Ep. #122 – Exploring the “UFO Whistleblower” Story

some, well, I'll let you decide what it all means. Stay tuned, you're about to journey inside the black vault. That's right, everybody. As always, thank you so much for tuning in and taking this journey inside the black vault with me. I'm your host, John Greenewald, Jr. and today we are taking a dive into the new story that I'm sure most of you have heard about. I know that some of you may not have a complete

vested interest in UFOs, or UAP. But this one is one of those stories that has gone around the world, talking about a brand new whistleblower, which to my surprise, was not one shot in silhouette, or not one that was just called a senior defense official, but rather was named and there was a picture in the story, all of which was incredibly surprising to me. Because with these types of stories, generally, you get what I just mentioned, which is very hard to follow up on. But this

story was a little bit different. So what I want to do with this video is essentially take a dive into that story, and not tell you how to think or how to believe or anything like that, of course, I'm going to say upfront, I'm skeptical for a couple of different reasons, which we will go over some of those points that I think need to be said. But in the same respect, I want to tell you that I'm not dismissing this whistleblower in the slightest, quite the contrary, I'm eager to

see how some of this plays out where this goes. So I don't want to say that I'm trying to sway you one way or the other. But rather, I want to bring the pieces of the puzzle that I think are worthwhile to you. So let's just go ahead and and start diving into this. Let me bring up the visuals to start to go over exactly what it is that we are dealing with. Some of this for some of you may be a little bit of a review, if you've been living and breathing the story that I know some

people have been. But for those that also haven't really been acquainted with it, or maybe you just saw some headlines, but didn't have time to to look it over. I'm hoping this will give you a better understanding of what that story is. Now with any video like this, wherever I talk about someone else's story or work or whatever it may be upfront, I always urge you please, in the link below, you will see something that links over to the article, which was first published on the debrief.

If you have not read it in full, I urge you to do so I want to make sure that I do not omit anything of importance. But of course, I'm human. So i and plus I have what I think is important, but sometimes something else may be important to someone else and go John, why didn't you omit that? Well, I don't want to be accused of that. So upfront, I always urge you please look at the article. So you have essentially

everything. But with this video, I want to go over what I feel are more of the major points that work for and work against the story to help you get a better idea. In addition to that, I want to go outside of that article to again give you more puzzle pieces more context and more understanding of of what we are dealing with. Now as I mentioned, this was a story that we was published in the debrief. When I first saw the headline, of course, it's intriguing intelligence

officials say us has retrieved crash of non human origin. Who wouldn't be intrigued by that. And again, I expected those silhouettes or senior defense official labels, but with no names or any types of details because everyone's anonymous. On

the contrary, there was a picture and a name. The other thing that surprised me from the get go were the authors, the duo Leslie Kane and Ralph Blumenthal, you've probably recognized them because they publish articles together in the past on the same topic, but have primarily done it for the New

York Times. Now, even though I harp on the New York Times a lot, I was still surprised to see this type of a headline written by this duo published in the debrief that is not in any way meant to be insulting or demeaning to them, I would replace the debrief and put the black vault right in there, if

they came to me and wanted to publish the story. Simply because with a headline like that, and a story of this magnitude, I feel if the story is strong, it shouldn't be with sites like ours, it should be in some type of a much bigger masthead to not only reach a bigger audience, but also to give it a little bit more weight. Yet again, that is not meant to be an insult towards the debrief. But rather I was just simply surprised to see it. It's got to be said, it's got to

be pointed out why the debrief. Now before we dive into the story itself, that was kind of answered by the author's after a lot of people were asking the same questions I was, why the debrief, because there was a rumor going around that the Washington Post was going to, to publish this groundbreaking story that dealt with Crash retrievals, and so on and so forth, which the story obviously was was dealing with. So was that the Washington Post story and what happened there? To my I

would say a little bit surprised as well. There was a coordinated message message by both authors posted on Facebook and Twitter with the exact same wording, just minus the name replaced from Lesley to Ralph on both respective posts. That stated this to be clear, the Washington Post did not pass on our story, Ralph and I took it to the debrief because we were under growing pressure to publish it very quickly. The post needed

more time. And we couldn't wait. You'll see the identical message posted by Ralph Blumenthal, just replacing the name from Ralph to Lesley, but everything else was the same. Now, it's not surprising that they're on the same page. They're both on the byline and they wanted the message out. I was just surprised by it, because they immediately went on the defensive about the Washington Post, and wanted to make it clear that they took it to the debrief, because they were being

pressured to publish it. My red flag went up on being pressured, pressured by who now if it's pressure, because there's a rivaling journalist out there, that was potentially getting the scoop. Well, that's okay. I mean, I guess let's just go ahead and say it so that way, we don't start thinking that there's something else that may be nefarious going on. I know, I get my hate mail when I post questions like that, but it needs to be asked what pressure who was pressuring? And in what

way was the story potentially rushed? All of those are, I think legitimate questions have a story with this magnitude. So I'm not really sure why that hate mail is there. For me when I post those questions. I did post it to Lesley directly on Facebook, when I first saw her post, however, that from the recording of this video had never been responded to by Lesley. I don't expect one. But regardless, pressure by whom that was what I was asking. And I think that the readers deserve

a little bit of clarification there as well. And again, if it was just simply a rival journalist that was getting a scoop, they didn't want to be scooped. That's fine. But obviously, then the whistleblower is going out to a lot of different people just talking to everybody, which is also I think, okay, but it just, I don't know, it doesn't seem right. There's something that doesn't smell right there. I'm not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill there, but I

think it's still a viable question. So let's go into the story itself. So now that we know that it was published by the debrief, the whistleblower that you see pictured here on the video, David Charles grush, he is the whistleblower as they are calling him. Let me read you. I'm not going to read the whole article through this, but I'm gonna read you some snippets from the debrief article and again, I urge you to read the

entire thing linked below. They describe David as this a former intelligence official turned whistleblower has given Congress and the intelligence community Inspector General, extensive classified information about deeply covert programs that he says possess, retrieved intact and partially intact craft of non human origin the information he says has been illegally withheld from Congress, and he filed a complaint alleging that he suffered illegal retaliation for His confidential disclosures

reported here for the first time. The whistleblower David Charles grush 36, a decorated former combat officer in Afghanistan, is a veteran of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency where NGA, and the National Reconnaissance Office or NRO, he served as the reconnaissance offices representative to the unidentified aerial phenomena Task Force from 2019 to 2021. From late 2021, to July of 2022, he was the NGA is CO lead for UAP analysis. And it's

representative to the task force. Now what I put in red, there are key parts of this work, we're creating a timeline and and what I want you to do is just remember that timeline that there's not a test at the end. But rather, these are important things that are published. And these are the things you look for in an article because we start placing this whistleblower, at certain agencies at certain times, and timelines are incredibly important when trying to figure

out these types of stories. So that information, I believe, was crucial to understanding where he was, and what type of access that he had, and what exactly was he doing. Now, a quick side note, in that timeline, you guys might recall from this channel, and also one of the articles I published on the black vault.com was about a NRO system called sentient that had discovered a tic tac shaped object. Now, I won't go through the whole story

again, I've got a whole video on it. I'll link that in the show notes below. But per the timeline grush, the whistleblower would be at the NRO, at the time that these documents I got were written, it's quite even possible that he wrote one of the emails where the name was redacted, about how the NRO could support the task force. I'm maybe more convinced he wrote it than not at this point. But that's just a pure

guess. But given that he was the the lead at the NRO for this, it's likely that he was probably writing these emails about how the NRO could support the UAP Task Force. And then, of course, would have direct knowledge of the sentient system. And its tic tac shaped object observation that was documented in a heavily classified report. So I'll link those documents below. But I wanted to give you that side note, because it's interesting to put that person now at the NRO, into that story, which I

didn't have before. One of the other people that were revealed in this story was Charles Charles McAuliffe, the third. He is the lawyer, he's representing the whistleblower grush. And his background is pretty interesting. He was the first Inspector General of the intelligence community that started on October 7 2010. And he stayed in that position until March of 2017. Now he's in the private sector. He works for Compass Rose Legal Group, and he is again representing the

whistleblower in this case. Another person revealed was Colonel Carl nel he was the Army's liaison for the UAP Task Force from 2021 to 2022. Quick descriptor from the debrief on Nell Carl E. Nell, a recently retired Army colonel and current aerospace executive who was the Army's liaison for the UAP Task Force from 2021 to 2022. And worked with grush there

characterizes grush as beyond reproach. Now, I kind of took away from the article that Colonel Nell with his distinguished background himself was there essentially as a character witness to backup the credibility of the whistleblower. In his words, he was beyond reproach, obviously, grush was very revered by the fellow army liaison for the UAP task force. So obviously, they work together in that regard,

how much that's still yet to be seen. But now we're starting to piece together another piece of the puzzle, the army liaison for the task force, another person labeled which there was a little confusing aspect to this for some, not everybody, but hey, I'll put myself under the bus for me. I didn't catch it the first time. There was somebody by the name of Jonathan gray that was described in the article, and they were essentially there to backup and corroborate the testimony of the

whistleblower. Now, at first glance, you think Jonathan gray is a person but you have to read through a lot more of the article to realize that Jonathan gray is not a name at all, but rather a pseudo name. Let me read the non and this was a quote starting from the person identified as Jonathan Gray, the nonhuman intelligence phenomena phenomenon is real, we are not alone, Gray said retrievals of this kind are not limited to the

United States. This is a global phenomenon. And yet a global solution continues to elude us. Those are powerful statements. And I was excited because after seeing Russia's picture and name, I just wrongfully assumed that Jonathan Gray was someone else named sadly, it was an anonymous source using a pseudonym. I'm not here to harp on grammar and stuff like that. I think the right answer would have been to put Jonathan gray in quotations since we are using pseudonym. I did, the article

did not. But I will read to you what the article said. And admittedly, I missed this the first time that I read it, because it is quite a bit down from Jonathan Gray's introduction and his cooperation of the whistleblower. They stayed at Jonathan Gray, the intelligence officer specializing in UAP analysis at the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, is speaking publicly for the first time identified here under the identity he uses inside the

agency. I didn't know that Neysa uses identities on the inside. I mean, that's kind of a fun fact of true, but still kind of a wonky way to use an anonymous source. But regardless, it's anonymous. So me harping on the lack of quotation marks, I missed it. So I'm making sure you guys understand. This is somebody who works within again, ASIC or the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, unnamed, we don't know a whole

lot of their background. And again, anonymous sources are actually okay, this is one of those examples that I really do wish it was identified earlier. But regardless, it's there to at least support a story. I'm not keen on him still. But again, they're part of journalism. So this is an example that's much better instead of doing the whole story, on and on anonymous sources, rather, now we have somebody named and anonymous source backs it up. That's a little bit more what they're

used for in journalism in my book anyway. So let's get into the claims of the whistleblower. And, and again, he's labeled as the whistleblower. I'm not trying to make any derogatory statement by labeling him that David grush says, and let me quote the article so you know exactly what he's saying. Greg said the recoveries a partial fragments through and up to intact vehicles have been made for decades through the present day by the government, its allies and defense contractors.

analysis has determined that the objects retreat retrieved are of exotic origin, non human intelligence, whether extraterrestrial or unknown origin based on the vehicle morphologies and material science testing and the possession of unique atomic arrangements and radiological signatures. He said, Now, the parenthetical nonhuman intelligence whether Extra Terrestrial unknown origin,

people are having fun with that. Obviously, if it's a nonhuman intelligence, of course, I think everyone's insinuating aliens here, including the whistleblower. So to put in unknown origin, I mean, what are we talking about? The civilization lives in the ocean? I don't mean to make light of it, but it's just kind of one of those quirky things with the story. What exactly are you trying to say? If it's not alien, right, if that's one possibility, what is this

unknown origin you're talking about? Is there another civilization of people that you're insinuating live here in the ocean, so they're not technically alien? I'm sorry to point out the wonkiness but there is some wonkiness to to those types of statements. So for me, I wish that he would just expand on it. But that, you know, that's just me. I just

wanted to point out the parenthetical. Why does he have to differentiate unknown origin from Extra Terrestrial if no matter what he's saying that it's non human technology. Now, here's a little bit more, when you read through the article and get a little bit deeper into it. This is where it starts to, I think hurt the story a little bit. Let me quote Gratias investigation was centered on extensive interviews with high level intelligence officials, some of whom are

directly involved with the program. He says the operation was illegally shielded from proper congressional oversight, and that he was targeted and harassed because of his investigation. Gresh said that the craft recovery operations are ongoing at various levels of activity, and that and that he knows the specific individuals, current and former who are

involved. Individuals on these UAP programs approached me in my official capacity and disclose their concerns regarding a multitude of wrongdoings such as illegal contracting against the federal acquisition, regulations, and other criminality and the suppression of information across a qualified industrial base and academia grush said those are powerful statements to make. But now we realize is what it's based off of. It's not grush his experience whatsoever. It's him

talking to other people. So this entire story, I don't And again, I don't want to just completely negate it, but is built on 100% anonymous sources that grush brought together people that he spoke with during his time at the UAP Task Force, and conducted interviews and talk to people and people brought him

stories. But nowhere has he said, and Ross Coltart who's one of the other journalists who had tackled this story, as well said on his podcast, and I'm paraphrasing, but essentially grush had had not seen any type of, of non human craft, he had not touched any of the type of material that he had reference, but rather just heard about it. Now, that's going to be an important point, because I don't want you to think that I'm here demeaning the story, or trying to degrade it based on that, but

put a pin in it, because that might make sense a little bit more. And a point that I definitely want to deal with, later on in the presentation. I won't read all of this for you. But this goes a little bit more into detail about grush. Then compiling all this information through interviews and stories that people were telling him. He compiled that and essentially passed it on. He had stated he was denied, or the UAP taskforce was denied access to certain areas that they they essentially

couldn't touch. Again, I just want to read a couple points. I'm not going to read all of this. In May of 2020 Tim McCullough filed member that's the attorney filed a disclosure of urgent concerns complaint of reprisal on behalf of grush with the intelligence community inspector general about detailed information that grush had gathered beginning in 2019.

While working at the UAP Task Force, an unclassified version of the complaint provided to us states the Gresh has direct knowledge that UAP related classified information has been withheld and or concealed from Congress by elements of the intelligence community. Jumping ahead according to the unclassified complaint, in July 2021, grush, had confidentially provided classified information to the Department of Defense inspector general concerning the withholding of UAP related

information from Congress. He believes his identity and the fact that he had provided testimony were disclosed to individuals and or entities within the Department of Defense and the intelligence community outside the Inspector General's office. As a result, grush suffered months of retaliation, retaliation and reprisals relating to these disclosures beginning in 2021. He asked the details of these pilots reprisals be withheld, for to protect the integrity of the

ongoing investigation. Jumping ahead, the intelligence community Inspector General found his complaint. Let me start that over the intelligence community Inspector General found his complaint credible and urgent in July of 2022. According to grush, a summary was immediately submitted to the director of the National Intelligence Avril Haines, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The complaint was drafted and signed by McAuliffe and his Managing Partner, moving along a whistleblower whistleblower reprisal investigation was launched. And grush began his communication with the staff of the congressional intelligence

community committees and private closed door sessions. According to grush, certain information which he obtained in his investigation, could not be put before congressional staffers because they did not have necessary clearances, or the appropriate investigative authority. I won't dissect that last part. Again, there's a little bit of red flag there on the investigation. However, I'll let that play out on how the Inspector General and Congress responds to this as it moves

forward. I'll let you know what the Inspector General's Office for the intelligence community said to me, which isn't much. But other than that, I'll let that play out. I'm not gonna sit here and nitpick everything. But that gives you a bit of an idea of what the story was, what it was built on what the claims were, and why this is going to the inspector general. Why he felt that he was being wrongfully treated. We don't know the details of that. But okay, we understand that the

investigation has gone ongoing. So he didn't want to talk about it. But regardless, we have a pretty good idea of what the story is. Well, the media really glommed on to this and rightfully so it's, it's a pretty amazing story. went onto the cover of the Drudge Report, column three position one, that's a very coveted spot. I watched those new spots very closely myself. I like to see what's in the media. It's not

about UFOs really kind of ever. But rather, it really shows you a lot of the hot topics that's going on in the political world and, and when UFO stories break, sometimes drudge will cover them. This is one of those examples. But when things go on there, copy and paste journalism takes over. And you just have this insane amount of coverage, which has happened with this story. But in the process, a lot of things start getting lost.

And we're going to deal with some of that in a moment. You can see these are just some of the headlines as of the recording of this video. From the independent Fox News News Week, there's the original debrief article here. This is the news nation article, the video piece on that actually wasn't bad. I know it got a lot of flack. But I was pleasantly surprised that some of the questions and some of the points being pushed, were actually pretty good. And I felt it was a

fairly balanced story. I'm sure I'll get hate mail for saying that. But I think news nation did good. Some of the other ones. There you go. There's a whole laundry list of other ones. But those are some of the major ones. So let's break down some of the points of the story that I think some people are missing, or those that are often misconstrued or misunderstood. Now, this is not my opinion here. This is actually backed up. Anybody can can back this up. But I think it needs to be

said, I've dealt with dotser before on this channel. That's the Defense Office of pre publication and Security Review or again dotser. DOPPS are essentially reviews for the Department of Defense Information that people want to put in books, manuscripts. And in this case statements to ensure that no classified information gets out to the

public. Now it was mentioned in the article for the debrief that a review took place of brushes statement that he was going to be providing to the debrief, essentially blowing the story wide open. Let me quote the debrief. In accordance with protocols. grush provided the Defense Office of pre publication and Security Review at the Department of Defense with the information he intended to disclose to us. His on the record statements were all cleared for open publication on

April 4, and six 2023 and documents provided to us. We haven't seen those documents, we have no idea but we can assume that maybe you did a DD Form 1910 or something similar, there may have been something similar regardless of how he did it DOPS or cleared it for open publication. What is being misconstrued about dotser and has been for quite some time is if DOPPS are clear something for public release,

they essentially endorse it. That is not true. They are very clear about the fact that they do not fact check or endorse accuracy, but rather, they go through character by character, word by word and line by line to ensure that no classified information is being put out there in print in a presentation in a statement that whatever is submitted to them. That's what they insure. And on social media. I saw this a lot. Well, the DoD cleared this this is disclosure. And no I'm not

exaggerating. A lot of people thought that this was disclosure that a DOD person was cleared to come out and admit to alien wreckage. That is not true in the slightest, you can take a 100% purely fabricated pile of steaming made up stuff and give it to dotser for review. Now I should say if I haven't already doctors there for former DOD personnel who are required to do this and this case grush Luis Elizondo will have to do it with his book if he's not in the process already. Those are the

types of people that have to submit. So it's not like anybody from the public, but rather former DOD. Okay, so sorry for that that quick caveat. So that you just bring that steaming pile of fiction to them, they review it, they'll still give you a stamp. As long as there's no classified information in there, they will give the same exact exact stamp of approval. Let me give you an example of what it looks like when they give their stamp of approval. This was skinwalkers at the

Pentagon, that was all about Skinwalker Ranch and OS app. And you'll see here the Department of Defense dotser The case number cleared for public release may 11 2021. Here's the required disclaimer that Dr. had them put on the book. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the DoD or the US government. The public release clearance of this publication by the DOD does not imply DoD endorsement or

factual accuracy of the material. Were appropriate in order to protect personally identifiable information. and protected health information names and personal details have been changed. That's all standard. That's what Doppler does. So I wanted to clear up that point because again, that is often misconstrued right now, not only on social media, but in some journalist outfits that this was clear, then they don't explain what doctor was sorry, debrief that includes you as

well. Now, in fairness to one of the co founders, Tim McMillan, they did a supplemental article, very similar to what the New York Times did back in 2017. They have their main article, and then it's like, this is how we did it. Well, this was kind of echoing that. They had their main article, which I just went over the points with you. They had a supplemental article that was essentially a q&a between one of the debrief staff members, Christopher plane, who sat down and asked a bunch of

questions to to Tim McMillan as how do you vet this story? How do you how do you fact check it? And so you go through this, and to Tim's defense, he had put in there the detail about doctor that it is not an endorsement, so I want to make sure that I compliment Tim McMillan there for putting that into his interview to ensure that his readers did not think that it was a DOD endorsement. But, I mean, I kind of wish that it was in the original article, because that's what most people are

going to read. That's what the copy and paste journalists were using as kind of the basis. And so the Doppler note got got parroted, but the reality of what dots are does, did not. And that's what's kind of frustrating. So hopefully, that clears up a point for you. Another thing that the article didn't do, which I was a little surprised at, was the fact that there was no reach out for any official statement. Now I've said this 1000 times, and I'll say it 1000 times over because a

lot of my biggest haters love to throw this into my face. The official line from the DoD slash the Pentagon is not necessarily in an endorsement if you publish. It's part of the story, though. And I would think that anybody would reach out if you are trying to cover any topic, even if it's a no comment, to get the official line. It's important. So I'll stress it again. Just because you publish, it doesn't mean that it's an endorsement. But rather it is part of the story. So why you

ignore that? I don't know this article ignored that. Unless they didn't publish it and did contact them, I don't know. But I did end up getting a confirmation from the Pentagon of what their view is on this in relation to brushes, claims. Of course, it's everybody's favorite Sue golf, she is the only one that responds to UAP related queries. That's our portfolio. So that's why we see her name all the time. She gets a bad rap from some corners of this conversation. But she does

speak for the DOD, she doesn't speak for herself. So that said, this is the quote, to date, Arrow has not received any verifiable information to substantiate claims that any programs regarding the possession or reverse engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past or exists. Currently, Aro is committed to following the

data and its investigation wherever it leads. Arrow working with the Office of the General Counsel and the Air Force Office of Special Investigation has established a safe and secure process for individuals to come forward with information to aid arrow in its congressionally mandated historical review. Arrows historical review of records and testimonies is ongoing. And, and due to Congress and due to Congress by

June of 2024. Arrow welcomes the opportunity to speak with any former or current government employee or contractor who believes they have information revelant relevant to the historical review. That's the end quote. Now, obviously, that's not my endorsement of the DoD position, but rather that's

part of the story. So there you go. One thing I tried to get the Pentagon to elaborate on was whether or not grush has spoken to arrow because then that makes this statement at least connect to that first line arrow has not discovered any verifiable information to substantiate claims. So have they dealt with the claims from grush? And they can't substantiate it or in fairness, maybe they haven't talked to him yet. Or at all or

refuse to who knows. They have not responded to my question as of the recording of this video, but hopefully you see my point in pushing that because, okay, they can say whatever they want, but if they haven't talked to grush well, then how can you how can you say you haven't discovered any verifiable information? When I'm asking you about a whistleblower? You haven't talked? To yet, but on the contrary, if they did talk to him and couldn't substantiate anything, we should hear about

that. But again, I have yet to see that at all. Then the question comes up, but his arrow cleared at all is arrow, does arrow have enough clearance that of grush goes to them and say, hey, look, XY and Z. This is what I learned program names, agencies. He spills it all in a skiff for 11 hours at a time, and says, Okay, Dr. Kirkpatrick do your thing. And he doesn't have access to everything. How could he understand it? Now, this is the argument about title 10 versus

title 50. Now, I'm not gonna sit here and bore you to death with all the legalities of the difference between the two. But the nutshell is Dr. Kirkpatrick had stated that he didn't quite necessarily have the appropriate clearances for title 50 material, and maybe would not be able to substantiate claims like this. So I'm, you know, definitely on board with that. Does arrow have that clearance? And we just don't know, we would hope that they would, you know, we're crossing our fingers as

the general public that he would. But we don't know that for sure. There's a lot of title 10 versus title 50 information out there. Again, I'm not going to bore you to death with the legality, because I won't pretend that I understand all of the nitty gritty details about the difference between access and title 50 and title 10 authorities, but I invite you all to brush up on it. One thing I can comfortably say a lot of people that are debating this and arguing and online, likely

don't know the difference either. So with that said, I think there's a lot of legal area here that even you know, congressional scholars may struggle to truly grasp, because

it does get a little bit convoluted. But on that point, that arrow may not have access to all of this, I believe dotser would now keep in mind dotser, again, is the arm of the DOD, that will review all the way up to the top secret level, every level of classification, that if information is going out into the open in whatever form that it is, will they put the stamp of approval on it? During the course of that process, dotser will also reach out to what are called the OCA A's are the

original classifying authorities. And in turn, those will have access to certain aspects of information. So I will leave and I don't know 100% of every in and out of dachser nor does anyone unless you worked within dotser. Okay, there's a couple of DOD instructions you can call on. But I believe that the protocols themselves on how they operate, nobody in the outside world, including me is going to be able

to recite the whole thing. But what I can comfortably say from the documentation, and the instructions that we can look at is that if they don't have let let's just assume for a moment that they don't have clearance to look at 100% of every single thing out there. They do reach out to OCS or again the original

classifying authorities. For example, the videos that were submitted to Doppler by Luis Elizondo just to put this into context in this with the same subject matter they were shot by the US Navy Luis Elizondo put on that paperwork, drones and balloons. Now I'm only bringing that up because of Luis Elizondo is response. That's not my attempt to take a jab, but there's a point where I'm bringing that up, because that is a huge concern of mine that that he did that but here's my

point. Luis Elizondo, his response was that Doppler was not cleared to know that what was on those videos depicted UAP but the Navy was so if you don't believe me, you can believe Luis Elizondo, because if that is true, and I do have my doubts, but if that is true, and dotser was not cleared, the OCA was those are your Luis Elizondo is words, and that the OCA knew

what they were approving now. Let's now draw that to Gratias claims if he goes to dotser, and brings all of that information, to dotser, to clear to bring out into the open world about Special Access Programs, this that and the other thing, I would venture to guess he may have encroached into classified territory, explaining to dotser some of that material and in turn dotser could go to the CIA or the NRO or the NGA, or whomever and say we've got a guy who's looking for clearance for

this. And assuming that the idea that doctors not cleared they go to the OCA and go okay, can you guys clear this and they either say yay or nay. Now going back to the Russia story, all of it was cleared. Now we can safely say by that clearance, nothing was classified. But in that process, if anything had any ounce of truth to it, I believe wholeheartedly, it would have been classified even a sliver of it. And we know that by documented evidence that I've been focusing on now for a

couple of years. And when people don't like this, from me, those who advocate for disclosure and believe that we are on the path to disclosure, people hate this when I profile it, but it needs to be profiled, because the the secrecy around UAP is clamping down harder and harder and harder. That's documented. So from a legal standpoint, from the United States Code, Chapter Five, Section Five, five to our ability for that freedom of

information is being hindered by that secrecy. And I have numerous articles profiling that when it comes to UAP, and how they don't want to tell you a thing, reams of classified information that is blacked out from top to bottom or withheld entirely. This newest one down here, the classified Mozu orb UAP case, which we found out is entirely classified. There's not a single anything that they can release to us. And in that process, I discovered a new tactic, which I'll also be

dropping a video on this channel a very soon. But I did write an article about it last week, a new tactic to withhold that information, all claiming it's a law enforcement investigation. If the documented evidence, and a long string and trail and train of evidence that I could put forward to you shows that UAP related anything is heavily classified and exempt through

FOIA. If grush went to DOPPS, or with anything that encroached into that classified territory, even if the longshot assumption dotser didn't have access, their process would take them to agencies that did. And if it encroached into a SAP or an unacknowledged area, enough in that process, word would travel that would say dotser. No. And that's it. They wouldn't give

their stamp of approval. You see this when you get into and I can go on for hours, and I won't but you see this in the legal process the checks and balances when challenging decisions through FOIA and denials and national security information that sometimes when you file an appeal, that office that you are filing to will go back to the OCA I've countless examples of this. And they will they will say John is challenging your denial that this is classified information. And I see this a

lot with the Navy. Then that OCA that the office in the Navy goes back to the appellate authority and says, Sorry, it's classified, the appeal letter letter will essentially state that the appellate authority cannot grab all of that classified information and look at it and go, Yeah, you guys are right. I wish that was the case. But rather they say that they have to trust the OCA has authority to look at that information and make that determination. And so then they

will backup the Navy in those cases. So with that said, that is a prime example, that not all parties will be privy to 100% of the information, but the checks and balances system works, that the person that is in charge, ie the OCA will then look at that and go No, but I'm not going to tell you why. And that authority coming back to Grusha story dotser goes okay, and they don't get the stamp of approval. And yet in this case, it absolutely

did. So I know that that turned into a long winded explanation, but it has to be explored. If any of this encroached into a classified territory, all except the argument that arrow may not have that access. Okay, so I'll accept that. But since he went through the Doppler process, and brought a lot of these statements forward, you can't just go around and start spouting off about Special Access Programs and their scope. It doesn't matter if you're not showing progress reports, or

quarterly summaries or whatever, that doesn't matter. The scope of Special Access Programs and beyond is classified in nature. sometimes just the codename is a classified codename. So you can't just go around spouting that. So you go to doctor and you say, Yeah, I want to, you know, I'm making up a name you I want to talk about red Talon, right? And it's a classified site, but I won't say what red Talon is all about. Well, that

very name can be classified, and they won't give a stamp. And then they, they, they will push it back and say no, but that's not what happened in this case. So we have to look at the realization of the process we were told, and what that process actually means. I hope I'm wrong. Don't get me wrong. Look, I mean, if, if this was some kind of way of starting disclosure, cool, but that's just not how this is going. So for that story, to be pitched to dotser, and they got the stamp.

I think that's actually a red flag, despite some people thinking that it was a good thing. I think it actually may work against it. The point I brought up earlier, where are those documents from Doppler, and so on that were shown to the journalists, where are they? I'm kind of curious what Gresh brought to DOPPS? Or what adopts or sign off on? Was it literally verbatim the statements that they gave? Okay, well, I took from the article that, but I would like to see the actual

document. Because if that is true in the article, that the statements that grush gave were approved, there's absolutely no reason not to share that form. Because it's an unclassified form. We know that it has David's name on it. Well, that's fine. He wanted his name out there. So his name would be on it. I'd be surprised if the document that they got, well, let me take that back. Know that it may even have a name, let's just we'll skip some conjecture there. Has a name of adopter

reviewer or somebody else blacked it out? Who cares? But show us the information that was submitted to dotser that was signed off on take away the personally identifying information for those that work inside the government. But if you showed it to the journalists, and the journalists are claiming that everything that was said to us by grush was approved by dots are great. Let's see the paperwork. Now, some equate questioning brushes story, or these types of claims.

He's a liar. How dare you call him a liar? How dare you challenge him. But that's not what this is about. See, when you realize in the story, beyond these staggering claims, that grush was simply talking to people. You cannot hold the belief that the United States government and military for decades has covered up UAP wreckage of non human technology, and was successful in doing so. But fast forward

now post 2017. And people want that out. You cannot believe the government would be successful in wanting to do that, but not hold the belief that grush himself may be misled, that it's not about being a liar or that crushes is is risking his life and career for this. But why would you put it past the government or not put it past the government that they would

do something like that? Some of the loudest voices that come after me for saying How dare you question a military decorated officer are the same people that thrash Admiral Thomas Wilson for denying a certain event happened, who also happens to be highly decorated. There's a selective belief system here. But each case is absolutely unique to one another. So you have to drill in. And just because you question somebody

doesn't automatically mean that they are a liar. But you also can't put it past the fact that he is being misled because the laundry list of people that he spoke with, and the hours upon hours of interview audio that he recorded or videotaped. I don't really know what he amassed when none of us do, I don't think but regardless the hours that he brought together that formulated his belief that they were covering up non human craft, who are those people? Why aren't they out there speaking to

Congress, why do they have a conduit? Somebody who is really like in fairness to him, putting his whole face out there to be the conduit of the stories. Number one, it doesn't help if any of you are watching this, which I doubt you are. But if you are, it's done. It doesn't help. It absolutely doesn't help. If you want to bring your story out, you can do so and remain anonymous. Congress will listen. They've said it JELA Bran said it, that they are they're ready to listen. So if

you have the information, then put it out there. But to then go to somebody else, and then that's somebody else then goes and says, Hey, wait, look what I've figured out. And then he believes that he's being mistreated. Well, that's all the more reason not to use a conduit. Somebody who's being forced to feel the need to do this. And hey, all the more power to you and kudos for, for having that mindset. If this is all true, it should be out there. But do not put that on

somebody else. Those anonymous sources that he is conveying the stories for at this point, they're the ones that need to come out. If Luis Elizondo lead some secret UAP investigative effort called a tip, which I know, is controversial when you watch this channel, I mean, there's certain aspects to that story. I'm sorry. There's just like no evidence to support some of what is being said. But let's just get beyond the controversy. In the amount of time that he ran that program, does he see

the same thing that grush saw? Because if anybody was in the position to see it, it would be him, right. That's the pedestal that so many people have put him on, that he was in the position to essentially see all of this? Well, you know, what? Now's the time to put up. If he wants to support grush, which I'll show you a screenshot in a second, which I know he does. But I'm talking about naming names, and pointing fingers. Now is the time do you really think that Luis Elizondo if saying the

truth will get arrested? I'm sorry, I don't, I don't believe that. If these people came out and their information changed the planet, you really think they're gonna get arrested for that? I laughed, because I don't buy it. They're not releasing strategic plans for the middle of of the war in Ukraine, or secret troop placements in Iran, or, or secret spying programs on people, they are talking about something that all of humanity should know. So if you have that knowledge, I do not believe at

this point, that you would be arrested. I just don't, if you came out, you showed your face on CNN or Fox News or whomever, you're not going to be led away in cuffs, there's too much. Imagine what the government would go through, there would be anarchy. If somebody came out with a scientific proof of discovery, that humanity is not alone, all of a sudden, they're like carted away No way. I don't buy it. I just don't maybe that's wishful thinking. Who knows, but I just don't buy it.

So these conduits that are being used to convey the stories is silly. I think people should absolutely come out. But that aside, that again, goes back to don't say I'm calling this guy a liar or anybody who questions his story or anybody, but rather you have to accept the reality that it's possible he is being played. Also. This was another part of the story that started to fall apart for me. It wasn't in the article, Luis Elizondo

wasn't named at all. But Luis Elizondo, at least, through his support, have a link to the article and said this to Dave, the whistleblower, my friend and former colleague, thank you for your courage and honesty. What was interesting by that was friend and former colleague well, just what because they were DOD. Okay, well, that's cool. Friend, okay, they're friends. Also nothing against either one of them. But man, I was let down to see it. Like, why is everybody connected now?

Oh, I'll be fair here. Maybe they work together. Right? Well Remember how I talked about the timeline earlier in this presentation. That's where stuff like this comes into play. Before I get into the timeline, one person that I think needs to be cited here is Brian Bender, the author for the political piece that broke the story about Luis Elizondo and a tip and he

chimed in on one of the Twitter threads. He meaning the whistleblower Dave grush is also a close ally of Elizondo which is important context I think. Another tweet right underneath it, in fact, I would even say Lou groomed him a bit for several years now. Now I don't pretend to know all of Brian Bender sources, but I will say

this of all the journalists that are out there. I would say Brian Bender has had the most prestigious position that he that he had at politico of, again, those that are that are kind of covering this, but but definitely when he broke this story. He was one of the two I knew New York Times gets most of the credit. But Brian Bender was right there with a piece on it as well. He worked on that, as well. And I think he even said that certain things in there were. I'm paraphrasing, and I

don't want to put words in his mouth. But I think that in one tweet, he said that he felt he was misled, which I think is a pretty big point to make. But but to further that, that there were things that came out that weren't necessarily the the 2017 story, that that obviously has morphed since then. Now he's moved on. He's not a political anymore, and still actively interested and even engaged in the UAP topic, but not not a journalist. So in that, by his own words, he says he doesn't

work as a journalist anymore. So that said, it's important to show the context of how Brian Bender, obviously has a little bit more knowledge here about the situation and draws a connection between the whistleblower and Luis Elizondo. Now you'll see here the dates from 2019 to July of 2022. Through his tenure at the NRO and the NGA, the whistleblower was working on the task force, but we also have to keep in mind

Elizondo retired in 2017. October for to be exact. So again, where is that friendship forming from maybe outside? Again, that's fine, or did they work with each other? Because I'm sure that a lot of people are gonna say, well, they're all connected in this UAP research, but the timeline doesn't really afford that. You will also keep in mind that some of you may not

remember this statement. I got this an April of 2021. But I believe at the time, Luis Elizondo was making the claim that he was still actively engaged, and essentially working with the UAP Task Force at that time. So I got the Pentagon to actually address that. They said Luis Elizondo departed the DoD in October 2017. He has no position in the UAP, TF. And the UAP. TF has not involved him, and it's ongoing work. So this

was around the time that grush was involved in the UAP TF. So again, if he was working with them, great, but there's no connection whatsoever there. Again, that's where the timeline is important. So what is that connection? So yeah, I know some of you will hate me for saying it. I just wish I didn't see that. Because it doesn't for me, it doesn't have it's like seems like everybody is connected in some way. If it was work

connected, great. I look forward to seeing to seeing that. It just doesn't seem that way for Brian bender to come in and say this guy who has been groomed for years. I know enough about Brian bender to know that He's not just going to make that up in a tweet. If this was like some, you know, off the wall Twitter account that had two followers. I wouldn't even be bringing it up. But it was the original journalist who broke the a tip story who's saying this guy was groomed by Elizondo

and that he's a close ally. Yeah, that that piques my interest a little bit, I would definitely want to dig in more and, and explore why. But another weird thing. And, you know, there's no love lost between this guy in me. He doesn't care for me at all. I you know, full disclosure, I've had the guy block for quite some time goes by the name UFO Joe made a post and people were screenshotting this because I think that this took an even bigger hit, if you want to call

it that, on how the story unfolded. Now, I will say again, I'm eager to see how it plays out. But let me read to you this claim. I know this will make some folks cry too bad. When Dave grush first decided to reach out to the media. It was over a year ago and it was to George Knapp and Jeremy Korbel. And thanks to George Knapp and Jeremy Korbel. I was introduced to Dave last August when I went to see the weaponized pair speak at the Star Trek convention here in town. You'll be hearing more

from George Knapp and Jeremy Korbel. about their relationship with Dave in the very near future. I forgot to add in the hotel room where we hung out, Jeremy Korbel George Knapp and, and grush and I all recited the opening scene to the Wrath of Khan. And I know folks have a lot of questions about my original tweet. But the answer will come from Jeremy Korbel and George Knapp on weaponized hopefully soon, because I want

to hear it. I wouldn't be bringing this up to you. Except for the fact that core Bell had retweeted it and said promise that George Knapp and I will tell this a central part of the sequence of events soon. This UAP puzzle is like an iceberg. We see so little above the surface and in the media, not for long, I suspect. So what's up with that? He's at a Star Trek convention going after George Knapp and Jeremy Korbel. Now that's cool because corbello Nap have broken some interesting

stories in the past. Not all I know that the most recent has been the most controversial, especially with with my interpretation of it. But regardless, a Star Trek convention like that's, that's their meeting. Now that was in August, I believe that was of 2022. And one of the quotes from the debrief article said from late 2021, to July of 2022, he was the NGA is CO lead for UAP analysis and its representative

to the task force. So does that mean that it was a month after he stopped his work with the UAP task force that he was chopping this around, which is fine, but let's put that into proper context. But then when you read deeper into the debrief article, you realize that's thrown out the window, because it stated grush left the government on April 7 2023. So that was just what a month and a half ago, two months ago. grush left the

government on April 7 2023. In order he said to advance government accountability through public awareness, he remains well supported within intelligence circles. And numerous sources have vouched for his credibility, all that is went fantastic. But it's a red flag to me that if he was still within the government, he was out there at a Star Trek convention chopping the story around. Now that may ultimately

not be the case. So I am eager to see how Jeremy Incore Bell and and George Knapp talked about this meeting at the Star Trek convention, but all the more reason not to have some guy calling himself UFO Joe out there, going we were singing in a hotel room together, while the guy was still in government out there. pitching a story. I don't get that. But to further that, why would Korpela nap? Just let it go? Like, did it not pass their test? Which would be super intriguing to hear? Simply

because Well, nevermind. I'd be surprised if it didn't pass their test. I'm surprised they didn't want to break the story. So what happened there? I don't know. But I bring this part up. Because this is where the story is starting to get wonky that this guy is at a Star Trek convention. While he's still working for the government, essentially pitching his story. That doesn't make sense. But in fairness, I'll wait for that

explanation that Jeremy Corbyn says is coming. I contacted the Inspector General of the intelligence community you see them referenced as the IC IG in the debrief story. That's where grush had submitted his complaint that after he started talking about all that material that was centrally being blocked off by the UAP ATF meaning that they couldn't have access to it yet he was collecting all this information. He starts getting reprisal and getting treated badly. We don't know the details

of that yet, but submitted the complaint. And and his attorney who was very impressive attorney was the one that's that's representing him. The IC IG or Yeah, the IC IG Intelligence Committee. Anyway, acronym acronym. I see IG stated this to me, as of this morning, the Office of the Inspector General of the intelligence community declines to comment, so they don't want to touch it. Now, to expand on that a little bit. I think I understand why the DoD IG, the Inspector General for

the Department of Defense, which does differ from the IC IG. They have the same approach to when anybody asks them questions about a whistleblower complaint. They will shut it shut it down. They don't want to talk about it. You get into some very dicey legal areas. But I do know this, the IC IG if they receive explicit permission

from grush to acknowledge the complaint, they will. I do know that based on documentation, which I didn't make a slide for, but I'm happy to link that in the show notes below as well. But there is proof that if grush says, Hey, I will allow you to acknowledge this, that they will how much farther they will go from that I'm not really sure. But why I bring that up is why didn't the authors of this piece do that? This was yet another opportunity to give weight to this now I'm not saying that the

complaint wasn't submitted. But what if they did validate the quotation that it was considered credible. And the wording that they used? I forget what the slide said I had it in the earlier slide, but regardless credible and so on, why wouldn't you want that validated, but we don't know what quote that came from. We don't know where that document is, we haven't been shown anything. And that is yet another, what I call a red flag is why not? Now it may show up tonight, for all I know, or

tomorrow, and I'm looking forward to it. But it should have been in the original piece. So that type of documentation is crucial to help evidence to help give some evidence to what is a largely evidence LIS story. It's just a bunch of claims. I'm so excited, we have a face and a name. But in essence, he is just telling you what anonymous sources told him. So even though he's highly decorated, which is awesome. We have no idea who the

other people are. Even though he may be 100% telling you the truth on what he was told, we have no idea if he is being lied to. We have no idea who's telling him these stories. We have no idea if he got caught up with with the same cast of characters that we've heard about for quite a few years now, some of which have very questionable backgrounds, and

I'll let you fill in the blanks. But I truly believe that people are being misled, that I wholeheartedly believe, and that there are certain characters out there that will say one thing and say they have your best interest at heart. But deep down they do not. Now that sounds conspiratorial, and I'm not saying that that's a official psyop something against the community. I'm not saying any of that. But what I am saying is people are being misled. That's provable time and time again,

there are certain things that are irrefutable. on them being wrong using actual evidence. And no, it's not a Susan golf statements. And it's not all just because of a FOIA request. But rather, if you look at the information and you start putting things together, you can only use interviews that some of these people have done. That's it No, take the government totally out of the equation. And you put their interviews together, you'll get a completely different story. Why

is that? So that's what makes me go back to that whole, like, it's not bad to question anybody. Because we have no idea that in their journey, they're absolutely telling you the truth. grush could be completely honest with everything that he's saying to you. But people could be lying to him. And we have to consider that because you cannot believe in some grand conspiracy and cover up which by the way I do I think that that's provable.

But you cannot believe that the government is doing a grand cover up about all this, but also not believe that there are certain aspects of these stories, wherein there are people being misled. You can't just say no, that's not possible. He is completely highly decorated. Well, great. He is. That doesn't mean he's not being lied to. And that doesn't mean that people are not misleading him, or pointing him in the right wrong direction versus the right one. And in

turn, he's misleading all of us, not because he wants to. But just because he doesn't know. That's a big possibility. I can already see the hate mail. I'll get for that. But regardless, we have to look at it. So what does all this mean? Now I will say this, to end it on a positive note. Even though there are problems with the story itself, and essentially the root of where these claims are, what can we do with the story? If he was purely anonymous sources? Well, the answer would likely be kind

of nothing. But contrary to that there's a lot of great things that we can come up with through this story. And we can start putting puzzle pieces together like the army liaison and Colonel now, like the NRO, and the NGA whistleblower who we've labeled the whistleblower, but his tenure at both agencies and his connection to all of this, that opens up FOIA requests not only on those two individuals, but also additional requests to the IC IG to the NRO, to the NGA, and to the army, amongst

some others. And yeah, I've filed quite a few to start not only fact checking some aspects of the story, but even away from the grandiose claims that are being presented. The story was crucial to put certain pieces of the puzzle namely these names and individuals and some extra puzzle pieces with the agencies themselves, put them all together, to file more requests and to start figuring out where we can go next. So it doesn't matter. or if it's just a big old pile of steaming fiction.

What happened with this article gave us some new information that we can use. And that's a plus. So I'm happy for that. And and, and intrigued and encouraged that finally, we got some names and some new pieces of information. But the grander claims, the ones that are obviously making the headlines. I think the jury's still out on that as it should be. Because despite everything that I went over, at the end of the day, we have absolutely nothing to support regrets that. So I'm not

branding, Brett branding Him a liar. That's not what that is about. But we have absolutely nothing. Hopefully, the information that he passed on, has some type of tangible something for them to look at, hopefully, hopefully, the people behind grush, the ones that were feeding him all this information, they come forward, I truly hope that we see that even if they are anonymous sources in some future article. I won't dig that. But hopefully their information will somewhat

be verifiable by someone out there. But Congress is ready Gela Branda, saying, if you feel you're not being treated right come my way. Now's the time. I said in a video not too long ago, it's time to put up or shut up. I'll repeat that sentiment, it really is time to put up or shut up. Stories are great stories like this. I'm not sure if they help or hurt in the long run. We're all in this together to try and figure it out. But at least we got a few puzzle pieces. But regardless, these

are just still stories when it comes to the big claims. So those people they need to come out in the open. Let's see what happens. I'm here to hear it. Hopefully, if you'd like to show you like this presentation, please give a thumbs up. It's a big help here on YouTube. If you're listening to the audio podcast form, just know that I do have a video, just go to www dot the black vault.com/live, you'll be able to see all of the live streams that I do. And make sure you subscribe to that

channel, turn those notifications on. And on the opposite end of the scale. If you're watching the video, have no idea i turn these into audio podcasts or the majority of them, not all of them. But I do do that as well. Please feel free to go to that website, the black vault.com You'll see podcast at the top all sorts of ways to subscribe or just go to your favorite podcast platform, iTunes, Spotify, whatever it is under black vault, radio, and that's how you can download it.

Always interested into your thoughts and comments. Of course I always ask please be respectful, but post them in the comment boxes below. I try to respond when I can. But I'm always eager to see where you agree where you disagree. What didn't I think of what I missed? All that good stuff. We'll see you there in the comments. This is John Greenewald Jr, signing off, and we'll see you next time.