John Greenewald: That's right everybody. As always, thank you
so much for tuning in and taking this journey inside the black
vault with me. I'm your host, John Greenewald, Jr. And today,
we are diving into the newest UAP report released, which for
many was a huge fat, nothing burger as many of them likely
are. For others like myself, I like to dig in, dive in, look at
every single character, why they did some things, why they didn't
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