Unknown: So
Brian Entin / NewsNation: basically Dr. Kirkpatrick today said that
he had tried reaching out to UFO whistleblower David Graeber
several times to talk to him recently and didn't get a
response. David grush sent me that text message and said, I
have zero emails or calls for men. That is a lie.
John Greenewald: It has become a classic example of he said, he
said,
David Grusch: I was happy to give sage counsel to him on
where to look when he took the helmet era.
John Greenewald: The head of the Pentagon's UFO office says the
UFO whistleblower ignored their requests to come in and talk.
The UFO whistleblower says that was all a lie. But now, thanks
to the Freedom of Information Act, the evidence is out. Text
messages, signal exchanges, and emails all tell more of the
story that you haven't heard. Until now. What exactly was
said? When did they say it? And who else got involved? rejoin
me, John Greenwald, Jr. as I take a deep dive into these new
records, and put it all into a chronological display of how it
all went down. Why weren't these handled before they set up? The
meeting? Stay tuned, you're about to journey inside the
black vault.
That's right, everybody. As always, thank you so much for
tuning in and taking this journey inside the black vault
with me. I'm your host, John Greenewald, Jr, founder and
creator of the black vault. And tonight, we're doing another
deep dive. Now I know these videos aren't for everybody.
They can get long. And my guess is this one will be long. And
the reason is, is we have to dive into some documents I just
posted last week, that of course caused quite a bit of
controversy. Now if you're not aware of what I'm referring to,
I received a batch of documents through the Freedom of
Information Act that we're about arrow the Pentagon's UFO office
about their invitations to invite the UFO whistleblower
into their office and essentially spill the beans.
What do you got to know what can we verify? Now of course, that's
a nutshell version. Clearly they have a lot of safeguards with
security classes of classified details, stuff like that. So not
necessarily in their office, they'd be in a skiff or secure
area. But regardless, it was there, again, effort to get him
in there. Now, here's the controversy. When David grush
testified before Congress, he claimed that aro never reached
out to him when Dr. Shawn Kirkpatrick later did an
interview in October, and he stated that David grush ignored
four or five or, or refused attempts, these multiple
attempts, David grush, then countered back in October and
said that was all a lie. Well, I am to find out the truth. So I
filed some foils. And here we are. So we're going to dive into
all of these documents. Now normally, I go through the
documents in the order that I received that why that way, you
guys can go through and follow along with me. But during this
presentation, I did something a little bit different. I
rearranged them all to essentially be in chronological
order makes a little bit more easier for a presentation like
this also makes it easier for you guys to understand. So I put
all of the documents together, we're gonna go through all of
them. They consist of emails, they consist of signal tests,
text messages. Wow. What's up with that? under FOIA? Yes,
under FOIA, and we'll get into that, and of course, a breakdown
by the US government of their attempts. Now, the biggest
question here, oh, did David grush lie? Well, I'm not here to
say yay or nay on that. I'm here to show you guys the evidence.
Anybody can verify it. And you decide the answer to that. I'm
not here to say either way. I will say though, things are not
always what they seem. And in this case, it very much seems to
be the case. So let me go ahead and pull up some visuals here
for you guys. Excuse my eyeline. But I'll be looking at my
monitor here kind of reading some stuff to you, and going
over these particular records now. First, what I want to do is
get over some housekeeping stuff. Once I posted these
documents if you're a user of social media, specifically X but
Reddit was was always also rampant, with some conspiracy
theories about this. There was I would say the most transparency
that I can give to this process during During me seeking out
these documents, and the conspiracy theories that have
kind of flown is that I'm working with the Pentagon, that
they're essentially feeding me these documents, so I can put
them online, they strategically do it. So I can go ahead and be
used as a pawn for them. I have all sorts of accusations. The
bottom line is, however, for those who paid attention from
day one I actually posted when I was requesting them why I was
requesting them. And I sat and wait, a lot of people thought I
got them very quickly. Well, from October to to early
November to April of 2020. For your you're talking about five,
six full months of waiting, that's still a long time. So I'm
not really sure where a lot of these conspiracy theories came
from. So let me do some housekeeping in the beginning,
here is the exact wording of what I requested in my request.
Now I have some boilerplate language that is the same on
every single request. So I'll spare you guys the legal jargon
on that. But let me get to the meat of what I was requesting.
And it was the following. This is what I said directly from the
FOIA request. Dr. Shawn Kirkpatrick, head of the arrow
office has gone on the record in a recent media roundtable
stating he and or his office has tried to contact UFO
whistleblower David grush, numerous times, but those
invitations were declined. I respectfully request a copy of
records, electronic or otherwise of the following all forms of
documentation that showed the above attempts to invite David
grush to speak with arrow, I understand part of this request
may overlap FOIA 24 F 0265. Again, just a legal reference,
because there was probably some overlap there. So I didn't want
them to cancel one and I'd wait longer. But feel this may extend
beyond just emails hence, the request seeking out
documentation relating to the above statement given to the
media by Dr. Kirkpatrick, I agree to limit the scope of
search to all records dated July 2020 22, through to the date of
processing this request through to the data processing this
request is key. Now this is a trick that I've learned. So you
FOIA people out there, I would pay attention to this one. When
you file a request, you have to give a date range. This is
important because it plays specifically into the conspiracy
theories about me, but also why this particular document came up
when it came after I filed the request. When you say through to
the date of processing this request, most agencies if you
don't say that will cut it off at the moment you submit your
request. So it may take them two years to process it. But they'll
cut the date off on the day that you requested the information.
However, if you word it this way, admittedly, it is a
crapshoot, it is a gamble, there is no guarantee that they will
do this. But I have learned that in some cases. And this one
specifically, they will then put the cutoff date when they begin
to process your request. So in this case, it was well after the
original submission date of early November. So that is key
because you'll see the responsive document was dated
January of 2024. That also played into the to the
conspiracy theories about me. But you can see by the actual
request, what I did, I also didn't specifically request
signal messages. There was a lot of people that accused me of
getting some kind of tip or lead know, the reason why I worded
the request that I did any and all information and that I feel
that it may extend beyond emails, that is a way to
separate it from the case 24 F 0265. So I believe that all of
this is, albeit sometimes gruesome, and boring, because
it's just the nitty gritty, nitty gritty, you have to deal
with it. Because those people that are that are spouting those
those conspiracy theories about this and how the Pentagon is, is
working with me on this. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
So there's the evidence that I wanted to go over with you guys.
And the very specific legal wording of what spawned this
particular FOIA request. Now when I say that I couldn't have
been more transparent. I actually on the same day that I
filed, announced it to everybody. So there was no
secret there was no sleight of hand here or something that
someone fed me and I'm making it all up. All you got to do is
look at these particular screenshots here as proof Oops,
excuse me as proof that I was filing it on November second
2023. What I said was in a recent media roundtable
discussion, Dr. Shawn Kirkpatrick, the head of Arrow
stated the arrow has sent an invitation to David grush, quote
at least four or five times but over the last eight months,
those invites were declined. Then David grush told new news
nation that was a lie. So this morning I filed a FOIA requests
case. Seeking evidence to the above claim by Dr. Kirkpatrick.
I'm guessing somewhere those invitations are documented,
they'd have to be unlikely reside in unclassified files,
given the nature of contact and will be hard to exempt given the
open admission by Dr. Kirkpatrick that they were sent.
Let's find out who's telling the truth. And I put a screenshot of
the interview that Dr. Kirkpatrick did put a screenshot
of the news nation interview that David gross responded
saying I have zero emails or calls from them. That is a lie.
That was October 31, I believe was the interview. So in
essence, it was a he said, he said story. It was one person
had one stance, the other had the other stance, one was saying
one was lying. It was like, Okay, well, let's just try and
settle this. What I said down here proved to be absolutely
true. They were all unclassified invitations. They were
documented, and you're about to see all of them. One last things
of housekeeping here is the actual FOIA response. This way,
anybody who's taking notes or wants to challenge me on how I
got this, documents and proves everything that I have stated
November 2 2023, was when I filed I'll spare you all the
legal jargon here on this letter, but I invite you to
pause the video and read it. Here's the four year case number
that anybody can go ahead and request information on, again,
can't be more transparent on this. Now let's talk about the
responsive documents and start breaking this down.
Again rearranged them a little bit from the FOIA case. So when
you download the PDF, I always leave them in the same order
that I got. But in this particular presentation is
jumbled a little bit. To give you a chronological breakdown,
I'm going to read to you what was called a memorandum for
record. This was dated January 8 2024. Again already addressed
why this is post dated after my FOIA requests all stemmed from
the wording of how I requested the information, subject line
all domain anomaly resolution office invitations to interview
Mr. David grush. I don't want the all domain anomaly
resolution office or arrow extended multiple invitations to
Mr. David grush. For the purpose of conducting an oral history
interview in support of the congressionally directed
historical record report, invitations both direct and
through intermediaries to interview Mr. grush regarding
his claim knowledge of US government, possession of
extraterrestrial material, and reverse engineering programs
were met with negative results. I item two, the following
attempts were made by director, arrow and staff to encourage Mr.
grush to provide information to arrow on the record and in an
appropriately secure environment. The National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 authorizes
arrow to receive reporting about US government activities and
events related to UAP regardless of classification level or
carpet compartmentalization of the information. Here's the
breakdown, timeline wise per their memo, and then we'll break
it down even further. But this is from the memo breaking down
the chronology of their timeline between June 8 and 20, excuse me
between June 8 2023 And June 13 2023, Director arrow engaged
in a dialogue with person redacted regarding arrows
authorities and encourage that person to have Mr. grush contact
arrow. Note that this person is a known close associate of Mr.
grush. And the dialogue made it clear that this person was in
contact with Mr. grush. On June 12, and 13th 2023 Director arrow
discussed with a professional staff member or PSM. You'll
you'll see that a few times in this presentation of the US
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. grush, his
refusal to speak with arrow. The PSM stated that he would contact
Mr. grush and request Mr. Gresh his email address. The PSM made
the offer after the director made it clear that Arrow did not
have Mr. Gresh his contact information. It's a little
bothersome that they couldn't find his email address or
contact information but regardless, on June 26 2023,
Arrow staff contacted interviewee redacted and asked
for Mr. grush his current telephone number so that an
invitation can be extended to Mr. grush interviewee contacted
Mr. grush on Arrow's behalf, and an invitation was rebuffed by
Mr. grush. On June 28 2023, Director arrow contacted a PSM
with the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence after
Mr. Gratias appearance before Congress and asked for any
information reported to Congress by Mr. grush that arrow may be
able to identify. The director also reminded the PSM of the
agreement that if a witness expressed apprehension about
coming to arrow, that arrow would send a staff member to
congressional spaces to record the information into the US
government record in support of that historical report. On July
27 2023, Arrow staff conducted an interview of interviewee
redacted who revealed that he wouldn't It who revealed that he
would be having dinner with Mr. grush. The following day arrow
staff to include the director asked this person to invite Mr.
grush to contact arrow for an interview. Arrow staff made it
clear that the interview would be conducted in a secure
facility in accordance with the law, and the tone of the
interview would be friendly and non confrontational, as are all
arrow interviews. On October 6 2023, Arrow staff conducted a
secure call an interview with interviewee redacted, and as
that he also encouraged Mr. grush to agree to a secure
interview, so that Mr. Gratias claims might be introduced into
the US government record in support of their historical
report. Interviewee is known to be a close associate of Mr.
Gresh. During the previous several months director arrow as
to PSM with the US Senate Committee on armed services to
encourage Mr. grush to provide information to arrow during an
official interview. On November 10 2023, Mr. grush contacted
arrow at the urging of congressional staff members and
agreed to be interviewed in Arlington, Virginia on November
14 2024. Arrow provided Mr. grush with a memorandum from the
Director of Special Access Programs, Department of Defense
that made it clear arrow is authorized to receive
Compartmented Information. Mr. Gresh was also told that arrow
would obtain a similar memorandum from the director
controlled access Program Office, Office of the Director
of National Intelligence. On November 14 2023, Mr. grush,
failed to show at the agreed upon location and time for an
interview with arrow. Upon contacting Mr. grush, you stated
that he is not convinced that arrow is authorized to receive
varying levels of classified and sensitive information. So this
right here told you that they had a meeting set up if you
didn't catch it. grush didn't even show. So you'll see here
why. And this is the argument and controversy from these
documents. The controversy as he didn't show because he felt aro
didn't answer his questions. However aro felt that they did
and they had ample evidence to show it. Congress was also
urging based on what they knew for him to go in. It's kind of a
mess. It really is. And you see here that there's a lot more to
the story than we what we heard on news interviews and
congressional testimony. And so that, to me, was kind of like a
head scratcher. He didn't even show to a scheduled meeting.
You'll see more as we go through the information here exactly why
he didn't show and exactly why or exactly how that played out.
On November 19 2023, arrow again contacted Mr. grush via email,
and stated We invite you to speak to arrow regarding any US
government programs or activities related to UAP dating
back to 1945. In accordance with the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 aro is authorized to
receive any information related to UAP regardless of
classification, and notwithstanding any
nondisclosure agreement you may have signed, we would be glad to
meet with you in a skiff so that you could share information with
us. This specific invitation was coordinated with the Office of
General Counsel, Department of Defense, Mr. grush, again,
declined the invitation despite previously agreeing to an
interview. And again, Mr. Gresh cited various security concerns
that arrow is authorized to receive information of any
classification level regarding UAP. On January 8 2024, Arrow
provided Mr. Grosh with a memorandum from the director
controlled access Programs Office, Office of the Director
of National Intelligence that states arrow was authorized to
receive information which is subject to US government non
disclosure agreement. Arrow also informed Mr. grush that there is
a standing invitation to be interviewed by Arrow regarding
his claims of UAP and US government activity and events.
During interactions between arrow and Mr. grush from
November 2023 to January 2024, it became evident that Mr. grush
had no intention of providing arrow with information regarding
his claims. This assessment stands despite the NDAA for
fiscal year 2023 And the enclosed memorandums from the
Department of Defense and the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence, making it clear that arrow is authorized
to receive all levels of information related to UAP. That
was a heck of a memo to go over. But you can see that clearly the
DoD according to them, was reaching out to grush through
various means. Each and every time it was declined. And
clearly, there was issue with David grush, who did not want to
come into arrow. If he didn't set up the meeting and didn't
show, I can understand His concern was really the root
cause of that. But how is it that he could go all that way
set up the meeting the time and just not show? So so what
happened was it was an under advice of counsel, maybe. But
why wouldn't he have that advice prior we know who is his
attorney is with Charles McCullough, the former IC IG. So
clearly, he's got an incredibly intelligent attorney behind him.
So if it was based on legal counsel, why didn't he get that
counsel prior? Because he was he was clearly proactively after
declining a bunch of invitations, it seems
proactively now reaching out to arrow and saying, Hey, let's
let's chat. And from that memo between November 10, and
November 14, there obviously was a telephone conversation, at
least one that said over everything up. So being
proactive, why would you not consult your attorney like, hey,
what do I have to have in writing here? That's a very
interesting piece of this puzzle that you'll see even more play
out here as we go through the documents. So the next batch of
records I'm going to go through is essentially the supporting
evidence to this memorandum. So per my request, seeking out all
of these attempts,
part of those attempts were text messages to Christopher Mellon.
Now, it's not every day you get signal text messages through the
Freedom of Information Act, but in this case, you do. It's not
common, but not not unheard of. So this happens for multiple
reasons. We'll get into it after we go over the text messages.
But it was a little bit of a surprise because I was expecting
more emails, maybe some letters or memos. I wasn't expecting
text messages. They start on June 11 2023. And they start
with thanks. So clearly, there was dialogue between Sean
Kirkpatrick and Christopher Mellon, prior to this. Yes, I
filed for those text messages now as well. Now that I know
they exist, but in this particular document dump, it
starts at June 11. You can see Christopher Mellon saying
thanks, we don't know for what. And then on June 12, this is
what Shawn Kirkpatrick says. Now, as we go through this, all
the blue boxes are Shawn Kirkpatrick, and the gray boxes
are Christopher Mellon. Enter Kirkpatrick grush has made
claims that he's contacted us and we've never responded.
That's just not true. He's also made claims that we don't have
access to investigate his claims. That is also not true.
If I recall correctly, you indicated he refused to come
talk to us. And you're quoted as suggesting as such, I'd suggest
you emphasize the need to come speak with us. You have the
contact email. Enter Christopher Mellon. Hi, Sean, do you have a
specific example of Dave Dave claiming he's contacted arrow
and your office refused to respond? That sounds strange as
during a conversation yesterday, he told me arrow was not a
lawfully designated recipient of his whistleblower info, hence
his reason for not contacting arrow. I also do not recall
saying Dave refused to come talk to arrow. I certainly did not do
so in the debrief article or my article in Politico, and I've
done no interviews yet about Dave. Shawn Kirkpatrick. It was
on the interview Sunday, Pentagon is preparing a
response. His assertion that we aren't lawfully empowered is
clearly incongruent with the law. Christopher Mellon, I'll be
happy to check on that. Contrary to press reports, Dave still
retains his attorney who is a former NSA and IC IG Chuck
should know if anyone does. Kirkpatrick there is a
significant misconception between the authorities in
question the title 50 authorities we we do have are
for CI purposes not taking in information. The law is very
clear about that and if he has a concern he should have as
attorney discuss with OGC we we've had we've had many people
come share appropriately the information that okay, so you'll
see here I'm going to stop real quick. You'll see here that
there's grammatical errors reading Kirkpatrick I don't know
if that's just rage tweeting. Or if he's like, you know, just
Cerise not not liking him. I don't know. So forgive my
stumble reading. I'm trying to make it as clear as possible and
forgot to note his grammatical errors because there is one part
of that that actually may be a typo that a lot of people are
making a big deal of and I'm not sure if it should be a big deal
yet. We'll see. We'll get to that. In a minute, but let me
see here the law is very clear about that. And if he has a
concern he should have as attorney discuss with OGC.
That's the Office of General Counsel within the DOD. We've
had many people come share appropriately the information
they have from various places. Chuck is wrong. If that's his
advice, melon, I'll be happy to raise with Dave and get back to
you. Kirkpatrick if nothing else he needs to contact us. And
we'll introduce his attorney to the Office of General Counsel.
I'll reach out to him today says Christopher Mellon. Also Mellon
I spoke with Dave and his first question was Why hadn't aro
gotten all the info from the IC IG? It is all there and fully
documented to include confirmation that program is
real from active cleared insiders. Mellon, I spoke with
Dave and his first Oh, excuse me, I'm sorry, that's just
repeated from the screenshot. Kirkpatrick comes in after that
Department of Justice has to release it since it's part of a
criminal investigation. Now DOJ is Department of Justice.
However, the question that was asked by David grush through
Mellon was about the IC IG. A lot of people are making a big
deal out of this line that the Department of Justice is
involved. Maybe the IC IG figured out a criminal aspect
that was essentially confirmed or confirmed enough to then
forward over to the Department of Justice for criminal
investigation. That is absolutely a possibility.
However, those that are touting this in the media and new op eds
and so on, have not confirmed it. Now why I pointed out
Kirkpatrick is kind of again, I'm not trying to sound rude
here, but kind of his rage texting, where he's clearly he's
got a lot of grammatical fumbles here and there, misspelling
you'll see some more here, as I read through it. Was his
response maybe that that in his head, he's thinking criminal,
slash investigation slash law enforcement, and he says it by
mistake, or Is this legit? Now some of you may think that I'm,
I'm stretching their look, I'm just I'm a stickler for
confirming these things because of a text message from somebody
who's having those spelling or grammatical errors, or both, can
probably easily mistaken, do typing in DOJ versus IC IG.
While he's, you know, typing in haste, the texting in haste. So
that's a possibility. I have yet to see confirmation of it. I
don't necessarily doubt it. I think it's interesting no matter
what, but I don't think we should just start screaming that
the DOJ is involved, like some people are doing as I record
this, we just don't know yet. So back to Kirkpatrick, DOJ has to
release it since it's part of a criminal investigation. They
haven't yet he needs to come tell us separate from his
criminal complaint. So Mellon, he obviously doesn't have to do
so. And he even said, quote, how do I know Sean is not a target
of the ongoing criminal investigation. In parentheses,
he's got an exclamation point. However, that being said, I
explained your request regarding his attorney contact office
government counsel and suggested he do so to show full
cooperation. He said that if you can provide OTCs contact info,
he'll pass it to his attorney. By the way. He also said his
claim about contacting you dates to a conversation the two of you
had many months ago on a quote, Tandberg, t a n d, b e r g and
parentheses he has SP question mark that spelling even he
doesn't really know what he's talking about, but trying to
convey that to Kirkpatrick. So conversation many months ago on
a Tandberg system, and that you didn't follow up after that
call. I'm not trying to adjudicate that issue, just
telling you what he said. Apparently, that is what his
statement was referring to. So if you can provide an OGC email
or phone number, I'll get that to Dave right away. And
hopefully his attorney will promptly contact OGC. Back to
Kirkpatrick. All of that is both absurd and false. I have had a
conversation I have. Here's another fumble. I believe he
meant I haven't had a conversation with him for years.
That coincides with multiple interview quotes and so on.
Anybody can fact that have checked that that he hadn't
talked to him for quite a few years, even David grush had said
it was 2022. So obviously, at least one or two years. So I
think that was yet another typo, but I haven't had a conversation
with him for years. If he wants this brought out and
investigated, then yes, he obviously does have to his
continued refusal to speak with us only hurts his case. I've
contacted congressional OGC to reach out to him so they can
explain the law. Haven't had a conversation for years. See, so
that now he goes back and he corrects himself. Our statement
will simply be that he's refused to speak with arrow. Melon comes
back. Okay, so Sounds good happy to help when I can don't
hesitate to kick my tires off based on something. By the way,
there isn't a congressional OGC as such. Kirkpatrick there are
congressional lawyers that get law. Mellon to be clear whom
shade, whom should Dave expect to hear from, if you cannot
provide a point of contact at DOD. Current Patrick's then
corrects himself again. So again, I'm just stressing this
about that DOJ thing because I think it's key, he corrects the
get law into vet law. So that's what he's correcting there.
Hill OGC generally advised members only that's what
Kirkpatrick said they advise their employers, not members of
the public. So essentially what he's saying here, if you're kind
of lost, because I had read it a couple times as well. Obviously,
the DOD has an office of government counselor, excuse me,
Office of General Counsel of lawyers, attorneys. I know for a
fact that a few of my FOIA cases, quite a few actually go
through that particular office, when some of these documents are
released, they are involved, they're going through the law,
they understand how it works. So especially when you tie in FOIA
releases, they're right there to essentially make sure nobody's
crossing any legal line. Obviously, they are involved in
processes like this as well. So they're the attorneys for the
DOD, where that kind of back and forth got a little mumbled was
that it was brought up that the hill, Congress has essentially
an equivalent to an OGC. That's where melon says, No, they
don't. And then Kirkpatrick was like, they have attorneys that
advise their members, not for the public, but members of
Congress. So a lot of these fine details are very important when
you see these things play out. Because you know, even these two
guys who are obviously very knowledgeable about how the
government works, they're still not jiving when they're
conversing with each other, because it's an incredibly
convoluted process with a lot of nooks and crannies. And it
really kind of goes to the root of that whole, the right hand
doesn't know what the left hand is doing, primarily because the
left hand doesn't even know the right hand exists. So you kind
of see it play out here with two powerhouse minds that came that
come from the government or came from the government. And they
don't even match up with, with, again, their knowledge of how it
all works. And that's not an insult, but rather that's how
this is playing out that they're just not on the same, not on the
same page. So let me see back to back to Kirkpatrick. It's either
a lawyer at the hill or a lawyer in DOD, who am I sending them
to? Either the law is law or we can scrub having anyone else
come see arrow. So obviously Kirkpatrick is getting a little
miffed at this point. Mellon says you can't tell chuck to go
to various committees on the Hill, it needs to be someone who
represents arrow in the executive branch. I'll support
Mellon on that from the little that I do know about this? That
yes, that would essentially be who they have to talk to, for
safety as well, that if the DoD attorneys are going to promise
something, then obviously, when he goes into the DOD, he's got
something to fall back on. mellem continues, there are a
dozen Hill committees on majority and minority counsel
who may not even agree. Kirkpatrick depends on how badly
people want this sorted out, send me Chuck's contact info.
Then Mellon says not without his permission, obviously. How about
I relay your contact info here to chuck, what's interesting is
Chuck McAuliffe information is public on the website. I'm not
going to display it here to prove what I just said. But the
last time I checked, it was on the website. And then it's how I
contacted him. Sadly, I was ignored the few times that I
did. But regardless, the the information is there, the law
firm is public. It's got a phone number. So why this like, Hey,
give me his phone number. Hey, can you get me a hey, can you
it's like, what can you not just put in a.com or use Google? You
guys are investigating UAP for the Department of Defense. Can
you really not just use Google for finding somebody's contact
information? So that kind of stuff just drives me nuts when
you see this back and forth. But it kind of shed some light of
you know, how all this is playing out behind the scenes
and it's it's silly in a lot of ways. Kirkpatrick Oh, I'm sorry.
The last thing that after not without his permission,
obviously, again, this is Mr. Melon. How about I relay your
contact information to chuck, this will get sorted out of
that. I have no doubt. It is only a matter of how quickly and
by whom? Kirkpatrick I'm not giving my contact info out.
Given the harassment and threats. That's why we have a
secure mechanism. I don't even know if you want me to comment,
and that's just so silly at this point. I mean, there's obviously
government public numbers that they could give out especially
to a former IC IG. I mean, come on. Kirkpatrick continues and
yes, you are defending and adjudicating and you're
undermining the very organization you're purported to
help establish for this person. So now that miffed Dr.
Kirkpatrick just kind of went up a little bit. So you can clearly
see now he's telling Mellon upset, essentially, that he's
kind of obstructing this process. It's like you, you, by
your own admission help set this up. Now you're really just not
letting this play out, like, you know, and these guys are not
coming together here trying to connect David grush to arrow and
it was it was very telling to read through this for the first
time. Mr. Melon comes in really odd I try to bring everyone to
arrow I can. I'm trying to help put Dave in touch with your GC
or general counsel, if you can provide simple contact info. I'm
not judging the claims between you and Dave, and and have not
claimed his claims are accurate. I'm going to stop right there.
I'm going to repeat it again. I have not claimed his claims are
accurate. That's a very telling admission by Christopher Mellon.
I'm not trying to read into that too much. I'm just trying to
show you what Christopher melons mindset is that he's not
vouching for the story itself. He's vouching for David Gratias
credibility, which I would do the same with his background.
It's very impressive. But to the accuracy of his claims, even
Christopher Mellon, who knows more than all of us, I'm sure
about David Gratias story and who the 40 people are that he
talked to, and all of that if he's still ready to not go on
not ready to go on the record and say, Yeah, I believe his
claims. To me, that's very telling. So definitely take note
of that part. To continue on with Mr. melons, words, I've
said he is sincere and credible, and his and other claims, which
I expressly called allegations, warrant investigation, all of
which is, you know, very admirable to say. So kudos to
him, because I agree with it. I have no idea what you or Dave
discussed or when, and, or when, and I'm not taking a position on
that, or even the underlying claim of recovered materials. So
he doesn't even have a stance on the recovered materials. Also a
very, very interesting tell here. Because, you know, do some
do some thinking about who Christopher Mellon circle is.
And he's not ready to make any claims. Again, very telling.
That's not to be, again, overly reading into something critical
or negative, but rather, pointing this out, because a lot
of people can miss that. So it's very telling about where
Christopher melanism, this. And you'll see here, let me pull up
the laser pointer. So I'm kind.dot.if anybody uses signal,
you know that there's more here. That's why there's a Read More
link. And when you when you tap on that on your phone, it
extends the message. So signal will only show you a certain
amount of characters. And then you have to do read more. Sadly,
when these screenshots were taken, they didn't do that. Now
I have filed a request for the extended text. Will I get that
no idea. But and in fact, that was in my appeal. But I want the
whole text to see you know what exactly. Mr. Mellon had gone on
to say, because to me, that was one of the more interesting text
messages that he sent. It was very, I guess, personal in the
sense that it was direct to what he believes or what he's not
ready to believe. But he wants investigated. Very, very
important, kind of crucial to see that. And we didn't. So
we'll see if that screenshot comes. However, the next message
that Mr. Mellon sent, Dave can now say, quote, Shawn has
refused to provide me or my attorney the contact information
that would allow us to picking up right here, sorry, this,
these are the screenshots, I just have to match it up. Dave
can now say, Shawn has refused to provide me or my attorney the
contact information that will allow us to discuss legal
concerns we have with providing testimony to arrow, I'm not your
enemy. And I'm not saying this to provoke or irritate you.
Moreover, having once been in similar jobs, I recognize you
have a big pile of work and responsibility on your plate. I
only mentioned this because it seems you must have some legal
representation, and assuming they are competent. It seems to
me a discussion. It would help to get Dave's testimony into
your system. That it seems to me should be a win for all.
Kirkpatrick I've asked the Office of General Counsel for
contact information. Melon Great. Kirkpatrick waiting to
hear back. Melon. I will be happy to provide that to Dave
and Chuck if you'd like. I think you have a fascinating and
important job. And I want nothing more than to see the
process work. Please don't think I am out to make your job
harder. Kirkpatrick actually, Dave can't say any such thing.
He hasn't asked me for it. Anything only you? Again,
they're just not jiving in this conversation. So it's it's it's
just I can't say it enough. It's fascinating to see this play out
that this was the effort, one of the efforts to get grush in
there. And how much of a mess it really was. Mellon comes back
actually, he probably can and might, but that doesn't matter.
I have no specific reason to believe he will. And I am not
proposing that to him. Just trying to close the loop and
move things toward a good outcome. Thanks. Let me see
here.
Okay, so that was June 12, and June 13, all those text messages
that I went over, okay. Then it jumps to in the screenshot
yesterday. Now, we don't know when Kirkpatrick took the
screenshots or assuming it was Kirkpatrick. So we have no idea
what date this is, but whomever took the screenshot, and
whatever date it was, Kirkpatrick had sent Mellon and
I'll quote here, this is the official position of the
Pentagon released to media Tuesday approved by OGC. And the
Secretary, by law arrow may receive all UAP related
information, including any classified national security
information involving military intelligence and intelligence
related activities at all levels of classification, regardless of
any restrictive access controls, Special Access Programs, or
compartmented. Access Programs. Moreover, there is no
restriction to arrow receiving any past or present UAP related
in and then you have that read, more frustrating link that they
didn't read more. Now, if you Google just any part of that
string, you will come up with that language that has been used
in congressional language in some news, pieces and press
statements and stuff, going back to October ish, of 2023. So that
may be around this time that it went from June to October ish,
don't really know. Sadly, we can't really confirm it. I filed
FOIA cases after the receipt of this to hopefully figure that
out. But regardless, that's what we're we're kind of left to
wonder, kind of doesn't matter. We know the language was there.
Melon responds, I passed that along today for as attorneys
review, per your message, above all, seek to avoid further
communication, unless it is something that seems
extraordinarily urgent, or you initiate well, okay, I'll get
that off to Dave and his attorney this morning. Thanks.
That was it. That was all of it. And I want to point out one
thing to you guys here. That it was, let me see I have a better
slide for it here. You set disappearing message time to one
week, that is a message that whomever is using signal in this
case, Kirkpatrick in that last right before he sent the this
official position of the Pentagon text, he set the
messages on signal to be wiped after seven days. Signal, how's
that feature, because it's an encrypted method of
communicating. But it's a way to essentially hide what you're
communicating. So if you feel that it's sensitive, you can
keep it for a week, and then the app will just completely wipe it
out after a week. There's a lot of problems there. And a lot of
people missed that because nobody was talking about it. And
I tweeted it out or exited out. However you say that now posted
it out on x and social media platforms like hey, you guys are
mad that signal messages got released through FOIA. That was
actually a legit thing to do, not only in the failure, case
response, but even to use signal which I'll talk about right now.
But you guys aren't talking about the fact that it was
switched to then erase everything. So what are we
erasing? Did he save it within the timeframe of the week,
because you have to do that. Now again, most people were upset
that the signal messages were sent to me in a FOIA request
response, privacy concerns were brought up. There were a lot of
again, I call them those conspiracy theories, those
allegations that I was being fed this information, essentially
maliciously, so that I could put it out there to the general
public. Obviously, that's all silliness. But on top of all of
that, Luis Elizondo had chimed in publicly, he's got a very
large following very, very dedicated fan base. Anybody who
follows Him knows that and he's got a lot of popularity in this
particular field. Even he went out of his way to essentially
spotlight the signal messages being put out, in kind of, in my
opinion, fueled the flames a little bit. And the reason I say
that is for this, he posts publicly retweets it. Retweets
Christopher melons. post about my article and my four year
release, and then responds this way, Chris. I wonder when did
DoD authorized Kirkpatrick to use the signal app for official
US business and correspondence? You and I would have been
crucified for doing that while we were in the government? And
when did they allow personal identifiable info of US citizens
to be released, contrary to Privacy Act of 1974? I guess
it's more of the same regarding rules that apply quote to the
but not to me. Now, look, he's got a big following. And I and
I'm a big supporter that if you do have a big following, even if
you have a small one, but more importantly to those that have a
big one, when you put allegations out there like that,
you need to back it up. Now in fairness to Mr. Elizondo, maybe
he just wasn't aware. And that's fine. But when I received these
text messages through FOIA Yeah, I was really curious about it. I
knew they had come out through past FOIA cases before the the
cases that I knew about were actually through litigation. But
through US Code, Chapter Five, section 552 Are the FOIA signal
messages and text messages have come out before. So it's, in my
opinion, irresponsible to start blasting that to, you know, 150
plus 1000 people to kind of fuel that because then there were
people that were saying I should be sued for publishing these
documents, regardless of getting them through FOIA. Now, that's a
loot anybody with a legal background knows that that's
ludicrous. But the digital mob mob doesn't care about that. So
they just use that as part of their, you know, lynch mob
strategy to essentially get fueled by a post like this. But
they actually don't look at the evidence. Now, I did what I'll
call an article, but it was more of an ex post that broke down
the DoD instructions on how to use non government apps,
messaging apps, non DoD controlled is what they call
them, messaging apps for DOD business. Now, to summarize it,
I won't read all this to you. But to summarize it, yeah, it is
kind of frowned upon, but it's not banned. It's not fully
banned. You can do it as long as you follow a certain set of
rules. So you're not sending classified information. That's
one of the obvious ones, or more sensitive information that may
not be classified, but essentially more of the
sensitive government business that you conduct. They do not
want you to use it for that. But when you look at the messages
that I went over, what was it doing, it was setting up a
meeting, and that's all that it was the only personal
identifying information that was spilled was Christopher melons
name. He was communicating with a government official and
anybody with a FOIA background, let alone a government
background will realize that the moment that you communicate with
a government official, it becomes FOIA trouble. I've
spoken about that for years. It's why I've gotten bass, you
know, private corporation emails through FOIA. It's why I've
gotten numerous other corporation corporate emails,
through FOIA. It's just how it works. But the DOD, again, has
that stance where they can use these apps, you go through that
text message, all he was doing was trying to set up a meeting.
So it wasn't sensitive at all. There were no phone numbers,
social security numbers, bank account numbers, anything
personally identifying information. And again, the only
thing that came close to it was, was Mr. Melons name, but given
his past, and his very public
image, talking about UAP, being involved with getting arrow set
up, what privacy violation was there. So not only was the use
of signal authorized, and again, I go through the instructions in
this ex post online, I'll link it in the show notes below. So
you have it. But there was also no personally identifying
information, there was no violation of the Privacy Act of
1974. All those allegations do is fueled the digital mob,
Kirkpatrick made reference to harassment and threats, it fuels
stuff like that, just simply because people get so fired up
thinking that these personal private messages are leaked out,
which isn't true, that they're published through FOIA
illegally, which isn't true, that there's a violation of the
Privacy Act, which isn't true. It all plays a role in that. So
I think that there needs to be that responsibility with people
that have large following, to maybe research these things a
little bit. And if a mistake is made, we all make them myself
included. Just correct it so then that way, your you know,
fan base doesn't go nuts, those on people like myself, and
saying I should be sued, or worse for themselves worse, go
after people in the government that have investigative arms
like the FBI at their disposal. So you know, let's be a little
bit more responsive. But when we're making claims like that,
but I do want to give credit to Mr. Christopher Mellon, who
stated this in a recent article about the documents that I got,
he says, quote, the release surprised, but did not offend me
as I'm a strong supporter of government transparency. So from
what I've seen anyway, he's not out there saying a violation of
his privacy was was was done here, that there was no privacy
act violation. So again, I just want to kind of stress that
point, because that fuels so much of that conspiracy fire
that leads into people harassing others like Kirkpatrick that,
you know, that little thing called stigma that so many
people want to go away? Well, that kind of fuels that as well
that all you've got are a bunch of loud people screaming all
these legal allegations and stuff like that, when the bottom
line is there isn't any. So let's be a little bit more
responsible when people start forwarding around those those
allegations. And again, credit to Mr. Mellon, and I'll say
this, I've said it before, I'll say it again, out of that whole
bunch, because I know I'm highly critical of a lot of them. Just
simply because there's a lot of lack of evidence to a lot of the
claims. Mr. Mellon seems like the most genuine, and I was
happy to see the signal messages. And yeah, it may have
surprised him. But he says that he wasn't offended, and I'm
happy to see that. But for someone like me, it's supported.
Why I think that he is actually one of the more genuine in that
group, that yes, we all have fumbles, we all have mistakes,
we can all be nitpicked to death, to try and be made to
look bad. But honestly, I really do think melons, intentions are,
are genuine, I think they stem from from something that we we
may not have even heard of where they stem from. But I do think
that I'll be at mistakes have been made. I think that he's a
genuine person. So kudos to him for not flipping out about those
signal messages, and also double kudos to him for supporting
transparency over secrecy. Because what seems to me those
that scream transparency and demand at the loudest are the
ones that are continuing to gate keep information from you as
well. So really keep that in mind. So anyway, moving on from
from from that, but that was one thing that I wanted to tackle in
this deep dive was were those allegations because they became
rampant against me. And again, many were calling for me to be
sued and how could I invade privacy and stuff like that
ridiculous. So one of the other text messages that came up,
again, going back to the chronology here was in June 26.
And not too long after the brunt of the conversation between
Kirkpatrick and Christopher Mellon differences here. We
don't know who this particular person is. If you match it up
with the memo, it's likely a interviewee that they had an
arrow on identified person but the dates match up, says Do you
have a phone number and or email for David grush. I'd like to
invite him in for an interview. Not sure if this is Kirkpatrick
or an arrow representative. Again, for the memo says arrow
staff, they would likely say director if it was Kirkpatrick,
but regardless, didn't have a name, so I'm going to point that
out. I would like to invite him in for an interview. The
interviewee says yeah, but let me ask him first he has bad
blood was Shawn going back to 2015? I'll tell him that only
you want to talk to him. And so yeah, I mean, I'll correct
myself there. That's clear that it's not Kirkpatrick doing the
talking here. A lot of text messages to keep straight here.
So I apologize for my mistake, but yeah, obviously an arrow
staff member, interviewee or, excuse me, the arrow person so
it sounds like a plan. Thank you. The interviewee says dang
it. Dave will only say that Shawn knows how to contact him.
He rolls his eyes. There really is bad blood was Shawn from
Dave's perspective, the arrow member says interesting
response. Well, thanks for checking, much appreciated, this
reduction here is likely the name much appreciated. So
obviously yet another attempt shut down. That was June 26. And
June 27. That David grush This is key was made aware and
refuses to chat. Now, Shawn Kirkpatrick learned about the
the release of these documents, and the release of that text
message and the public dialogue now of this bad blood. So
Stephen Green Street from the New York Post who had a
connection with Kirkpatrick Rumor has it that he did an
interview with him so that's going to be airing on the New
York Post's YouTube channel soon. But that being said,
Greenstreet reached out to Kirkpatrick asked him about the
bad blood. Kirkpatrick responded saying I barely knew grush he
never worked for me. He briefed me once that I can recall when I
was deputy director of US Space comm perhaps around 2019 I
believe he came in with Jay Stratton to discuss starting
their research and The UAP Task Force, I don't recall him prior
to that time. I don't know any more now than I did at that time
of those messages what he's talking about when he refers to
bad blood since 2015. I was on assignment elsewhere at that
time, I had many people come to briefed me. I also have a
reputation for not suffering fools. And when briefers come in
ill prepared and deliver a poorly thought, through thesis,
I will pick out the flaws in the argument. Perhaps he was one of
those. No idea. So I had no relationship with grush. He
never worked for me, the only thing I recall was him coming
with Stratton, I have no idea what he's referring to. So that
was Kirk, Patrick's response. Now going back to the text
messages, this was another signal back and forth, another
person that is redacted. So we don't know who this is. Blue is
going to be Kirkpatrick, this other person is in Greg grush,
has made claims that he's contacted us. And we've never
responded, that's just not true. He has also made claims that we
don't have access to investigate his claims. That's also not
true. If I recall correctly, you indicated he refused to come
talk with us, I'd suggest you emphasize the need to come speak
to us, given his false statements and assertions. I
will, but why don't you call or text him. I don't have contact
info. And I can only contact through the secure mechanism. So
I'll need an email. Further, Mellon is stating that he spoke
with him and grush states that arrow is not a lawfully
empowered organization to receive his info. This other
person SMH or shakes my head. I'll reach out and try to reach
grush this week, as well as requesting an email. Then we've
got a bunch of redacted B seven e that's like law enforcement
investigation exemption. This unknown person, it's really a
perfect example of why we need arrow. No more redaction headed
in Skiff Kirkpatrick well of crushes lawyer successfully
makes the case that we aren't lawfully empowered, there will
be a lot less appetite to keep arrow a lot of people focused on
this text message. I felt it was snarkiness. That essentially
sure the long shot that if he proved that we were not
lawfully, meaning arrow was not lawfully able to receive the
information, then arrow would go away, essentially a good thing
to those that are doubting arrows, legitimacy, so on and so
forth. Other people tried to read into that and spin it a
different way. That's just how I took it given Kirk Patrick's
kind of tone throughout many of the messages that we've already
gone through here. So you decide what exactly he meant by that.
But I think it was just essentially more of a challenge,
like look, it would be, it would only behoove them to prove that
we're either lying or not clear to receive everything or
whatever, and we'll just go away, which would be what that
group would want. Anyway, if they don't trust arrow, they
don't want them around. So there will be a lot less appetite to
keep arrow.
Now that conversation was 12 and 13, just like the melon
conversation, and while reading it, I kind of realized I won't
go back on the slide, but I think that that was pretty much
a copy and paste of how he started the conversation with
melon the same way and I just didn't realize it until I read
it out loud to you guys. So he probably just, you know, copied
it from one to the other person here. And then the dialogue
spiraled elsewhere. Now jumped to the 28th Kirkpatrick reaches
out to him. Hey, what is Rubio talking about? This kind of just
makes me believe that this is maybe a PSM maybe part of, you
know, Rubio's crew or one of the committees. So I don't know for
sure. I'm sure someone else may want to try and figure it out.
Or maybe they have figured it out. But as I record this, I
just look at it seems like a congressional staff member,
something like that, because obviously Kirkpatrick is now
reaching out to him saying, what is Rubio talking about? This
unknown person says he's referring to previous witnesses
that provide a testimony regarding the cash crash
retrieval program. Those witnesses will not go to arrow
they were asked to Kirkpatrick do we have notes from their
testimony and their program names, owners anything I can
verify? The unknown person I can review and back in office on
vacation for a few more days. Definitely a few program names.
Now, we jumped to July 21. Great job on the interview glad they
allowed it to happen. So clearly. Now this is that one of
the first interviews Kirkpatrick had done, whoever this was
reached out congratulated him. Kirkpatrick says thanks, still
need those alleged program names. And this person says I'll
talk to leadership and get back. Let me see the Kirkpatrick
response CNN was sent over yesterday with one of my
findings. I don't know what CNN stood for. So you guys might be
able to Google that real fast. I, to be honest with you forgot
to look it up, but I don't know what it stood for. Kirkpatrick
continuously agreement, as I recall was if someone came to
you all, we would be invited to participate. So I can document
and investigate. That hasn't happened. Yet, I've had you all
over to participate. As it stands, Congress is not enabling
us to actually do the job set in law for us to do and is
withholding information from the office, Congress sets up raises
a lot of questions. So clearly, Kirkpatrick is now snapping back
clearly, this is somebody from a, you know, congressional
committee or office, either Rubio or someone else raises a
lot of questions, he says, so he just kind of feels like
everybody's just not allowing him to do the job that he was
asked to do, or mandated to do. This person comes back since you
started interviewing, we've had no one we didn't send your way.
So that's just not true. So now they're starting to have
disagreements. That is the end of those particular text
messages. Now, interesting time light note, we all found out
about David Gresham, the debrief on June 5 2023. So I'm sticking
with the same it's kind of jumping around chronologically
sticking with the same conversations to make it easy to
understand. But June 5 2023, is when we all first heard about
David grush. In the public sphere. Putting that into
context with these next emails, this begins to start really
shaping the picture of what happened with an arrow after the
debrief article first put David grush, his name out there. Now,
this is the Senate Armed Services Committee staff member,
you'll see in a couple emails from now how we can deduce that
the name is redacted. The picture here is going to be who
the email is from. You'll see it's fully redacted. But you'll
see later on how we can determine it was the staff
member. The staff member says Sean grush confirmed to me that
he does not intend to avail himself of the arrow Safe Harbor
process to tell you what he spent many hours telling the DoD
IG, the IC IG and the two Intelligence Committees about
UAP. He's reported through the media in recent days that he was
not able to share some of the information he has with the two
Intelligence Committees because they lacked the program access
he's assuming accurate media reporting. That means that he
has either that he has told either or both DoD ici G's about
one or more saps that the Intel committees are not access to.
The Armed Services Committee are not allowed by process rules to
interview Grosh about any of this because the IC
whistleblower process is tightly controlled by the Intel
committees. What this means is that the DoD IC IG is no
something from grush. The Congress as a whole is not aware
of that as a reason for you to go to the IGs and ask for access
as they deem appropriate for you to essentially see what Gresh is
reporting. If waived programs are involved, there would need
to be a way for you to convey this to our staff directors. But
there is also just a basic reason for you to try to get all
the information that Gresh has provided to the IGs. Now this
gentleman chimes in this is David Kozik. He's the director
of congressional activities for the office of the Undersecretary
of Defense for intelligence. He says, weighing in, there's no
way in heck that DOD and IC IG will give any third party raw
information ever. IG investigations are a blackbox
for a reason, the best Shawn will get from them as a filtered
report that the IG releases to everyone. Bottom line, best
course of action is still for Mr. grush to speak to arrow per
their confidential process that one Congress directed in law. If
he doesn't, I fear the best assessment you will ever get
from ero is a reflection of a reflection. FYI, Shawn won't
have an access problem. Ie he has no SAP or cap restrictions.
It's the IG divide. Of course, if he did speak to the Intel
committees, they can always provide their transcripts slash
notes to Shawn for his review, my two cents. I underline this,
that's my emphasis has no SAP or cap restrictions whatsoever.
That is not subject dependent. That was the internal line that
these guys knew was the case for them, that there was nothing.
Now why I say no subject specific is David grush. felt
that it may have been that it was only UAP. And if it touched
on a non UAP related sap that connected to it. It didn't
matter. And that's what the DoD s position was. I'm not here
endorsing it. I'm just telling you internally Everybody was on
the same page from the Office of General Counsel to the director
of congressional activities, to the arrow office, to ODNI. to
DOD, sabko. Everywhere, they were all on the same page that
they could receive this information. The only one that
seemingly was not and was uncomfortable was David grush.
The only exception was what is referenced here as the IG
divide. Essentially, what that means in plain English is all of
that law enforcement investigation, all of that
research that the IGs do, it is cordoned off from everyone else
for a reason that way that they can be independent and not worry
about their information going somewhere else. But if Congress
had transcripts or whatever, from their interviews, they
could legally without any problem whatsoever, take all of
that and give it to arrow. It seemed like from those messages
I read prior, that was the full agreement that if somebody went
to Congress, Rubio's office, a committee testified and closed
behind closed doors, even in a skiff in a classified setting,
that whatever was was was taken from that, whatever information
they got. And they ended the interview saying, I don't want
to go to arrow, that didn't matter. That information could
then be given to arrow, they were cleared to receive it, and
they can verify it, they can vet it, that goes to the heart of
what Kirkpatrick had texted, saying, okay. Essentially, I'm
paraphrasing this, but essentially, I don't care if
they're not going to come for me. Come see me. Let's get
program names, dates, anything I can verify. That too, was kind
of spun in the social media sphere. But I think it was just
the two scientists, they just want the details. They don't
care about the personal differences. It's the evidence
or the lack thereof. So is there something that he can verify?
And that's what he was looking for. So if Congress could share
that, then they would the only divide was that invest? The
inspector general investigations. That was it. So
this email also became key to me. Just showing hey, look,
Kirkpatrick had unrestricted access to at all
that unknown staff member comes back really helpful. Dave,
thanks, did not know that executive branch folks are in
the same boat. We are, will urge grush to come through Shawn's
portal. So here we are again in June 7 from another
congressional committee staff member to go to the aero portal.
Sean Kirkpatrick now chimes in all I did speak with the DoD IG,
they went on my behalf to the IC IG to request the classified
transcript. Why? Because grush gave nothing to the DoD IG and
claim the same thing he told you that it was icy Compartmented
Information and they couldn't have it. The IC IG declined to
acquiesce my request reminds me of Jack Sparrow. I am fairly
confident I know what compartments he is referring to
because I did my job. But I cannot confirm 100%. If he
doesn't come see me. As David COVID points out, the SSCI could
give me the transcript. So here he is now reinforcing that he
can receive this from Congress. But the more important part here
is even the DoD IG was not given anything that according to them
to Kirkpatrick, they're saying, yeah, he denied us kind of
anything to it would essentially be with the IC IG. And they said
no, because they, as they put it, put themselves in a black
box for a reason. They don't want anybody touching their
investigation. That's the whole point of an inspector general.
They don't want other offices kind of peeking in and hearing
what they've what they've heard. So what that information is, who
knows. But if Congress heard anything, the Senate heard
anything, they could turn it over. That unknown staff member
comes in. Sean press reports indicate that he said he could
not provide everything he knows to the Intel committees because
they were not cleared. So I concluded that he had access to
some DoD sap that the Intel committees are not access to and
inferred that the IC IG would not have access either. So now
he's kind of hinting that the IC IG may be not again, this is
kind of third hand information through this email. But
regardless, even the Intel committees were not access to
certain information. So maybe he denied them as well. So it seems
like grush wants to talk but refuses to talk to everybody.
Yet. Everybody's telling him we're cleared. And I've said
this before, but I'll say it again, in this section, here and
in this video, that I think that an attorney would at this point,
have a field day. You have so much unclassified information
that I got through FOIA little old me and I'm a nobody. Any of
this would be available through a discovery process or even
through a FOIA process for legal counsel for David grush if they
went down that route, regardless All of this information that I
got was unclassified. And so you have so much information that
internally through the DoD ODNI, again, rattling off all those
offices and people that were involved, that stated, they were
telling Russia, you have zero reservation here, you should
have zero reservation because we're cleared. If they took any
action against him whatsoever, a lawyer would have a field day,
there's too much here. There's just it's an overwhelming amount
of paper trail, that everybody was on the same page, that arrow
could hear it. Was there some legal gray area that somebody
could latch on to? I'm sure there always is. But again, an
attorney would have a field day, if they put all of these emails
in front of a judge and or jury and said, Look, everybody was
telling my client that he was free and clear to say things.
Now you're telling me he goes in there and says what they asked
for, and he has these reprisals. He has this whatever action
against him criminal, whatever, whatever he's fearing will
happen. If that happened, there's no way that that that
would pass. I'm sorry, I just don't see it. I can see the
comments from my haters. Now, John's not an attorney. You're
not grush. And he has this to fear. Well, you know what he has
fans in Congress in the Senate. He's got people who support him.
He's got an incredibly powerful and very intelligent attorney.
He's got very powerful people that believe in him and back him
all of this information from people that others will claim
don't like grush. Yet they're saying the exact same thing.
Internally, there's no way I'm sorry, I just don't see it. If
it ever goes to court, I'd be surprised. But regardless, I
think any attorney would have a field day, there's absolutely
too much evidence. Now back to the June 7, communications back
and forth, Kirkpatrick comes in. Let me expand a bit I know
everything he meaning grush was briefed to and had access to and
have far greater access. So he did not have access to some DoD
SAP and the ice didn't have. And if he did, he could have told
you. Similarly, he didn't have access to some ice cap, a cap as
a controlled access program versus a special access program.
That couldn't be shared. If he found some program, he wouldn't
know whose it was unless he had super user access, or someone
who did help him look it up. He didn't. Therefore, he can't make
the argument that whatever he found, couldn't be shared. If he
or others thought it was an illegal program, then again, he
can't make the argument that it couldn't be shared with either
the DOD, or the icy committees based on his assertion, they
didn't have clearances. It sounds very much like playing
the two halves against the middle to hide something that
clearly now shows that if it was illegal, and he was bringing
that that illegal aspect forward, I interpret that that
he would have no restrictions whatsoever, obviously,
safeguarding the classified portions of this, but if there
are a legal program, SAP cap or otherwise, that there are no
restrictions. So what Kirkpatrick is drilling home
here is like, Hey, he's free to tell us he's free to tell you
guys he's free to tell. But he's clearly not unknown staff member
comes in tracking. Thanks, Shawn. And then later that day,
he cannot tell the Armed Services Committee staff
anything once he entered the IG process, were forbidden from
even asking. Furthermore, if a wave SAP is involved, he could
not talk to the Armed Services Committee staff about it because
we are not accessed. That was June 8. Kirkpatrick that day, he
wouldn't know if it was waived if he found it. And as I said, I
know what he actually what he was actually briefed to. I've
been told by the Inspector General, the UAP related
investigation has been closed for a year. He is free to tell
us and you're free to ask. There's no excuse for not
providing an authorized disclosure. So he's drilling at
home to everybody on this distribution list. That includes
the Armed Services Committee, staff member, whomever that was
people within the DOD, and it will my give the opportunity
that these are people outside the DOD, who knows. But
regardless, he's telling everybody he's, he's free at
this part. The key from this IG the UAP, excuse me, according to
the IG, the UAP related investigation was closed for a
year. Now you'll see in the next email, we don't know if that's
the DoD OIG investigation, the IC IG or both? Not really sure,
but clearly Kirkpatrick knew the the INS on that into allegation
and had been closed since 2022. That staff member comes back,
you know how things work, he could have heard that a PGM is
waived. Now PGM, I believe would be the program guidance
memorandum to something. So that he felt, you know, through that
memo that something was a way of SAP. Again, interesting insight
here that the staff member from the Armed Services Committee,
and Kirkpatrick now are kind of going back and forth, because
they're trying to figure out exactly what's going on. But
PGM, I believe, is that program guidance memorandum? And the
staff member goes on? What do you mean by you're free to ask?
That one I thought was pretty self explanatory, meaning the IG
investigations were closed. And given all the facts that
Kirkpatrick had laid out there, the congressional committees
could press for answers and ask David grush for the details. The
second part, though, was a good question, what UAP related IG
investigation, are you referring to the one on grush, or the
broader review that was unanswered, at least in the
course of this foyer release? I have gone after that string of
emails as well. So hopefully, we'll go ahead and get more
insight at a later date. But regardless, I mean, it seemed
that key Inspector General, investigation was closed,
likely. This is just to guess the IC IG side because it was
specific to grush. But we'll we'll see aggression as claims
of the programs and so on. So we'll see. But I'm just guessing
at that point.
Now, July 26 2023, this took place. This was the
congressional UAP hearing in which David grush appeared. Now
let me go ahead and play this clip for you. So you can hear
exactly what David grush said. Now, keep in mind, this is July
26. A lot of what we went over was in June. So like six weeks
prior, all those different people that aro had reached out
to trying to get involved with with grush. The Bad Blood
comments. Clearly grush was talking to arrow staff members
that and he was stating that there was bad blood between him
that he did not want to come in. There were a lot of denials.
This is what he said under oath. Okay,
Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna: on the 19th of April, Dr.
Kirkpatrick, head of Arrow had said that he did not find any
evidence of UAPs. You also stated that you had in your
interview that you briefed him on information that you are
uncovering, but that he did not follow up with you. Were the
items that you divulge to him pertinent to national security.
David Grusch: Yes, him and I had a classified conversation April
2022. Before he took over arrow in July to 2022. And I provided
him some concerns I had,
Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna: do you know why he might not have
fallen up with you?
David Grusch: Up, I unfortunately cannot read his
mind. I wish he did was I was happy to give sage counsel to
him on where to look when he took the helm of Arrow.
John Greenewald: Happy to give sage counsel when he took the
helm of arrow. Now we've already gone through a lot of attempts
to get to him. And we've already gone through the numerous people
that said grush refuses to talk to you. We already went through
that bad blood comment that Kirkpatrick has no idea what
he's talking about. He never mentions that here said that
they had a classified conversation prior. But he never
followed up meaning Kirkpatrick never reached out. I will let
you guys decide on whether or not that was misleading. That
was under oath. That was something that he said to
Congresswoman Luna when she was asking about him not following
up with David grush. So when you look at all those attempts, is
that true? Is it false? Is it semantics? Is he ignoring
important facts? always interested in your comments
posted below behind? So we're gonna fast forward now from that
July 26 Hearing to the October 31 2023. roundtable. And this
was a controversial roundtable simply because Kirkpatrick held
it invite only and it was off camera and only certain people
were asked to attend. Others like Stephen Green Street I know
posted about it. There were a couple others as well tried to
get access to it. And they were declined that they wanted to
essentially keep it small. Why it sounds like you're
controlling a narrative. I do have an open case for the
invitations that went out and who they went to. So we'll we'll
we'll see who exactly was invited. I don't think that will
be exempt. So that being said, in this media roundtable
Kirkpatrick was asked specifically about David grush.
The question was so David grush. The whistleblower came forward
to news nation says he reached out to you to share his this
debris and that you didn't follow up. So did you follow up
and investigate his claims? He says he still hasn't heard from
you. So ultimately, why haven't you to connect it? Dr.
Kirkpatrick says So Mr. grush, since arrow has stood up, and
since I've been director has not come to see us and provided any
information member Kirkpatrick already said prior to taking
over arrow, he met with Jay Stratton and David grush. So
that absolutely is true. Since arrow stood up grush has been
nowhere to be found the follow up question and so he's always
says that he briefed you before you assumed your position and
arrow. Have you had the chance to follow up on any of the
inquiries that he made or talked to any of the witnesses?
Kirkpatrick says, so the last time I believe I spoke with Mr.
grush was when I was with Jay to at US Space Command about five
years ago, and it was not on this topic. Now. We have
interviewed a whole range of people over 30 people now, I
think we've interviewed most of the people that he may have
talked to, but we don't know that. And we've extended an
invitation at least four or five times now, for him to come in
over the last eight months or so. And and has been declined.
That was key. That was that was Kirkpatrick saying we've tried.
We keep reaching out. And we've gone over some of those
attempts. The documentation is there. This was October 31. As I
mentioned, that night news nation who has been following
the story, obviously, they did Ross cold hearts interview with
an error that on news nation. They did a follow up story that
night, the same night that this roundtable took place, contacted
David grush and Gresh stated, I have zero emails or calls from
them. That is a lie. Now, people are trying to mince words here.
Well, zero emails or calls from them. Technically, that's true,
that there was no direct email because arrow, according to the
documentation, and albeit incredibly silly, didn't have an
email address for him. No one would share it with them. And he
didn't have any phone number to use, hence why aro didn't call
David grush directly. So that part is technically true. But is
it fair? You see all of the invitations that David grush had
gotten, and it was David grush. His refusal not to give his
email address, not to give his phone number because of the bad
blood was Shaun Kirkpatrick that he kept denying it through the
the congressional staff member and whoever arrow interviewed,
obviously redacted names in the documents, but regardless, all
connected to David grush. Now if all of that is a fabricated lie,
then I would imagine by the time I've recorded this video that
David grush through either Ross Coltart and news nation, or the
debrief where he's been before, or you know, find someone else
to put out a statement going, Whoa, that like that never
happened. I never got in touch. Now, I do know that this story
has reached David grush. And I do No, he's not too happy about
it. Why didn't he say anything on October 31? Why didn't he
say, look, I wasn't specifically contacted by by Kirkpatrick. But
even if I was I've already declined their invitation from
their staff members or whomever? There should have been some kind
of elaboration here in the interest of transparency, that
arrow has tried. But if Kirkpatrick does whatever to
upset grudge in the past, and that's still there, say it, this
is your opportunity. But instead, this is the statement,
I have zero emails or calls from him. That is a lie. Well, is it
again, you guys decide, but it's really weird to see it all laid
out on a timeline. Now, that was October 31. Now 10 days later on
November 10. Now, David grush reaches out to arrow Good
morning. This is for redacted name for coordination purposes.
Please give me a call to discuss conditions and admin items. And
then in parentheses, or excuse me, in a redacted square, it's
likely his phone number. Now it's on the record. Now he's now
arrows got his email address and phone number. The next email was
November 13. Clearly from some time in between the 10th and the
13th. What is likely a telephone conversation took place between
this staff member and David grush. And this November 13,
early in the morning 813 email states Mr. grush. Attached are
the two items we spoke about the verbal legal advisement that we
review prior to the start of every interview, and the
memorandum for record from sabko. That makes it clear that
ero can receive Compartmented Information from interviewees.
Our address is and it's redacted. I will meet you in the
lobby. See you tomorrow at 10. So, obviously, in the course of
their calm versation they spoke about those two items. David
Gresh agreed to show up that next morning. So it was t minus
25 and almost 26 hours. And that was it. Everything was all set.
Now I don't have the verbal legal advisement, because that
was not provided in the foyer release. I have filed a case for
that, because I'm curious, what are they telling every interview
so it wasn't specific to Grosh. It was every interview, I want
to see whatever that verbal legal advisement that we, that
they review. So they may do it verbally, but obviously it's a
script of some kind. I'm going after it. However, the MFR from
sabko was there that would be this I'll spare you reading the
whole thing. I will read the highlighted passage, which is
the most important representatives of the all
domain anomaly research or excuse me resolution office, are
authorized to speak to persons and or conducting interviews of
persons that currently have or previously had access to
sensitive US Government Information activities and or
materials. Individuals with current or previous access to
unidentified aerial phenomena related information, which is
subject to US government non disclosure agreement are
authorized to provide this otherwise protected information
to ero representatives. So those NDAs that are often fallen back
on by not only David grush, but others, security clearances, so
on and so forth. This spells it out from Major General David ABA
of the DoD Special Access Programs Office, or sabko. You
can't get more clear than that. Again, any attorney would love a
memo like that to use. You'll see later though there's
actually another one that used from ODNI. To support that arrow
was absolutely clear to hear everything. So that was sent to
David grush. Now, November 13, same day, this is in the
afternoon. Good morning, redacted name. Thank you for
sending these items as a former agency level sat mo I think even
sabko and cavco. I take security policies very seriously. In the
DoD sabko memo, the term UA P related is not defined. Fiscal
Year 2023 NDAA, section 1673. Subsection B defines it as the
following quote, any activity or programs by a department or
agency of the federal government, or a contractor have
such a department or agency relating to UAP, including with
respect to material retrieval, material analysis, reverse
engineering, research and development, detection and
tracking developmental or operational testing, and
security protections and enforcement.
The key issue here is that many of these activities have
conventional classified or compartmented security
classification guides that also cover non UAP activities as
well. To discuss the UAP related activities will also expose
these conventional SAP mission areas. An oral history interview
subject must also be absolved of this obligation to protect this
information as well. Some of it may be bigoted or waived, and
then he cites the DoD Instruction. Furthermore, as
discussed Friday, I'm seeking an ODNI cavco determination to
absolve an oral history interview subject of any NDAs
relating to UAP related and adjacent IC cap information.
Additionally, in my particular case, in order to horizontally
protect a portion of my oral history, testimony previously
provided to IC IG and the intelligence committees, we
would need to conduct the interview at the HCS operation o
restricted handling level. Has the CIA Office of Security or
Directorate of operations provided a memo in this regard
for oral history interview subjects? Has the OS provided a
memo to also cover manage need to know projects not directly
reported to ODNI cavco? Lastly, what sign policy does arrow have
to receive nontidal 10. saps, ie do your NFC as the EOP NFC
security director, director, national program management
staff Oh USD ins or doe sabko or SAP OG provided a a memo similar
to the DoD sabko memory you provided. What an absolute
mouthful to go over, but it just seems like things were addressed
with, you know, the sabko memo from from DOD. And then just
like all these other things come out later. So we're, we're,
we're all these questions, and we don't know we're not privy to
the telephone conversation. But where were these questions in
that telephone conversation? Where were these questions when
he initiated contact? Because, again, we know he's had legal
counsel for quite some time. And I'll say it again, a very
powerful and very intelligent one at that. So why weren't
these handled before they set up? The meeting and I'm not
really sure about that. But the response from the arrow person
was Mr. grush. The law is clear and that we can receive
information all classification levels we can discuss when you
come in. So that's where they have left it. Until we get to
the morning of November 14, the day of the meeting 10:34am
meeting was at 10. I've been waiting in the lobby for over
been late waiting in the lobby over 30 minutes. Are you showing
up? So clearly stands them up doesn't even show up. And arrow
was, was clear that they could talk it all over now, in
fairness to this, I mean, I want to be fair here. He never made
it clear. David Grace never made it clear. He wasn't going to
show up. But what would be the harm is if you show up, and then
say, Look, I need answers to these questions. Maybe they'll
have somebody from OGC there from the general counsel office,
to say, Well, we're here to to Absolutely. address your
concerns, or, or something, you could easily just say, forget
it, I'm out. Why would you just not even show I mean, you're,
you know, they're not going to torture you to, to say anything.
So that part was very confusing to me, to where you you go all
the way to set it up, then the night prior, the day prior, you
have all these new questions, then just don't even show up.
And then you say this arrow staff with due respect, I will
need answers to my questions before I will be comfortable
meeting, please provide responses so that we can
hopefully move forward and schedule the meeting. The law
may grant your office need to know but does not establish
policies and procedures with various data owners. I've
managed multicompartment activities throughout my career,
my entire career and multiple dcsa security professional
certifications. I did not ask these questions for mere
curiosity. That's all fine. He's got an amazing background. So I
would never go head to head on him with national security
knowledge. I totally get that. But from an outsider looking in
and seeing this, there's absolutely no reason he should
have stood him up. He should have marched in there with his
attorney demand answers. Because in the interest of of that, I
think Mr. Mellon put it in one of his text messages. He was
encouraging him to try and play ball with arrow in the interest
of that, go see what you know, what are you going to be met
with? And then if you're not comfortable, just say, sorry,
I'm out and then get up and go. There's nothing that would stop
him. He's not subpoena. He's not in cuffs. So what's going on? It
just didn't make sense to me at all. Their response, Mr. grush,
we received your email we get back to you shortly. That was
November 14. Thank you. This is from David gross. Thank you. I
apologize for the confusion this morning about my whereabouts. I
should have been more clear in my email on Monday. You know,
credit to him for apologizing. But, again, all my questions
still stands. Now, this was sent November 15. This was the next
day I put it here. It was part of that string of emails I read
earlier. What Sean Kirkpatrick did at that time that morning
after grush stood them up. He forwarded that whole string of
emails to someone we don't know who and Kirkpatrick says further
records, please save. Note the opening paragraph at the
beginning of this email thread from redacted name. What he's
doing here, whomever he's sending it to, he's making sure
they have record of everything. Now, DOD record retention
schedule should stipulate that all Kirkpatrick material is
saved anyway. But who he sent it to? That's kind of key to
understanding what he's setting up here. He's obviously doing
this for a reason. He obviously has alarm bells going off that
grush says, Yeah, I'll come in, and then never shows, and then
has all of these security concerns. Something was being
set up. Something got triggered on November 15. For Kirkpatrick
to say, okay, here, we're going to save everything. And so he
sent it to an unknown individual. Fast forward to the
19th arrow got back to David grush. I believe it's a
different person, not the one he was talking to that set up the
meeting. I believe that it was someone else simply because of
the way that it was signed, and you look at the indentation.
That's where minutiae matters is because then you can all be it.
You can't figure out the name of the person. Now we know it's
someone else that got involved. And they stay we invite you to
speak to arrow regarding any US government programs or
activities related to UAP dating back to 1945. In accordance with
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2023. Arrow is authorized to receive any information
related to UAP regardless of classification, and
notwithstanding any non disclosure agreement you may
have signed, we would be glad to meet you in a skiff so that you
could share information with us. So whoever that was, was
essentially putting it out there. that you have the
standing invite. It's cleared. We're cleared the balls in your
court. November 19. Thank you for your email, David gross says
I had expressed specific concerns both directly via email
and through counsel. And those specific concerns have not yet
been addressed in writing. Please reference those emails in
this chain key for someone like me. He expressed them through
email, we saw that He also expressed them through counsel,
I haven't seen that. Which means that there's probably more to
this email chain and more to these communications, you better
believe I'm going after it. And the reason is, is because I want
to see the dates where did they land on the timeline? You know,
what, what happened there. So you always look for little
pickups like that to kind of build off of. So he tells arrow
to go ahead and reference those questions, Mr. Gresh, during our
conversation on November 1020 23. So notice, it's going
back to likely the telephone conversation, no indentation, so
we're probably back to that other person. We discussed your
comfort level with relaying sensitive information to arrow
and the possibility of Arrow obtaining a memo from Capco that
clearly states that arrow can receive cap information similar
to the sabko memo I provided you attached is that memo from ODNI
Capco note the date here January 8, so we've jumped ahead quite a
bit, but arrow is trying to get and appease what David grush had
requested in his list. Again, I want to reiterate that in
accordance with the National Defense Authorization as fiscal
year 2023, arrow is authorized to receive any information
related to UAP regardless of classification, and
notwithstanding any nondisclosure agreement, you may
have signed our invitation to discuss possible US government
programs, events, or activities related to UAP still stands,
have a good afternoon, signed, whomever that was David grush
states. Good afternoon. Thank you, we'll review please address
my specific concerns that I sent on 19 November 2023. Now that
was all January 8.
That was the date the memo going back to the original document
that I first started this long presentation over when that was
written. So after all of this arrow then just decided he's not
coming in no matter what we say. It does not look like they tried
to take a stab at those questions. Maybe because they
feel that the cap code, the sabko letter, and the NDAA for
fiscal year 2023 that they continue to reference over and
over and over those three particular things. Take care of
all of that. All of these internal records on top of all
of that reinforce it. So that memo was created January 8, to
bring all that information together and document their
track record of trying to reach out to him contact him through
different intermediaries then their contact directly, his no
show on the meeting and essentially trying to meet him
what I would call meet him halfway and say okay, you asked
for this letter, we got ODNI to send it and here it is. This is
undated. But you can see it's a Capco there, designator number
23 Dash 003. So it was likely created in 2023. Representatives
of all domain anomaly research office are authorized to speak
to persons and or conduct interviews of persons that
currently have or previously had access to sensitive US
Government Information activities and or materials.
This one also talks about specifically the non disclosure
agreements that was signed by the director of the controlled
access program central office. Again, they were trying to reach
out to him and give him every every piece of comfort that they
could to say you can come in here. Now what I'm interested
not being a lawyer, and but seeing now all of this unfold,
and posting it, you know, online for the first time most of this
was have has never been seen by the public before as a non
attorney, but I love legal stuff. I would love to see an
argument by an attorney, let's say Charles McCollum come out
and say this is what they did not meet for us. Not through
YouTubers conveying what grush has said not through journalists
on news nation or some blog or whatever they get David grush
talk to let's hear from the attorney. You know, let's hear
that argument. Because to me, it's all there now. And why it
matters is it goes to the heart of grush just not showing up and
not getting the DOD, the congressionally mandated effort
that so many people wanted for so long, getting them that
information. Now, what we have to understand it at this point
is that Dr. Kirkpatrick was clearly the guy that David grush
had an issue with, nobody can deny that it's all there in
black and white. Why it didn't come up in the congressional
hearing under oath. That's too bad. It's a shame. That was a
perfect opportunity, because of everything that transpired prior
to that. And the clear, quote, Bad Blood comment that was said
by David grush, as associate all of that was palpable. It's, it's
there, it's clear. So why not bring that up? We don't know.
But what we do know now here in April of 2024, is that Dr. Shawn
Kirkpatrick is completely gone. He's not there anymore. That the
reluctance, per the information per the evidence that I've gone
over with you. The reluctance was there because of Dr. Shawn
Kirkpatrick. So now he's gone. He's out. He's doing his media
tour with other podcasts. And he's doing it as a private
citizen, all the more power to him seems like a lot of people
love doing that. That's fine. But he's gone. Now. He has
nothing to do with arrow. So what's wrong with the new
director has since January 8 2024, to date, anything taken
place with David grush? Now, I would imagine grush would make
it very known if he did. Why? Well, because he's made those
steps known in the past about his IG complaints and and what
he has done. So why have we not seen that yet? And has anything
taken place? Well, you could imagine I've got cases to try
and figure that out, too. But the bottom line is now, in my
opinion, there are no excuses when it comes to Kirkpatrick
being involved. And from the legal standpoint, let's hear
what the excuses now. Again, not through these third hand,
people, I talked to Grosh. And he said this now, let's hear
from his attorney, I think the general public has a right to
know, I know this was a really long, deep dive. I know they're
not for everybody. If you've made it this far, kudos to you
for sticking with me for that long. But it's important not
only for myself to go over it verbally, I do a lot of this for
myself too, because it helps me understand and absorb the
information more speaking out loud. But also for you all to
kind of see that timeline to kind of hear it instead of
reading it in a pile of, of pages thrown into a PDF file,
but rather hear somebody talk about it, and to talk with you
about it. That's what I'm here to do. So with that said here on
YouTube, if you're watching live, or if you're watching the
replay, put your comments below. I'm always interested in and
please keep it kind down there. If you agree with me disagree
with me, or whatever you want to say, again, just please keep it
clean, but put them down there and, and let me know what you
think. The biggest help you can do. If you like these types of
videos, I do short ones too. So they're not all always very
long, but liked the video, put a thumbs up there. If you're
listening on the audio podcast version, I aim for five stars,
please help me by putting a review out there clicking the
thumbs up button. It truly truly helps. And of course making sure
you're subscribed notifications on that way when I do live
streams drop these types of videos, you will be notified
when I do so on the note of the audio podcast. If you're not
aware, a lot of these presentations do go to the
podcast feed obviously it's audio only. So you missed the
visuals. But that's why I read a lot so you guys can just listen
while you work or run or jog or whatever you do with your
podcast. It's under the black vault radio on nearly every
podcast network out there. So just search for black vault
radio, subscribe and again, if you can leave a review it's very
very helpful to me. quickest way to get get the news from the
black vault to the last thing before I say goodbye. Make sure
you're subscribed to social media channels. But I am most
active on AIX, the handle is simply black vault c o m
like.com. Without the dot black vault comm that's my handle.
That's where I'm most active you see things. Even right prior to
recording this video dropped an ex post out there of what I
consider kind of breaking news in this genre of records being
destroyed of the emails of Dr. James McCaskey, the OSS, app
director. And if you follow that whole story and know the name,
you'll know that that's kind of a detriment to trying to unravel
that whole era of this whole story but that's another video
in itself. Thank you so much for listening and or watching truly,
truly appreciate you hanging with me on these deep dives. I'm
John Greenewald, Jr signing off, and I'll see you next time