview was the fact that arrow has conducted nearly two

dozen interviews. I'll play the clip later because there's a little bit more context that I'll deal with later on in this deep dive, but essentially what what he had stated was that there were two about tier two dozen people that had been brought in. And from what we understand from his testimony, they were largely if not all, brought in by the recommendation of either senators that were in the room. Maybe Kirsten Gillibrand, or others that had referred them over to aro quite

intriguing. Now, because others have posted online being interviewed, namely Robert solace, which is public record, he put that out there on social media. He was interviewed by Eero that they were taking his testimony in about his experiences through the UFO encounters over nuclear bases and his firsthand account of what he experienced. I used that and when, okay, if they interviewed one, they

interviewed more. So when solace had posted that online, I had filed a FOIA request for the transcript of every single interview that they had done up until that point, I'm also going for videos and stuff like that if they took it. But usually, transcripts are going to be one of the easier things to get a quick reference to pass times that I've done that I got Luis Elizondo his transcript when he was interviewed by the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General. And you

can read pretty much the whole thing. There's redactions, obviously, but you can, but you can read through that. So what they do is when they do these interviews, sometimes it's audio, sometimes it's video, but then they transcribe it. And then that's generally what they what they have behind the scenes, more than all else. So that is something that I've been

been going for. So now I know, through this congressional testimony, there's at least two dozen that I could potentially get my my hands on. Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: I should also state clearly for the record that in our research arrow has found no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity offworld technology or objects that defy the known laws of physics.

Oh, you know that that upset a lot of people when he said when he said that, because the verbiage that he used, the types of wording that he used off world vehicles?

Well, that's what we heard through the New York Times, namely sourced to Dr. Eric Davis, defying the known laws of physics, we know that there's a couple people that have been hinting and outright saying that type of stuff, making these big claims and podcasts on YouTube channels, even on mainstream media, not citing specific cases or specifics, but rather just either alluding to it or saying, Oh, these things are defying known laws of physics, or they are evidence of offworld

vehicles or legacy programs or whatever. And yet he uses that same wording and says there's no credible evidence of that. Now, do we take him at his word? I'll let you guys decide. He could absolutely be lying. All of the aforementioned people that are out there making those types of claims could absolutely be telling the truth. Here's the issue, though. In my opinion, that testimony goes against those that we know who have been interviewed, those that we hope have been interviewed, and those

that have been rumored to have been interviewed. Bob Lazar, Robert Bigelow, head of the all SAP program that kind of started this whole mess allegedly. How put off one of the main guys who worked with bass and Robert Bigelow on Allsop Luis Elizondo, who says that he headed the program for years investigating UAP and he called his program a tip. Dr. Eric Davis, while his notes, I put it in air quotes, because I don't think they're genuine, or depict real events, I should say, his notes are

brought up in the last UAP hearing. Now, if his notes are true about his meeting with Admiral will, Thomas Wilson, if all of that is true, it goes against everything that we have been taught as humans, full stop, right? It would change the world. There's not a single politician who would not want

their name attached to changing the world. You would think that if they put that into congressional record and ask Ronald Moultrie and Scott Bray and put it out there, even if they didn't know what that story was, you would think by then to now, they would have done something to try and cooperate it, right. I mean, I would think so. So did they interview Eric Davis, how about James McCaskey? who again was part of OSS, AP, and so on and so forth. Jay Stratton, any of these

individuals, did they interview them? And were they not credible? If not, why not? So I think at this point, if they haven't been interviewed, all of these individuals who have been alluding to some very, let's say far out there material, even though they're not encroaching on their security oaths, if they know that Kirkpatrick is lying, or Kirkpatrick is not getting his proper access to what needs to be known, then things need to

be done. Right? I mean, I would think that they would scream to the high heavens, and yet I haven't seen any of them come out and say, You know what, I will not violate my oath. But I will say with the whistleblower protection, and if Kyrsten Gillibrand really wants to know, and so on and so forth, I will testify under oath. And although some of those things may have been said, in a YouTube podcast or whatever, then let's do it.

Get a message to Kirsten Gillibrand, and say, he lied to all of you, your committee, to the Senate, to the American people, or to be fair to him to Sean, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, if he does not have the access. But any of these individuals do or did then say he is not getting the right information. But where is that we don't, we're getting books. Right? We're getting some podcasts here and there. And of course, we get the anonymous sources. Did arrow track down any of these classified leaks

that all of these YouTubers are talking about? I remember this one from the release of the UAP report, the first one I think in was it 2021. And around the same time, Richard Dolan had put a slide up what was leaked to him that day. And to him, it was a very credible source, which I think was his way of describing it. And essentially, might be hard to see on your screen. But was talking about EA T related or extra terrestrial related items, alien technology, stuff that goes well beyond what was

really in the classified report. Now, when this was posted and broadcast out there, the classified report had not been released. In Part, I started fighting for it that the morning after the 2021 report, was published to the public, I went after the classified version, and a lot of people mocked that that effort, they said, You're never going to get anything. Now, although I didn't get everything. I did get a lot of

it. And it was pretty clear that the message overall, was pretty much echoing what the public was being told in the public report lots of redactions, including the shapes of UAP, and so on, and so forth. So don't get me wrong, there was still a lot hidden. But there was no way that ET technology was in the classified report. When in the public report. It wasn't there's, I'm sorry, there's just not right. Like nobody's been able to say that. And this has kind of gone away. I haven't

heard really any anybody talk about this. This kind of stuff needs to be called out. This kind of stuff needs to be dealt with. It doesn't help people like her Kirkpatrick who's trying to let's just take him at his word, trying to make sense of all of this and trying to do a scientific effort effort. But it doesn't help with any of us either. It doesn't help anywhere. So to just blast out, oh, look what was leaked to me by these anonymous sources. No. And the fact that nobody's

getting arrested and nobody's being investigated. First Amendment is pretty powerful, even when it comes to fabrication. So a lot of rebuttals that I see out there that he's that certain people are not being investigated or anything like that. Look, you go down a rabbit hole when it comes to those types of

investigations. But in my opinion, all of this type of stuff is bunk, all those social media accounts, citing their anonymous sources, and my source told me this great, well, now's the time to put up if any of these anonymous people that are helping either YouTubers or social media accounts, it's time to step up. You can do so without telling the public your

identity, but go directly to the Senate. If Kirkpatrick does not have access himself, or he is lying, the now's the time to either put up or shut up. Because as anybody knows on this on this channel, I do not care for anonymous sources at all, because most of the time it's all bunk anyway, and provable, but most of the time when it's not provable, per se, it's highly unlikely any of it is true. But that brings me to the

small percentage of leaks that actually does intrigued me. And yet for whatever reason, we don't see any evidence at this point of invest instigation on why UAP previous leaks are not being investigated. Now. Did arrow look into these? Do they echo what the public is being told through anonymous sources and we're talking about flying triangles and this Baghdad Phantom is, is unexplained? I don't know I don't have the the

answer to that. But I've hinted at this in past videos, and I think now's the time to just come out with this particular quote, because this is where it's getting really interesting. I may not always agree with Jeremy Korbel. But he's intrigued me for quite a few years now, because he's obviously getting material that is legitimate, that the Pentagon has commented on with now a couple of exceptions, but in the beginning, they were commenting on it. So I was always intrigued

by that. But the most recent was the most intriguing not because of the object. But because the fact that an MQ nine Reaper drone, a highly classified piece of equipment, it's video I knew was classified now that what they call the security classification guy, there is one for the MQ nine. I'm going after that document. But I knew just from research that the MQ nine footage, anything that's taken on that platform is inherently

classified. And what that means is is that per that security classification guide, it is automatically classified, so they can't release anything unless there was a specific mission to go out. Take a video for released to the public after Santa sanitisation. I finally got proof of that, that comes from the Air Combat Command public affairs. Here's the exact quote that was given to me. In accordance with general operational security practices and the MQ nine security

classification guide. All imagery captured by the MQ nine is typically classified unless mission requirements dictate the need to sanitize any video footage for lower classification or public release purposes. The MQ nine security classification guide and the details within is not releasable or available to the public in accordance with its own level of security classification. Well, to that last part challenge accepted, I

will go or I have already filed the case. But we'll continue to go after that security classification guide likely be highly redacted, but at least I'm going to try and get that regardless of if I do. The point remains. The Baghdad phantom shot by an MQ nine was obviously not a PR mission for them to shoot that object for release to the public. So their generic statement of if that is the case, then yes, footage can be released. It's classified. You can't take still frames of a

classified video call it a unclassified image. I don't know if Jeremy Korbel thinks that way. But just for anybody who does, you can't do that classified as classified, whether it's moving images or not. It's all the same when it comes to the security behind all of this. So where is the investigation, especially after the recent leaks of the from the Department of Defense, and our situation over in Ukraine, obviously nothing to do with UAP. But those leaks have

created an uproar. The Pentagon had to do damage control, the guy was led out in cuffs, obviously, leaks of classified material are important. But with UAP we don't know why. But it just seems like nothing ever happens to anybody. Nor does it even become an investigation. I'm still searching it. I here's my personal opinion based on nothing but that I believe this is being or quickly was or will be investigated. Plain and

simple. I think that there's too much now that the DoD is going to go Oh, MQ nine Reaper footage, not a problem, let's let that go. And yet they go after all this other stuff. That doesn't mean Jeremy Corbyn did anything wrong? I won't make a whole diatribe here on journalists publishing classified information, so on and so forth. That's a whole

legal area I'm not even going to bother you or bore you with. But rather I think the overall situation and the fact that it got out in the first place is going to be investigated if it's not being already. And yes, I am trying to pursue that story more. I've sat on that quote for about a month or so. On its own, it's like you're saying Why did you sit on it? Well, because it

fits into a much bigger story. And that bigger story, I think is the investigation in that the past leaks, like some of what you see here, were all taken by fairly, you know, not sensitive platforms. So you've got the Snoopy team. I put some pictures of the actual Snoopy teams for the US Navy down here. And the cameras they use they're not they're not a Reaper, drone

level classified piece of technology. These are likely you know, maybe just the In cellphone photo videos, or excuse me, still frames from the pilot, there's obviously taken by f 18. I think you're the gimbal. And then the the Omaha footage that leaked out obviously not a highly classified piece of equipment either. So so it kind of ramped up to this MQ nine release. And to me that was more intriguing than this Baghdad Phantom. And what's also interesting is the

fact that that got like the least amount of coverage. Why I don't know, waning interest, I'm not sure. But there wasn't really a whole lot of coverage to that latest leak. So for me what's going to happen, and I'm super intrigued by that, because

I really have no idea. But I just believe deep down there is no way that they're going to let that stuff out and into the open and not look into why Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: arrow is leading a focused effort to better characterize, understand and attribute UAP with priority given to UAP reports by DOD and IC personnel in or near areas of

national security importance. DOD fully appreciates the eagerness from many quarters, especially here in Congress and in the American public to quickly resolve every UAP encountered across the globe. From the distant past through today. It's important to note however, arrow is the culmination of decades of DOD intelligence community and congressionally directed efforts to successfully resolve UAP encountered first and foremost by US military personnel, specifically navy and air force pilots.

Decades, what's he talking about? I mean, if he's really laying the groundwork of decades, okay, let's accept that the those that have come out about OSS happen a tip and it's all UFO and UAP. Related, that decades of material and investigation that they've done, where is it? I can't find any. Right? And people like me, I'm not I'm not saying I'm the standalone person trying to go after information. But where is it? That's what I don't understand. But yet he

drops the decades. thing here. So what are they what have they investigated for decades? And where is it? And what did they learn? Put a pin in that because I think that that'll be more important here. As we go on. I Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: want to underscore today that only a very small percentage of UAP reports display signatures that

could reasonably be described as anomalous. The majority of unidentified objects reported to arrow demonstrate mundane characteristics of balloons, unmanned aerial systems, clutter, natural phenomena or other readily explainable sources, a small percentage, and that makes sense for anybody who's been involved in UFO research, even prior to this present day conversation knows that it's a very small

percentage of UFO encounters, that are truly UFOs. What's interesting, just a little bit of historical perspective, it actually lines up going back to 1955. And the statistics back then, from Project Bluebook. You can see here that it broke down balloons, aircraft, other not enough data, and the true unknowns, single digits. So obviously, it coincides with

what was in the past. So that's not a surprise to anybody. But I think those types of things are used, because it makes it less, less impressive, less interesting to the general public. Oh, it's a very small percentage. So maybe if they had more data, they would, you know, be able to solve those to Kirkpatrick and I'll play the video in a little bit said

exactly that. And interestingly enough, so did they in 1955, as the study of the current cases progressed, it became increasingly obvious that if reporting and investigative investigating procedures could be further improved, the percentages of those cases cases, which contains insufficient information, and those remaining unexplained would be greatly reduced. That's fine, though, even I'll take a couple of percent, because that's weeding out all of the

explained information. But what also concerns me is we're on the same exact path that we were in the 1950s. That's what is playing out here. And if you go back to a video on this very channel, here on YouTube, and if you're not watching on YouTube, just look for the black vaults, originals channel. And you will find a full breakdown about how what's what was unfolding today.

And what is unfolding today is almost exactly what unfolded through the late 1950s and 60s, and how this whole thing progressed, congressional hearings and all whistleblowers and all former government personnel and all and it's a really interesting juxtaposition. When you look at the two I did that, what, two years ago now, probably some

somewhere in the last two years. Then when you look at this, we're seeing the exact same thing again, right down to the single percentage points and The thirst for more data, the need for more data. Well, what have they done for the last 60 plus years since the last time they said it. Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: Arrow is member of the department's support to the administration's tiger team effort to deal with stratospheric objects such as the PRC, high altitude balloon?

Well, when previously unknown objects are successfully identified, it is Arrow's role to quickly and efficiently hand off such readily explainable objects to the intelligence law enforcement or operational safety communities for further analysis and appropriate action. In other words, arrows mission is to turn UAP into SCP, somebody else's problem. He just seems so proud of that joke. So I had to put it in there somebody else's problem or S E. P. I love

to smirk after. So if that's what they're trying to do, they're just trying to explain and move it to the appropriate intelligence agencies. What's really concerning as an overall kind of broad stroke note on that is why wasn't stuff like this in place before? It doesn't matter about UFOs or UAP talk

anymore? But from a national security perspective, are you telling me that they weren't really looking into anything that they couldn't identify NORAD, or the NRO, or NASA or anybody that they were, they didn't have any type of investigation process. That, to me is incredibly concerning. Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: Meanwhile, for the few cases in all domains, space, air and sea, that do demonstrate potentially anomalous characteristics, Arrow exists to help the DoD IC and

interagency resolve those anomalous cases. In doing so, arrow is approaching these cases with the highest level of objectivity, and analytic rigor. This includes physically testing and employing modeling and simulation validate our analyses and underlying theories, then peer reviewing those results within US government, industry partners and appropriately cleared academic institutions before reaching any conclusions, space, air and sea, all the domains that we

knew they were looking at. But I took the way that he just said that is they have confirmed anomalous cases in space as well. Now, why is that surprising, because we don't really hear about that a lot. We see the ground based ones, we see the ones where the Navy is out at sea. And that was at the first hearing and then explaining that one, they Erawan is obvious, everything we see is pretty much within close proximity to us. We're not talking about space based

objects and what we've seen. So what's there, and that has intrigued me. And yes, I am going after those cases as well, specifically, from that domain to see if arrow will release anything that they have from that, again, targeted domain. Because when you go for all 650 cases, through FOIA, a quick FOIA note for the FOIA users out there, that is an example of what will likely be too burdensome of a request, that's

too much work for them to go through and declassify 650. Why a lot of them are in draft form, they haven't been touched, yet they haven't been analyzed. And you're going to have to then review all of that information for declassification. They'll reject it and kick it back. So you have to go through specific cases with a specific target in mind. So that particular case that I filed was all of the space domain to try and get

those. Another part of that clip that was really interesting to me, was industry partners and appropriate cleared academic institutions appropriately cleared. What does that mean, classified information is my guess. Now, I'm not insinuating any of the logos that I have on screen here are involved at all. But I do know that there has been a lot of talk, and that there's been a lot of rumor and speculation about those that you

see on the screen. So I want to stress that again, I am not saying that any one of these organizations have classified clearances, and they're looking into these UAP sightings not telling you or I they preach transparency, but essentially,

you're siding with secrecy. I'm not saying that. But what I am saying is it's incredibly concerning to hear that we're going down the same path yet again, that we did in the late 50s 1960s The ramp up to the essentially the closing of project Bluebook where certain academic and institutions got involved that they looked at that information and said nope, UAP isn't worthwhile. It's not a threat to national security. Let's move on that we are on that path again. On top of that

appropriately clearing private institutions. We should know who that is why? Because a lot of organizations are out there preaching transparency, but I also believe that they would be interested in taking that government contract or consulting gig, if given the opportunity. So where do you draw the line? Do you take that just so you can go ahead and see that information but keep it within a private entity or

organization? I hope not. And again, I'm not saying that anything that you see on screen here, including the Galileo Project, UAP, X and sigma labs are radiants technologies for those listening to the audio version. I'm not saying that they're involved in that, but that's where it gets concerning.

Let's look at the Galileo Project for a minute. I interviewed Dr. Avi Loeb, when he first announced the project, and I was incredibly encouraged by it, but since he started, you now have a lot of former government people that have a lot of rumor attached to them, and a lot of speculation

attached to them. So with them being involved, could it get to a point where Dr. lobes team does find something, if they're appropriately cleared, that means that they may have some security clearances that go along with their ability to work with Aero. And to put the icing on the cake on that hypothetical scenario, is that would the government say sorry, Dr. Loeb, or sorry, UAPs, or sorry, Nigma labs or sorry, radiants

technologies. You can't talk about this. We have to classify it and your security oath takes over your security clearance applies here. And that's what I'm concerned about as we're doing full circle, right back to where we started decades ago. And that is secrecy. We see it with the US government. But now they're pulling in industry partners, and appropriately cleared academic institutions. Who exactly is that I'll let you guys decide.

Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: In the event, sufficient scientific data wherever obtained, that a UAP encountered can only be explained by extraterrestrial origin. We are committed to working with our interagency partners at NASA, to appropriately inform us government's leadership of its

findings. For those few cases that have leaked to the public previously, and subsequently commented on by the US government, I encourage those who hold alternative theories or views as submit your research to credible peer reviewed scientific journals. Arrow is working very hard to do the same. That is how science works, not by blog or social media, not by blog, or social media. The first call is

NASA that in interested me more than all else. So if arrow finds anything that's even remotely close to or confirmed as extraterrestrial, they pick up the phone they call NASA. NASA then in turn informs all the government heads and agencies. Where's the general public? Now? Maybe that's just you know, I'm reading into that too much. But nowhere did he say the public

had any right to know any of that information. But rather, he laid the groundwork to inform NASA, which I'm kind of surprised that that arrow being part of the Department of Defense would essentially call NASA first. So that part didn't make sense to me. And maybe I'm just misreading this. So you

know, if I am, I'll apologize in advance. But I took aero gets that evidence, they pick up the phone, they call NASA, NASA picks up the phone, they call all the agency heads and, and government agencies, but nowhere in there was the general public and any type of effort to transparency. Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: But one of the things that arrow does is high integrity analysis. As I've said, This chart represents the trend analysis of all the cases in arrows holdings right to

date. What you'll see on the left is a histogram of all of our reported sightings as a function of altitude. So most of our sightings occur in the 15 to 25,000 foot range. And that is ultimately because that's where a lot of our aircraft are. On the far right upper corner, you'll see a breakout of the morphologies of all of the UAP that are reported. Over half about 52% of what's been reported to us are round, or spheres. The rest of those break out into all kinds of different

other shapes. The gray box is essentially there is no data on what its shape is either it wasn't reported or the sensor did not collect it. The bottom map is a heat map of all reporting areas across the globe that we have available to us. What you'll notice is that there is a heavy what we call collection bias both in altitude and in geographic location. That's where all of our sensors exist. That's where our training ranges are. That's where our operational ranges are that's

where all of our platforms are. In the middle, what we have done is reduce the most typically reported UAV characteristics to these fields, mostly round mostly one to four meters, white silver, translucent metallic 10,000 30,000 feet. With apparent velocities from stationary to Mach two, no thermal exhausts usually detected, we get intermittent radar returns, we get intermittent radio returns, and we get intermittent thermal signatures. That's what we're

looking for. And trying to understand what that is. That's what they're looking for. That's what they're trying to understand. So I'll let most of that speak for itself. But the one thing that I will point out is this graph

here, which are the shapes. For those of you who have watched this channel or watch my work when I got that classified UAP report from 2021 finally released, one of the biggest things that stuck out not only to me, but I think everyone was the fact that they wouldn't even tell us the shapes or the common shapes of UAP. It was all blacked out. Now, I appealed that that appeal is still open. But I specifically targeted that

section in my appeal, as a ridiculous redaction. I found a much more legal sound way to put it but fought that specifically amongst all the other redactions. But that one, again, was kind of the most, I would say, controversial one and the most frustrating one for not only myself, but for everybody. And now we have a pie chart breakdown of all the different

shapes that they're collecting. A couple ways to look at it, we've now gotten to a point where they have declassified, the shapes why it was classified in the first place, I'm not sure the UAP security classification guide may potentially play a role in that, since all of that is primarily redacted. It's kind of hard to tell. But they may have decided to declassified that aspect of UAP. Because remember, security classification guides can morph over time. That's why they have

different versions. That's why they published newer, again, versions of of these types of guides and so on. So I think that that's an explanation. They're going back to my appeal, what will happen? Well, I'm hoping at this point, they will declassify that part. So we will be able to see some of the information. Will that happen? Who knows? Did that appeal and argument that's happening through FOIA? And yes, those are

legal challenges. It's not like we write emails and go for information, because a lot of people I think, minimize the importance of FOIA or the power of FOIA, because they don't truly understand FOIA. Those arguments are legally sound. So when you have certain decisions made through FOIA, things are altered. In some cases, things are declassified in other cases. So and I've got lots of of examples to show that. But

that's essentially the power of the FOIA. And that will sometimes dictate what public affairs offices can say, or what those experts say in an open hearing, such as this. So how all that plays out, I'm not really sure, but it was pretty exciting to see because I think that once my appeal is finally done, somewhere in the year 2092, then we'll be able to go ahead and get a glimpse of what it was like in 2021. Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: So I'm going to walk you through two

cases that we've declassified recently. This first one is an MQ nine in the Middle East, observing that blow up which is an apparent spherical object, VO e o centers, those are not IR you'll see it come through the top of the screen, there it goes. And then the camera will slew to follow it. You'll see it pop in and out of the screen field of view there. This is essentially all of the data we have associated with this event from some years ago.

So why did it stop there? I published the entire video released by the Department of Defense it pretty much echoes this or maybe some more frames I didn't clock and it wasn't important. But why there clearly the MQ nine was tracking this object whatever it was, call it a balloon call it an alien spacecraft for all I care. It was tracking it. So where's the rest? And that has been a question that has been asked on a lot of these UAP related imageries that have been

released. Why is that it? And when you look at going backwards when you look at some of the other clips, same deal, just kind of like stop abruptly. Well, going back to the FLIR, the gimbal and the go fast. They claim meaning the US Navy that's it frame for frame. That's all they got. Well, now they're There's more of a structured way to collect UAP related evidence. So why does this one stop? Or did it is arrow showing us everything? To reiterate the point, this is truly a

unidentified object. Now the general public was pretty much led to believe that all this is all the data we have. And that's it. Well, I guarantee that's not all the data you have, because I bet you that video is longer. And if it's not, I'd love to know why I hope somebody who gets to ask further questions asks that specific one. Why did this particular video and or is what happened after these frames here. And this object was

captured and tracked is that classified. And I hope that somebody asks that Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: this particular event, South Asia, MQ nine, looking at another MQ nine, and what's highlighted there in that red circle is an object that flies through the screen. Unlike the previous one, this one actually shows some really interesting things that everyone thought was truly anomalous to start with. First of all, it's a high speed object that's flying in the field of regard of to MQ nines. Second

appears to have this trail behind it. Alright, which, at first blush, you would think that looks like a propulsion trail. In reality, if you want to play, the first slide will show you what that looks like in real time, first video. So we're looking at that there it goes. Once you play it again, and then pause it halfway through, right there. Alright, if you might be able to see that trail there behind it. That's actually not a

real trail that is a sensor artifact. Each one of those little blobs is actually a representation of the object as it's moving through. And later in the video as the as the camera slews, that trail actually follows the direction of the camera, not the direction of the object. We pulled these apart frame by frame, we were able to demonstrate that that is essentially a readout. overlap of the image it's a it's a

shadow image, right? It's not real. Further, if you later follow this all the way to end, it starts to resolve itself into that blob that's in that picture in the top, right. And if you squint, it looks like an aircraft because it actually turns out to be an aircraft go ahead and gotta squint remember to squint. Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: So you'll see the tail sort of pop out there. And so what you're looking at is this is in the

infrared. This is the heat signature off of the engines of a commuter aircraft that happened to be flying in the vicinity of where those two MQ nines were at. When you look at those videos, and you compare them to the most recent UAP leaks, namely the Baghdad Phantom, and the most muzzle orb Mozu Orebro sphere arm, I forget which one he always chooses. But the Mozilla one. When you look at those, it's pretty much exactly what we're looking at

here. But they're just different videos from different incidents. I don't know if there's a connection there. But it's an interesting, I would say point to point out, because when it comes to this one that we're looking at the explained one, the Phantom objects that we'll call them, like the Baghdad Phantom, I had did a post on social media, because everybody was saying that was an exhaust plume, or a lot of people, not everybody, but an exhaust plume. And I had recognized that the

pixel length was almost identical. It was like a ghost image, whether or not that played a role in calling it the Baghdad Phantom, I have no idea. But regardless, what I did was I just layered every frame on top of each other, or excuse me, layered every frame but showed that the actual object and the frame, when put on the ghost like image was exactly the same

length. So it was like repeating data in each particular frame as it streaked across with the human eye, you put all that together kind of looks like a trail of some kind or propulsion system. But it actually isn't. So it was interesting to see this explanation, because now here he is pulling in an identical characteristic to what leaked out. But this is not the leak. This is not the Baghdad Phantom. Same with the one that's unidentified, and I'm not sure what, if any strategy there

would be to do that. But obviously from that pie chart, there was a lot of different objects that they've seen shape wise. So what are the odds that he just chose another sphere could just be by chance could be that that's the majority of what they have. Add or could declassify who knows. But it was pretty close to the Missoula one that Jeremy Korbel had put out. And for those who do think it's the same, it is not. Jeremy also had posted on social media because he was being asked that

it is not the same. So that being said, we've got two different videos nearly identical to the leaks, one explained one not coincidence. Who knows just one of those weird things? Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: How are we going to get more data? We are working with the joint staff to issue guidance to all the services and commands that will then establish what are the reporting requirements, the timeliness, and all of the data that is required to be delivered to us and retained from all the

associated sensors. That historically hasn't been the case. And it's been happenstance that data has been collected, happenstance that data was collected. What's interesting is remember that slide before that I showed you guys back from 1955? They were saying the exact same thing about fine tuning or data collection this that and the other thing, have they not learned anything from 1955 Especially with all these other UFO programs and efforts to

research UAP? I'll ask the question, then what have they been doing? Here's a list of them the advanced aerospace weapon system application program, or you hear me say all sap that was, again, controversial 2008 But we'll call it 2007 based on reporting to 2012 more likely again, 2008 the advanced aerospace threat Identification Program, some say 2007 Some say 2008 Some say it's not a program at all. That's a whole different video in itself. But regardless, that lasted till

about 2012. But wait, Louise Elizondo claimed 2017 Hoda believe I'll let you guys decide. But we're talking about a UAP program, according to Luis Elizondo, and so on. So what were they doing the UAP Task Force? I put 2017 as a question mark, because there was, it wasn't the task force per se, but there was some kind of unofficial effort. The Pentagon

has spoken to this before. So whether or not that had a name, or they were calling it a task force or whatever, there was clearly something going on around that timeframe, officially established August 14 2220 21, the airborne object identification and management synchronization group, or AOA, MSG, that was 2021 to 22. Then we got the all domain anomaly resolution office or arrow. That's what Dr. Shawn

Kirkpatrick has heads right now. That's 2022 to present, look at all those years, and all those program efforts and all of those claims from past individuals. What were they doing? Did they not have any type of official anything to make sense of all of this over the years? Let's just settle on the fact they were doing this in their free time. And it was 5% of what they did. Okay, let's let's just say we believe everybody at their word,

but it was a minor part of their work in the government. All of that's fine. But still over all that time, we don't have any structured program. And that's what bothers me about this is that that doesn't make sense. It just doesn't. Nothing makes sense about this timeline. And all of these efforts when put on a timeline, and the claims that people have said, nothing. Now, that doesn't mean they're lying, or Kirkpatrick is lying, or they all could be lying for all I know. But regardless, it just

doesn't make sense. efforts can be fine tuned efforts can be misdirected. You can have change of direction, that's fine. But these are basic things that go back to 1955, at least, and they're saying the exact same thing. Doesn't anybody else think that that's just bizarre? It doesn't make any sense to me yet. That's the reality of what's put in front of us. Now, there's a lot of other things too, that if you pay attention and put it on the timeline doesn't make sense. This was an

article I wrote in 2019. And I first want to give a shout out and credit to Brian Bender than at politico magazine, who had reported on a UFO Reporting guideline that was was issued by the US Navy. And then he reported around the 2019 timeframe, maybe 2018, that that guideline was being kind of updated and re issued. It was currently and it was at that time in draft form. I went after it and found out it went from draft to issued. So again, this is a quick note for FOIA people

draft documents are incredibly hard to get through FOIA. It's not impossible, but they hide behind FOIA exemption be five a lot. So the minute I got in writing a statement that it was no longer draft. I went and filed a case for it. And it was 100% classified So again, I wrote that story in 2019. But what are these guidelines? What did that stipulate? Were the guidelines on how to collect the data report the data? If not, why not? Because this was around the timeframe when it was

reissued. And again, that 2019 timeframe, you go backwards to this slide. You're in the middle of the unofficial effort that led into the UAP task force around this time. So obviously, there was an effort that we can that we can kind of fall back on here, when arrow takes over, that they could look at and pull information from pull guidelines, pull structure, pull procedure pull, protocol pull something that US taxpayers, paid for, but nothing. It's like they're starting fresh. Now

maybe that was needed, who knows? And if so, why? Why after all these years of investigating through all SAP and a tip and UAP, TF all getting money and having certain individuals heading those programs that we have nothing that we could give the arrow and go, Okay, here's the head start. We spent X amount of millions of dollars, here you go, nothing. One of my favorite stories and in my history of looking into UFOs is the story of the airforce manual instruction. 10 Dash 206. You

can see this one was in 2008. So we're going back and this was one of the latter versions. I found this back in about 1999 to 2000. I think it was and watched it be revised from about 2002. Again 2008. And chapter five was talking about the survey's reports, and how they reported unidentified flying objects or UFOs. This was essentially a mandated instruction. Not essentially it was a mandated instruction that all US Air Force pilots were to follow all of those UFO reports went to

NORAD. So this essentially predated all SAP eight tip UAP, TF aero AOA, MSG, whatever the acronym predated all of that. So what happened to all of this policy procedure and all of the service reports that went to NORAD. Now NORAD, by the way, is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. So I can't touch what was made under this. But are you telling me throughout everything that they got through this, there was nothing that they could use for Arrow? None of that makes sense.

Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: Now, the report in January basically said about half of the ones at that time, about 150 were balloon were likely balloon like or something like that. That doesn't mean they're resolved. Oh, I see. So what let me when we walk everyone through what our analytic process looks like, we have essentially a five step process, right? So we have we get our cases and with all the data, we create a case for that

event. My team does a preliminary scrub of all of those cases, as they come in just to sort out, do we have any information that says this is in one of those likely categories? It's likely a balloon, it's likely a balloon? Bird, it's likely some other object? Or we don't know. Then we prioritize those based off of where they are? Are they attached to a

national security area? Does it show some anomalous phenomenology that is of interest, if it's just if it's just a spherical thing that's floating around with the, with the wind and it has no payload on it, that's going to be less important than something that has a payload on it, which will be less important than something that's maneuvering. Right. So there's, there's sort of a hierarchy of just binning the

priorities because we can't do all of them at once. Once we do that, and we prioritize them when we take that package of data in that case, and I have set up two teams, think of this as a Red Team Blue Team or competitive analysis. I have an intelligence community team made up of intelligence analysts. And I have an s&t team made up of scientists and engineers, and the people that actually build a lot of these sensors are physicists, because you know, if you're a physicist, you can do

anything, right. And, but they're not associated with the intel community. There. They're not Intel officers. So they they look at this through the lens of the sensor of that what the data says we give that package to both teams. The intelligence community is going to look at it through the lens of the intelligence record and what they assess, and their intel tradecraft, which they have very specific rules and regulations

on how they do that. scientific community technical community is going to look at it through the lens of what is the data telling me what is the sensor doing? What would I expect a sensor response to be? And back that out? Those two groups give us their answers. We then adjudicate. If they agree, then I am more likely to close that case, if they agree on what it is, if they disagree, we will have an adjudication will bring

them together, we'll take a look at the differences. What would you dedicate What Why do you say one thing and you say another, we will then come to a case recommendation that will get written up by my team. That then goes to a Senior Technical Advisory Group, which is outside of all of those people, made up of senior technical folks and Intel analysts and operators

from retired out of the community. And they, they essentially peer review what that case recommendation is, they write their recommendations that comes back to me, I review it, we make a determination, and I'll sign off one way or the other. And then that will go out as the case determination. Once we have an approved web portal to hang the unclassified stuff, we will do, you know, we would downgrade and declassify things

and put it out there. In the meantime, we're putting a lot of these on our classified web portal, where we can then collaborate with the rest of the community so they can see what's going on. You know, I'm going after a screenshot of that classified web portal, they have plans on doing a public one. Cool. And you'll learn here, I think I got the clip. Now, I'm second guessing myself. But you'll learn that they've have

tried to do a public one and submitted drafts for that. But again, that that stone wall is for me through FOIA is going to be the draft part of it. But he just confirmed as a classified one. And a lot of times, as long as there's no classified data being shown within that portal, you can actually get copies of the portal itself. So I'm actually going for that, as well. It was a longer clip to show a little bit tedious at

times. But I think it's important because to his credit, he's at least got a structure, he's at least trying to figure out ways to solve these cases. So I wanted to put that clip in there as credit to him, that there is this process that seems I'm not a scientist, but seems very scientifically structured, with a lot of minds involved, although he didn't say this specifically. But when you have one mind involved, investigating

a case, you may have a bias within it. But what he has set up is this team A versus Team B B scenario, where you potentially have the inability to be biased, where you have two different backgrounds, if they agree, then you know, you're on the right track, if they disagree, they collectively come together and talk it out. That That seems pretty structured to me. So to his credit, I think that that was very much worth pointing out.

Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: So of those over 650. You know, we've prioritized about half of them to be of of anomalous, interesting value. And now we have to go through those and go, How much do I have actual data for? Because if I all I have is, is a operator report that says I saw X, Y or Z, my assessment is A, B or C, that's not really sufficient. That's a good place to start. But I have to have data, I have to have radar data, I have to have EU data, I have to have thermal data, I have to

have overhead data. And we need to look at all that. Yes, you do. So hopefully he's getting that. But for me, the key part of this was over half of them exhibited some type of, you know, piqued interest here for either him or his team. That's still a sizable number half of 650 is 325. My

math correct. But you're talking about a sizable number. I understand his essentially concern about the lack of data for some, but at least that gives us some kind of indicator on what is peeking his interest Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: of the of the cases that are showing, you know, some sort of advanced technical signature of which we're talking single percentages of the entire population of

cases we have. I am concerned about what that nexus is, and I have indicators that some are related to foreign capabilities. We have to investigate that with our IC partners. And as we get evidence to support that, that gets then handed off to the appropriate ice agency to investigate Again, it becomes an SCP at that point.

There's that SCP again. But this is again, a broad stroke note, why wasn't this kind of stuff set up already, I saw the news headlines that their instrumentation wasn't calibrated for certain types of

objects, which is why they missed those balloons. But come on, you're telling me that all the NRO satellites, all of the NASA instrumentation all of nor adds capabilities, they weren't seeing unknown objects, whatever that unknown is, and there wasn't a procedure to make it somebody else's problem or make it their own problem. This is kind of like concerning, if you really look into it. It doesn't really make sense that all of a sudden this and again, not to demean Dr. Kirk Patrick's effort

here. But a very small effort at this point, a very new effort is trying to make sense of what they consider unknown objects, which very well may be earth based, and unexplainable. But my whole point is, it's like he's starting from scratch to figure this all out and essentially make it somebody else's problem. No wonder they're saying it's a huge national security risk, because it is, that's ridiculous that those types of things

aren't worked out. He threw in the single percentages again. So just to throw back to this screen here, the unknown 9% Obviously echoes the exact same conclusions that they were seeing statistically, in 1955. But somebody is dropping the ball.

stories. Congress also set up a process whereby people subject to non disclosure agreements preventing them from disclosing what they may have witnessed or participated in could tell you what they know that risk of retribution from the or violation of their NDAs. Have you submitted a public facing website product for approval to your superiors? And how long has it been under review? Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: I have we submitted the first version of that before Christmas?

And do you have an estimate from them when they will respond? Or when you'll have feedback on that? No, I don't. Okay, we will offer a letter asking for that timely response.

continue to do that until we have an approved plan. We have a multi phased approach for doing that, that we've been socializing, I have submitted for approval, some time. And once that happens, then we should be able to push all that out and get get this a little more automated. Great. What I would ask though, is as you all continue to refer to us and refer witnesses to us, I'd appreciate if you do that.

Please try to prioritize the ones that you want to do, because we do have a small research staff.

they've gone to the net, now, nearly two dozen. So you would think that the ones that are the highest priority at this point, jello brand or whomever else would have thrown them arrows direction by now that none of them were credible to support any of these more outlandish, and I say outlandish. But and I don't really mean it to sound as disrespectful as that. But those stories that we have seen being alluded to and some claims

actually being made all of the above. I would think that senators, if they're intrigued enough to say arrow, you should look at this Dr. Eric Davis guy because he allegedly met with Thomas Wilson. This was submitted to the Congressional

Record. So you know, tick tock, let's let's get on it, you would think that that would be done by now, you would think that if, in the first hearing, Jeremy cor bells name came up, you would think that Bob Lazar would kind of come along with that, because not only did core Bell have the leaks that were mentioned, even though Bob Lazar was not, you know, somehow, if somebody is talking to core Bell, and he really thinks that Bob Lazar is

telling the truth, that that's gonna go across their desk, too. So with that be thrown arrows direction. Again, some of that is just speculation and assumptions. But I would think so, because the senators aren't going to do the research, they're going to hear the stories by in some cases, what they consider credit by credible people, they think anyway, and then it goes to arrow for research. So does arrow have transcripts of any of those guys? Who knows? But I'm going for it.

it. And I have done that in the past. You can go for congressional correspondence logs, see what other senators may have written letters in regards to UAP to try and get the DOD to do XYZ, whatever that might be. So obviously, all of these things that are talked about, become paper trails, or future paper trails like this one, that will hopefully be a paper trail sooner rather than later. There was a question here from the chat room for those watching live. Black Dread

Scotland. Always good to see you here. Thank you for that support. Do you think that many of the unknowns are US recon platforms such as airships, balloons, drones, and E, WC. And the reason why they're unknown is because they are classified US assets? I'm taking your question that maybe Dr. Kirkpatrick doesn't have access to everything that could very well be true. But it really does sound like what they're focusing on when it comes to the unknowns or things that they have

verified to essentially not be our own. Again, that's a little bit of speculation. So I'm not saying that he said that outright. But I'm kind of leaning towards that, that I would think that there's some kind of filter before it's sent for Arrow because I don't envision arrow just searching the entire catalog for the US military infrastructure, looking for UAP. I would imagine that when it comes to those classified platforms that may be connected to UAP. You know, that

they wouldn't cross his desk. But if that plot platform is seen by someone else who hasn't read in, they're not clear to pilots seems to see something. Sure. And that begs the question, Does Kirkpatrick have access to everything? That's a purely speculative area of all of this. So if I understood your right, I'm sorry, I don't have a better answer from that, or for that, I should say, but sadly, we just don't know, we have no

idea what he does and does not have access to. I would also imagine, too, that they may instruct him to, let's say, not release a certain video. And again, this is also speculation, but let's say his office says this particular video is unidentified. So they're going to declassify it release it as an example, like they have in the past. But it turns out that it's some classified platform from some other military branch

or so on. I would think before he got approval to release that material, they would shut that down, because he obviously has a clearance himself. So they may read him in and go, that's not something we're letting out in the open, the approval wouldn't go in. And then it may even just disappear in his databases and books. I think that that's a possibility too. So then it's not even a consideration for Arrow. So a lot of speculation there. Don't get me wrong. I don't know the right answer,

because obviously, we're getting into a classified territory. But what my impression was from what he said that we're not dealing with the classified US assets that he's deeming as unidentified

behind the scenes from your perspective? Div. And in the after action assessment process? Is there awareness that there is a need to operate differently the future and a commitment to doing so Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: when the when the objects were first detected, I got called by joint staff leadership to come in late one night to review events as they were unfolding unfolding, and to give them an assessment based on what we knew at that

time. I did that worked with the director, Joint Staff, the j two and the J. Three. That night and over the couple of following days on? What are the types of things that we are tracking from a unidentified object perspective, what databases do we use those sorts of things for, for normal for known objects known tracking. Beyond that, the response I would have to, I would have to refer you back to the White House for the decision on how they did the response, we did not play a role

in what you would respond. Other than that initial, you know, advice on what we are seeing and how we are seeing.

That's not to demean arrow as an office. But why were there no other policies or procedures to take over for when they saw known foreign technology, spy or otherwise, but any type of foreign technology coming in, if I recall, where we told that they had known about this days, or weeks prior to it becoming public knowledge, and US tracking these balloons, and so on, there's nothing so then they call the arrow office, I think it's great that they were called in as maybe a consultant role,

but I kind of got the impression that they were the ones that everyone call it call arrow with these balloon objects. And it just surprised me that there was no other effort that had been well established at this point, to have policy and procedure on what to do. The other weird thing is the fact that we started shooting these things down, starting with the Chinese spy balloon. But then within days, you had multiple objects shot down all rumor to be, you know, balloons or whatever. And

then like nothing, like it all just stopped. So what are the odds that all of a sudden we we see the balloon, the first one, then we shoot that down, and then there's these beautiful photographs, they really were cool. I think that they were awesome nighttime shots of them collecting the wreckage and essentially posing with it. There was that, then nothing on the other objects that were shot down, we just heard about him. So in the course of days, you had all these objects shot down.

And then all of a sudden, nothing, no new stories, no additional shutdowns that we're aware of know anything. What happened? You know, and that's what's what's really fascinating to me, because I don't have an answer. I'm not going to pretend I do. But But at what point does some of this become strategic? Because, in my view, those incidents were tied into the UFO

UAP topic. So some of the stories that I saw, were tying it into arrows effort and UAP and, and so on and so forth, essentially, taking the mystery out and putting an explanation in. So the general public doesn't that doesn't do what you or I do make these videos or watch these videos or really

stay involved in the conversation. They see that mere mention of Yeah, the UAP conversation while it looks like a lot of it is balloons think the New York Times had a very similar similar tone to their most recent, all of a sudden the majority of the general public what do they do? They lose interest. And consequently, who else loses interest? The senators go back to that, you know, empty room that we saw when it came to the interest from the Senate side that nobody

was there? Sure people want to think oh, well, you know what? They were all at the classified setting. So there were really no reasons for them to go to the public hearing because they heard everything. Well, if that's true, read into that because then they're not there. For you, they're there for them. They're not there to inform you of anything. They're in what a meeting and they move on. They don't care about what you and I have to say. Why? Because I think the general public is

starting to lose interest. And that's the result. I think we need to have efforts that keep senators in the understanding that the general public wants to know, they do, they really do. But the problem is they hear too much BS, full stop. From the mainstream media, it is ridiculous. There was a mainstream outlet that ran a story on the UFO video that we already went through from the hearing. And it was this fear, right, so that was the one that was truly unknown. The other one

was an aircraft. And so they had this flashy headline about releasing a new UFO, video, so on and so forth. They showed the wrong video. There's like nothing serious about the coverage when it comes to mainstream media on this topic anymore. And that's the problem. So the public is hearing BS, they really are. And I think that that's what we need to ensure, is not how we all end up, that people that are making claims out there have leaked classified information and alien

tech and people with these outlandish claims. As I said, In the beginning of this deep dive, it is important to either put up or shut up. And I really, truly believe we need to get into that mindset that people shouldn't be afraid to call others out, when they aren't taking the care that they can. I think that that I want to be careful here because I don't want to be disrespectful. But at the end of the hearing, there's a video that had surfaced where Senator Gillibrand, I think was given

ancient alien pamphlets, or something to that effect. Now, I want to stress I'm not trying to sound disrespectful here, but is that what she needs to see? Show up to the hearing? I'm gonna get hate mail for saying that. But is that what we are going to present her with? Is that the voice of the people? And and I would say no, I would say that, that convincing someone to put the Wilson Davis document in there was not the right path. But you know what, throw him under oath and put them in

there. Now. I changed my mind. I thought that was a biggest facepalm moment from that first hearing. But you know what it's done and over. So put them under oath. See what happens. See if Dr. Eric Davis will sit in there with protection under oath? And tell everybody on the committee? Yes, I wrote those notes. And everything I wrote actually happened. I'd love to see it. And if Thomas Wilson denies it under oath, are you guys going

to believe it? And that's obviously asked towards those that believe that the Wilson documents depict actual events. So you have, I think, a certain angle of information that should be presented to senators. I don't believe the Wilson Davis documents and the Bob Lazar like stories are the way to go or ancient aliens. I just don't. And that's unfortunate, but that's where we're going. And in that process, we're now seeing the degradation of this topic. I'll get some hate mail for that

too. I'm sure I will. But we're seeing heavily classified

blankets being put over all of this. But as a result, you have an influx of people claiming they know what's going on and there's so much bunk out there, the general public loses interest trying to keep track of it all because that's what the few now mainstream media outlets that are doing stories are hard highlighting the ridiculously outlandish claims that hold no evidence whatsoever that they'll quote 72 anonymous sources in one particular article and back that up with absolutely nothing.

And that's what gets some headlines on some British tabloid papers. Well, you and I, we can sit here and talk about it and and have fun doing so and respectfully disagree. I always dig that. But sadly to the general public, they're gonna lose interest if they haven't started already. And I think we're seeing that the Baghdad Phantom. Remember when I when I said that there was just a surprisingly lack of coverage to that. I think that's a repercussion of all this. That's

actually a really interesting story. Whether or not it's an alien probe, who knows but regardless MQ nine Reaper footage is being leaked. That's classified, which I can prove is a classified video in nature inherently, because it was shot by the MQ nine regardless of what the object is, and it's

leaked out. That to me is the story who is on the inside leaking classified information and seemingly getting way with it and doing it for years, just in the last 60 days, 45 days of that a DOD leak sparked a huge investigation, major public affairs outreach and damage control. And I believe the guy was already arrested and charged. What's going on with the UAP? world? No one cares. Come on. So this is what's weird and intriguing to me is there's all these unanswered questions.

But it seems like the focus is way over here, when it actually should be right here. People are missing all of these major things. And in the end, senators are handed ancient alien things. And Wilson Davis somehow gets traction within a congressional hearing. And that's what's unfortunate, because there's so much more, I think, evidence to be presented. And and I still don't know if Kirkpatrick has the access that he needs. If you

were to ask me to bet $1 I would bet $1 He does not. I believe that arrow is too much in the spotlight to have access to everything. I believe that the secrecy proves there is much more to this than clutter and balloons, and UAS is liked or Dr. Kirkpatrick had stated. So when I go back to the very beginning of this deep dive and say that it seemed forced, was it really forced? Was he is he the guy to go out there and explain this? Not investigated? No, I'm not making that

conspiracy claim. And no, I'm not saying he's lying. But we do have to question whether or not he has access to all of the information. Now throughout this video presentation, I kept slowly showing you slides from 1955 of the same document, but just different sections of it showing how it compares to present day. So I'll close with this thought. Dr. J. Allen Hynek, the main Chief Consultant scientist for Project Bluebook started in very

much a similar way. The majority of everything was explainable. He was the swamp gas guy. And Dr. Hynek was very much the skeptic slash debunker of project Bluebook very similar to what we're seeing today. Go back to the clips of Dr. Kirkpatrick saying the majority of everything is all explainable. clutter. Balloons UAS is very similar to Dr. J. Allen Hynek. But as time went on, Hynek was really a scientist. And he

looked at all of that evidence. And he looked at those cases, and there is documented proof that he wanted to actually reopen some of the cases that were solved. I have the letters on the blackbaud.com. They're fascinating. And just search for a section called from the desk of project Bluebook. It's a fascinating story, including actual written letters, with

from Dr. J. Allen Hynek to Hector Cainta. Nia, head of project Bluebook at the time, and essentially arguing that some cases should be reopened and the US Air Force with the direction of kin tinea said, no, they're going to stay closed. So at what point does Kirkpatrick have access? And how much does he not? How much is he forced to do something? Or how much is he not? These are all juxtapositions that are

absolutely fascinating. When you when you look and compare how strikingly similar it really is. So where does John, Sean Kirkpatrick go from here? I don't know. But it'll be fascinating to see. Because if there is, and this was speculation on whether or not he was really kind of forced to explain these things, that is exactly what happened during project Bluebook. Now we're talking about academic institutions coming along. That is exactly what happened in

Project Bluebook. And when you're talking about these peer reviewed processes, that's kind of kind of what happened during project Bluebook. But in the end, the academic community looked at the evidence that were brought in and appropriately cleared, and they said shut it all down. It's not worth it. So are we on the same path or not? Your guess is as good as mine. As always, these deep dives I understand are not for everybody, but if you're still here, A for effort on your

dedication, I'd love to hear from you. The YouTube channel obviously has a big comment section please feel free to post your comments below. A thumbs up is definitely a help to me. Make sure you're subscribed to the channel and above all else, sharing the channel name and link to the channel is the biggest help of all if you feel so inclined to support the

channel you want to throw in $1 or $5 or whatever. I have a patreon you can do either the super chats if you're watching live, or there are ways to do comments on YouTube, where you can tip as well. I'm not looking to take Make Your Money 100% of what you submit goes to the Freedom of Information Act cases that I file and the costs to run the black vault.com. Now totaling more than 3.2 million pages over the course of 26 years that I've added, which are housed on three dedicated

servers. And so sadly, it's just not cheap. So 100% of what you guys send in goes to that I don't buy myself a steak dinner or coffee or anything like that. That said, Thank you so much for listening and watching. This is John Greenewald, Jr, signing off, and we'll see you next time.