1
00:00:32,070 --> 00:00:33,960
John Greenewald: That's right,
everybody. As always, thank you

2
00:00:33,960 --> 00:00:37,590
so much for tuning in and making
this your live stream of choice.

3
00:00:37,590 --> 00:00:40,320
I'm your host, John Greenewald,
Jr, founder and creator of the

4
00:00:40,320 --> 00:00:42,840
black vault. And today we're
diving into some new documents

5
00:00:42,840 --> 00:00:46,440
that I got, surprise, surprise,
this time from the Department of

6
00:00:46,440 --> 00:00:50,700
Defense. And they are about a
tip. Now, there's not a whole

7
00:00:50,700 --> 00:00:53,370
lot of them. So it's not going
to take a whole lot of time to

8
00:00:53,370 --> 00:00:56,160
go over the documents
themselves. And in fact, if you

9
00:00:56,160 --> 00:00:59,430
pay attention, you may have seen
them before. But what's more

10
00:00:59,430 --> 00:01:03,180
interesting is on the side of
the Pentagon, the action they

11
00:01:03,180 --> 00:01:07,740
took by redacting what they did
in this particular four year

12
00:01:07,740 --> 00:01:11,670
release. And that was the
specific mention of a tip now

13
00:01:11,670 --> 00:01:15,720
why that is, I'll give you their
reason. But as you can imagine,

14
00:01:15,750 --> 00:01:19,710
I'm fighting it, simply because
I just don't agree with them. I

15
00:01:19,710 --> 00:01:22,980
don't believe that this is
something that they should be

16
00:01:23,220 --> 00:01:26,250
redacting number one, but number
two, we discovered a new

17
00:01:26,250 --> 00:01:29,220
document that hasn't been out
before in this four year

18
00:01:29,220 --> 00:01:32,730
release. So that's kind of cool.
The bad thing, it's completely

19
00:01:32,730 --> 00:01:37,410
redacted from top to bottom. So
let's just go ahead and get into

20
00:01:37,410 --> 00:01:41,850
it and kind of start dissecting
this to see where we end up.

21
00:01:41,850 --> 00:01:48,990
Now. As I mentioned, this is all
about an email that came out.

22
00:01:49,830 --> 00:01:53,640
It's been out for a few years,
actually, that mentioned a tip.

23
00:01:53,970 --> 00:01:59,160
Now this goes all the way back.
Let me get my screen here. This

24
00:01:59,160 --> 00:02:04,320
goes all the way back to 2020.
February 14, to be exact, when

25
00:02:04,320 --> 00:02:07,800
the Popular Mechanics article
came out and titled inside the

26
00:02:07,800 --> 00:02:11,250
Pentagon's secret UFO program.
Now the reason why I like to

27
00:02:11,250 --> 00:02:15,840
give this history is because I
want to see I want to show I

28
00:02:15,840 --> 00:02:19,800
should say how this all unfolded
for all of you and kind of

29
00:02:19,800 --> 00:02:23,640
what's what spawned the FOIA
request that I did, and put it

30
00:02:23,640 --> 00:02:27,630
in a little bit of chronological
order for you guys. So this

31
00:02:27,630 --> 00:02:32,280
particular article, which came
out in February of 2020, was a

32
00:02:32,280 --> 00:02:36,750
very lengthy article all about
exactly what it says what it

33
00:02:36,750 --> 00:02:41,550
labeled the Pentagon secret UFO
program, general public more

34
00:02:41,550 --> 00:02:45,330
accurately refers to that as a
tip. I know it's controversial

35
00:02:45,330 --> 00:02:49,260
and whether or not as a tip was
a big program a real program and

36
00:02:49,260 --> 00:02:53,790
official program did it study
UFOs Look, that's a again

37
00:02:53,790 --> 00:02:57,060
different videos in itself. But
this particular article

38
00:02:57,060 --> 00:03:01,830
dissected that dissected Luis
Elizondo story and showed us a

39
00:03:01,830 --> 00:03:05,280
lot of new material. You'll see
here in the screenshot, let me

40
00:03:05,280 --> 00:03:08,640
just pull up the laser pointer
here. You'll see here in the

41
00:03:08,640 --> 00:03:13,680
actual screenshot from the
Popular Mechanics article, the

42
00:03:14,250 --> 00:03:18,510
performance review or at least
one of them of Luis Elizondo. So

43
00:03:18,510 --> 00:03:20,700
again, we were seeing new
documents that have never been

44
00:03:20,700 --> 00:03:24,630
seen before. So kudos to Tim
McMillan for this 2020 articles

45
00:03:24,630 --> 00:03:27,660
simply because there was a lot
of new stuff. Generally you

46
00:03:27,660 --> 00:03:31,530
don't see that you see a lot of
rehash of the same exact thing.

47
00:03:31,530 --> 00:03:35,310
Copy and Paste journalism is
rampant out there. But this

48
00:03:35,310 --> 00:03:40,080
particular article gave quite a
few things, including this. Now,

49
00:03:40,080 --> 00:03:43,320
it was a very interesting
screenshot because as you can

50
00:03:43,320 --> 00:03:48,270
tell, it wasn't even a, you
know, a screenshot of the actual

51
00:03:48,270 --> 00:03:52,110
document, it seemed to be a
photograph of the document. And

52
00:03:52,110 --> 00:03:55,170
then you had all these strange
redactions in it. Now it was

53
00:03:55,170 --> 00:04:00,090
sorted to an anonymous source.
As you can imagine, there were a

54
00:04:00,090 --> 00:04:04,440
few that were cited in this
article, and one of which gave

55
00:04:04,470 --> 00:04:07,950
Tim McMillan slash Popular
Mechanics, this particular

56
00:04:07,950 --> 00:04:12,840
document to publish. This was
given to them to support Luis

57
00:04:12,840 --> 00:04:16,110
Elizondo in his role in a tip.
Now obviously, this was really

58
00:04:16,110 --> 00:04:19,620
intriguing to me. Anybody who
watches this channel, you know

59
00:04:19,620 --> 00:04:25,080
that I'm not a huge fan of
anonymous sources. So although I

60
00:04:25,080 --> 00:04:28,560
take that material, I always
just kind of cringe when I see

61
00:04:28,560 --> 00:04:32,160
the word anonymous. Now fast
forward to 2020. For sure, you

62
00:04:32,160 --> 00:04:35,280
can imagine who that anonymous
source is, but hey, I'll let you

63
00:04:35,280 --> 00:04:38,820
guys decide that one. But this
anonymous source gave Popular

64
00:04:38,820 --> 00:04:42,270
Mechanics this email and said
the following per sec def or the

65
00:04:42,270 --> 00:04:46,560
Secretary of Defense, front
office guidance to you and me, I

66
00:04:46,560 --> 00:04:49,080
took the liberty of drafting a
memo then there was some

67
00:04:49,080 --> 00:04:52,980
redacted lines there. That helps
you better assume the new

68
00:04:52,980 --> 00:04:57,570
responsibilities for a tip at
your convenience. Please review

69
00:04:57,600 --> 00:05:01,170
it's very short on purpose and
Let me know if you want me to

70
00:05:01,170 --> 00:05:06,300
put more meat on it. You kind of
have another redaction here on

71
00:05:06,300 --> 00:05:10,440
the document that that
essentially cuts off the first

72
00:05:10,440 --> 00:05:15,540
part of this. And then you can
kind of see in authorship in

73
00:05:15,570 --> 00:05:18,960
authorship, just want to make
sure we answer the mail for the

74
00:05:18,960 --> 00:05:22,260
front office. And that was where
it kind of cut off. And that's

75
00:05:22,260 --> 00:05:25,200
what we see in this Popular
Mechanics article. So I think

76
00:05:25,200 --> 00:05:28,560
there was a little bit of added
drama here with this particular

77
00:05:28,710 --> 00:05:32,430
screenshot and picture sadly,
you know, I think it was a

78
00:05:32,430 --> 00:05:37,800
little bit for I think Mystique,
if you ask me. And look, that's

79
00:05:37,800 --> 00:05:41,490
that's all fine. Well and dandy,
but some some questions here, as

80
00:05:41,490 --> 00:05:44,430
more was revealed, kind of
surfaced. And you'll see that in

81
00:05:44,430 --> 00:05:47,010
a moment when we see more of
this email. But I wanted to kind

82
00:05:47,010 --> 00:05:50,400
of give you guys the route of
where this came out. In that

83
00:05:50,400 --> 00:05:53,460
Popular Mechanics article. Now
fast forward, that again, was

84
00:05:53,460 --> 00:05:59,370
February 2020. In June of 2021,
after me doing some digging,

85
00:06:00,240 --> 00:06:03,450
asking questions, you know,
pushing various people that I

86
00:06:03,450 --> 00:06:07,230
speak with, finally figured out
a little bit more detail that I

87
00:06:07,230 --> 00:06:11,670
could use and provably use on
the email that allowed me to

88
00:06:11,670 --> 00:06:14,910
then structure a FOIA request to
go after it, because while I

89
00:06:14,910 --> 00:06:17,460
wanted it, and I wanted to see
what else was there, because as

90
00:06:17,460 --> 00:06:22,560
you just saw, that screenshot
was fairly, you know, minimal

91
00:06:22,560 --> 00:06:25,920
and there was quite a bit
redacted. And at that point, you

92
00:06:25,920 --> 00:06:28,560
don't know how long that that
that email was, how big that

93
00:06:28,560 --> 00:06:32,580
email was. So I went after it,
and then specifically filed what

94
00:06:32,580 --> 00:06:38,970
ultimately became case 21 F
1154. sparing you all the legal

95
00:06:38,970 --> 00:06:42,240
jargon that's just more
boilerplate on my end. the brunt

96
00:06:42,240 --> 00:06:44,070
of the request was the
following. I respectfully

97
00:06:44,070 --> 00:06:47,550
request a copy of an email
thread with the subject line of

98
00:06:47,550 --> 00:06:52,560
quote, draft DEP sec, def
letter, unclassified unquote,

99
00:06:52,860 --> 00:06:58,170
dated circa October 3 2017,
which was between Luis Elizondo,

100
00:06:58,350 --> 00:07:05,130
former OSD employee and Neil
Tipton. He actually still is,

101
00:07:05,130 --> 00:07:10,980
but worked with an O Usdi, which
is now Oh, USD ins. Also see

102
00:07:10,980 --> 00:07:14,490
seed was Brendan mckernon, the
United States Navy. Now, if you

103
00:07:14,490 --> 00:07:19,380
don't know Brendan mckernon 's
name. This one has finally been

104
00:07:19,410 --> 00:07:23,700
revealed publicly as connected
to the UAP taskforce effort.

105
00:07:24,210 --> 00:07:27,390
Brendan mckernon from the US
Navy politico was the first one

106
00:07:27,390 --> 00:07:31,080
I believe that published
Brendan's name, it had been

107
00:07:31,080 --> 00:07:36,060
bantered about I had FOIAs about
him, but I did not essentially

108
00:07:36,060 --> 00:07:38,130
really advertise it because
there's not really a whole lot

109
00:07:38,130 --> 00:07:41,610
known about what his role is.
And those those requests are

110
00:07:41,610 --> 00:07:44,970
largely still open on my end and
have been for a couple of years.

111
00:07:45,210 --> 00:07:48,150
But that's who Brendan mckernon
was and so I had found out that

112
00:07:48,150 --> 00:07:52,680
he was CC ID on this email as
well. So in 2017, October,

113
00:07:53,370 --> 00:07:57,690
Brennan was involved. Luis
Elizondo wrote the email, and

114
00:07:57,720 --> 00:08:06,060
Neil Tipton with Oh USD ins now
in June of 2022, okay, so just

115
00:08:06,060 --> 00:08:10,080
to put this in chronological
order for you guys, the New York

116
00:08:10,080 --> 00:08:14,850
Post published the IG complaint,
the Inspector General complaint,

117
00:08:15,180 --> 00:08:19,410
filed by Luis Elizondo now we
had heard about this, already

118
00:08:19,410 --> 00:08:22,860
quite a bit through various
interviews that Luis Elizondo

119
00:08:22,860 --> 00:08:27,180
had done. Politico again had
highlighted it. So so this

120
00:08:27,180 --> 00:08:31,260
finally kind of dropped, had a
few redactions quite a few, but

121
00:08:31,260 --> 00:08:34,290
rightfully so they were
protecting the identity of some

122
00:08:34,290 --> 00:08:37,440
people that weren't known in the
public sphere. However, some

123
00:08:37,440 --> 00:08:42,240
names were were essentially
revealed, one of which was,

124
00:08:42,240 --> 00:08:45,600
again, Brendan mckernon. But
this was the full email that I

125
00:08:45,600 --> 00:08:50,970
was going after. And so now the
general public can see what Luis

126
00:08:50,970 --> 00:08:55,230
Elizondo had put in his IG
complaint. And this particular

127
00:08:55,230 --> 00:08:59,880
section here was what that
screenshot was on the New York

128
00:08:59,880 --> 00:09:03,210
Post, or excuse me on Popular
Mechanics, but now we see it

129
00:09:03,210 --> 00:09:07,050
thanks to the New York Post. So
you can see what I have already

130
00:09:07,050 --> 00:09:10,470
read to you. With the addition
now of greetings, Neil

131
00:09:10,800 --> 00:09:13,260
perspectives front office
guidance to you and me, I took

132
00:09:13,260 --> 00:09:17,640
the liberty of drafting a memo
at the unclassified level that

133
00:09:17,640 --> 00:09:20,940
helps you better assume the new
responsibilities for a tip at

134
00:09:20,940 --> 00:09:24,810
your convenience. Please review,
it's very short on purpose. And

135
00:09:24,810 --> 00:09:27,960
let me know if you want me to
put more meat on it. Brennan,

136
00:09:28,200 --> 00:09:32,460
same with you, please. No pride
and authorship, just want to

137
00:09:32,460 --> 00:09:36,330
make sure we answer the mail for
the front office standing by

138
00:09:36,690 --> 00:09:41,220
Lou. So now we saw the whole
thing. So now you kind of get an

139
00:09:41,250 --> 00:09:44,520
A better idea. Now it's in the
public realm. We know who it was

140
00:09:44,520 --> 00:09:49,020
to who was the seed. Now it's
all verifiable. In addition, we

141
00:09:49,050 --> 00:09:54,750
now see this October 3 2017.
Email. The one in question that

142
00:09:54,750 --> 00:09:59,670
we were just talking about. That
was September 25 2017. Now in

143
00:09:59,670 --> 00:10:03,540
October Third Tipton responds
getting spun back up. We'll read

144
00:10:03,540 --> 00:10:08,460
and get thoughts back today or
tomorrow at Fort Meade half the

145
00:10:08,460 --> 00:10:10,740
day today. So now we see the
response.

146
00:10:13,049 --> 00:10:16,289
So more of the pictures being
revealed. Now I love this kind

147
00:10:16,289 --> 00:10:20,399
of stuff because it's like
piecing together a puzzle. And

148
00:10:20,549 --> 00:10:24,839
this is reinforces my long held
belief. FOIA is not everything

149
00:10:24,839 --> 00:10:29,579
because you do find these bits
of pieces of evidence, thanks to

150
00:10:29,579 --> 00:10:32,519
various investigative
journalists, media, and you got

151
00:10:32,519 --> 00:10:35,909
to put it all together. I know
some people think I say FOIA is

152
00:10:35,909 --> 00:10:40,409
everything. I assure you. I've
never said that. And this is why

153
00:10:40,409 --> 00:10:43,499
is because you get these pieces
of the puzzle to work with build

154
00:10:43,499 --> 00:10:46,979
off of and then able to
integrate that into FOIA

155
00:10:46,979 --> 00:10:50,099
requests and use it because I
can cite places like New York

156
00:10:50,099 --> 00:10:53,279
Post and so on. But what was
also interesting to learn from

157
00:10:53,279 --> 00:10:56,129
the IG complaint and again, some
of this was kind of out there

158
00:10:56,339 --> 00:10:59,729
being bantered about but putting
the puzzle pieces together, Neil

159
00:10:59,729 --> 00:11:03,179
Tipton, who Elizondo was
essentially passing the a tip

160
00:11:03,179 --> 00:11:07,439
reins to was named in the
complaint as somebody that was

161
00:11:09,149 --> 00:11:12,869
committing wrongdoing alleged
wrongdoing that Luis Elizondo

162
00:11:12,869 --> 00:11:17,309
had highlighted. Now I've read
the whole complaint numerous

163
00:11:17,309 --> 00:11:22,079
times. I have zero idea what
Neil Tipton did wrong. None

164
00:11:22,109 --> 00:11:26,039
zero. I have asked, and I'll
make this point quick. But I

165
00:11:26,039 --> 00:11:30,809
have asked Luis Elizondo through
his attorney, Todd McMurtry, who

166
00:11:30,809 --> 00:11:36,449
fields a lot of those questions
on Mr. Elizondo his behalf and

167
00:11:36,599 --> 00:11:40,139
couldn't get an answer. I have
no idea. This particular

168
00:11:40,139 --> 00:11:43,499
question was met with an answer
that maybe more will be revealed

169
00:11:43,499 --> 00:11:46,859
in his book, and that was the
answer that I got. So I'm not

170
00:11:46,859 --> 00:11:50,309
really sure what Tipton did, but
he was one of the three

171
00:11:50,309 --> 00:11:53,999
individuals that that Luis
Elizondo had complained about

172
00:11:54,629 --> 00:11:58,019
the other being Susan golf. That
is the Public Affairs official,

173
00:11:58,289 --> 00:12:01,259
which oddly the Public Affairs
official that actually issued

174
00:12:01,259 --> 00:12:05,399
the statement about Elizondo and
his lack of responsibilities on

175
00:12:05,399 --> 00:12:08,699
a tip was not Susan golf, it was
actually Christopher Sherwood.

176
00:12:08,849 --> 00:12:14,129
He was not actually made. Part
of this complaint. He was

177
00:12:14,129 --> 00:12:17,009
mentioned in it, but he was not
the one that had alleged

178
00:12:17,009 --> 00:12:21,989
wrongdoing. No idea why they are
the third person being Gary

179
00:12:21,989 --> 00:12:25,679
Reed, everybody's favorite
villain in this whole saga. So

180
00:12:25,679 --> 00:12:29,669
those were the three individuals
that he had complained about to

181
00:12:29,669 --> 00:12:33,809
the IG that had alleged
wrongdoing. Neal Tipton was one

182
00:12:33,809 --> 00:12:37,979
of them. So it was really
strange because when you look at

183
00:12:38,429 --> 00:12:43,529
the fact that it was the day
that Luis Elizondo resigned from

184
00:12:43,559 --> 00:12:48,449
the Pentagon, this was the same
day that Neil Tipton responded

185
00:12:48,449 --> 00:12:51,809
to that September email, maybe
just a coincidence, I don't

186
00:12:51,809 --> 00:12:56,609
know. But it was like Neil tips
and says, Okay, great. I'm what

187
00:12:56,609 --> 00:12:59,579
we found out through a different
FOIA request was actually out on

188
00:12:59,579 --> 00:13:03,119
vacation, Neal tips and says,
Okay, great. I'll go ahead and

189
00:13:03,119 --> 00:13:06,539
take a look at this. Getting
back spun back up, I'll get back

190
00:13:06,539 --> 00:13:09,749
to you today or tomorrow. That
was the same day Elizondo said

191
00:13:09,749 --> 00:13:13,199
nope, I'm done. Now, we didn't
know about this resignation

192
00:13:13,199 --> 00:13:16,049
letter. There was a second one
that was published. That one

193
00:13:16,049 --> 00:13:19,889
actually was submitted on
October 4. FOIA brought out the

194
00:13:19,889 --> 00:13:23,909
real one that was submitted on
October 3, I say the real one

195
00:13:23,909 --> 00:13:26,939
because that was the first one
he had already resigned. A

196
00:13:26,939 --> 00:13:30,389
second letter popped up that
next day, that's the one that we

197
00:13:30,389 --> 00:13:36,719
all know about. No real
explanation there. I'm sure

198
00:13:36,719 --> 00:13:40,289
there's probably a good reason
for it. But regardless, this was

199
00:13:40,469 --> 00:13:45,659
same day. Here is the signature
by what what I've determined was

200
00:13:45,689 --> 00:13:49,379
was likely Elizondo his
immediate boss John Garrity. So

201
00:13:49,799 --> 00:13:53,069
you have some very interesting
time coincidences here that

202
00:13:53,069 --> 00:13:57,359
Tipton says yep, Elizondo
resigns on the exact same day.

203
00:13:58,919 --> 00:14:01,049
One thing to point out, too,
when I said that there were some

204
00:14:01,049 --> 00:14:03,659
interesting questions now, what
we've seen more of the puzzle is

205
00:14:03,659 --> 00:14:08,429
the fact that Popular Mechanics
and or the anonymous source, you

206
00:14:08,429 --> 00:14:14,279
pick, decided to redact and hide
from all of you that the memo

207
00:14:14,279 --> 00:14:17,789
that they're talking about was
at the unclassified level. I

208
00:14:17,789 --> 00:14:22,229
don't know why that would be. So
you know, just something to

209
00:14:22,229 --> 00:14:25,349
point out that that was one of
the redactions that they didn't

210
00:14:25,349 --> 00:14:29,309
want to show. And then obviously
this line down here was Brennan

211
00:14:29,309 --> 00:14:32,459
same with you I can understand
hiding Brennan McKinnon's name,

212
00:14:33,059 --> 00:14:38,129
especially around that time and
2020 we he wasn't even known I

213
00:14:38,129 --> 00:14:42,089
don't think I don't remember the
exact date that his name kind of

214
00:14:42,089 --> 00:14:46,139
came out but regardless I that
I, I totally understand but at

215
00:14:46,139 --> 00:14:50,759
the unclassified level to me,
I'm not I'm not really sure

216
00:14:50,759 --> 00:14:56,699
about that. So just something to
to point out though, but last

217
00:14:56,699 --> 00:14:59,609
month, I had published an
article and I posted out this on

218
00:14:59,609 --> 00:15:06,509
social media about how the a tip
saga was gonna get weirder. And

219
00:15:06,989 --> 00:15:09,119
I think I've talked about it on
this channel, but I'll say it

220
00:15:09,119 --> 00:15:14,069
again in this video, I usually
only tease an article on the

221
00:15:14,069 --> 00:15:18,329
same day it comes out. I'm not a
big fan of teases. But I do like

222
00:15:18,329 --> 00:15:21,779
to kind of alert people out
there, there's there's quite a

223
00:15:21,779 --> 00:15:24,659
few different media outlets that
you'll notice will cover

224
00:15:24,659 --> 00:15:29,099
documents that I get inside and
outside the UFO genre. So a lot

225
00:15:29,099 --> 00:15:32,249
of times I will post those
things out and just kind of

226
00:15:32,249 --> 00:15:35,519
alert, you know, those who care
about watching the documents.

227
00:15:35,699 --> 00:15:39,149
There's a story coming. I know
not everybody cares for teases

228
00:15:39,149 --> 00:15:42,569
myself included. But there's a
reason why I kind of do that.

229
00:15:42,959 --> 00:15:47,819
But then I had to cancel the
story. Delay is a much better

230
00:15:47,819 --> 00:15:51,179
word for that. I didn't cancel
it. But delay because something

231
00:15:51,179 --> 00:15:54,659
that I was led to believe in
this particular story was not

232
00:15:54,659 --> 00:15:59,309
necessarily true. So I had to
really come back and I learned

233
00:15:59,309 --> 00:16:02,909
that in the double and triple
checking process right before I

234
00:16:02,909 --> 00:16:06,449
drop an article to ensure that
I'm as accurate as possible.

235
00:16:06,479 --> 00:16:11,339
Everybody makes mistakes. I've
made a ton of them. I'm sure. My

236
00:16:11,339 --> 00:16:15,959
wife will tell you all about my
my mistakes in life. But joking

237
00:16:15,959 --> 00:16:19,679
aside, look, we're all human,
but I do try and be as accurate

238
00:16:19,679 --> 00:16:22,919
as possible. So I had to delay
the story because I was waiting

239
00:16:22,919 --> 00:16:28,499
for another tidbit that I had to
complete the story. It ended up

240
00:16:28,499 --> 00:16:31,619
where I had to splice it into a
couple of different ones. So

241
00:16:31,619 --> 00:16:37,799
what I had published in this
specific story was the fact that

242
00:16:38,219 --> 00:16:45,809
the DoD had released multiple
emails that Luis Elizondo sent

243
00:16:45,809 --> 00:16:50,429
to Susan Goff in an effort to
have her slashed the Department

244
00:16:50,429 --> 00:16:55,229
of Defense changed their stance
on him. And in these three

245
00:16:55,229 --> 00:16:59,279
particular pages was banter back
and forth between Luis Elizondo,

246
00:16:59,579 --> 00:17:03,239
and Neil Tipton. We've already
gone over Neal Tipton, but there

247
00:17:03,239 --> 00:17:07,469
was one strange thing. We know
that in the big complaint, these

248
00:17:07,469 --> 00:17:10,949
three pages were also there. Now
in the interest of time, I'm not

249
00:17:10,949 --> 00:17:13,769
going to read you all three
pages, but I wrote about them at

250
00:17:13,769 --> 00:17:18,569
length, and I'll link in the
show notes below. But what was

251
00:17:18,569 --> 00:17:24,659
absent? Was the ATypI mail. The
one email the only one I should

252
00:17:24,659 --> 00:17:28,079
add, that mentioned a tip. Now
that was really strange to me,

253
00:17:28,079 --> 00:17:31,709
because if you're trying to get
the Department of Defense Public

254
00:17:31,709 --> 00:17:37,019
Affairs Office, to change your
stance on a tip, and the reason

255
00:17:37,019 --> 00:17:40,139
you you wanted to do that was
because you directed a program

256
00:17:40,349 --> 00:17:45,449
called a tip, and you had an
email that referenced a tip and

257
00:17:45,449 --> 00:17:48,089
how you were transferring the
responsibilities that you had to

258
00:17:48,089 --> 00:17:53,879
someone else. That to me is your
smoking gun to prove that this

259
00:17:53,879 --> 00:17:59,729
was something that needed to be
changed. So when I got the foyer

260
00:17:59,729 --> 00:18:04,559
response of Elizondo is email to
Susan golf, and I also found

261
00:18:04,559 --> 00:18:08,489
when did Christopher Sherwood
and the attachments it took

262
00:18:08,489 --> 00:18:11,549
quite some time and I had to
fight for him. They originally

263
00:18:11,549 --> 00:18:14,459
they wouldn't give them to me.
Finally got them.

264
00:18:16,290 --> 00:18:19,800
The email that said a tip was
missing. I confirmed with the

265
00:18:19,800 --> 00:18:22,560
Department of Defense that these
three pages were the only ones

266
00:18:22,560 --> 00:18:27,270
there. So I said to myself, why
would you not do this is the DoD

267
00:18:27,270 --> 00:18:32,070
lying, I would totally buy that.
So I went to Luis Elizondo and

268
00:18:32,070 --> 00:18:35,490
again through his attorney, and
specifically asked him, Is there

269
00:18:35,490 --> 00:18:39,480
a reason that only three of the
four pages that were in your IG

270
00:18:39,480 --> 00:18:43,260
complaint in this particular
section and banter between Neal

271
00:18:43,260 --> 00:18:47,190
Tipton and Elizondo and passing
the reins so to speak of a tip?

272
00:18:47,430 --> 00:18:51,390
Why that wasn't there? And
here's the response that I got

273
00:18:51,390 --> 00:18:56,490
on the record. It is quote, it
is no surprise Mr. Elizondo does

274
00:18:56,490 --> 00:18:59,790
not trust the Pentagon's Pio
office or Public Affairs Office,

275
00:19:00,060 --> 00:19:03,090
due to their history of waffling
and providing false information.

276
00:19:03,630 --> 00:19:06,540
Mr. Elizondo is not surprised
you received a comment like that

277
00:19:06,540 --> 00:19:10,080
from the same people who have
been at inaccurate in the past.

278
00:19:10,650 --> 00:19:13,470
There is a difference between
the Pentagon saying to you that

279
00:19:13,470 --> 00:19:16,470
they didn't receive it, and
actually receiving it but

280
00:19:16,470 --> 00:19:19,530
claiming they didn't. This
should be no surprise to you,

281
00:19:19,860 --> 00:19:24,180
saying that DOD confirmed to me
versus DoD told me are two

282
00:19:24,180 --> 00:19:28,080
different things. Not sure why
you still believe them. When

283
00:19:28,080 --> 00:19:31,620
even you have admitted they have
a tendency to be wrong and

284
00:19:31,620 --> 00:19:34,740
misleading. It's perplexing why
you trust the Pentagon on

285
00:19:34,740 --> 00:19:37,890
certain things, but then admit
you don't trust them with other

286
00:19:37,890 --> 00:19:40,890
things. Why is this any
different other than the fact

287
00:19:40,890 --> 00:19:44,700
that deals with my client? The
fact remains that the email is

288
00:19:44,700 --> 00:19:48,960
legitimate, and the DOD has a
copy of it. If you see up here,

289
00:19:49,200 --> 00:19:54,690
I never I never endorsed the DoD
s position. For the sake of the

290
00:19:54,690 --> 00:19:58,140
audio version, I'll read you
exactly what I asked. The DoD

291
00:19:58,140 --> 00:20:00,480
confirmed to me that the
documents attached To Mr.

292
00:20:00,480 --> 00:20:04,530
Elizondo his email to Susan golf
did not contain that the that

293
00:20:04,530 --> 00:20:08,160
the following email, which is
the only that which is the only

294
00:20:08,160 --> 00:20:11,100
that mentions a tip forgive my
stuttering there. I put the

295
00:20:11,100 --> 00:20:14,550
screenshot at the bottom of this
email for reference. Arguably

296
00:20:14,580 --> 00:20:17,190
this would be the most important
since it talked about a tip

297
00:20:17,190 --> 00:20:21,780
responsibilities to Neil Tipton.
However, the DoD said it was

298
00:20:21,780 --> 00:20:27,060
never sent in Mr. Elizondo 's
email to golf, is there a reason

299
00:20:27,060 --> 00:20:30,270
he only sent three of the four
pages to golf that he later put

300
00:20:30,270 --> 00:20:33,690
in his IG complaint? It seems
the ATypI mail is the most

301
00:20:33,690 --> 00:20:37,020
important one, if he was trying
to get golf to change the DoD

302
00:20:37,020 --> 00:20:40,380
stance about his role on a tip.
That's not an endorsement but a

303
00:20:40,380 --> 00:20:43,320
question framed to the only
evidence that I had available

304
00:20:43,380 --> 00:20:46,500
available to me. If he wanted to
come back and say it wasn't

305
00:20:46,500 --> 00:20:50,550
true. Great, I would publish
that. I published 100% of the

306
00:20:50,550 --> 00:20:54,480
statements that that came to me.
So clearly, I didn't really got

307
00:20:54,480 --> 00:20:58,530
an answer to that other than the
email was legitimate. I didn't

308
00:20:58,530 --> 00:21:03,900
say it wasn't nor to the DoD at
that point. But that's, sadly

309
00:21:03,900 --> 00:21:07,860
where we ended up. Now, what
they did say and this may be the

310
00:21:07,860 --> 00:21:10,860
root of it was this document is
an attachment to email

311
00:21:10,860 --> 00:21:14,340
correspondence from a private
citizen to a DOD employee. The

312
00:21:14,340 --> 00:21:17,040
DoD cannot validate the
authenticity of the material

313
00:21:17,040 --> 00:21:20,400
contained in this document,
personal information has been

314
00:21:20,400 --> 00:21:23,580
redacted to protect the privacy
of individuals contained in the

315
00:21:23,580 --> 00:21:27,030
document. So when they released
those three, they released them

316
00:21:27,030 --> 00:21:30,420
as attachments that Luis
Elizondo sent to golf, but then

317
00:21:30,420 --> 00:21:34,200
said that they wouldn't verify
the authenticity. This to me is

318
00:21:34,200 --> 00:21:39,900
completely unorthodox and out of
the ordinary 100%. And why that

319
00:21:39,900 --> 00:21:45,390
is, I don't know. Generally,
when you have a situation like

320
00:21:45,390 --> 00:21:49,200
this, they'll they'll they'll
search for the emails, I mean, I

321
00:21:49,200 --> 00:21:52,680
asked them to specifically give
me the attachments that Mr.

322
00:21:52,680 --> 00:21:56,250
Elizondo had sent in. Even
though they're marked as

323
00:21:56,250 --> 00:21:59,910
unclassified, you would think
that the Department of Defense

324
00:21:59,940 --> 00:22:03,330
would ensure that they are
unclassified, instead of just

325
00:22:03,330 --> 00:22:07,710
looking at them, not verifying
the authenticity, scratching out

326
00:22:07,710 --> 00:22:11,340
some names to protect privacy,
but releasing all of the the

327
00:22:11,340 --> 00:22:14,730
information that remained that,
to me didn't make sense from a

328
00:22:14,730 --> 00:22:19,170
national security perspective,
through FOIA. Again, even though

329
00:22:19,170 --> 00:22:22,350
it was marked unclassified, it
didn't matter. They didn't

330
00:22:22,350 --> 00:22:25,110
verify the authenticity. So how
do they really know it's

331
00:22:25,140 --> 00:22:28,530
unclassified? So it really just
didn't make sense. Again,

332
00:22:28,530 --> 00:22:32,220
removing myself from the story
from the outside looking in from

333
00:22:32,220 --> 00:22:37,920
that legal slash FOIA side. It
just didn't make sense. So why

334
00:22:37,920 --> 00:22:41,430
they did that? I don't know. But
on top of that, it just got

335
00:22:41,430 --> 00:22:45,060
even, like, more confusing on
Look, can you tell me if you

336
00:22:45,060 --> 00:22:48,450
just sent that fourth page,
which sadly, I never got the

337
00:22:48,450 --> 00:22:53,100
answer to. But I did get told it
was legitimate. And that's fine.

338
00:22:53,100 --> 00:22:57,150
That's great. We know that now.
But why it wasn't sent? I'm not

339
00:22:57,150 --> 00:23:01,860
really sure. So now that was
last month, this month. This was

340
00:23:01,860 --> 00:23:05,070
the other piece of that story
that I had to shelve, because I

341
00:23:05,070 --> 00:23:09,750
knew that I had this open FOIA
request for specifically, that a

342
00:23:09,750 --> 00:23:13,560
tip tipped in email. So I only
had to touch on it a little bit

343
00:23:13,560 --> 00:23:18,330
in April. And then now I finally
got the response. I had to push,

344
00:23:18,390 --> 00:23:23,640
I had to keep following up. It's
sometimes insane how long these

345
00:23:23,640 --> 00:23:29,760
things go. This was two pages.
That's it. And I was waiting for

346
00:23:29,760 --> 00:23:36,000
almost three years for two
pages. So that fact, alone is

347
00:23:36,030 --> 00:23:40,260
insane. But what happened when
they finally released it made

348
00:23:40,260 --> 00:23:44,100
everything even more weirder. So
this is the foyer response

349
00:23:44,130 --> 00:23:47,700
letter. For those taking notes.
This was the final response for

350
00:23:47,700 --> 00:23:51,660
21 F 1154. This was me going
after specifically that a tip

351
00:23:51,870 --> 00:23:57,510
tipped in email. They located
two pages, which were the email

352
00:23:57,510 --> 00:24:01,590
thread and an attachment. I'm
going to read to you why they

353
00:24:01,590 --> 00:24:05,520
made the redactions they did.
The redacted withheld

354
00:24:05,520 --> 00:24:09,390
information is exempt from
release parts pursuant to five

355
00:24:09,390 --> 00:24:14,550
USC Section 552. B five, inter
and intra agency memorandum

356
00:24:14,550 --> 00:24:17,250
which are deliberative in
nature. This exemption is

357
00:24:17,250 --> 00:24:20,190
appropriate for internal
documents, which are part of the

358
00:24:20,190 --> 00:24:24,000
decision making process and
contain subjective evaluations,

359
00:24:24,000 --> 00:24:28,020
opinions and recommendations and
be six information which, if

360
00:24:28,020 --> 00:24:32,760
disclosed, would constitute a
clearly unwarranted invasion of

361
00:24:32,760 --> 00:24:35,580
the personal privacy of
individuals. Please note that we

362
00:24:35,580 --> 00:24:38,310
have considered the foreseeable
harm standard when reviewing

363
00:24:38,310 --> 00:24:41,580
records and applying exemptions
under FOIA and the processing of

364
00:24:41,580 --> 00:24:44,970
this request. I invite you to
pause the video watch or read

365
00:24:45,030 --> 00:24:48,030
all the other legal jargon not
important for the sake of this

366
00:24:48,030 --> 00:24:52,560
video. But here was that email
now we got a little bit more of

367
00:24:52,560 --> 00:24:56,820
the thread not much, but it was
Elizondo is response response of

368
00:24:56,820 --> 00:25:02,430
perfecto also sent on October 3,
The day he resigned responding

369
00:25:02,430 --> 00:25:05,040
to Tipton saying I'll get back
to you today or tomorrow

370
00:25:05,250 --> 00:25:09,360
Elizondo never note and hey, by
the way, I'm quitting today. So

371
00:25:09,390 --> 00:25:12,510
yeah, I won't be here. It was
just great, you know, thanks.

372
00:25:13,110 --> 00:25:16,320
And he was awaiting his
response. So that was kind of an

373
00:25:16,320 --> 00:25:19,530
interesting but weird
development again all the day he

374
00:25:19,530 --> 00:25:24,210
quit, but look down here. The
most important email the

375
00:25:24,210 --> 00:25:30,300
Pentagon decides to redact the
line about a tip they redacted

376
00:25:30,300 --> 00:25:33,840
so that's B five, which they
consider a deliberative process

377
00:25:33,840 --> 00:25:37,440
that that doesn't make sense to
me whatsoever. Because it's not

378
00:25:37,440 --> 00:25:40,500
deliberative process for
Elizondo to be making the claim.

379
00:25:41,520 --> 00:25:44,340
I'm taking the a tip
responsibilities and giving them

380
00:25:44,610 --> 00:25:47,730
to you the be six redacted
redaction here we know is

381
00:25:47,730 --> 00:25:51,990
Brennan's name, I get that even
though Brennan's name is in the

382
00:25:51,990 --> 00:25:56,280
public sphere now, thanks to
mainstream media, Politico to be

383
00:25:56,280 --> 00:26:02,160
exact. Why they're redacting? I
don't really know. But be that

384
00:26:02,160 --> 00:26:08,040
as it may, they redacted his
name. Here's a comparison of the

385
00:26:08,040 --> 00:26:11,850
email that was from the
complaint. And the one they

386
00:26:11,850 --> 00:26:15,360
released, the exact redaction
helps you better assume the new

387
00:26:15,360 --> 00:26:20,250
responsibilities for a tip. I
don't find that as a be five

388
00:26:20,280 --> 00:26:23,880
redact double line. It's not
deliberative. This was

389
00:26:24,420 --> 00:26:28,620
essentially according to
Elizondo more of a fact that he

390
00:26:28,620 --> 00:26:35,160
was passing the reins to Tipton
to take responsibility for a

391
00:26:35,160 --> 00:26:41,580
tip. The tip, so I've fought
this. And even though we know

392
00:26:41,580 --> 00:26:43,950
what it says, it's like, well,
why are you fighting John? Like,

393
00:26:43,950 --> 00:26:46,650
who really cares? It's because
of this,

394
00:26:46,920 --> 00:26:52,620
the memo that was referenced in
that email was entirely

395
00:26:52,650 --> 00:26:56,730
redacted, under, it might be
hard to see on your screen, but

396
00:26:56,730 --> 00:27:01,380
B five, and B six. So the
privacy redaction, which those

397
00:27:01,380 --> 00:27:05,460
are admittedly very, very tough
to argue. But rightfully so. I

398
00:27:05,460 --> 00:27:08,010
mean, you're they're protecting
people's identity. So that's

399
00:27:08,010 --> 00:27:12,420
fine. But B five, not so much in
the four year world. A lot of

400
00:27:12,420 --> 00:27:16,650
times we call this the redacted
if you want to exemption. And

401
00:27:16,650 --> 00:27:19,290
what essentially that means is,
is if it doesn't fall into the

402
00:27:19,290 --> 00:27:22,620
other eight exemption
categories, essentially, they

403
00:27:22,620 --> 00:27:28,920
will go ahead and use B five.
And when they use B five, it's

404
00:27:28,920 --> 00:27:32,010
very hard to to fight because
you don't really know what

405
00:27:32,010 --> 00:27:34,530
you're fighting. You know, if
it's B one, and it's national

406
00:27:34,530 --> 00:27:37,560
security, well, you know, you
can sometimes create an argument

407
00:27:37,560 --> 00:27:40,740
for that. If it's various other
exemptions, you can sometimes

408
00:27:40,740 --> 00:27:43,710
make an argument for that. But
when it comes to B five, it's

409
00:27:43,710 --> 00:27:47,370
like, well, how do we know that
it's deliberative in nature, you

410
00:27:47,370 --> 00:27:51,480
don't really know. So that's why
they call it the B five redacted

411
00:27:51,480 --> 00:27:54,570
if you want to exemption,
because it is often thought

412
00:27:54,600 --> 00:27:58,860
about in the courts. It
definitely needs work. It needs

413
00:27:58,890 --> 00:28:04,020
a revamp, it needs new language.
So it is something that is a

414
00:28:04,020 --> 00:28:08,280
problem for us FOIA requesters.
But you can see here that it was

415
00:28:08,280 --> 00:28:11,910
entirely withheld. So we don't
know what this letter was that

416
00:28:11,910 --> 00:28:18,420
Louie cielo that Louise Elizondo
drafted now, where they may have

417
00:28:19,020 --> 00:28:22,470
some kind of legal argument in
this look, it stinks, I hate

418
00:28:22,470 --> 00:28:24,750
even pointing this out. But in
the interest of full

419
00:28:24,750 --> 00:28:28,650
transparency, they may fight
back on my appeal and deny it,

420
00:28:28,830 --> 00:28:31,740
at least for that particular
page. Because if they consider

421
00:28:31,740 --> 00:28:37,020
it a draft, draft documents are
not technically subject to FOIA.

422
00:28:37,050 --> 00:28:42,090
But agencies can use their
discretion to release documents

423
00:28:42,240 --> 00:28:45,300
that they consider draft if it's
in the public interest. And

424
00:28:45,300 --> 00:28:49,080
maybe we'll help with let's say
transparency a little bit. So we

425
00:28:49,080 --> 00:28:52,950
know it's unclassified. Sure,
redact some names, if there's

426
00:28:52,950 --> 00:28:56,040
names, phone numbers, Social
Security bank card, and what

427
00:28:56,040 --> 00:28:58,530
bank account numbers, whatever,
that you want to consider

428
00:28:58,530 --> 00:29:01,230
personal information. I'm joking
with the bank account numbers,

429
00:29:01,230 --> 00:29:04,740
but that's what you see on B
six, and those are our

430
00:29:04,740 --> 00:29:09,120
rightfully done. So, but a B
five on the whole thing. I don't

431
00:29:09,120 --> 00:29:12,420
see it. So I'm fighting it,
we'll see what actually happens

432
00:29:12,420 --> 00:29:17,220
to you know, get this. So those
were the two pages that came up.

433
00:29:17,220 --> 00:29:22,980
Now, obviously, the reaction the
reaction by the general public

434
00:29:22,980 --> 00:29:27,150
was, you know, pretty wide
ranging. And then it's it's very

435
00:29:27,150 --> 00:29:29,940
interesting for me, because
obviously, I report everything

436
00:29:29,970 --> 00:29:35,940
I've done so for for 2728 years
now. I give everything out. But

437
00:29:35,940 --> 00:29:40,080
what's interesting to me is
people's perception of FOIA

438
00:29:40,320 --> 00:29:43,080
because when when for you, and
this isn't true for everybody,

439
00:29:43,290 --> 00:29:46,440
but for a lot of people and a
lot of noisy people that that

440
00:29:46,440 --> 00:29:49,950
and a lot of people are on my
haters list, that if for you

441
00:29:49,950 --> 00:29:53,520
produces something that they
don't like, right? All of a

442
00:29:53,520 --> 00:29:57,810
sudden they just they absolutely
hate me. They hate FOIA. They

443
00:29:57,810 --> 00:30:01,980
think it's useless. They think
it's a tool They believe and

444
00:30:01,980 --> 00:30:05,250
this actually has gone on quite
a bit in the last couple of

445
00:30:05,250 --> 00:30:09,120
months even though I've had the
accusation for years. It's

446
00:30:09,120 --> 00:30:12,960
really ramped up in the last
couple of months that I work for

447
00:30:12,960 --> 00:30:15,540
the US government that they
orchestrate these releases

448
00:30:15,540 --> 00:30:19,050
through me and then I put them
out to the masses in some kind

449
00:30:19,050 --> 00:30:22,170
of disinformation campaign I've
been accused of collecting a

450
00:30:22,170 --> 00:30:25,890
paycheck from the US government
it's just insane what the

451
00:30:25,890 --> 00:30:29,640
conspiracies are when for your
produces something that they

452
00:30:29,640 --> 00:30:33,450
don't like however, those same
people when something like this

453
00:30:33,450 --> 00:30:36,840
comes out, and an email which
you know, admittedly some of

454
00:30:36,840 --> 00:30:40,140
them may not even know that it
was published before they come

455
00:30:40,140 --> 00:30:47,160
out and they see what I publish
and they see the central cover

456
00:30:47,160 --> 00:30:49,890
up. I mean, look, I'll call it
that and I don't know why

457
00:30:49,890 --> 00:30:52,560
they're covering this up. I have
no idea but they see that and

458
00:30:52,560 --> 00:30:56,610
they go Ah, see John, you owe
Elizondo an apology you need to

459
00:30:56,610 --> 00:30:58,980
do a man a Coppola you need to
fall down to your knees and

460
00:30:58,980 --> 00:31:03,750
apologize to everybody. Why? All
of a sudden FOIA is like the

461
00:31:03,750 --> 00:31:07,140
gold standard does the same
exact people that make an

462
00:31:07,140 --> 00:31:10,230
accusation that I'm like somehow
working for the government. And

463
00:31:10,230 --> 00:31:14,190
for me, I can't help but laugh
because it's that selective

464
00:31:14,190 --> 00:31:17,400
belief system that if for your
produces something you don't

465
00:31:17,400 --> 00:31:20,880
like, then the guy that brought
it to you is the devil it for

466
00:31:20,880 --> 00:31:24,510
you. It produces something that
you do like then all of a sudden

467
00:31:24,510 --> 00:31:28,770
it's it's unchallengeable. Like
this is black and white proof

468
00:31:28,800 --> 00:31:33,630
that Elizondo led a tip. Now,
look, I don't believe that this

469
00:31:33,630 --> 00:31:38,040
is vindication for anybody, any
side of any part of the story.

470
00:31:38,340 --> 00:31:41,040
I'm sorry. And here's why I say
it because if you look at the

471
00:31:41,040 --> 00:31:45,000
actual emails, and you look at
the back and forth, even Neil

472
00:31:45,000 --> 00:31:49,620
Tipton himself, had absolutely
no idea what he was inheriting.

473
00:31:49,800 --> 00:31:53,460
He even says, Thanks, Lou. All
good, although at some point, I

474
00:31:53,460 --> 00:31:58,200
need to know what this actually
is. Meaning he was confused. I

475
00:31:58,200 --> 00:32:02,040
won't read it all to you. But I
invite you guys to do so. In

476
00:32:02,040 --> 00:32:06,030
these emails that I got between
Elizondo and Neil Tipton.

477
00:32:06,930 --> 00:32:12,060
Elizondo was speaking incredibly
highly of Neil Tipton, that he

478
00:32:12,060 --> 00:32:18,240
was the guy to inherit the reins
of a tip that he was perfectly

479
00:32:18,240 --> 00:32:22,170
suited to do the job. So to see
his name, then after you read

480
00:32:22,170 --> 00:32:26,490
these emails, wind up in the IG
complaint, it was really bizarre

481
00:32:26,490 --> 00:32:29,730
because there was nothing that
tipped and did, as outlined in

482
00:32:29,730 --> 00:32:33,930
the complaint that I saw anyway,
that that showed that he was you

483
00:32:33,930 --> 00:32:36,810
know, doing this wrongdoing. But
you look at the banter back and

484
00:32:36,810 --> 00:32:40,650
forth. And in fairness, this was
in August. So a little bit prior

485
00:32:40,830 --> 00:32:43,740
to some of the the latter banter
that we've gone over in this

486
00:32:43,740 --> 00:32:47,670
video. He didn't even know what
Luis Elizondo was essentially

487
00:32:47,670 --> 00:32:50,730
talking about like, what is
really there, like, what is it

488
00:32:50,730 --> 00:32:54,690
that you're trying to pass on?
What is it that is with this

489
00:32:54,870 --> 00:32:59,370
program, because these emails
never mentioned a tip at all? So

490
00:32:59,400 --> 00:33:02,220
I don't think that he was quite
on board. And it wasn't until

491
00:33:02,220 --> 00:33:06,270
that later email in late
September, that that the acronym

492
00:33:06,300 --> 00:33:10,680
A tip popped up, and then tipped
and said, okay, that he would

493
00:33:10,680 --> 00:33:15,120
look things over. So again, just
very kind of bizarre when it

494
00:33:15,120 --> 00:33:19,800
came to this material that that
it's not vindicate. Again, I go

495
00:33:19,800 --> 00:33:22,650
back to are you going to
apologize to everybody? It's not

496
00:33:22,650 --> 00:33:25,230
about that, because I don't know
what it proves at this point,

497
00:33:25,560 --> 00:33:30,660
other than the Pentagon as being
incredibly ridiculous with their

498
00:33:30,690 --> 00:33:39,060
redactions. And to have them do
that. The question now is why

499
00:33:39,060 --> 00:33:41,520
why did they consider that
deliberative in nature? There's

500
00:33:41,520 --> 00:33:45,480
got to be some kind of
explanation for that. Because

501
00:33:45,480 --> 00:33:49,290
this is already in the public
sphere. It's already been out

502
00:33:49,290 --> 00:33:54,960
for what's 2024. Now. I had to
look at my calendar to figure

503
00:33:54,960 --> 00:33:59,520
out what year it was. I should
sleep more, but it's 2024. Now

504
00:33:59,520 --> 00:34:03,210
it originally appeared in early
2020. You're talking about more

505
00:34:03,210 --> 00:34:07,890
than four years this is floated
around, including the Department

506
00:34:07,890 --> 00:34:10,260
of Defense inspector general
getting it in a complaint to

507
00:34:10,260 --> 00:34:15,060
them. What is up with that? I
really have zero answer for

508
00:34:15,060 --> 00:34:18,750
that. So again, it's it's not
vindicating anybody at this

509
00:34:18,750 --> 00:34:23,160
point. It just means that
whatever Luis Elizondo was doing

510
00:34:23,160 --> 00:34:27,420
with whatever he labeled as a
tip, he was passing it on to

511
00:34:27,420 --> 00:34:32,220
Neil Tipton, and somewhere
between October 3, and the point

512
00:34:32,220 --> 00:34:37,560
that Luis Elizondo submitted his
IG complaint, tipped and did

513
00:34:37,560 --> 00:34:42,900
something bad, like Tipton did
something wrong. What that is

514
00:34:42,930 --> 00:34:46,110
like, again, I wish that Mr.
Elizondo through his attorney

515
00:34:46,110 --> 00:34:48,480
would have let me know because I
would have published that last

516
00:34:48,480 --> 00:34:51,450
month. But I've asked that
question quite a bit over the

517
00:34:51,450 --> 00:34:56,130
years since the IG complaint
came out. What do you do? I

518
00:34:56,130 --> 00:35:01,110
don't know. So its bottom line
though, is It's incredibly

519
00:35:01,110 --> 00:35:04,740
interesting to see these emails,
it's one piece to a much, much

520
00:35:04,740 --> 00:35:08,940
bigger puzzle that we are still
trying to put together together.

521
00:35:09,270 --> 00:35:16,650
I, I am so amazed at the amount
of time that these take and the

522
00:35:16,650 --> 00:35:21,450
amount of trouble that it has
been to get answers. And I know

523
00:35:21,450 --> 00:35:25,680
that people think that I pick on
Luis Elizondo and and target

524
00:35:25,680 --> 00:35:30,060
him. I mean, I'm here to tell
you that when you look at the

525
00:35:30,060 --> 00:35:33,930
totality of the FOIA requests
I've done on this topic, both

526
00:35:33,930 --> 00:35:40,290
sides of this, both sides have
been equally as confusing and

527
00:35:40,320 --> 00:35:47,190
equally as responsible for
muddying the waters. I don't

528
00:35:47,190 --> 00:35:50,670
know why that is, we should have
this a little bit more clear,

529
00:35:50,670 --> 00:35:53,730
because here's yet more
information that says, Oh, this

530
00:35:53,730 --> 00:35:57,390
is all unclassified. Right? That
this is all the things that

531
00:35:58,560 --> 00:36:01,230
essentially, they can banter
about an open channel. So does

532
00:36:01,260 --> 00:36:04,380
that doesn't mean that they can
just release it to the general

533
00:36:04,380 --> 00:36:08,250
public. But that means it should
be accessible through FOIA much

534
00:36:08,250 --> 00:36:11,310
easier than it is. So on one
hand, you have the Pentagon that

535
00:36:11,610 --> 00:36:15,300
is doing these silly redactions,
in some cases, top to bottom

536
00:36:15,570 --> 00:36:18,030
pages saying nope, sorry, even
though it's unclassified, we

537
00:36:18,030 --> 00:36:20,940
can't give you a single word.
And then on the other side, you

538
00:36:20,940 --> 00:36:24,060
have people that don't want to
answer questions. And that's not

539
00:36:24,060 --> 00:36:27,450
just unique to Luis Elizondo,
because there are some some

540
00:36:27,450 --> 00:36:30,630
outstanding questions. There's
quite a few actually, to this

541
00:36:30,630 --> 00:36:33,960
day, but others that have come
out in that particular group as

542
00:36:33,960 --> 00:36:37,710
well. So why is it that you
can't get straight answers from

543
00:36:37,710 --> 00:36:38,370
either side,

544
00:36:38,399 --> 00:36:42,359
I really don't know. But I am
happy to see some of my haters

545
00:36:42,359 --> 00:36:46,139
love for you, at least this
month, this week, this today.

546
00:36:46,439 --> 00:36:49,829
And we'll see when they come
after me next, when FOIA may

547
00:36:49,829 --> 00:36:53,639
produce something they don't
like, I don't really know. But

548
00:36:53,639 --> 00:36:57,089
regardless, I'll send it all to
you, I will post everything I do

549
00:36:57,089 --> 00:37:01,529
so in an unedited raw form. And
of course, in some occasions

550
00:37:01,529 --> 00:37:04,289
have articles attached. But you
can only see those documents.

551
00:37:04,289 --> 00:37:07,199
Thank you all for watching, I
have a blast with these live

552
00:37:07,199 --> 00:37:11,489
streams. I can't believe that,
you know, approaching 3000

553
00:37:11,489 --> 00:37:17,009
people at one time, we're
watching this. So those are big

554
00:37:17,009 --> 00:37:21,419
numbers I didn't expect. So
thank you for your support.

555
00:37:21,419 --> 00:37:25,709
Thank you for listening in. I
have a lot of fun doing these

556
00:37:25,709 --> 00:37:29,789
types of videos and helping you
all kind of decode these

557
00:37:29,789 --> 00:37:32,429
documents. And I'm always
interested in your feedback as

558
00:37:32,429 --> 00:37:34,919
well. So please let me know
whether you're watching on

559
00:37:34,919 --> 00:37:39,089
YouTube in the show notes below
or on x. I'm also streaming this

560
00:37:39,089 --> 00:37:42,149
on Facebook, let me know what
you think I love reading those

561
00:37:42,149 --> 00:37:44,519
comments, I always try and
respond to can't respond to them

562
00:37:44,519 --> 00:37:47,249
all. But I definitely try and
read them all thank you for

563
00:37:47,249 --> 00:37:51,839
doing that. I will drop this as
an audio format as well. So if

564
00:37:51,839 --> 00:37:54,299
you don't know that I do that
with some of the live streams,

565
00:37:55,259 --> 00:37:59,519
you can go ahead and subscribe
to any podcast platform. So you

566
00:37:59,519 --> 00:38:03,419
know Spotify, whatever you use,
just search for the black vault

567
00:38:03,449 --> 00:38:06,689
radio. And then that's where I
dropped some of these feeds as

568
00:38:06,689 --> 00:38:09,689
audio shows as well. So even
though you won't see the

569
00:38:09,689 --> 00:38:12,179
visuals, you'll be able to hear
it. I know a lot of you prefer

570
00:38:12,179 --> 00:38:16,229
that in lieu of watching. So
know that that's available. And

571
00:38:16,229 --> 00:38:19,289
if you're listening to the audio
podcast version, and didn't know

572
00:38:19,289 --> 00:38:21,659
that I live stream a lot of
these where you can take part as

573
00:38:21,659 --> 00:38:26,819
well. Just go to www dot the
blackbolt.com/live and that will

574
00:38:26,819 --> 00:38:29,789
bounce you to the YouTube
channel. Subscribe, turn the

575
00:38:29,789 --> 00:38:33,269
notifications on and make sure
you know the next time I'm on.

576
00:38:33,539 --> 00:38:37,139
Again, thank you all for
listening and or watching. This

577
00:38:37,139 --> 00:38:40,049
is John Greenewald Jr signing
off, and we'll see you next time