John Greenewald: That's right, everybody. As always, thank you
so much for tuning in and making this your live stream of choice.
I'm your host, John Greenewald, Jr, founder and creator of the
black vault. And today we're diving into some new documents
that I got, surprise, surprise, this time from the Department of
Defense. And they are about a tip. Now, there's not a whole
lot of them. So it's not going to take a whole lot of time to
go over the documents themselves. And in fact, if you
pay attention, you may have seen them before. But what's more
interesting is on the side of the Pentagon, the action they
took by redacting what they did in this particular four year
release. And that was the specific mention of a tip now
why that is, I'll give you their reason. But as you can imagine,
I'm fighting it, simply because I just don't agree with them. I
don't believe that this is something that they should be
redacting number one, but number two, we discovered a new
document that hasn't been out before in this four year
release. So that's kind of cool. The bad thing, it's completely
redacted from top to bottom. So let's just go ahead and get into
it and kind of start dissecting this to see where we end up.
Now. As I mentioned, this is all about an email that came out.
It's been out for a few years, actually, that mentioned a tip.
Now this goes all the way back. Let me get my screen here. This
goes all the way back to 2020. February 14, to be exact, when
the Popular Mechanics article came out and titled inside the
Pentagon's secret UFO program. Now the reason why I like to
give this history is because I want to see I want to show I
should say how this all unfolded for all of you and kind of
what's what spawned the FOIA request that I did, and put it
in a little bit of chronological order for you guys. So this
particular article, which came out in February of 2020, was a
very lengthy article all about exactly what it says what it
labeled the Pentagon secret UFO program, general public more
accurately refers to that as a tip. I know it's controversial
and whether or not as a tip was a big program a real program and
official program did it study UFOs Look, that's a again
different videos in itself. But this particular article
dissected that dissected Luis Elizondo story and showed us a
lot of new material. You'll see here in the screenshot, let me
just pull up the laser pointer here. You'll see here in the
actual screenshot from the Popular Mechanics article, the
performance review or at least one of them of Luis Elizondo. So
again, we were seeing new documents that have never been
seen before. So kudos to Tim McMillan for this 2020 articles
simply because there was a lot of new stuff. Generally you
don't see that you see a lot of rehash of the same exact thing.
Copy and Paste journalism is rampant out there. But this
particular article gave quite a few things, including this. Now,
it was a very interesting screenshot because as you can
tell, it wasn't even a, you know, a screenshot of the actual
document, it seemed to be a photograph of the document. And
then you had all these strange redactions in it. Now it was
sorted to an anonymous source. As you can imagine, there were a
few that were cited in this article, and one of which gave
Tim McMillan slash Popular Mechanics, this particular
document to publish. This was given to them to support Luis
Elizondo in his role in a tip. Now obviously, this was really
intriguing to me. Anybody who watches this channel, you know
that I'm not a huge fan of anonymous sources. So although I
take that material, I always just kind of cringe when I see
the word anonymous. Now fast forward to 2020. For sure, you
can imagine who that anonymous source is, but hey, I'll let you
guys decide that one. But this anonymous source gave Popular
Mechanics this email and said the following per sec def or the
Secretary of Defense, front office guidance to you and me, I
took the liberty of drafting a memo then there was some
redacted lines there. That helps you better assume the new
responsibilities for a tip at your convenience. Please review
it's very short on purpose and Let me know if you want me to
put more meat on it. You kind of have another redaction here on
the document that that essentially cuts off the first
part of this. And then you can kind of see in authorship in
authorship, just want to make sure we answer the mail for the
front office. And that was where it kind of cut off. And that's
what we see in this Popular Mechanics article. So I think
there was a little bit of added drama here with this particular
screenshot and picture sadly, you know, I think it was a
little bit for I think Mystique, if you ask me. And look, that's
that's all fine. Well and dandy, but some some questions here, as
more was revealed, kind of surfaced. And you'll see that in
a moment when we see more of this email. But I wanted to kind
of give you guys the route of where this came out. In that
Popular Mechanics article. Now fast forward, that again, was
February 2020. In June of 2021, after me doing some digging,
asking questions, you know, pushing various people that I
speak with, finally figured out a little bit more detail that I
could use and provably use on the email that allowed me to
then structure a FOIA request to go after it, because while I
wanted it, and I wanted to see what else was there, because as
you just saw, that screenshot was fairly, you know, minimal
and there was quite a bit redacted. And at that point, you
don't know how long that that that email was, how big that
email was. So I went after it, and then specifically filed what
ultimately became case 21 F 1154. sparing you all the legal
jargon that's just more boilerplate on my end. the brunt
of the request was the following. I respectfully
request a copy of an email thread with the subject line of
quote, draft DEP sec, def letter, unclassified unquote,
dated circa October 3 2017, which was between Luis Elizondo,
former OSD employee and Neil Tipton. He actually still is,
but worked with an O Usdi, which is now Oh, USD ins. Also see
seed was Brendan mckernon, the United States Navy. Now, if you
don't know Brendan mckernon 's name. This one has finally been
revealed publicly as connected to the UAP taskforce effort.
Brendan mckernon from the US Navy politico was the first one
I believe that published Brendan's name, it had been
bantered about I had FOIAs about him, but I did not essentially
really advertise it because there's not really a whole lot
known about what his role is. And those those requests are
largely still open on my end and have been for a couple of years.
But that's who Brendan mckernon was and so I had found out that
he was CC ID on this email as well. So in 2017, October,
Brennan was involved. Luis Elizondo wrote the email, and
Neil Tipton with Oh USD ins now in June of 2022, okay, so just
to put this in chronological order for you guys, the New York
Post published the IG complaint, the Inspector General complaint,
filed by Luis Elizondo now we had heard about this, already
quite a bit through various interviews that Luis Elizondo
had done. Politico again had highlighted it. So so this
finally kind of dropped, had a few redactions quite a few, but
rightfully so they were protecting the identity of some
people that weren't known in the public sphere. However, some
names were were essentially revealed, one of which was,
again, Brendan mckernon. But this was the full email that I
was going after. And so now the general public can see what Luis
Elizondo had put in his IG complaint. And this particular
section here was what that screenshot was on the New York
Post, or excuse me on Popular Mechanics, but now we see it
thanks to the New York Post. So you can see what I have already
read to you. With the addition now of greetings, Neil
perspectives front office guidance to you and me, I took
the liberty of drafting a memo at the unclassified level that
helps you better assume the new responsibilities for a tip at
your convenience. Please review, it's very short on purpose. And
let me know if you want me to put more meat on it. Brennan,
same with you, please. No pride and authorship, just want to
make sure we answer the mail for the front office standing by
Lou. So now we saw the whole thing. So now you kind of get an
A better idea. Now it's in the public realm. We know who it was
to who was the seed. Now it's all verifiable. In addition, we
now see this October 3 2017. Email. The one in question that
we were just talking about. That was September 25 2017. Now in
October Third Tipton responds getting spun back up. We'll read
and get thoughts back today or tomorrow at Fort Meade half the
day today. So now we see the response.
So more of the pictures being revealed. Now I love this kind
of stuff because it's like piecing together a puzzle. And
this is reinforces my long held belief. FOIA is not everything
because you do find these bits of pieces of evidence, thanks to
various investigative journalists, media, and you got
to put it all together. I know some people think I say FOIA is
everything. I assure you. I've never said that. And this is why
is because you get these pieces of the puzzle to work with build
off of and then able to integrate that into FOIA
requests and use it because I can cite places like New York
Post and so on. But what was also interesting to learn from
the IG complaint and again, some of this was kind of out there
being bantered about but putting the puzzle pieces together, Neil
Tipton, who Elizondo was essentially passing the a tip
reins to was named in the complaint as somebody that was
committing wrongdoing alleged wrongdoing that Luis Elizondo
had highlighted. Now I've read the whole complaint numerous
times. I have zero idea what Neil Tipton did wrong. None
zero. I have asked, and I'll make this point quick. But I
have asked Luis Elizondo through his attorney, Todd McMurtry, who
fields a lot of those questions on Mr. Elizondo his behalf and
couldn't get an answer. I have no idea. This particular
question was met with an answer that maybe more will be revealed
in his book, and that was the answer that I got. So I'm not
really sure what Tipton did, but he was one of the three
individuals that that Luis Elizondo had complained about
the other being Susan golf. That is the Public Affairs official,
which oddly the Public Affairs official that actually issued
the statement about Elizondo and his lack of responsibilities on
a tip was not Susan golf, it was actually Christopher Sherwood.
He was not actually made. Part of this complaint. He was
mentioned in it, but he was not the one that had alleged
wrongdoing. No idea why they are the third person being Gary
Reed, everybody's favorite villain in this whole saga. So
those were the three individuals that he had complained about to
the IG that had alleged wrongdoing. Neal Tipton was one
of them. So it was really strange because when you look at
the fact that it was the day that Luis Elizondo resigned from
the Pentagon, this was the same day that Neil Tipton responded
to that September email, maybe just a coincidence, I don't
know. But it was like Neil tips and says, Okay, great. I'm what
we found out through a different FOIA request was actually out on
vacation, Neal tips and says, Okay, great. I'll go ahead and
take a look at this. Getting back spun back up, I'll get back
to you today or tomorrow. That was the same day Elizondo said
nope, I'm done. Now, we didn't know about this resignation
letter. There was a second one that was published. That one
actually was submitted on October 4. FOIA brought out the
real one that was submitted on October 3, I say the real one
because that was the first one he had already resigned. A
second letter popped up that next day, that's the one that we
all know about. No real explanation there. I'm sure
there's probably a good reason for it. But regardless, this was
same day. Here is the signature by what what I've determined was
was likely Elizondo his immediate boss John Garrity. So
you have some very interesting time coincidences here that
Tipton says yep, Elizondo resigns on the exact same day.
One thing to point out, too, when I said that there were some
interesting questions now, what we've seen more of the puzzle is
the fact that Popular Mechanics and or the anonymous source, you
pick, decided to redact and hide from all of you that the memo
that they're talking about was at the unclassified level. I
don't know why that would be. So you know, just something to
point out that that was one of the redactions that they didn't
want to show. And then obviously this line down here was Brennan
same with you I can understand hiding Brennan McKinnon's name,
especially around that time and 2020 we he wasn't even known I
don't think I don't remember the exact date that his name kind of
came out but regardless I that I, I totally understand but at
the unclassified level to me, I'm not I'm not really sure
about that. So just something to to point out though, but last
month, I had published an article and I posted out this on
social media about how the a tip saga was gonna get weirder. And
I think I've talked about it on this channel, but I'll say it
again in this video, I usually only tease an article on the
same day it comes out. I'm not a big fan of teases. But I do like
to kind of alert people out there, there's there's quite a
few different media outlets that you'll notice will cover
documents that I get inside and outside the UFO genre. So a lot
of times I will post those things out and just kind of
alert, you know, those who care about watching the documents.
There's a story coming. I know not everybody cares for teases
myself included. But there's a reason why I kind of do that.
But then I had to cancel the story. Delay is a much better
word for that. I didn't cancel it. But delay because something
that I was led to believe in this particular story was not
necessarily true. So I had to really come back and I learned
that in the double and triple checking process right before I
drop an article to ensure that I'm as accurate as possible.
Everybody makes mistakes. I've made a ton of them. I'm sure. My
wife will tell you all about my my mistakes in life. But joking
aside, look, we're all human, but I do try and be as accurate
as possible. So I had to delay the story because I was waiting
for another tidbit that I had to complete the story. It ended up
where I had to splice it into a couple of different ones. So
what I had published in this specific story was the fact that
the DoD had released multiple emails that Luis Elizondo sent
to Susan Goff in an effort to have her slashed the Department
of Defense changed their stance on him. And in these three
particular pages was banter back and forth between Luis Elizondo,
and Neil Tipton. We've already gone over Neal Tipton, but there
was one strange thing. We know that in the big complaint, these
three pages were also there. Now in the interest of time, I'm not
going to read you all three pages, but I wrote about them at
length, and I'll link in the show notes below. But what was
absent? Was the ATypI mail. The one email the only one I should
add, that mentioned a tip. Now that was really strange to me,
because if you're trying to get the Department of Defense Public
Affairs Office, to change your stance on a tip, and the reason
you you wanted to do that was because you directed a program
called a tip, and you had an email that referenced a tip and
how you were transferring the responsibilities that you had to
someone else. That to me is your smoking gun to prove that this
was something that needed to be changed. So when I got the foyer
response of Elizondo is email to Susan golf, and I also found
when did Christopher Sherwood and the attachments it took
quite some time and I had to fight for him. They originally
they wouldn't give them to me. Finally got them.
The email that said a tip was missing. I confirmed with the
Department of Defense that these three pages were the only ones
there. So I said to myself, why would you not do this is the DoD
lying, I would totally buy that. So I went to Luis Elizondo and
again through his attorney, and specifically asked him, Is there
a reason that only three of the four pages that were in your IG
complaint in this particular section and banter between Neal
Tipton and Elizondo and passing the reins so to speak of a tip?
Why that wasn't there? And here's the response that I got
on the record. It is quote, it is no surprise Mr. Elizondo does
not trust the Pentagon's Pio office or Public Affairs Office,
due to their history of waffling and providing false information.
Mr. Elizondo is not surprised you received a comment like that
from the same people who have been at inaccurate in the past.
There is a difference between the Pentagon saying to you that
they didn't receive it, and actually receiving it but
claiming they didn't. This should be no surprise to you,
saying that DOD confirmed to me versus DoD told me are two
different things. Not sure why you still believe them. When
even you have admitted they have a tendency to be wrong and
misleading. It's perplexing why you trust the Pentagon on
certain things, but then admit you don't trust them with other
things. Why is this any different other than the fact
that deals with my client? The fact remains that the email is
legitimate, and the DOD has a copy of it. If you see up here,
I never I never endorsed the DoD s position. For the sake of the
audio version, I'll read you exactly what I asked. The DoD
confirmed to me that the documents attached To Mr.
Elizondo his email to Susan golf did not contain that the that
the following email, which is the only that which is the only
that mentions a tip forgive my stuttering there. I put the
screenshot at the bottom of this email for reference. Arguably
this would be the most important since it talked about a tip
responsibilities to Neil Tipton. However, the DoD said it was
never sent in Mr. Elizondo 's email to golf, is there a reason
he only sent three of the four pages to golf that he later put
in his IG complaint? It seems the ATypI mail is the most
important one, if he was trying to get golf to change the DoD
stance about his role on a tip. That's not an endorsement but a
question framed to the only evidence that I had available
available to me. If he wanted to come back and say it wasn't
true. Great, I would publish that. I published 100% of the
statements that that came to me. So clearly, I didn't really got
an answer to that other than the email was legitimate. I didn't
say it wasn't nor to the DoD at that point. But that's, sadly
where we ended up. Now, what they did say and this may be the
root of it was this document is an attachment to email
correspondence from a private citizen to a DOD employee. The
DoD cannot validate the authenticity of the material
contained in this document, personal information has been
redacted to protect the privacy of individuals contained in the
document. So when they released those three, they released them
as attachments that Luis Elizondo sent to golf, but then
said that they wouldn't verify the authenticity. This to me is
completely unorthodox and out of the ordinary 100%. And why that
is, I don't know. Generally, when you have a situation like
this, they'll they'll they'll search for the emails, I mean, I
asked them to specifically give me the attachments that Mr.
Elizondo had sent in. Even though they're marked as
unclassified, you would think that the Department of Defense
would ensure that they are unclassified, instead of just
looking at them, not verifying the authenticity, scratching out
some names to protect privacy, but releasing all of the the
information that remained that, to me didn't make sense from a
national security perspective, through FOIA. Again, even though
it was marked unclassified, it didn't matter. They didn't
verify the authenticity. So how do they really know it's
unclassified? So it really just didn't make sense. Again,
removing myself from the story from the outside looking in from
that legal slash FOIA side. It just didn't make sense. So why
they did that? I don't know. But on top of that, it just got
even, like, more confusing on Look, can you tell me if you
just sent that fourth page, which sadly, I never got the
answer to. But I did get told it was legitimate. And that's fine.
That's great. We know that now. But why it wasn't sent? I'm not
really sure. So now that was last month, this month. This was
the other piece of that story that I had to shelve, because I
knew that I had this open FOIA request for specifically, that a
tip tipped in email. So I only had to touch on it a little bit
in April. And then now I finally got the response. I had to push,
I had to keep following up. It's sometimes insane how long these
things go. This was two pages. That's it. And I was waiting for
almost three years for two pages. So that fact, alone is
insane. But what happened when they finally released it made
everything even more weirder. So this is the foyer response
letter. For those taking notes. This was the final response for
21 F 1154. This was me going after specifically that a tip
tipped in email. They located two pages, which were the email
thread and an attachment. I'm going to read to you why they
made the redactions they did. The redacted withheld
information is exempt from release parts pursuant to five
USC Section 552. B five, inter and intra agency memorandum
which are deliberative in nature. This exemption is
appropriate for internal documents, which are part of the
decision making process and contain subjective evaluations,
opinions and recommendations and be six information which, if
disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
the personal privacy of individuals. Please note that we
have considered the foreseeable harm standard when reviewing
records and applying exemptions under FOIA and the processing of
this request. I invite you to pause the video watch or read
all the other legal jargon not important for the sake of this
video. But here was that email now we got a little bit more of
the thread not much, but it was Elizondo is response response of
perfecto also sent on October 3, The day he resigned responding
to Tipton saying I'll get back to you today or tomorrow
Elizondo never note and hey, by the way, I'm quitting today. So
yeah, I won't be here. It was just great, you know, thanks.
And he was awaiting his response. So that was kind of an
interesting but weird development again all the day he
quit, but look down here. The most important email the
Pentagon decides to redact the line about a tip they redacted
so that's B five, which they consider a deliberative process
that that doesn't make sense to me whatsoever. Because it's not
deliberative process for Elizondo to be making the claim.
I'm taking the a tip responsibilities and giving them
to you the be six redacted redaction here we know is
Brennan's name, I get that even though Brennan's name is in the
public sphere now, thanks to mainstream media, Politico to be
exact. Why they're redacting? I don't really know. But be that
as it may, they redacted his name. Here's a comparison of the
email that was from the complaint. And the one they
released, the exact redaction helps you better assume the new
responsibilities for a tip. I don't find that as a be five
redact double line. It's not deliberative. This was
essentially according to Elizondo more of a fact that he
was passing the reins to Tipton to take responsibility for a
tip. The tip, so I've fought this. And even though we know
what it says, it's like, well, why are you fighting John? Like,
who really cares? It's because of this,
the memo that was referenced in that email was entirely
redacted, under, it might be hard to see on your screen, but
B five, and B six. So the privacy redaction, which those
are admittedly very, very tough to argue. But rightfully so. I
mean, you're they're protecting people's identity. So that's
fine. But B five, not so much in the four year world. A lot of
times we call this the redacted if you want to exemption. And
what essentially that means is, is if it doesn't fall into the
other eight exemption categories, essentially, they
will go ahead and use B five. And when they use B five, it's
very hard to to fight because you don't really know what
you're fighting. You know, if it's B one, and it's national
security, well, you know, you can sometimes create an argument
for that. If it's various other exemptions, you can sometimes
make an argument for that. But when it comes to B five, it's
like, well, how do we know that it's deliberative in nature, you
don't really know. So that's why they call it the B five redacted
if you want to exemption, because it is often thought
about in the courts. It definitely needs work. It needs
a revamp, it needs new language. So it is something that is a
problem for us FOIA requesters. But you can see here that it was
entirely withheld. So we don't know what this letter was that
Louie cielo that Louise Elizondo drafted now, where they may have
some kind of legal argument in this look, it stinks, I hate
even pointing this out. But in the interest of full
transparency, they may fight back on my appeal and deny it,
at least for that particular page. Because if they consider
it a draft, draft documents are not technically subject to FOIA.
But agencies can use their discretion to release documents
that they consider draft if it's in the public interest. And
maybe we'll help with let's say transparency a little bit. So we
know it's unclassified. Sure, redact some names, if there's
names, phone numbers, Social Security bank card, and what
bank account numbers, whatever, that you want to consider
personal information. I'm joking with the bank account numbers,
but that's what you see on B six, and those are our
rightfully done. So, but a B five on the whole thing. I don't
see it. So I'm fighting it, we'll see what actually happens
to you know, get this. So those were the two pages that came up.
Now, obviously, the reaction the reaction by the general public
was, you know, pretty wide ranging. And then it's it's very
interesting for me, because obviously, I report everything
I've done so for for 2728 years now. I give everything out. But
what's interesting to me is people's perception of FOIA
because when when for you, and this isn't true for everybody,
but for a lot of people and a lot of noisy people that that
and a lot of people are on my haters list, that if for you
produces something that they don't like, right? All of a
sudden they just they absolutely hate me. They hate FOIA. They
think it's useless. They think it's a tool They believe and
this actually has gone on quite a bit in the last couple of
months even though I've had the accusation for years. It's
really ramped up in the last couple of months that I work for
the US government that they orchestrate these releases
through me and then I put them out to the masses in some kind
of disinformation campaign I've been accused of collecting a
paycheck from the US government it's just insane what the
conspiracies are when for your produces something that they
don't like however, those same people when something like this
comes out, and an email which you know, admittedly some of
them may not even know that it was published before they come
out and they see what I publish and they see the central cover
up. I mean, look, I'll call it that and I don't know why
they're covering this up. I have no idea but they see that and
they go Ah, see John, you owe Elizondo an apology you need to
do a man a Coppola you need to fall down to your knees and
apologize to everybody. Why? All of a sudden FOIA is like the
gold standard does the same exact people that make an
accusation that I'm like somehow working for the government. And
for me, I can't help but laugh because it's that selective
belief system that if for your produces something you don't
like, then the guy that brought it to you is the devil it for
you. It produces something that you do like then all of a sudden
it's it's unchallengeable. Like this is black and white proof
that Elizondo led a tip. Now, look, I don't believe that this
is vindication for anybody, any side of any part of the story.
I'm sorry. And here's why I say it because if you look at the
actual emails, and you look at the back and forth, even Neil
Tipton himself, had absolutely no idea what he was inheriting.
He even says, Thanks, Lou. All good, although at some point, I
need to know what this actually is. Meaning he was confused. I
won't read it all to you. But I invite you guys to do so. In
these emails that I got between Elizondo and Neil Tipton.
Elizondo was speaking incredibly highly of Neil Tipton, that he
was the guy to inherit the reins of a tip that he was perfectly
suited to do the job. So to see his name, then after you read
these emails, wind up in the IG complaint, it was really bizarre
because there was nothing that tipped and did, as outlined in
the complaint that I saw anyway, that that showed that he was you
know, doing this wrongdoing. But you look at the banter back and
forth. And in fairness, this was in August. So a little bit prior
to some of the the latter banter that we've gone over in this
video. He didn't even know what Luis Elizondo was essentially
talking about like, what is really there, like, what is it
that you're trying to pass on? What is it that is with this
program, because these emails never mentioned a tip at all? So
I don't think that he was quite on board. And it wasn't until
that later email in late September, that that the acronym
A tip popped up, and then tipped and said, okay, that he would
look things over. So again, just very kind of bizarre when it
came to this material that that it's not vindicate. Again, I go
back to are you going to apologize to everybody? It's not
about that, because I don't know what it proves at this point,
other than the Pentagon as being incredibly ridiculous with their
redactions. And to have them do that. The question now is why
why did they consider that deliberative in nature? There's
got to be some kind of explanation for that. Because
this is already in the public sphere. It's already been out
for what's 2024. Now. I had to look at my calendar to figure
out what year it was. I should sleep more, but it's 2024. Now
it originally appeared in early 2020. You're talking about more
than four years this is floated around, including the Department
of Defense inspector general getting it in a complaint to
them. What is up with that? I really have zero answer for
that. So again, it's it's not vindicating anybody at this
point. It just means that whatever Luis Elizondo was doing
with whatever he labeled as a tip, he was passing it on to
Neil Tipton, and somewhere between October 3, and the point
that Luis Elizondo submitted his IG complaint, tipped and did
something bad, like Tipton did something wrong. What that is
like, again, I wish that Mr. Elizondo through his attorney
would have let me know because I would have published that last
month. But I've asked that question quite a bit over the
years since the IG complaint came out. What do you do? I
don't know. So its bottom line though, is It's incredibly
interesting to see these emails, it's one piece to a much, much
bigger puzzle that we are still trying to put together together.
I, I am so amazed at the amount of time that these take and the
amount of trouble that it has been to get answers. And I know
that people think that I pick on Luis Elizondo and and target
him. I mean, I'm here to tell you that when you look at the
totality of the FOIA requests I've done on this topic, both
sides of this, both sides have been equally as confusing and
equally as responsible for muddying the waters. I don't
know why that is, we should have this a little bit more clear,
because here's yet more information that says, Oh, this
is all unclassified. Right? That this is all the things that
essentially, they can banter about an open channel. So does
that doesn't mean that they can just release it to the general
public. But that means it should be accessible through FOIA much
easier than it is. So on one hand, you have the Pentagon that
is doing these silly redactions, in some cases, top to bottom
pages saying nope, sorry, even though it's unclassified, we
can't give you a single word. And then on the other side, you
have people that don't want to answer questions. And that's not
just unique to Luis Elizondo, because there are some some
outstanding questions. There's quite a few actually, to this
day, but others that have come out in that particular group as
well. So why is it that you can't get straight answers from
either side,
I really don't know. But I am happy to see some of my haters
love for you, at least this month, this week, this today.
And we'll see when they come after me next, when FOIA may
produce something they don't like, I don't really know. But
regardless, I'll send it all to you, I will post everything I do
so in an unedited raw form. And of course, in some occasions
have articles attached. But you can only see those documents.
Thank you all for watching, I have a blast with these live
streams. I can't believe that, you know, approaching 3000
people at one time, we're watching this. So those are big
numbers I didn't expect. So thank you for your support.
Thank you for listening in. I have a lot of fun doing these
types of videos and helping you all kind of decode these
documents. And I'm always interested in your feedback as
well. So please let me know whether you're watching on
YouTube in the show notes below or on x. I'm also streaming this
on Facebook, let me know what you think I love reading those
comments, I always try and respond to can't respond to them
all. But I definitely try and read them all thank you for
doing that. I will drop this as an audio format as well. So if
you don't know that I do that with some of the live streams,
you can go ahead and subscribe to any podcast platform. So you
know Spotify, whatever you use, just search for the black vault
radio. And then that's where I dropped some of these feeds as
audio shows as well. So even though you won't see the
visuals, you'll be able to hear it. I know a lot of you prefer
that in lieu of watching. So know that that's available. And
if you're listening to the audio podcast version, and didn't know
that I live stream a lot of these where you can take part as
well. Just go to www dot the blackbolt.com/live and that will
bounce you to the YouTube channel. Subscribe, turn the
notifications on and make sure you know the next time I'm on.
Again, thank you all for listening and or watching. This
is John Greenewald Jr signing off, and we'll see you next time