Ep. #123 – DoD Makes Major Play To Block Release of UAP Information

bring to you. But it is fascinating nonetheless. Now, why I say it's not fun is that the US government, namely the Department of Defense, in my view, in again, I want to stress that this is my opinion at this point, has done one of the biggest push backs on the general public accessing UAP related information. This is a tactic that I've yet to see. And this is something that may spell some bad news for us that are seeking that transparency. Now. This is a theme on my show that

I talk a lot about the secrecy, the secrecy, the secrecy. I've been always intrigued by that for decades have been intrigued by that. However, it is getting worse. Now I know that's not a popular stance to take. I know everybody's all excited that Congress and politicians are involved and, and they're pushing budget legislation. And that's all great. But from the standpoint of trying to access that, that information, it's getting worse. Now, why is that? And then the last couple of

weeks, it's really gotten worse. Now, I wrote a story. Let me bring it up for you here just to kind of give you an update because this particular story I primarily had written about the mozal orb you remember that leaked video, couldn't get the DOD to acknowledge essentially what it was or anything like that. This was this was leaked. This was something that I deep down felt was likely classified. And again, I won't get into it a lot here but likely classified. Despite what we were told,

especially with the way that it was filmed. I believe the Baghdad Phantom was more easily proven being shot by the MQ nine Reaper drone. That that was something that was classified. Well, I went after documentation on the MO Zool orb. And it finally came back that everything and I mean everything that I had requested, which includes off stress it again, everything. I go for memos, reports, photos, videos, I've got kind of standard legal jargon to cover the gamut on

what I'm going for. Everything was classified on this case. So essentially, they are acknowledging that there's something there. Like what what it means that we don't know, it's likely labeled A UAP. But we again, don't know. But regardless, they acknowledged it and said that everything was classified. Well, that in turn means without a doubt, the material that leaked is likely classified because that did not

come up. So obviously, there's a little bit of an assumption there meaning that this is quote unquote, genuine, I don't really have a doubt that it is just trying to be fair to the to the evidence here. So on the assumption that this is real, this letter essentially solidifies that it is classified because they didn't release it. So you can see here go through the letter. This was the letter excerpt. Exemption B. One is national security. So that was the main crux of the story. That

was the main point. But I had seen something in this case that I didn't really see before. Now look down here. You can see hopefully, you can see my arrow there on your screen. The second reason that or excuse me, technically the third reason that it was withheld second being B five, which is internal communication and deliberation. So you see that it's kind of standard hate that exemption, but it's there nonetheless quite

frequently. But the third exemption that they cited is this one here B seven A, which could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings enforcement meaning law enforcement, B seven e, which would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could

reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of law. Now that's a pretty big Legal mouthful, but essentially it just does not want to give out any information because it considers whatever it is entwined in that case, because this this particular Freedom of Information Act request was geared towards that Mozilla orb, whatever it is pertaining to that they have kind of lumped up into a law enforcement umbrella and are

denying access to it citing those exemptions. Now, if this stood alone, I would be intrigued by it, but not concerned. However, multiple other cases around this time started coming up with the same exact exemption be seven, law enforcement, law enforcement proceedings law important enforcement investigations. Now, you'll see why that that's a

concern in a second. But the two other cases at this time they came in around the same time was one request that was for all communications between arrow and the private organization UAP x. Now, I won't go too deep into UAP X. But this was nothing nefarious, I requested communications between arrow and lots of private organizations to see what was being communicated back and forth. Because some of these organizations were openly

admitting to talking to arrow. So that's public domain. You know, I mean, that they they openly admitted this, they posted it on social media. So I utilize stuff like that and went after it. So the request for all just the communications, all emails and letters, I even quoted it here, all emails and letters exchanged between any members of Arrow and The UAP. X organization. And then a second request all records pertaining to the interviews of Dr. Robert Jacobs, and Robert solace. That

also is a quote from the second case that was denied. Now, as we know, Robert solace has openly admitted to being interviewed by Eero again, this was all public knowledge. He posted it on Twitter and talked about it in a podcast. So I consider that essentially fair game. I mean, if you're going to openly talk about that, that let's let's see the interview, you know, are

there transcripts? Is there audio, video, all of that would be FOIA a bowl and with some exception, releasable so we could we could get it and a case in point, Luis Elizondo interview with his DoD IG complaint, I got that although redacted. And that was expected, you can read the majority of it.

So that's what I was going for here yet. All of them the mozal orb, the arrow and UAP X communications, and the interviews of Robert solace, and Robert Jacobs, all UAP related, but very different in the scope of their request, interviews, investigation in a military action area, and communications. So three that were all scoped very differently with their request. But all yielded the same response all be seven all

law enforcement investigation. Now what that essentially means in a nutshell, is that B seven is one of the one of I wouldn't say V. But one of the hardest exemptions to fight in an in an appeal, because there's no going against if it's a law enforcement investigation, and you could hurt law enforcement, investigative techniques or potentially a prosecution as this letter says. That's, that's tough to get beyond fighting national security or a be one exemption on something 3040

years old. I'd rather go up against that, than then be seven to be honest with you. Some attorneys may disagree with me, but B seven is a tough one. Because now it automatically if this is if I'm right, this automatically takes anything that arrow is looking at anything that arrow is doing anything that they are investigating it and exempts it from top to bottom like that. No, it doesn't even have to be classified. It doesn't even have to be any type of threat to

national security. It doesn't have to violate anybody's personal privacy. None of that. So b b one out the window B six out the window. All those exemptions. They don't have to fall back on now, because they have one that they can. Now I'm hoping that this isn't as bad as I fear that maybe and this is an option. Maybe it's for privacy. Maybe this locks down the ability for let's say whistleblowers to come forward or witnesses to come forward. That shields them from FOIA. But

if that's true, be six is there to shield them from FOIA. So I don't know know how much that is going to apply here. We will wait and see, depending upon you know how all this plays out, but I have constant contacted the Pentagon, I tried to get a DOD official stance on this, asking, Hey, you have released arrow related material before and B seven was never an issue, you have denied other UAP related material in full even B

seven was never an issue. So this is new. This is 100%, a new tactic that I have not seen before in this way, B seven is not unheard of. So please don't get me wrong. But the blanket denials, which I'm seeing, again, with these three requests that had different scopes, that is new, and that makes me very, very worried moving forward from a legal standpoint, because fighting it is very, very hard. Now, that was a couple of weeks ago. Fast forward now to this week. And there were a couple of

others that had been denied as well. You can see here, they were forced Pacific arrow serial case numbers, be seven denied. Also, they use the law enforcement. Or excuse me, they use the national security exemption in addition to the law enforcement, but law enforcement was there. The second thing denied. This was I went over the Robert solace, and Robert Jacobs interviewed denied. This was for all other interviews that arrow

had done, so any of them. And I and I said that I would exclude Robert solace and Robert Jacobs, because I had already filed a different request for them, since they had openly admitted being interviewed. So sorry, one point of clarity there. So all interviews, 100% of them, they claim are exempt. So I would hope or think that if somebody like Robert Solace is coming forward, saying, Here's my story, here's my name, I was interviewed by arrow that they could release that because

there's no privacy issue there. But that that, you know, maybe a different story in a different video altogether. So bottom line here is the usage of B seven, and I know it gets dry and snoozy boring with the legal jargon. But this is something incredibly problematic to those advocating for transparency with the US government. The last thing that I will address for all of you to talk about it from time to time, but this is a

perfect video to bring it back up. Is that a rebuttal that I see when I talk about stuff like this is John who cares about FOIA? Who cares about you, you are wasting your time you'll never get answers through FOIA. The politicians are pushing for answers, they will bring it to us. The problem is, is that the politicians adhere to the same secrecy that's laid on them as

we do. If you watch the media, you see that a lot in the political arena where outside of UFOs, they are utilizing FOIA as well, or they fall back on private citizens or private organizations and therefore your work to help their congressional pushes for for answers. My whole point there is people can dismiss FOIA all they want and fall back on politicians. However, evidence shows politicians will actually fall back on FOIA a lot, as well. So this is a a valuable tool, no

matter how you slice it or dice it. But on top of that, and above all else, politicians will get met with the same secrecy that we do, or those that are cleared, will be ushered into a skiff told the real stuff, the stuff you and I want to know. And then they will come out and go, Well, we're taking care of it. And we want answers. And we'll have a hearing and like 12 years, and we'll talk about it again and nothing will get done.

But don't you worry. Vote for me in November. So that's the type of thing that I worry about where people are falling too much on politicians. And yes, they've done some great work thus far. And yes, there's some legislation. But secrecy is at an all time high. How do you marry the two politicians are getting answers, yet the secrecy is at an all time high. That doesn't make any sense to me that secrecy will transfer to

the politicians as well. They will adhere to the same guidelines of speaking out or not speaking out when they're not supposed to, and what remains in a skiff. What happens in a skiff stays in a skiff, and we will never find out about it. I hope that I'm wrong. But this is something that's huge and the Pentagon not getting back to me. I have tried and I've tried and

I've tried. I have followed up numerous times I will continue to do so because I think that this needs to somewhat be addressed and hopefully It's not as bad as, as I'm kind of fearing here. But maybe maybe it is. And we will be at the mercy of the Department of Defense having a once a year hearing that's to the public. And they'll give us one, maybe two

videos, half of which are explainable. Anyway, the other half may be tagged on identified from the government, but seemingly online sleuths can find a very viable explanation within like eight seconds. So that's not the good stuff. We know by that testimony. There is a small, I'll be at single percentage, number of the overall 800 Plus caseload that is truly anomalous. According to Dr. Shawn Kirkpatrick, who leads the UAP investigative effort. That's the stuff that I want to

go through under FOIA. That's the stuff that we need to legally fined for, not the bread crumbs that they want to throw out there. And make us all go wow, ooh, colors. And look at this stuff. Because it's a joke. We know that there's more there. And with each of these types of things happening, like slapping a B seven exemption, blanket on nearly everything arrow related, that takes that material that again, I'll be at single digit and puts it lower, and lower and deeper and deeper and deeper

until it's inaccessible. Until it's untouchable. No politician is gonna go down there and bring it out to you. They may even be able to see it, but the likely never ever tell you or show you about it. And that's the problem with today's conversation and the world that we live in. When it comes to UAP. Secrecy is deepening. Prove me wrong politicians. Please, I will apologize if you guys somehow pierce this veil of secrecy and this changes but until then, it's going the opposite

direction from my vantage point, and that's a concern. Until next time, this is John Greenewald, Jr, signing off, and we'll see you then