Ep. #129 – Breaking Down the October 2023 UAP Report

do some things. And just kind of break it down that way. Because even though the report may not have a whole lot of information we can use, there are things that you can deduce from it, that if you use the FOIA or even if you're just kind of curious and want to dig in a little bit more, it really kind of is helpful to look at these types of things in a different lens. And that's my intent for videos like these. So let's just go ahead and get right into it. Let me pull up the presentation, if

you will. And some slides, I'm not going to read the whole report to you. But I am going to break down some of the parts that were most interesting to me now the report was only 16 pages. And let me stress, I urge you to read the whole thing. I'm not going to go over everything, like I said. So you know, you might find something interesting that I didn't. So it's very much a matter of perception and how we approach these topics. But

what I'm going to go through with you. And I'm going to read some sections, especially for the audio version, but read some sections, so we can go through it and kind of talk it out a little bit and see some of the interesting parts of this, but also some of the concerning parts, as well. So for those watching on YouTube, and then throughout some of the other social media networks where this video may pop up, in the show notes section, you will find a direct link to the black vault

with the entire report. So you can download, follow along with me on this video, download it for yourself, read it, print it, put it on your wall frame it, throw darts at it, whatever you like to do. But that link is is there for you. Now, with these reports, even though it's only 16 pages, a lot of times they will put what's called an executive summary. So the report itself is you know, roughly 12 pages or so minus the table of

contents and cover page and the executive summary. So the executive summary is roughly a page page and a half of taking the report condensing it down, making it a little bit more digestible for those who don't like the nitty gritty details. So that's where we're going to start and I'm going to go through some of the paragraphs that I think properly summarizes

some of the things that we're learning with this. I'll quote The report covers unidentified anomalous phenomena UAP reports from 31 August 2022 to 30 April 2023, and all UAP reports from any previous time periods that were not included in an earlier report. The all domain anomaly resolution office received a total of 291 UAP reports during this period, consisting of 274 that occurred during this period and another 17 that occurred during previous reporting periods from 2019 to 2022. But

had not been conveyed in previous submissions. In other words are just getting the report post any previous reporting that they did, and they were in those past timeframes, really wordy for such a kind of simplistic data point. during the reporting period, Arrow received no reports indicating UAP sightings have been associated with any adverse health effects. However, many reports from military

witnesses do present potential safety of flight concerns. And there are some cases where reported UAP have potentially exhibited one or more concerning concerning performance characteristics, such as high speed travel or unusual maneuverability. Aero has deconflict these cases with potential us programs and continues to work closely closely with its DOD and intelligence community mission partners to identify and attribute any objects found in

these cases. Additionally, Arrow continues to investigate and research all cases and its holdings. While the mere presence of UAP in the airspace represents a potential hazard to flight safety. None of these reports suggest the UAP maneuver to an unsafe proximity to civil or military aircraft, positioned themselves in flight paths, or otherwise posed a direct threat to the flight safety of the observing aircraft. Although none of these UAP reports have been positively attributed to

foreign activities, these cases continue to be investigated. And it should be important to point out, if if it's not obvious to you, I take away from all of this, that this is just the reports in this particular period. So not the totality of everything aro has collected. So just kind of keep that in mind that even though it's a fairly uneventful and kind of snoozy expos A of this particular time period, it is just that

particular time period. So they may have other cases that have done health hazards after the encounter, that maybe was not in this time period, but something in the past. So just kind of keep that in mind that this is the lens of the timeframe, a smaller timeframe, not a summary of everything that they have. While this progress is facilitating collection and analysis of the UAP problem set, the continued volume and unidentified nature of most UAP is a direct consequence of gaps

in domain awareness. These gaps are the direct result of insufficient data secured by radar, electro optical infrared sensors, the presence of sensor artifacts such as IR flare, and optical effects, such as parallax that can cause observational misperceptions, based on the ability to resolve cases to date. With an increase in the quality of data secured, the unidentified and purported anomalous nature of most UAP will likely resolve to ordinary phenomena, and significantly

reduced the amount of UAP case submissions. To me, this is the most concerning part of this report. Now, any viewers of this channel, you'll know that I talk a lot about the secrecy surrounding UAP and why it's there, and the lack of official explanation of why it's there. But on top of that, the parallels between the 1950s 1960s primarily through the late 1960s, of how the government and military at that time, had set up the investigations that they did,

ultimately, we refer to it as Project Bluebook. But there were a few programs in there. And how they dealt with it, why they did it. And ultimately, them closing everything. And then we didn't hear about UFOs literally for decades and decades. I talk a lot about the parallels, because it has concerned me now for a couple of years, that that is exactly what is playing out now.

Now for those who don't know me, I know and believe based on evidence, both through FOIA and outside of FOIA, that there's something to these phenomena. I say it plural, I think that there's multiple facets to this, I think there may be multiple Well, there's obviously multiple explanations, some of which are just very earth based. And I'm not here to argue the the alien hypothesis to you. But rather that there is a section here that we humans, I think

just don't quite understand yet. And that I believe is is evident throughout history. But when you get to the investigations, like again, Project Bluebook, you see how that played out? You juxtapose that with how this is playing out, all of a sudden, you start to see things really unfolding in the exact same way. And this, again, has been a concern of mine for quite some time. Now put it visually for you. It all started with a threat. Now I'm obviously talking about Project Bluebook.

But also juxtapose that again with today that it all started with a threat that there was a problem the military had to investigate, because there was a public interest on top of that threat, the concern in the post world war two environment, you know, through 1946 4748, that timeframe when you got into project sign, then grudge and then project Bluebook.

Ultimately, that public interest coupled with the threat pave the way for a decade, a couple of decades long UFO investigation, but the evidence once it came out more and more, you can realize that it was much less a investigation, but rather much more in explanation. Now that is a whole video presentation in itself. I've talked a little bit about it in past videos, I won't regurgitate it all here. The project Bluebook was a farce. But it had to deal with those two things the threat and the

public interest that was not going away. The UFO phenomena was given more credibility at the At time by military personnel and prominent politicians as it progressed, which prolong funding and interest, you look at those former and current at the time, military personnel that were saying things, sometimes in books, sometimes in press conferences, and you fast forward through the mid 60s, then you have people like Gerald Ford, prior to him becoming

president, pushing the UAP issue as a huge concern, and something that needed to be dealt with. A lot of this sounds familiar, you start exchanging some of these names with people today. And they fit almost identically to how this has played out in the past. Now, all of that interest, the threat and all of that dialogue in the public sphere, led to the military, obviously starting grudge sign later Bluebook and doing the investigation for decades, looking at the cases, digesting

everything, and then coming to a quote unquote, conclusion. They concluded that the majority of the cases were explainable. Now, even by their own admission, it was not everything. There's a famous number 701 that remained unidentified after a project Bluebook closed. However, the problem with that is once you start looking at a lot of the cases, you realize that 701

Number was likely much, much larger. On top of that, the the section on the black vault that I call from the desks of brought project Bluebook added other case files that were found from a former project Bluebook personnel member in a garage somewhere, you realize that there were cases that weren't in the massive data set that is now at the National Archives, a lot of stuff didn't survive, it got either destroyed, shredded, or copies were taken home by other people. But the fact remains

that that 701 Number likely isn't accurate at all. Another quick point on that when I posted project Bluebook documents, gosh, probably close to a decade ago, and created this massive search engine kind of turned into an ugly story of copyright claims by ancestry.com. I'll bore you with that story another day. But the bottom line was at got major

press and publicity. And as a result, people from the 1960s and even 50s were writing me directly because they found their sighting in the Bluebook files that even though it was readily available, if they cared to go to the National Archives, the resource that I had created allowed people to search for it and find it like that. And so they did and I started compiling responses from people that stretched into the double

digits. I'm not talking about hundreds, but rather probably 1520 people that had found their case file, saw what the government and military labeled it as. And they said there is no way that this was the explanation for my case, and that they changed part of the facts behind it. And I started piling these up realizing Wow, Bluebook was much more of a farce than I than I ever realized. So sorry to go off on

that tangent. But all of the statistics and stuff that we've learned about Bluebook, in my opinion is provably false, that the the percentage of unexplained is likely much, much larger. And I think that that's an important point to punch with that particular era. So even though they claim that most were explainable, they convened a panel back in the 1960s, of scientists to independently look at the findings. And you kind of look at the NASA effort and stuff like that you start to

juxtapose all of this, it seems very, very familiar. But that being said, that panel of scientists came together, looked at decade's worth of cases. And they determined that the UFO phenomena, whatever it may be, was not a threat to national security didn't warrant further investigation, and recommended that the investigation be closed. And that's exactly what the US Air Force did. They halted the investigation, they stopped it and for well over 40 years, the government stopped

talking about UFOs and bought them decades. Now documentation proves that's not entirely true. They wanted you to believe they didn't care. But in reality, the CIA, the NSA, the DIA, and quite a few other places, were still collecting and looking at UFO reports from around the globe. So that also was a lie by the US government. However, they used kind of that, that effort to justify them saying, Oh, we just don't care about UFOs we looked

at it we gave it a shot. and everything is primarily explainable the cases, and I'm paraphrasing their point on this. But the cases that did not have an explanation, they felt if they had better data, better instrumentation, or essentially more data in front of them about those respective cases, they too, would be identified. That's exactly what I just read to you from this new report, that essentially they're saying if we have better data, that we'd likely be able to solve the

majority of these. Well, the reality is they probably could, but it's the small percentage of stuff that truly is anomalous. Don't take my word. I'm not guessing. That's Dr. Kirk, Patrick's word that he said in the congressional hearing that he took part in that there was a small percentage of truly anomalous cases that they could not identify that they were collecting. And I did the math at the time with his percentage that he gave it was roughly about 30 to 40 cases, or so,

obviously, a rough estimate. But that's a lot of cases that they've collected that would be truly anomalous. Now, what's his definition of truly anomalous that it's hard to tell? We don't really know that. But for him to go on the record and say that, that, to me is a big deal. But those types of statements are lost in these reports, these types of reports AR better data, everything explainable? Well, that's probably not true, given the documented history that we can already call back on. And

it's playing out the exact same way. Now, moving on from that point, this was another really fascinating section to me that I bet the majority of people just kind of skipped. Now the 2022 report on UAP, published by the same office, headed by arrow, and then they consulted with other places as well, I put it in quotes, because it was actually published in 2023, they were very late on it. But that's why it's in quotes, the section of where they say, the agencies they coordinated with were

listed. That, to me is fascinating, because here's the comparison of the newest report, which is over here. And the 2022 report, which came out early, early in 2023. And you look at the growth of consulting agencies that arrow is working with. Now, that's encouraging, it means that they really are branching out. So kudos to them, because it really shows some growth there that they're not confining themselves to data to only a handful of agencies, but rather, it's grown considerably.

Now I went through one by one, the yellow highlights are the ones that we already heard before. The ones that aren't highlighted at all, are brand new, that they were not in the previous report. And you'll see two pink highlights in there too, which are, again, easily missed. And I'm not I'm not really sure what the explanation is here. But I think it's worthy of a mention that in the 2022 report. OD and eyes nem aviation, in conjunction with Arrow made that

report. This newest was drafted by Arrow and ODNI is National Intelligence manager for military integration. So that's nem mill, not nem. Aviation. So there was a change there that name aviation doesn't even appear here. Now, is there an easy explanation for that? Possibly. But I actually tried to search in Google for this military integration. And every one of the links minus one at the recording of this video, by

the way. So that could change later. But at the recording of this video, when I Googled this and tried to research it a little bit more, because that's new to me. They were all references to this UAP report. Meaning is it new? Is it a name change from them aviation one, name, aviation still has a website. So either they haven't updated yet and this is a new name, or there was a change. Why for that change? Not really

sure, but I think it's worthy of note there. The other pink highlight ODNI is nem economic security and emerging technology. This may also be a variation of the previous ODNI nem emerging and disruptive technology. But it's worthy of note because it is different and the DIA is missing. Dia was in the 2022 report, not in the new one. So also of note, why not? Where did the DIA go? They exhaust all contributions that

they can give. Is it a mistake? You know, your guess is as good as mine, but I at least wanted to point that out as we go through the report itself. One other point that came out that I felt was interesting the increase in reporting is in part due to deepening federal relationships and Arrow's ability to incorporate new reports into its adjudication and research process. UAP mission partners continue to

coordinate collaborate and streamline processes. With these new reports, as of 30, April 2023, Arrow has received a total of 801 UAP reports. So obviously, showing the growth obviously, the screenshot prior that I just showed you, justifies this kind of, again, explosive, increase that may be explosive is a little bit too dramatic there. But the increase in reporting the increase of data that's becoming available to them, it's because they are branching out and coordinating

with more and that's encouraging. The report, it may be hard to see on your screen here, but it's not really important. Gave some pie charts, which we've seen in the past, obviously just updated with the newest numbers. The first one reported UAP morphologies, these are the shapes that just seem to be a very elusive dataset. The was a 2021 classified report that I got partially released through FOIA showed that they wanted to redact for national security reasons, the shapes of

all the UAP and examples of the shapes of those UAP. My appeal on that is still open. Obviously, they have lessened that a little bit. So hopefully, we'll see some encouraging results from from that specific appeal. But that pie chart obviously is breaking down some of those shapes. The biggest data set, or the data portion, 53% not reported. Excuse me, so

why, who knows. But you've got orbs sphere, as the biggest reported shape, and then it breaks it down from there, rectangle, triangle disc, cylinder, all stuff that you can probably just guess on your own. But interesting that the majority of cases don't even report a shape, while those that do 25% are round spheres and orbs. This is a pretty pointless chart if you ask me. Reported lights for fiscal year 2023. Lights 21%, no lights 79%. But there's so many variables in

that that would make that actually matter. Was it a nighttime or daytime sighting? Was it instrumentation only if it was just instrumentation only would that instrument be able to see or deduce lights on or off so many different, you know, factors there, which kind of makes that a little bit pointless? Why I point that out is I think they just like to beef up these reports, you'll notice as you go through the report to they, they love to skip like half pages, they'll

start a new page just sometimes seemingly randomly. And I think it's just to increase the page count a little bit to make it a little bit more, you know, complete in their, in their view. Here's some more visuals and eye candy. We kind of see these from time to time, the exact same graphics, I mean, and they've just updated numbers, the altitudes of which UAP are reported breaking it down. And then obviously the heat map of distribution of reports this is another kind of pointless one.

Obviously, there's data bias here because they're only collecting it from military installations, which obviously will limit you to where our military installations are going to be heavy in the US. And obviously looking at other parts in the world have a US presence, so on and so forth. So it's kind of a biased chart, but you know, eye candy nonetheless. Now, here is kind of a breakdown of some more interesting stuff. I hate to read a whole page to you. But again, for audio reasons on the

podcast itself, I think it's important. Increased FAA reporting, shifting geographic collection bias and morphology trend, which is obviously what I just went over with kind of how silly some of those those charts are when it comes to the bias.

Arrow has received over 100 UAP incident reports from FAA that contribute to the trend analysis of activity over the US and adjacent waters of the incident reports FAA, FAA has shared with Aero the vast majority concern sightings of unidentified lights without specific shape at widely varying estimated altitudes from less than 5000 feet up to 60,000 feet. None of these reports suggest the UAP were exhibiting anomalous characteristics maneuver to an unsafe proximity to civil aircraft, or posed a

threat to flight safety to the observing aircraft. arrow will continue to add these reports as appropriate to the active archive where they will be used in the overall trend analysis. No health slash physiological impacts from UAP incidents reported to date, no encounters with UAP have been confirmed to have directly contributed to adverse health related effects to the observers ODNI and DOD acknowledge that health related effects may appear at anytime after an event occurs.

Therefore, any reported health implications related to UAP will be tracked and examined if and when they emerge, data, data and intelligence sources received through various intelligence channels. Arrows new integrated analysis process ensures the raw intelligence related to UAP from various intelligence disciplines are assimilated into all source data packages analyzed by teams

of scientists and intelligence analysts. Aeros analysts scour multiple classified and unclassified databases to identify any existing data on each UAP case, prioritizing technical sensor information that yields the highest quantity of pertinent, valuable data for review. As the office employs more sensors specifically tailored, tailored for UAP detection, the amount and variety of technical data produced will increase, facilitating more and better

analytic analytic fidelity. Arrow program updates in regards to the analytic division, arrows analytic efforts are confirming that only a very small percentage of UAP reports display interesting signatures, such as high speed travel, and unknown morphologies. The majority of unidentified objects reported to arrow demonstrate ordinary characteristics of readily explainable sources. While a large number of cases in arrows holdings remain technically unresolved, because

of lack of data. Does that sound familiar? Without sufficient data, these cases cannot be resolved. For the few objects that do demonstrate characteristics of interest. Arrow is approaching these cases with objectivity and analytic rigor. This approach includes physical testing, and employing modeling and simulation to validate analyses and the underlying theories. And then peer reviewing those results before reaching any conclusion. Look, this is, in my opinion,

the more interesting part I know it's dry to hear me read. But for those on the podcast, I think it's important to hear this as I show it to you on the video versions. You look at this, and it sounds great. It seems like they're really approaching this in the right way. But as you go through this, you look at how much time they spent on what they can explain. And then just kind of like weave in subtly, that small percentage of cases that they can't and yeah, yeah, we're looking at it.

But they don't really focus on that. And let's face it, that is what this is all about. Do any of us care about those cases? They can explain? No, but they spend the most time on that. I think it's an important thing for them to point out their investigation processes are working. Phenomenal. That's awesome. Kudos to them. Let's get beyond that, though. Let's talk about that small percentage of cases now that we hear about yet again, we heard it from Kirkpatrick in that hearing that already went

over. Now we're hearing it and writing in these reports that there is that small percentage. Now, before all the debunkers out there start screaming at me. No, that doesn't mean that it's alien. But when you couple that with the inner woven data, analyses above, in this report, that they couldn't connect it to any foreign adversary starts to get a little bit more interesting. When you add in that woven in, we tried to look

for essentially, US assets and didn't find any. You couple all that together, you've got a pretty kind of interesting thing here. But in this report, it's like point zero 1%. And it's largely lost by all this other fluff. And they're like, yes, we're great. We're identifying almost everything. And that's what really resonates with the mainstream media that doesn't really do a good job analyzing this, they'll sit Kirkpatrick down like you did with CNN, oh, the majority of cases are

explainable. Great. Who cares then? Right? Well, sadly, that is how they approach this, not the right approach. But sadly, that's how they approach. So those are the little things that you have to look at in these types of reports, because they hide things, and they subtly put in the most interesting aspects, interwoven with a bunch of fluff. Strategic Communications Division. Aro successfully exercises the process for declassifying data in full motion videos of UAP events for

an open congressional hearing held on 21 March 2023. This process is a complicated synchronized effort that involves various stakeholders and information owners with differing processes. Arrow is working to standardize and Rutan routinized routines routinize. This declassification process to ensure as much transparency as possible, not a word I use every day. Arrow has launched a public facing website that shares information about its mission operations UAP analytic trends

and statistics, and declassified UAP data and footage. The website will also link to aro secure mechanism for authorized reporting of UAP. Arrow has established classified collaboration mechanisms to encourage cooperation on UAP investigation and research among government agencies. Now, this is obviously resonating with me, they're talking about declassification as a huge problem when it comes to arrow

and the information that they are collecting. Now to give you guys a little bit of a behind the scenes look and how I'm approaching this and have actually for the last couple of years, is that obviously arrow as that that arm in the DOD, that's collecting all this information from not only DOD, military branches, and so on, but also it seems like assets outside Department of Homeland Security, like Customs and Border Patrol, stuff like that. So obviously, they're going out

there and they're collecting all of this information. The way to kind of nutshell, what I just read to you is this, they cannot look at that and go Yeah, yeah, let's just declassify it and send it out. Rather, the, let's say Customs and Border Protection or DHS as a whole, or wherever that asset first came from. That's called the OCA, the original classifying authority. They're the ones that actually have to review it, for declassification. So yeah, there are some aspects of this that

get a little bit complicated. But this is also in my opinion, kind of another one of those things, that arrow is trying to make things a lot more complicated arrow doesn't have to do anything, when it comes to the declassification, they just have to ultimately ask the agency to declassify the material, put it through the review. And I think that this is what they're referring to, I'm guessing a little bit there. But it's just based on what I read to you that that I think that

they're making this a little bit bigger than it should. So what I've been doing is kind of reversing this process. I'm going to various agencies and military branches, outside of arrow, and outside of the the office of Secretary of Defense, which is where you file arrow related request to going to outside agencies, and requesting all UAP material, including photos and videos, and testimony and so on, that they sent to

arrow. Now, all of those cases are still underway. So I'm not trying to tease that I've got anything that I haven't shown you guys, I publish things very, very quickly when they come in. But what I'm trying to show you is arrow is making it seem like they're doing this very long drawn out process for declassification. And it's really complicated. So what I'm doing is trying to fast track it, that as long as as for whatever reason, they would try and put this under a law

enforcement exemption. And that is going to be another video just so you guys know, that is something I've talked a lot about on social media in the last couple of months, I have refrained from doing a video on this because I was hoping to get a pentagon comment on it, they refuse. So heads up that I'll

definitely break this this down for you even more. But for the sake of this video, as long as they don't say it's a quote unquote law enforcement investigation, there's no reason that they can't declassify it. Or if it's unclassified already,

there's no reason why they can't release it. So it's kind of that roundabout way of filing FOIA is to go to, let's say, an agency like DHS, or the FAA, or whatever, and say, Okay, here's a four year request for everything that you guys have transferred over to arrow in the last year and a half or whatever, however long they've been around and see what happens. And I do have movement on a lot of those cases, will it produce results, your guess is as good as mine, I never get

excited. But I just wanted to give you guys a little bit of that, behind the scenes of how that works. Bottom line, I think arrow is really beefing up the report in areas that they shouldn't, and really kind of making some things a little bit more time consuming than it should be. Because you know, with the FLIR gimbal and go fast videos being unclassified from their from their capture. And I got that in writing, they never

had to go through a declassification process. They did, however, have to go through a security review, because unclassified information can be controlled. But I think with those facts, I think that there's a lot of other information out there. In those 801 cases, that likely unclassified and likely can be easily seen monetized declassified and released to the public, so I'm trying, but I'm hoping that that might expedite this. This process of Arrow

doesn't step in the way and block that. But again, that'll be the topic of a future video hopefully pretty quick. Back to the report way forward, the space and maritime domains need

to be fully integrated into arrows processes. Airborne UAP continue to dominate UAP reporting with 290 of the 291 reports from this reporting period occurring within this domain, and consequently, the relationship between arrow and air domain elements such as nem mill, the airforce including basic and the Air Force Research Lab, and air command elements remains strong, and continues to deepen and expands in terms of collection, analysis, exploitation, and resolution.

Collaboration with Space Force US Space Command NRO and NASA is well underway. That's one thing I failed to point out to you. But it reminded me here, the Space Force was not included in that 2022 report breakdown of collaborators, but was in this report. So obviously, there's movement in the space domain. And if you ask me, that we'll probably whether or not we see it or not, who knows, produce the most interesting aspects of

what arrow does. Because now they're obviously tying things to commercial aircraft and to drone technology and stuff like that, you look at that breakdown of the chart of elevations. Obviously, you know, we've got very much a bias in that particular domain. But when you start looking at the Space Command, equipment, sensors and the data that they collect, you look at the Space Force and the data and the instrumentation and

the data they collect. That's going to change that a lot. In my opinion, sure, you're gonna have instrumentation that's looking towards Earth, not necessarily away from Earth. So it may help in certain areas, let's say at a 35,000 foot elevation, that's that that's fine or altitude, that's fine. But when you get above that, and you start talking about instrumentation that may not be looking at Earth, but rather looking out that is, is something pretty fascinating.

The NRO, which although isn't new in this time period, for those who haven't seen it, look up the document that was published, I did a video on it as well, on this channel of the sentient system, the artificial intelligence highly classified NRO system that detected a tic tac UAP their words, not mine, a tic tac UAP, just a couple of years ago. So when you look at all of that, you realize, okay, right now, sure, a lot is explainable a small percentage of, of, of cases that

remain anomalous. But when you start adding in the Space Command, the Space Force, and really start utilizing the data collected, like, like from the NRO, or from the NGA, you have a whole new world, you really do. And that's not based on any kind of guesses or anything like that. It's a whole new world, because you look at the systems that those places have. And it's a hell of a lot different than the FAA, or arguably even

someplace like NASA. So you look at those types of, of surveillance systems that they have, I think it's going to be a whole new world, what we will learn as the general public, what will be the people here, your guess is as good as mine, but encouraging nonetheless. And I think that internally, they're going to see that data skew a lot. Case closure report, this

was kind of interesting. attached as a pilot example of the result of arrows full phase analytic process, the files and accompanying data in each case have been given to arrows IC and s&t partners for their analysis. And this resolution resolution report reflects arrows to termination based on the results. These case resolutions and accompanying unclassified analyses will be published on Arrow's website. So that's all great, right, encouraging, we're being transparent with the

public. This is what you guys will get the report itself case, quote, Western United States, aid may 2023, is when they solved it, and it looks like you you see here what they do, I'm not gonna read the whole thing but key findings, intelligent

assessment case essentials. They obviously were likening this to commercial aircraft traveling on different air routes to, again, just just kind of like that case breakdown summary, explaining what these are and we'll likely get a ton of these as time goes was on solving cases, fairly much like Project Bluebook did, because keep in mind those were available to the media. If the media asked at the time they were not classified, there were

some classified cases. But the majority of them were open to the general public. So yet again, when you look at what they're doing here, they're going to probably bombard you with commercial aircraft, drones, maybe even the exhaustive and F 18. If they want to go there, they've already said parallax in their report here, IR glare, all things that we've seen bantered about through social media ramblings. However, here, they are officially putting it on

paper as explanations. So they're gonna bury you in those but those small percentage again, those cases that were woven into this report and alluded to hinted at, you kind of have to put the pieces of the puzzle together, you likely won't see those. What about the Space Force? When that gets into play? Are we going to see anything that comes from that likely not, not the way the secrecy is going? So again, it's it's all about perception and optics, when it comes to stuff

like this. That's not conspiracy talk. That's history. And that's well documented history, that the era of project Bluebook, it was all about the optics. Hey, media, if you want to look at our reports, come on in. Let's show it to you look at this weather balloon case, look at the swamp gas case. Look, we have scientists that say it's swamp gas. So it has to be swamp gas. And that's exactly what they did at the time. Here we

see the roots of something very similar. But in the 21st century, a website that will have cases very much like this, that essentially here case status resolved. The lights were aircraft up to 300 nautical miles away from the sensor. It's great that they can solve it, I won't even fight it. It probably is lights from a commercial aircraft. But the problem is, is that it's the optics and perception that they want to give, call it psyops if you will call it whatever you want, call

it PR. But that's exactly what Bluebook did. The optics and perception then was that the majority of the cases were easily explainable. What they didn't tell you then was that there was a percentage that they really couldn't identify, they admitted to 701. But they likely skewed the number down again, verifiable, there are been books written by people, much smarter than me, that analyzed all that data looked at it and assumed

that the 701 was wildly wrong. But regardless, even if it was right, they didn't want you to really look at those cases that were unidentified, some of them really didn't have the evidence, that's fine, gonna happen. But there's other ones that just did not have an explanation. Nor do they, to this day, we're seeing the roots of the exact same thing. And that's what's worrisome. Because again, you're gonna get bombarded by this, look at these phenomenal pictures here, that they

released on the report. If you squint and turn your head slightly, you can see the commercial lights, I don't know, whatever, that's what it is, apparently western US UAP shape distorted, due to sensor vibration. So you're gonna see a lot of this kind of stuff that you just kind of like fall off your chair, and who cares, I'm not going to waste the bandwidth to load this and print it. So that's, in my opinion, the optics and perception of what we are seeing unfold. And that is

kind of really upsetting. It really is frustrating. And although a lot of people see me as more of a skeptic and debunker, I guarantee you, I'm not and it's for reasons like this, because when you take history, and you take the evidence that's available to us, you don't need the whistleblowers to tell us that there's more to this story than

they want us to know. You don't need a rocket scientist to figure out, hey, look, their perception and the optics of all of this is likely skewing reality in order to push a certain agenda. And that agenda is to deal with the threat. And the public interest very much like Project Bluebook did. Those are the same words that we keep hearing about today? Public interest, massive public interest, we see it in FOIA documents. We see it in emails, we hear about it in the press

and the press statements. The public interest is partially fueling this, based on those from the military from the government pushing what narrative is the threat narrative, exactly how it was back then. So it's incredibly fascinating to see those parallels. Now one thing that I do want to point out, I didn't make a slide for it, but I will link it after the show. I had received maybe going back a year

ago or so a breakdown of arrows cases. Now what they gave me was essentially like the spreadsheet graph of hundreds of six digit numbers essentially The case numbers that coincided with cases like this. Now case, Western United States, how many western United States cases do they have? It's such a silly way to label these things. I don't quite understand understand the logic there. But why I bring this up? Is that if you were to ask me, and this is pure speculation, put the alarm on,

it's just speculating. But those six digit numbers represented cases like this. Do you see a six digit number on here that coincides with that database? They sent me through FOIA? I don't. Hopefully, I didn't miss it. But it's just two pages. So I think I didn't, but please correct me if I'm wrong. What's my point? Those six digit numbers mean something somewhere. And they should have reports that coincide with western United States to a six digit number. Where am I going

with this? I think the unclassified, sanitized, boring as heck reports are going to be what you and I are fed through that website, which they outlined extensively in this report. But I believe that there's going to be another layer of reports of the ones that they do not push, the ones that do coincide with those six digit numbers, the ones that maybe aren't unclassified. And those are the ones internally that they're using and sharing with their industry partners in

the intelligence community. You know, that I'm filing requests for stuff like that, because the one piece of the puzzle, which to me was useless, like what the hell can I do with hundreds of six digit numbers that don't coincide with anything? This comes out, and it just put a light bulb in my head, that there's a whole nother layer to this. Now, we can assume that there's classified reports. So no, that's not some huge

revelation. But I think that there's actually another layer of published internal published reports that they're sharing within the intelligence community, that I don't think they're going to name it Western United States, they're going to have probably some other more descriptive name, but case number 752368. And then they're going to coincide that number. With the report itself. That's generally how government reports

work. When you have things serial numbered, labeled, whatever term you want to use, for their respective operations, there's always a unique identifier, to those particular reports. You don't see it here. So I'm searching for those other layers that I believe are there. So that useless document, although had a little, it's kind of interesting, just got a heck of a lot more interesting to me. For that. Here's the last slide. And that is the index of key terms or glossary of terms 2020 report

had what you see there on the right side of the screen. The left side of the screen is the newest report, you see a heck of a lot more. Now, why this is interesting is a lot of these terms did not appear in the report. So generally, when you see things in an index, or death, like key definitions is another label I've seen in various government reports. Essentially, you see those definitions are the words that they're defining in the index, in the actual report, and a lot

of these you don't have in the actual report. So where did these terms come from? Well, what's interesting is they come from somewhere, just not this report, you look at spaceborne UAP, they already have that defined sources of anomalous detections above the Karman Line, ie 100 kilometers above Earth mean sea level. So they're defining all this already. Just as the Space Force and Space Command collaborations are underway. Now, that's good. Again, not a huge revelation.

But the fact that they have this already set means they will likely start filling out these categories. And these labels of spaceborne UAP airborne UAP is a given seaborne UAP is another given trans medium UAP. So I don't have to read you all the definitions, those are pretty self explanatory. But again, you start to see these flushed out from the 2022 report, you don't have them. In fact range. Fowler, by remember, did not exist in the newest report. So I'm kind of curious those range

valor reports. Look, they're they're kind of cool to look at. But I think that what we're dealing with with the range valor reports are mostly incursions by drones and stuff like that into training exercises. Years ago, I got something very similar from the NCIS of drones, going over military training installations. They were more hobbyists than like, you know, espionage or anything like that. But

regardless, it's you know, not a good thing to do. So A range Fowler's, I think really kind of lean towards very explainable, important but very explainable objects, interesting to see range, Fowler's has dropped off from the glossary of terms. And it's, I don't want say replaced by but obviously spaceborne, UAP, and so on, kind of took its place, so to speak, that that's what they're focusing in on here. So I would definitely read those definitions see the difference? Because it's

interesting. And I know some of these are, some of these observations get a little bit dry and are like, what, why does that really matter? But what's interesting is that when you do juxtapose history, documented history evidence from decades ago and see how things are playing out in a certain way, you have to start to digest and realize, okay, there may be some parallels here that we're not on the path to disclosure that some people want, but rather one of strengthening secrecy. And

that's a that's a bad thing. And why I like to point all of this out, is to kind of spread that awareness out there because we can't lose sight of the ball, we can't lose sight of the finish line. Finish Line, meaning we have to get through this era of increased secrecy, we have to figure out why the DoD added numerous other layers to my FOIA requests, but obviously others as well. But the secrecy layers are piling on top of secrecy layers. And in the coming days, I will break down exactly what

all that means and the problem that it's caused. But above all else, what I like to point out, is that entwined in some of this dry, boring, obviously, Government speak of trying to calm the nerves of everybody and say, Oh, I lose interest, because there's nothing here. There are things put into there, that once you pick up on you realize there's something here. And it coincides with that small percentage that we knew about decades ago and reinforced it once more evidence came out.

We're seeing that again, the small percentage is what keeps people like me around but me specifically, around because there's something here that the US military and government can't identify. And they'll admit it if you pay attention, but they want you to get lost in the fluff of commercial aircraft lights. And we can explain it just give us more data. Don't get lost in that read between the lines and sometimes you don't even have to read between the lines then the lines just

got to read them. I hope you enjoyed it. If you're watching here on YouTube, please give a thumbs up it is a huge help to me to have you do that. The biggest help just share the channel if you find these videos worthwhile. I know that not everybody agrees with me. That's okay. That's what this channel is all about. It's about the dialogue. That's why I love the live streams because the chat rooms are always flying. There's always great calm comments from everybody. I love to read all

that. So please Please share the channel if you find anything worthwhile. Thumbs up if you're listening on the podcast five star reviews is what I aim for. I won't tell you what to do, but just add a review nonetheless because it helps across the board. Thank you so much for listening and or watching wherever you might be doing. So. This is John Greenewald Jr signing off. And I'll see you next time