Ep. #135 – New FOIA Release Highlights Redactions in Key AATIP Correspondence: What is the Pentagon Hiding?

pay attention, you may have seen them before. But what's more interesting is on the side of the Pentagon, the action they took by redacting what they did in this particular four year release. And that was the specific mention of a tip now why that is, I'll give you their reason. But as you can imagine,

I'm fighting it, simply because I just don't agree with them. I don't believe that this is something that they should be redacting number one, but number two, we discovered a new document that hasn't been out before in this four year release. So that's kind of cool. The bad thing, it's completely redacted from top to bottom. So let's just go ahead and get into it and kind of start dissecting this to see where we end up. Now. As I mentioned, this is all about an email that came out.

It's been out for a few years, actually, that mentioned a tip. Now this goes all the way back. Let me get my screen here. This goes all the way back to 2020. February 14, to be exact, when the Popular Mechanics article came out and titled inside the Pentagon's secret UFO program. Now the reason why I like to give this history is because I want to see I want to show I should say how this all unfolded for all of you and kind of what's what spawned the FOIA request that I did, and put it

in a little bit of chronological order for you guys. So this particular article, which came out in February of 2020, was a very lengthy article all about exactly what it says what it labeled the Pentagon secret UFO program, general public more accurately refers to that as a tip. I know it's controversial and whether or not as a tip was a big program a real program and official program did it study UFOs Look, that's a again

different videos in itself. But this particular article dissected that dissected Luis Elizondo story and showed us a lot of new material. You'll see here in the screenshot, let me just pull up the laser pointer here. You'll see here in the actual screenshot from the Popular Mechanics article, the performance review or at least one of them of Luis Elizondo. So again, we were seeing new documents that have never been seen before. So kudos to Tim McMillan for this 2020 articles

simply because there was a lot of new stuff. Generally you don't see that you see a lot of rehash of the same exact thing. Copy and Paste journalism is rampant out there. But this particular article gave quite a few things, including this. Now, it was a very interesting screenshot because as you can tell, it wasn't even a, you know, a screenshot of the actual document, it seemed to be a photograph of the document. And then you had all these strange redactions in it. Now it was

sorted to an anonymous source. As you can imagine, there were a few that were cited in this article, and one of which gave Tim McMillan slash Popular Mechanics, this particular document to publish. This was given to them to support Luis Elizondo in his role in a tip. Now obviously, this was really intriguing to me. Anybody who watches this channel, you know that I'm not a huge fan of anonymous sources. So although I take that material, I always just kind of cringe when I see

the word anonymous. Now fast forward to 2020. For sure, you can imagine who that anonymous source is, but hey, I'll let you guys decide that one. But this anonymous source gave Popular Mechanics this email and said the following per sec def or the Secretary of Defense, front office guidance to you and me, I took the liberty of drafting a memo then there was some redacted lines there. That helps you better assume the new

responsibilities for a tip at your convenience. Please review it's very short on purpose and Let me know if you want me to put more meat on it. You kind of have another redaction here on the document that that essentially cuts off the first part of this. And then you can kind of see in authorship in authorship, just want to make sure we answer the mail for the front office. And that was where it kind of cut off. And that's

what we see in this Popular Mechanics article. So I think there was a little bit of added drama here with this particular screenshot and picture sadly, you know, I think it was a little bit for I think Mystique, if you ask me. And look, that's that's all fine. Well and dandy, but some some questions here, as more was revealed, kind of surfaced. And you'll see that in a moment when we see more of this email. But I wanted to kind of give you guys the route of where this came out. In that

Popular Mechanics article. Now fast forward, that again, was February 2020. In June of 2021, after me doing some digging, asking questions, you know, pushing various people that I speak with, finally figured out a little bit more detail that I could use and provably use on the email that allowed me to then structure a FOIA request to go after it, because while I wanted it, and I wanted to see what else was there, because as you just saw, that screenshot was fairly, you know, minimal

and there was quite a bit redacted. And at that point, you don't know how long that that that email was, how big that email was. So I went after it, and then specifically filed what ultimately became case 21 F 1154. sparing you all the legal jargon that's just more boilerplate on my end. the brunt

of the request was the following. I respectfully request a copy of an email thread with the subject line of quote, draft DEP sec, def letter, unclassified unquote, dated circa October 3 2017, which was between Luis Elizondo, former OSD employee and Neil Tipton. He actually still is, but worked with an O Usdi, which is now Oh, USD ins. Also see seed was Brendan mckernon, the United States Navy. Now, if you

don't know Brendan mckernon 's name. This one has finally been revealed publicly as connected to the UAP taskforce effort. Brendan mckernon from the US Navy politico was the first one I believe that published Brendan's name, it had been bantered about I had FOIAs about him, but I did not essentially really advertise it because there's not really a whole lot known about what his role is. And those those requests are largely still open on my end and have been for a couple of years.

But that's who Brendan mckernon was and so I had found out that he was CC ID on this email as well. So in 2017, October, Brennan was involved. Luis Elizondo wrote the email, and Neil Tipton with Oh USD ins now in June of 2022, okay, so just to put this in chronological order for you guys, the New York Post published the IG complaint, the Inspector General complaint, filed by Luis Elizondo now we had heard about this, already quite a bit through various interviews that Luis Elizondo

had done. Politico again had highlighted it. So so this finally kind of dropped, had a few redactions quite a few, but rightfully so they were protecting the identity of some people that weren't known in the public sphere. However, some names were were essentially revealed, one of which was, again, Brendan mckernon. But this was the full email that I was going after. And so now the general public can see what Luis

Elizondo had put in his IG complaint. And this particular section here was what that screenshot was on the New York Post, or excuse me on Popular Mechanics, but now we see it thanks to the New York Post. So you can see what I have already read to you. With the addition now of greetings, Neil perspectives front office guidance to you and me, I took the liberty of drafting a memo at the unclassified level that helps you better assume the new responsibilities for a tip at

your convenience. Please review, it's very short on purpose. And let me know if you want me to put more meat on it. Brennan, same with you, please. No pride and authorship, just want to make sure we answer the mail for the front office standing by Lou. So now we saw the whole thing. So now you kind of get an A better idea. Now it's in the public realm. We know who it was to who was the seed. Now it's all verifiable. In addition, we now see this October 3 2017. Email. The one in question that

we were just talking about. That was September 25 2017. Now in October Third Tipton responds getting spun back up. We'll read and get thoughts back today or tomorrow at Fort Meade half the day today. So now we see the response. So more of the pictures being revealed. Now I love this kind of stuff because it's like piecing together a puzzle. And

this is reinforces my long held belief. FOIA is not everything because you do find these bits of pieces of evidence, thanks to various investigative journalists, media, and you got to put it all together. I know some people think I say FOIA is everything. I assure you. I've never said that. And this is why is because you get these pieces of the puzzle to work with build off of and then able to integrate that into FOIA requests and use it because I can cite places like New York

Post and so on. But what was also interesting to learn from the IG complaint and again, some of this was kind of out there being bantered about but putting the puzzle pieces together, Neil Tipton, who Elizondo was essentially passing the a tip reins to was named in the complaint as somebody that was committing wrongdoing alleged wrongdoing that Luis Elizondo had highlighted. Now I've read the whole complaint numerous times. I have zero idea what Neil Tipton did wrong. None

zero. I have asked, and I'll make this point quick. But I have asked Luis Elizondo through his attorney, Todd McMurtry, who fields a lot of those questions on Mr. Elizondo his behalf and couldn't get an answer. I have no idea. This particular question was met with an answer that maybe more will be revealed in his book, and that was the answer that I got. So I'm not really sure what Tipton did, but he was one of the three individuals that that Luis Elizondo had complained about

the other being Susan golf. That is the Public Affairs official, which oddly the Public Affairs official that actually issued the statement about Elizondo and his lack of responsibilities on a tip was not Susan golf, it was actually Christopher Sherwood. He was not actually made. Part of this complaint. He was mentioned in it, but he was not the one that had alleged wrongdoing. No idea why they are the third person being Gary

Reed, everybody's favorite villain in this whole saga. So those were the three individuals that he had complained about to the IG that had alleged wrongdoing. Neal Tipton was one of them. So it was really strange because when you look at the fact that it was the day that Luis Elizondo resigned from the Pentagon, this was the same day that Neil Tipton responded to that September email, maybe just a coincidence, I don't

know. But it was like Neil tips and says, Okay, great. I'm what we found out through a different FOIA request was actually out on vacation, Neal tips and says, Okay, great. I'll go ahead and take a look at this. Getting back spun back up, I'll get back to you today or tomorrow. That was the same day Elizondo said nope, I'm done. Now, we didn't know about this resignation

letter. There was a second one that was published. That one actually was submitted on October 4. FOIA brought out the real one that was submitted on October 3, I say the real one because that was the first one he had already resigned. A second letter popped up that next day, that's the one that we all know about. No real explanation there. I'm sure there's probably a good reason for it. But regardless, this was same day. Here is the signature by what what I've determined was

was likely Elizondo his immediate boss John Garrity. So you have some very interesting time coincidences here that Tipton says yep, Elizondo resigns on the exact same day. One thing to point out, too, when I said that there were some interesting questions now, what we've seen more of the puzzle is the fact that Popular Mechanics and or the anonymous source, you pick, decided to redact and hide from all of you that the memo that they're talking about was at the unclassified level. I

don't know why that would be. So you know, just something to point out that that was one of the redactions that they didn't want to show. And then obviously this line down here was Brennan same with you I can understand hiding Brennan McKinnon's name, especially around that time and 2020 we he wasn't even known I don't think I don't remember the exact date that his name kind of came out but regardless I that I, I totally understand but at the unclassified level to me, I'm not I'm not really sure

about that. So just something to to point out though, but last month, I had published an article and I posted out this on social media about how the a tip saga was gonna get weirder. And I think I've talked about it on this channel, but I'll say it again in this video, I usually only tease an article on the same day it comes out. I'm not a big fan of teases. But I do like to kind of alert people out there, there's there's quite a few different media outlets that you'll notice will cover

documents that I get inside and outside the UFO genre. So a lot of times I will post those things out and just kind of alert, you know, those who care about watching the documents. There's a story coming. I know not everybody cares for teases myself included. But there's a reason why I kind of do that. But then I had to cancel the story. Delay is a much better word for that. I didn't cancel it. But delay because something that I was led to believe in this particular story was not

necessarily true. So I had to really come back and I learned that in the double and triple checking process right before I drop an article to ensure that I'm as accurate as possible. Everybody makes mistakes. I've made a ton of them. I'm sure. My wife will tell you all about my my mistakes in life. But joking aside, look, we're all human, but I do try and be as accurate as possible. So I had to delay the story because I was waiting for another tidbit that I had to complete the story. It ended up

where I had to splice it into a couple of different ones. So what I had published in this specific story was the fact that the DoD had released multiple emails that Luis Elizondo sent to Susan Goff in an effort to have her slashed the Department of Defense changed their stance on him. And in these three particular pages was banter back and forth between Luis Elizondo, and Neil Tipton. We've already gone over Neal Tipton, but there was one strange thing. We know that in the big complaint, these

three pages were also there. Now in the interest of time, I'm not going to read you all three pages, but I wrote about them at length, and I'll link in the show notes below. But what was absent? Was the ATypI mail. The one email the only one I should

add, that mentioned a tip. Now that was really strange to me, because if you're trying to get the Department of Defense Public Affairs Office, to change your stance on a tip, and the reason you you wanted to do that was because you directed a program called a tip, and you had an email that referenced a tip and how you were transferring the responsibilities that you had to someone else. That to me is your smoking gun to prove that this

was something that needed to be changed. So when I got the foyer response of Elizondo is email to Susan golf, and I also found when did Christopher Sherwood and the attachments it took quite some time and I had to fight for him. They originally they wouldn't give them to me. Finally got them. The email that said a tip was missing. I confirmed with the Department of Defense that these three pages were the only ones there. So I said to myself, why would you not do this is the DoD

lying, I would totally buy that. So I went to Luis Elizondo and again through his attorney, and specifically asked him, Is there a reason that only three of the four pages that were in your IG complaint in this particular section and banter between Neal Tipton and Elizondo and passing the reins so to speak of a tip? Why that wasn't there? And here's the response that I got

on the record. It is quote, it is no surprise Mr. Elizondo does not trust the Pentagon's Pio office or Public Affairs Office, due to their history of waffling and providing false information. Mr. Elizondo is not surprised you received a comment like that from the same people who have been at inaccurate in the past. There is a difference between the Pentagon saying to you that they didn't receive it, and actually receiving it but

claiming they didn't. This should be no surprise to you, saying that DOD confirmed to me versus DoD told me are two different things. Not sure why you still believe them. When even you have admitted they have a tendency to be wrong and misleading. It's perplexing why you trust the Pentagon on certain things, but then admit you don't trust them with other things. Why is this any different other than the fact that deals with my client? The fact remains that the email is

legitimate, and the DOD has a copy of it. If you see up here, I never I never endorsed the DoD s position. For the sake of the audio version, I'll read you exactly what I asked. The DoD confirmed to me that the documents attached To Mr. Elizondo his email to Susan golf did not contain that the that the following email, which is the only that which is the only that mentions a tip forgive my stuttering there. I put the

screenshot at the bottom of this email for reference. Arguably this would be the most important since it talked about a tip responsibilities to Neil Tipton. However, the DoD said it was never sent in Mr. Elizondo 's email to golf, is there a reason he only sent three of the four pages to golf that he later put in his IG complaint? It seems the ATypI mail is the most important one, if he was trying to get golf to change the DoD

stance about his role on a tip. That's not an endorsement but a question framed to the only evidence that I had available available to me. If he wanted to come back and say it wasn't true. Great, I would publish that. I published 100% of the statements that that came to me. So clearly, I didn't really got an answer to that other than the email was legitimate. I didn't say it wasn't nor to the DoD at that point. But that's, sadly

where we ended up. Now, what they did say and this may be the root of it was this document is an attachment to email correspondence from a private citizen to a DOD employee. The DoD cannot validate the authenticity of the material contained in this document, personal information has been redacted to protect the privacy of individuals contained in the document. So when they released those three, they released them as attachments that Luis Elizondo sent to golf, but then

said that they wouldn't verify the authenticity. This to me is completely unorthodox and out of the ordinary 100%. And why that is, I don't know. Generally, when you have a situation like this, they'll they'll they'll search for the emails, I mean, I asked them to specifically give me the attachments that Mr.

Elizondo had sent in. Even though they're marked as unclassified, you would think that the Department of Defense would ensure that they are unclassified, instead of just looking at them, not verifying the authenticity, scratching out some names to protect privacy, but releasing all of the the information that remained that, to me didn't make sense from a national security perspective, through FOIA. Again, even though it was marked unclassified, it didn't matter. They didn't

verify the authenticity. So how do they really know it's unclassified? So it really just didn't make sense. Again, removing myself from the story from the outside looking in from that legal slash FOIA side. It just didn't make sense. So why they did that? I don't know. But on top of that, it just got even, like, more confusing on Look, can you tell me if you just sent that fourth page, which sadly, I never got the answer to. But I did get told it was legitimate. And that's fine.

That's great. We know that now. But why it wasn't sent? I'm not really sure. So now that was last month, this month. This was the other piece of that story that I had to shelve, because I knew that I had this open FOIA request for specifically, that a tip tipped in email. So I only had to touch on it a little bit in April. And then now I finally got the response. I had to push, I had to keep following up. It's sometimes insane how long these

things go. This was two pages. That's it. And I was waiting for almost three years for two pages. So that fact, alone is insane. But what happened when they finally released it made everything even more weirder. So this is the foyer response letter. For those taking notes. This was the final response for 21 F 1154. This was me going after specifically that a tip tipped in email. They located two pages, which were the email thread and an attachment. I'm going to read to you why they

made the redactions they did. The redacted withheld information is exempt from release parts pursuant to five USC Section 552. B five, inter and intra agency memorandum which are deliberative in nature. This exemption is appropriate for internal documents, which are part of the decision making process and contain subjective evaluations, opinions and recommendations and be six information which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of

the personal privacy of individuals. Please note that we have considered the foreseeable harm standard when reviewing records and applying exemptions under FOIA and the processing of this request. I invite you to pause the video watch or read all the other legal jargon not important for the sake of this

video. But here was that email now we got a little bit more of the thread not much, but it was Elizondo is response response of perfecto also sent on October 3, The day he resigned responding to Tipton saying I'll get back to you today or tomorrow Elizondo never note and hey, by the way, I'm quitting today. So yeah, I won't be here. It was just great, you know, thanks. And he was awaiting his response. So that was kind of an interesting but weird development again all the day he

quit, but look down here. The most important email the Pentagon decides to redact the line about a tip they redacted so that's B five, which they consider a deliberative process that that doesn't make sense to me whatsoever. Because it's not deliberative process for Elizondo to be making the claim.

I'm taking the a tip responsibilities and giving them to you the be six redacted redaction here we know is Brennan's name, I get that even though Brennan's name is in the public sphere now, thanks to mainstream media, Politico to be exact. Why they're redacting? I don't really know. But be that as it may, they redacted his name. Here's a comparison of the email that was from the complaint. And the one they released, the exact redaction helps you better assume the new

responsibilities for a tip. I don't find that as a be five redact double line. It's not deliberative. This was essentially according to Elizondo more of a fact that he was passing the reins to Tipton to take responsibility for a tip. The tip, so I've fought this. And even though we know what it says, it's like, well, why are you fighting John? Like,

who really cares? It's because of this, the memo that was referenced in that email was entirely redacted, under, it might be hard to see on your screen, but B five, and B six. So the privacy redaction, which those are admittedly very, very tough to argue. But rightfully so. I mean, you're they're protecting people's identity. So that's fine. But B five, not so much in the four year world. A lot of

times we call this the redacted if you want to exemption. And what essentially that means is, is if it doesn't fall into the other eight exemption categories, essentially, they will go ahead and use B five. And when they use B five, it's very hard to to fight because you don't really know what you're fighting. You know, if it's B one, and it's national security, well, you know, you can sometimes create an argument for that. If it's various other exemptions, you can sometimes

make an argument for that. But when it comes to B five, it's like, well, how do we know that it's deliberative in nature, you don't really know. So that's why they call it the B five redacted if you want to exemption, because it is often thought about in the courts. It definitely needs work. It needs a revamp, it needs new language. So it is something that is a problem for us FOIA requesters. But you can see here that it was

entirely withheld. So we don't know what this letter was that Louie cielo that Louise Elizondo drafted now, where they may have some kind of legal argument in this look, it stinks, I hate even pointing this out. But in the interest of full transparency, they may fight back on my appeal and deny it, at least for that particular page. Because if they consider it a draft, draft documents are not technically subject to FOIA. But agencies can use their discretion to release documents

that they consider draft if it's in the public interest. And maybe we'll help with let's say transparency a little bit. So we know it's unclassified. Sure, redact some names, if there's names, phone numbers, Social Security bank card, and what bank account numbers, whatever, that you want to consider personal information. I'm joking with the bank account numbers, but that's what you see on B six, and those are our rightfully done. So, but a B five on the whole thing. I don't

see it. So I'm fighting it, we'll see what actually happens to you know, get this. So those were the two pages that came up. Now, obviously, the reaction the reaction by the general public was, you know, pretty wide ranging. And then it's it's very interesting for me, because obviously, I report everything

I've done so for for 2728 years now. I give everything out. But what's interesting to me is people's perception of FOIA because when when for you, and this isn't true for everybody, but for a lot of people and a lot of noisy people that that and a lot of people are on my haters list, that if for you produces something that they don't like, right? All of a sudden they just they absolutely hate me. They hate FOIA. They

think it's useless. They think it's a tool They believe and this actually has gone on quite a bit in the last couple of

months even though I've had the accusation for years. It's really ramped up in the last couple of months that I work for the US government that they orchestrate these releases through me and then I put them out to the masses in some kind of disinformation campaign I've been accused of collecting a paycheck from the US government it's just insane what the conspiracies are when for your produces something that they don't like however, those same people when something like this

comes out, and an email which you know, admittedly some of them may not even know that it was published before they come out and they see what I publish and they see the central cover up. I mean, look, I'll call it that and I don't know why they're covering this up. I have no idea but they see that and they go Ah, see John, you owe Elizondo an apology you need to do a man a Coppola you need to fall down to your knees and

apologize to everybody. Why? All of a sudden FOIA is like the gold standard does the same exact people that make an accusation that I'm like somehow working for the government. And for me, I can't help but laugh because it's that selective belief system that if for your produces something you don't like, then the guy that brought it to you is the devil it for you. It produces something that you do like then all of a sudden it's it's unchallengeable. Like this is black and white proof

that Elizondo led a tip. Now, look, I don't believe that this is vindication for anybody, any side of any part of the story. I'm sorry. And here's why I say it because if you look at the actual emails, and you look at the back and forth, even Neil Tipton himself, had absolutely no idea what he was inheriting. He even says, Thanks, Lou. All good, although at some point, I need to know what this actually is. Meaning he was confused. I

won't read it all to you. But I invite you guys to do so. In these emails that I got between Elizondo and Neil Tipton. Elizondo was speaking incredibly highly of Neil Tipton, that he was the guy to inherit the reins of a tip that he was perfectly

suited to do the job. So to see his name, then after you read these emails, wind up in the IG complaint, it was really bizarre because there was nothing that tipped and did, as outlined in the complaint that I saw anyway, that that showed that he was you know, doing this wrongdoing. But you look at the banter back and forth. And in fairness, this was in August. So a little bit prior to some of the the latter banter that we've gone over in this

video. He didn't even know what Luis Elizondo was essentially talking about like, what is really there, like, what is it that you're trying to pass on? What is it that is with this program, because these emails never mentioned a tip at all? So I don't think that he was quite on board. And it wasn't until that later email in late September, that that the acronym A tip popped up, and then tipped and said, okay, that he would look things over. So again, just very kind of bizarre when it

came to this material that that it's not vindicate. Again, I go back to are you going to apologize to everybody? It's not about that, because I don't know what it proves at this point, other than the Pentagon as being incredibly ridiculous with their redactions. And to have them do that. The question now is why why did they consider that deliberative in nature? There's got to be some kind of explanation for that. Because this is already in the public sphere. It's already been out

for what's 2024. Now. I had to look at my calendar to figure out what year it was. I should sleep more, but it's 2024. Now it originally appeared in early 2020. You're talking about more than four years this is floated around, including the Department of Defense inspector general getting it in a complaint to them. What is up with that? I really have zero answer for that. So again, it's it's not vindicating anybody at this

point. It just means that whatever Luis Elizondo was doing with whatever he labeled as a tip, he was passing it on to Neil Tipton, and somewhere between October 3, and the point that Luis Elizondo submitted his IG complaint, tipped and did something bad, like Tipton did something wrong. What that is like, again, I wish that Mr. Elizondo through his attorney would have let me know because I would have published that last month. But I've asked that question quite a bit over the

years since the IG complaint came out. What do you do? I don't know. So its bottom line though, is It's incredibly interesting to see these emails, it's one piece to a much, much bigger puzzle that we are still trying to put together together. I, I am so amazed at the amount of time that these take and the amount of trouble that it has been to get answers. And I know that people think that I pick on Luis Elizondo and and target

him. I mean, I'm here to tell you that when you look at the totality of the FOIA requests I've done on this topic, both sides of this, both sides have been equally as confusing and equally as responsible for muddying the waters. I don't know why that is, we should have this a little bit more clear, because here's yet more information that says, Oh, this is all unclassified. Right? That this is all the things that

essentially, they can banter about an open channel. So does that doesn't mean that they can just release it to the general public. But that means it should be accessible through FOIA much easier than it is. So on one hand, you have the Pentagon that is doing these silly redactions, in some cases, top to bottom pages saying nope, sorry, even though it's unclassified, we can't give you a single word. And then on the other side, you

have people that don't want to answer questions. And that's not just unique to Luis Elizondo, because there are some some outstanding questions. There's quite a few actually, to this day, but others that have come out in that particular group as well. So why is it that you can't get straight answers from either side, I really don't know. But I am happy to see some of my haters love for you, at least this month, this week, this today. And we'll see when they come after me next, when FOIA may

produce something they don't like, I don't really know. But regardless, I'll send it all to you, I will post everything I do so in an unedited raw form. And of course, in some occasions have articles attached. But you can only see those documents. Thank you all for watching, I have a blast with these live streams. I can't believe that, you know, approaching 3000 people at one time, we're watching this. So those are big numbers I didn't expect. So thank you for your support.

Thank you for listening in. I have a lot of fun doing these types of videos and helping you all kind of decode these documents. And I'm always interested in your feedback as well. So please let me know whether you're watching on YouTube in the show notes below or on x. I'm also streaming this on Facebook, let me know what you think I love reading those comments, I always try and respond to can't respond to them all. But I definitely try and read them all thank you for

doing that. I will drop this as an audio format as well. So if you don't know that I do that with some of the live streams, you can go ahead and subscribe to any podcast platform. So you know Spotify, whatever you use, just search for the black vault radio. And then that's where I dropped some of these feeds as audio shows as well. So even though you won't see the visuals, you'll be able to hear it. I know a lot of you prefer

that in lieu of watching. So know that that's available. And if you're listening to the audio podcast version, and didn't know that I live stream a lot of these where you can take part as well. Just go to www dot the blackbolt.com/live and that will bounce you to the YouTube channel. Subscribe, turn the notifications on and make sure you know the next time I'm on. Again, thank you all for listening and or watching. This is John Greenewald Jr signing off, and we'll see you next time