John Greenewald  0:31  
That's right, everybody as always. Thank you so much for tuning in and making this your live stream of choice today. Yes, I know this was kind of last minute. That's just how it goes with me nowadays. And so I was going to record this by myself, but then I thought, You know what, let's just stream it. Let's just go everywhere. We're on X right now, YouTube and so on. So with any live show, I always just bounce out there. Please, if there is a problem with the audio, tell me now, before I am an hour into this and realize nobody can hear a thing, so I've got the comments up with that said too, it's going to be very hard for me to follow those comments, so that is always a challenge for me, especially when I do these broadcasts to all the social media channels, because it goes pretty fast on my end. It pulls in the YouTube comments, the X comments, the Facebook comments, and kind of makes it a little bit of a mess, but if I do see something that I can address while in the stream, if it happens to catch my eye, I will absolutely do that for you. But there is a lot to cover for those who do follow me on x i only teased it there again. That's where I'm most active. It's just a way to get messaging across a lot easier than some of the social media outlets elsewhere, but I know not everybody uses it, so definitely make sure if you're not already subscribed to the YouTube channel, because that is where you're going to see the majority of the videos I don't always broadcast across all platforms. So today is just one of those days where I do what we are doing today is breaking down a story that I published last week and well, it's kind of a tradition with me. When I published these types of stories, it obviously created quite an uproar, quite a reaction on all sorts of different levels. Now, with this story, it essentially breaks down a string of emails, and I'll get into more details, but between Luis Elizondo and a senior Department of Defense official, they've kind of been around for quite some time. Again, we'll be getting into all of those details, but what hasn't been around is a memorandum that is directly tied to a tip, and again, people interpret this in different ways, hence the array of reactions from everybody and that. So that's what we're essentially going to be breaking down today. So as I rearrange my windows here, feel free to ignore my eyeline, as I'm kind of all over the place. But as you can imagine, I do have some visuals for you as we break everything down. But before I get into that, what the objective here is today is to not only break down that memo, to explore the entire context without making this a 72 hour video, but on top of that, show you guys how difficult it is to decipher just this again, thread of emails, but, but this one memo how long it took to get it and, above all else, why I have parroted the narrative for years now on how much of a mess this all is now. We all have our respective people we want to blame for that. But the bottom line at the end of the day, it is a mess on all sides. There is no one side now that is is kind of clean, and all of this, so to speak, it is a mess. It is an absolute mess across the board, and has been for like a half a decade. Now, really think about that, that just the past couple of days, George Knapp still finds the need to ask Luis Elizondo on Sunday night, coast to coast, what the difference is between OS app and a tip. Now there's only one reason and one reason only for those questions to still, after all this time, still be something worthy of asking, and we need to keep asking, because there are no answers, even after it was asked on coast to coast. And I invite you guys to look on X for those clips. I'm not going to play it here for copyright reasons, but essentially, again, to this, as I record this, it is still a mess, and so that's one of the objectives here, is to show you guys that challenge to try and unravel this, and the moment that we think, hey, we understand this, we're getting somewhere. It's like one or two steps forward and like nine backwards, when you really look at the bigger picture. So that's what we're going to do, is deep dive into these newest documents. How do they? Fit into the big picture, if at all, what it may mean to you. And I leave it up to you to decide what it ultimately means. But that is, again, what I want to explore today. So let me bring those visuals back and kind of just start with it, so you guys have an idea of what in the world that I'm talking about now, if you've not seen one of my deep dives, essentially, what I like to do is also lay the groundwork of what kind of led up to the we'll call it the main document that we're going to be talking about. But the context leading to that is incredibly important to understand all of this. Now let me again switch windows for those that have followed this channel religiously. Some of this may be a little bit of a review for you, but I think it's incredibly important in this deep dive to understand who exactly we are talking about. Now, you've recognized Luis Elizondo, his name, I'm sure, but the other person that we're going to be talking a lot about is Neil Tipton. He was formally the director for defense intelligence collection and special programs within the Department of Defense, more specifically, the Office of the Under Secretary for Defense and for defense, intelligence and security. Sorry, a mouthful of acronyms through the next however long I speak here. But Oh, USD ins is essentially the the DoD component where Neil Tipton had worked. Now he has recently retired. Just to get it out of the way, I have reached out to him here in the last week, no response, so we'll just go ahead and leave it at that for now. I'm going to continue to see if I can maybe get some answers from him. But the bottom line when speaking to former DoD officials, especially, especially about sensitive matters. They generally don't want to speak on the record. They will refer back to the Department of Defense, Public Affairs Office, which, of course, is all of our favorite office here with all of these issues. So that is Neil Tipton. Of course, as I mentioned, Luis Elizondo is the other individual we'll be speaking about. Most of you will probably know his name. Most notably that I have not talked about on this channel yet, but obviously have extensively on social media, is the release of his book, eminent that came last week and has soared on the on the on the charts. It was in the top 10 books on Amazon that I saw. It's doing incredibly well, and and is something that is getting a lot of attention. You may have even caught Luis Elizondo on Joe Rogan last week, and just prior to my article dropping, there was no connection with this, although conspiracies are flying already, but, but Luis Elizondo had gave me a shout out for some of the documents that he was showing. And so it's just kind of a very bizarre week for some of you who have followed this saga for quite a few years, on what really transpired last week, but that is the other individual that we will be talking a lot about through this presentation. Now why this is important is these documents route to a very controversial stance by the Department of Defense that they hold to this day, and that stance essentially negates the entire book that you're looking at. And Luis Elizondo wrote this with the caveat that he led this program within the Department of Defense investigating UFOs, or how they call them now, UAP the Department of Defense's stance now since 2019 is that he had no assigned responsibilities on that program that he claims to have led, and it has been a war between The Department of Defense and Luis Elizondo on this very issue. And the DOD has not wavered, despite since 2017 2018 and when they issued this statement in 2019 despite them kind of now admitting to their interest in UFOs and UAP, despite their stance that it is something that they're interested despite them going back on a lot of positions that they held for decades themselves away from Luis Elizondo, they've never wavered on him and a tip and a tip scope and his involvement, or I should say, lack thereof, in it. So it's been this very interesting saga to see unfold now, to challenge the DOD, there have been many things that have thrown been thrown out there for the general public, for us to digest, and most notably was a letter by Senator Harry Reid. I've published this and talked about it extensively since 2021 since it was published. I personally, I'm sorry, do not think that this solves this issue at all. For others, they think very differently. Now, I'm not going to do a video on this letter, but I think it's worthy of a mention. That you did have Senator Harry Reid defending Luis Elizondo on those points, but again, at the end of the day, he did so as a private citizen. He did not have the weight of an elected office behind him and his word, but rather, it was him as a private citizen. Sorry, that's just the reality of it. To some people, that's good enough. To others, not

so much. That has me in that category, that that didn't do it for me. But there were other things that surfaced as well. Namely, there were a threat of emails, and this, again, gets into the documents that we're going to be talking about today that had surfaced in Luis Elizondo Department of Defense inspector general complaint. And what that did was was really attack the root of what the DoD stance was on him in 2021 he was starting to fire back at the DoD filing this complaint, filed it against three different individuals, the Pentagon spokesperson, who was essentially giving out that statement the most she wasn't the originator. By the way, I haven't seen evidence that she wrote the original one. Susan Golf was not in the picture when Christopher Sherwood was the one who issued that statement back in 2019 mid I believe it was June. So why he has kind of fallen to the wayside and was never mentioned in the complaint? I don't know. That's a big question that I have. He was the one that issued the statement, not Susan golf, but over the years, Susan Goff has became this villain, this person that everybody thinks is solely responsible for that stance. But again, I haven't seen evidence that she was even involved. Nobody knew the name Susan Goff in mid 2019, because it was again, Christopher Sherwood. He was the one that issued the statement. Now was Goff behind the scenes. Maybe I've had cases open for years, seeking that out, and they are still open as I record this that, in itself, is a mess, but that's not me defending Susan Goff, but rather giving the proper context that this is not the stance of one spokesperson. This is a Department of Defense stance that, through now multiple spokespeople we have received this statement. Now it originally was given no responsibilities on a tip, and then the word assigned was inserted later. There, I think, is a key to this whole mystery that, I think again, according to the DoD anyway, they felt that he had no assigned duties. But as time went on, maybe they saw enough, or at least heard enough, to say that he was doing this on his own time, but absolutely nothing was official. So to them, he didn't have any responsibilities on the program. And again, that is an absolute, utter mess that that is the messaging behind that. But I brought up Susan Goff for a reason. She was one of the ones that was named in the complaint. Christopher Sherwood, although was mentioned, did not have the complaint filed against him. Gary Reed was the second one. Gary Reed was technically Luis Elizondo, his boss, or at least a high level senior official within o us d i n s at the time. And the third was Neil Tipton. Neil Tipton being, again, the one that we are talking about the most today. So those were the three people in that complaint. He had a thread of emails, part of a much larger packet of information and and I've done a deep dive into that, into that complaint. So if you haven't seen it and you're curious, I go through essentially the whole complaint that we've seen because it was published by The New York Post not too long after Luis Elizondo had submitted it to the DOD, but in redacted form, the New York Post had published that. But again, in there was this thread of emails. Now I'm going to, I'm going to go through these in chronological order to kind of make a timeline. The timeline is very important as we go through this, simply because you have to understand, again, that context of when this was taking place and what may have happened in between the emails, when you read them back to back to back and you think they all happened in one day, it's actually a very different context than they would read very differently. But you got to be a little bit more in depth than that, and you gotta look at the dates themselves. So the threat of emails started on August 22 back in 2017 now, context wise, that is when Luis Elizondo, obviously was still working within the Pentagon. Nobody had ever heard of a tip before. Nobody knew that there was an alleged Pentagon secret UFO program. Nobody knew about the FLIR, the gimbal and the go fast. This was all internal before all of that took place in August, specifically on the 22nd 2017 it was an email from Luis Elizondo. It was also CC to Brennan mckernon. Brennan mckernon Is somebody who was involved with the UAP Task Force. I won't get into him much in this video, but he's he's a name you don't hear often about, but it has been a name published prior and again in the New York time. New York Post's dropping of this complaint. They did post mckernans name, so I'm doing so here, the DoD redacted it for. Or just just for proper context, the DoD did want that name out, but it's already been in the public domain. Greetings, Brennan, so again. Brennan mckernon, I briefly spoke to Mr. Neil Tipton seat above about our collective efforts and the interest expressed by the front office. Upon your return, I recommend we meet with Mr. Tipton briefly in person. He is amicable for a discussion and is aware of redacted previous portfolio. Mr. Tipton is now the acting director Defense Intelligence for technical collection and special programs. Neil. As soon as Brennan returns from leave, we will schedule a quick meeting as promised. Brennan is our Navy counterpart. So that places Brennan mckernon and the Navy. We already knew that. But again, this is O, us, d i n s, bringing in navy, trying to get Neil Tipton involved. The response, oh, and let me point out too, because this will be key later, the interest expressed by the front office. Okay, that was August 22 so the front office, meaning, you know, senior level staff are interested in whatever it is. Mr. Elizondo was talking about here. We'll find out later that it's a tip, but front office had an interest, according to to Elizondo, the response was very simple. Neil Tipton said, Thanks, Lou. This was on the 23rd so the next day, added redacted name, probably a secretary to help with scheduling. Why is that important? Because if front office wasn't asking for this type of coordination and or expressed interest in the program, my guess is that at this point, Neil Tipton would have known that and have gone back and gone, what are you talking about? He really didn't. He kind of seemed like, you know, he knew what Lou was talking about and that they were going to go ahead and set up a meeting. All right. So that was August 23 two days later, August 25 This is from Elizondo again, back to Tipton, Neal as discussed. Thanks for your time with this. So obviously there was a meeting here or an email that nobody has shown or admitted to. But obviously there was something that happened within those two days. Thanks for your time with this as the principal, SES and your directorate, I think you are certainly the appropriate representative to help take our effort to a new level. I think by now, you probably already know I have been managing another nuanced effort within the department for some time. In fact, even when I worked for you years ago, you probably guessed I was also working on another effort for the department, given some of our discussion and raw video, I can't overstate how important I believe this portfolio is with respect to our collective national security. So you are aware, I have already laid the foundation with secdefs front office, and they support it to transfer the portfolio under you, given your new focus on special projects for the department and Usdi, the front office will also brief up the new Usdi once he arrives. But I'd but I'd be hesitant to brief another. Excuse me, I'd be hesitant to brief anyone else at this point, so please keep this at our low level for now. Initially I was going to approach redacted name, but when he headed over, handed over the reins to you, I figured you would be the perfect fit. In the coming weeks, I ask you attend a few meetings with me at the front office, in order that you can meet the rest of the players within the building. Later, I will also introduce you to some of our partners in industry and other agencies who are helping lead the charge. Ultimately, I will need your help analyzing and exploiting material. This was the area, area redacted name was particularly helpful with I have a facility I need to show you that you will be able to use as always, I sincerely appreciate your help with this, and look forward to working with you once again. I can't think of a better guy to be involved with this best Lou. PS, let me know when you want to go kill some fish. I have access to some awesome 35 Trojan that is a serious fishing machine in the bay, all by the bait. So obviously they have a friendship here, relationship of some kind. Obviously there's been some coordination with the front office. Obviously it sounds like there's some other working parts here. And that was August 25 from Lou to Neil Tipton, now, same day. Tipton, response, thanks, Lou. All good, although at some point I need to know what this actually is. Is in quotation marks, Thanks, Neil. Two things stick out to me about this one. He didn't react to anything when it came to front office, interests, other spokes in the wheel, anything like that

that Luis Elizondo was referring to. He didn't react to that. And go, what do you do? What are you talking about? And again, all of that is key, because if this was really off the rails, or, as some has have have floated out there, that this is a creation of a paper trail that could be called on later, which part of it, in fairness, actually was, if that was created, though you wouldn't, in my opinion, see these types of responses from Tipton, but he seemed to be accepting of all of that. Now. The second part, I'll point out, is something that has piqued my interest for some time. He didn't know what it was. He didn't know what this actually is, to specifically quote him, so what did he mean by that? What did he mean that, you know, Lou, you're going to have to tell me what this actually is. I don't know, but that's always stuck out to me as well. Was was tipped in, you know, just completely caught off guard by all this. But, I mean, I've dissected these emails for quite some time and again, I just kind of fall back on, there's too many opportunities that if this was either a setup or or some kind of malicious creation of a paper trail that meant absolutely nothing to nobody, those types of things like front office interest and front office this, and front office that. And, you know, based on our conversation, so obviously, stuff was going on in person in between. And I did confirm that as well. I'm looking for documentation in the form of calendars. Tim McMillan, I know, did get proof of at least one meeting. It didn't prove anything related to a tip and fairness, but again, showed that they were meeting in and around these these dates, so clearly they were having in person meetings as well. And that's very hard when it's verbal to trace things down through FOIA, so you have to kind of fill in the blanks a little bit with some of this. And here is that prime example. So you have the no reaction to Mr. Elizondo, his front office references, but in the same respect, Tipton seems a little bit kind of clueless on on what exactly he's talking about. Now this jump is key. You go from October, excuse me, August 25 to September 11. Now that's a couple weeks. A lot of things can happen in government work, and there was kind of no response again, at least acknowledged by anybody, whether it be the DoD or Luis Elizondo. It just jumps to September 11, and then it goes to Luis Elizondo, sending Neil Tipton a letter. Greetings, Neil, a couple items for you. One front office is aware that you are now part of this endeavor, and they are happy with the decision. We will plan on you meeting redacted name next week. How does this Wednesday look? For an hour discussion. Lastly, redacted name is a friend of the program. I believe you may be speaking with him tomorrow. He is a good man. Just thought, you should know. Now here's yet again, another opportunity people involved being talked to now Tipton is involved in the endeavor. That's a pretty big claim to make. If all of this was just a fabricated paper trail, and yet again, Neil Tipton responds, I don't have a date, but I'll comment on that in second. Thanks, Lou. I'm around next week, but then gone on the 25th on, uh, administrative leave for specific date slash time. Just work with redacted name. I'm not allowed to muck around with my calendar, but I am in the building all day the 20th Yep, have a discussion with redacted name tomorrow. Thanks, Neil. Sorry if he was saying, Hey, you're now, you're now part of this effort. Let me properly quote. Excuse me, you are now part of this endeavor, right? According to the to the front office being aware that Neil Tipton is now part of this endeavor, Neil Tipton responds with absolutely no reaction to that. That's, I'm sorry, that is something you got to look at. So those conspiracy theories that say this was all concocted and and made so Elizondo could bring it out later, well, that's fine, like those types of theories are absolutely acceptable to make, but the actual evidence doesn't, doesn't put that out there, you know, it doesn't confirm it at all. When you have a senior level official like Neil Tipton, having somebody like Luis Elizondo, who is sending saying, you know, we're trying to make you part of this effort. And he doesn't really have a problem with that, then he says, front office is aware you are now part of the effort. He doesn't have a problem with that. There are so many opportunities for him to come back and go, Okay, man, you know, I have, I have, you know, played ball with you here on whatever the hell you're trying to do, but I have no idea what you're trying to do at this point. But you don't see any of that. Setting up the meetings. Yes, he's confirming meeting with whomever the redacted name is. You have this playing out as if Tipton, although maybe was confused weeks prior, weeks later, seems like he was okay. Now being part of the effort, and now having the front office aware of it, all of that are key points in understanding this context. Now the date itself, we don't know exactly the date it was cut off in Luis Elizondo, his inspector general complaint. So we don't know just by matter of deduction and logic, the previous email was the 11th. So it could have been anywhere from the 11th to the 19th. Why I say that is that he says he's available on the 20th, which would be here. Obviously he's not going to say that on the same day or after. And then the 25th he's. Administrative lead. So by matter of deduction, it fits somewhere in that highlighted portion, yes, all that is key as we move forward to understand the dates. But regardless, that is what Tipton said. Now let me pause the chronology for one moment and say I have no reason to believe at this point that these documents are fabricated in any way. Why? Because others have been confirmed. But I will note as of today, August 27 at 1:24pm Pacific time, as I record this, these although were received via FOIA. So everything I read to you right in the last few slides is right here, and it was received under this. 20 1f, 0938, for anybody who wants to fact check me that I filed on April 30, 2021, in February of this year, they released them as connected to an email that Luis Elizondo sent to the Pentagon Public Affairs Office to essentially, kind of make his case that they were Wrong. These were attached to it, and the DoD released them, but they had the caveat of this document is an attachment to email correspondence from a private citizen to a DOD employee, again, Elizondo, to likely either Goff or Sherwood or both. 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 they were essentially not vouching that they were real. They weren't saying they were fake. This was an incredibly lazy move on the DOD. They could have easily have found these, verified them, and either said they are fake and fabricated, or we've confirmed them. Here they are officially released after a review. But instead they go we have no idea if these are real or not, but we reviewed them, and here's the redacted version, yet again, a kind of a silly move, if you ask me, I in the 10,000 I'm now approaching about 11,000 FOIA requests. I've never seen a caveat like that on documents, especially when there's attachments to emails, maybe official or unofficial, have never really run into a situation like this. So yet again, you know this, this is all just such a mess, and all these little pieces of the puzzle just add to it utterly ridiculous. But I have no reason to believe that they're fake at this point, simply because the other emails, which we haven't talked about yet about to get to them were confirmed real. Now, what I will also say about these particular emails is that the ones that we're talking about here in a moment were missing from this. So put a pin in that because, for whatever reason, they were not included or the DoD strategically won't acknowledge them as being sent to the Public Affairs Office you choose. I don't know what the right answer is. They claim that the emails I've gone over are the only ones that Luis Elizondo had sent. However, the next emails that all that appeared in the IG complaint that appeared actually years ago, and starting in the popular starting in Popular Mechanics, and then in his IG complaint, they've been around for quite some time. For whatever reason, they were not included into the public affairs submission by Luis Elizondo, stating his case about a tip or the DoD strategically left them out and goes, I have no idea what you're talking about, John, because I did appeal and say, Hey, there's more emails that he would have sent. That too contributes to the absolute mess you pick. Luis Elizondo didn't send the most crucial part. Why do I say it's the most crucial part? Well, because of this, on September 25 Luis Elizondo sends a message to Neil Tipton via email. Remember, that's the day he goes on administrative leave. So Elizondo already knows that. Is that even relevant? Who knows, but I'm just putting it on the timeline for you. Greetings, Neil per sec, defs, 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 in authorship. Just want to make sure we answer the mail for the front office standing by Lou,

one thing, so it mentions a tip, right? So that's the first thing I'm going to point out. Why wouldn't you include that to the Public Affairs if these are all official emails, which, again, it turns out this is, this was obtained through FOIA, so contrary to the other ones, that they didn't look I'll get into those, those details in a few moments and later. But those which I have no reason to believe are fake. These are absolutely legitimate. They admit to these. They came up through FOIA. So per secdefs front office guidance, to you, meaning Tipton, and to me, meaning Elizondo, they drafted this, a tip memo. Why is that key? Because tipton's response, yet again, was. Not Dude, what are you doing? You're absolutely off the rails creating these memos. What in the world are you doing? Or something like that. Instead, he goes getting spun back up. This was on october 3, so this is going to be when he gets back into the office, getting spun back up. We'll read and get thoughts back to you today or tomorrow at Fort, Meade half the day today. Why is this key? Because this is yet again, another missed opportunity for Tipton to say you're off the rails. Instead, he says he'll read it. Now, in fairness, he hadn't read it yet, so he may not have understood the context of this, but there are now emails that are set up that kind of set that stage for what exactly this memo is. Now, what exactly is that memo? Well, that's part of what was released, but it didn't come without a fight. This date, though, is key, October 3, 2017 because that day, Luis Elizondo resigned, effective for October 2017 so the next day you see here, though the the date, October three, I humbly submit my resignation as director national program, special management staff office of the Undersecretary of Defense for intelligence. In this regard, I understand I will no longer be an employee of the US government. I respectfully request I receive a deferred retirement. Very respectfully, Luis D, Elizondo. Down here is John Garrity three, October 2017, Garrity was Elizondo is direct superior, as far as I know it, as the hierarchy goes. He received this. Those are his initials. You can see it's J, and then kind of a messy G, the third. So John Garrity, the third, three, October. So it was received. Now, some of you may have a reaction to this, like, Well, wait a minute, that's not the that's not the resignation letter I saw that that's different. You're absolutely right. It is different, because this isn't the one that everybody was touting around, including the History Channel, when they were doing the television show with Luis Elizondo called unidentified. That was this one. Now I won't read the whole thing to you, but that's probably the one that you're more used to seeing, undated memorandum for the record, erroneously then addressed to the secretary, which generally, if that is the case, if you want to follow protocol. Sorry, you have to nitpick in cases like this, it would be a memorandum for the Secretary of Defense, not the record. Again. No date, no nothing. This has always stuck out to me as being problematic when it first leaked, I questioned whether it was real. When it showed up on History Channel's website, I thought, Okay, well, Mr. Elizondo is not fighting it, so it has to be real. But then later, years later, I had discovered this one that was the first one, some will argue the real one. Now, why is this important? While other classified, formally kind of classified communications and memos, but more so for official use, only started talking about the difference between the two resignation letters and the issue that they were having internally, verifying what they were seeing on the news and in this particular letter, author, or excuse me, memo authored by Gary Reed, one of the three people in the IG complaint, which, again, has become very much a villain in all this. And who knows, maybe it's well deserved. I don't know the guy, but regardless, this was all then outlined in that memo that was passed around internally within the DOD, took me years to get, finally got it published it, I think it was last year. If you haven't seen it, it's part of the part of the puzzle here. So I would recommend you, you look at that. But you can see the October three resignation letter sent. Then October four, there was some other letter that they received that they could not figure out the provenance. They have no idea where it came from. So at that point he had Luis Elizondo had already departed the DOD, but then the second resignation letter was delivered to the O Usdi chief of staff office, delivered by whom I still do not have that answer. Maybe it was Elizondo. Maybe it was somebody else on his behalf. Maybe it was mailed and signed deliver, I don't know, but it doesn't say there, given the uncertain provenance of the second letter, O, U, S, D, I retained a copy, but Did, did not provide it to the SecDef office. Yet again, another portion of the story that is an absolute mess. So who do you believe? What do you believe? What's real, what's not? Who knows, but that was the resignation debacle in the October three and October four. Time Frame Now, up until then, Neil Tipton, he was having invites to go fishing with Luis Elizondo. There was absolutely nothing. Uh, in those emails, that shows why would Neil Tipton be involved in this IG complaint? Maybe it's just simply because he didn't come out and defend Luis Elizondo. I don't know. I've tried to get that answer in this article I wrote in April of this year. I did ask at the time, I'm happy to say that Luis Elizondo is speaking to me directly now, but at the time, I had to go through his attorney, and after asking, Hey, what did Tipton do? I've read the complaint multiple times, I've gone through these emails, I have dug in this aspect of the story, because there's more to it, by the way, and and I believe that that more documents will come out. So we'll, we'll cross that bridge when they actually do. But I can't, for the life of me, figure out what Tipton did other than the broad stroke, he didn't come out and defend me. But in the IG complaint, can't figure it out directly to Luis Elizondo, I was told quote regarding Mr. Tipton, he was part of O Usdi, the Secretary's front office, approved the transition of a tip from Mr. Elizondo, his charge over to Mr. Tipton. Much more of this will be explained when Mr. Elizondo, his book is published. Well, now that book is out, and I admittedly, I'm not done, and I haven't gone through everything in detail as I record this, so don't kill me on that. Fact, I know some of you read it in like an hour, which I have no idea how you did that, but regardless, you know, I still have a lot of work to do there, but the reaction that I've seen and what I've thumbed through from the index citations and so on, I still kind of can't figure it out. But again, I haven't gone through 100% of it, so, so I'll give that part a chance. But it was frustrating because it was like, please, you know, can you help me figure this out? And I was like, Well, wait for the book. And I was let down at that particular answer, because that just added more to the mess. You know, it was like, Why? Why can't you just give me that, that part, I mean, that you're not selling your book on on what you're gonna say about Neil Tipton. I guarantee I'm probably the only guy that got Elizondo his book and immediately opened it up and looked for Neil Tipton references. So you know that that's probably how much people don't care about the Neil Tipton part. But the fact that I couldn't get an answer, yes, I will admit, was, was very frustrating. So I've been, I've been kind of going after that for for quite some time. In fact, for years and again, for anybody I do this, this kind of stuff for fact checking purposes. So you guys can can fact check me all of these documents and stuff are tied into two separate FOIA cases. This is not only for fact checking, but also to show you guys how much of a mess this has become on the side of the DOD. Now, the first case that I'll bring up was filed on May 5, 2021 labeled 20 1f, 09, 64 this specific one asked for all emails sent to and or from and, or CC or BCC, Neal Tipton and Luis Elizondo. You see the exact wording on screen there. Now, when I filed this request, I was seeking just that all communications at both an unclassified and classified level that was confirmed with the DOD. They knew that I was searching. I put that language in the in the foyer request, and lo and behold, they came back in December of 2021 and after searching, they said they couldn't find anything now, keep in mind, although Elizondo was gone, although I have reported that Luis Elizondo, his emails have been destroyed and ahead of DOD procedure, also part of the mess that is this a tip story. Neil Tipton was still there. Neil Tipton would have his emails intact at that point, and I believe, at his position, I'm sure somebody will argue with me on this. I believe his emails are actually mandated to be kept in perpetuity. So essentially forever being that senior leader, they couldn't find anything. So they tell me, in december 2021 yeah,

those emails, by the way, that you read in Luis Elizondo, his IG complaint, nothing. No, we couldn't. We couldn't find it. Well, I knew differently. I believed wholeheartedly that there was something there. And so I filed the appeal, and I won that appeal. I won that appeal based on the legal argument that I submitted, and I had, in my opinion, ample evidence that at least one responsive document would have come up, and I didn't have reason to believe that it was fake. Could it have been of course, would I think that Luis Elizondo, or anybody would be stupid enough to fabricate senior leadership communications and submit it to the DoD Inspector General. No embellishing is one thing, absolute fabrication. Now you're really pushing it there, and I don't believe that he would have done that. So I appealed based on my belief that it was real. I won the appeal. It remanded back to the. DOD, and that means that now they have to, because the appellate authority is separate from the FOIA office, so you're not appealing to the same person that just denied you. So they do have a little bit of checks and balances in regards to that. So it was remanded back to that office for further processing. Put a pin in that, because then that case, I would start waiting for years, another case came up that was involved with this so that that first one I just mentioned was all communications this second 120, 1f, 1154, which I filed around the same time frame, June 17, 2021 this was for specifically, just emails, because I didn't know how many communications weren't going to come up between Tipton and Elizondo. So if they played games two years down the line, which they off often do and say, Oh, well, that that equation, that request you filed two years ago, it's too broad, because we came up with 30,000 emails because I didn't stipulate a topic. You have to round it down when you wait two years and get a response like that, it's one of the more frustrating things in a FOIA requester's life. It really, truly is, because if you had, you know, received that two years prior to that, you could have amended the request very quickly and maybe have had your documents by then. So when they do that, it's very frustrating. So sometimes I will file a second case or a third or a fourth or a fifth, and then specifically, mine out what I know is there. So one case very broad, another case very specific. Two reasons. The first, because you know it exists, so they can't play games with you. But number two, you get it quite a lot quicker. So that's kind of the the objective there. So I sought everything with this particular subject line. Obviously we knew what was in his IG complaint. What else could there have been, if anything at all, that was the objective? Well, with 1154 I finally got the response I wrote about this a couple months ago, and although I got the emails about a tip, which was specifically that better assume new responsibility. Is on a tip message that I just read to you. They released it and redacted it. They hid the a tip reference. They hid it under what is called the deliberative deliberative process, or deliberative deliberative process privilege, I think is the correct phrasing. But essentially, what we call it, in an informal way, is the redacted, if you want to exemption, there's absolutely, really no oversight to exemption b5 so again, they say it's a deliberative process. So what they want to hide is them. I'll use kind of an easy to understand example, public affairs bounces back and forth certain drafts for statements that they put out into the public. Now those drafts could go through 34567, stages, if it's not the final version, and it's considered draft, they would consider that deliberative process, and all of those drafts would be redacted under b5 that's kind of the basic way to understand it. But how do you know if it really is deliberative process or not, and you don't? So to a FOIA requester, that's why we call it the redacted if you want to, because it is statistically the most abused FOIA exemption that's out there. And I've said that for years and years and years, not based on this, but for years and years and years. And I'm not the only one. Feel free to Google that. So why would they hide the a tip reference this was out there for years, in fact, all the way back in the beginning of 2020, Tim McMillan, as I mentioned earlier in this presentation, had published a section of it. Now I think that this was a little kind of over the top to redact it in this way and take the picture. It kind of added a little bit of mystique, Mystique behind it, which maybe was the point. I felt it kind of made it cheesy at the time. That's just me. I'm not the editor of Popular Mechanics. But regardless, that email was out there. Now, granted, it was a leak and not an official release. That wording was there then we had it in Luis Elizondo his IG complaint, and no one said he was fabricating these emails. So why in the world would they decide we better cover up this reference to a tip? The other thing that they covered up from top to bottom. This isn't a gray square for decoration. This is an entire redacted page of that a tip memo. So remember he said I took the liberty of drafting a memo at the unclassified level. Well, that unclassified level is right here, and that unclassified memo at that unclassified level is redacted from top to bottom. Now, why is that? Well, they hid behind the deliberative process exemption as well. And in fairness, I cringe saying. This, they may have a legal argument to hide this under b5 why? Because you can see in let me go back, it is a draft letter. So I appealed anyway, because I believe that it should be out now, just because it's draft doesn't mean it's automatically redacted. Agencies can, in the interest of transparency and public interest, go back and not have to hide things behind b5 doesn't always happen, but it's happened before. So I appealed based on that, that appeal, as I speak to you, is still open. Why do I say that? Because this is all a mess. That appeal on this case, fighting these redactions here is still open. Now I want to go back to that other case that I talked to you about, that 0964, that requested all communications behind Tipton, not just that draft DEP SEC death letter, but all communications. And by the way, if you're confused a little bit, don't worry. So am I imagine trying to unravel this, and this is kind of part of my point with this section is to show you how bloody difficult it is to unravel and make sense of this that I can chastise and question and and nitpick those that have come out of the government all day long, but many forget that for decades, before, those very people that I question have come out into the spotlight for more than 20 years, prior to Luis Elizondo coming to the scene, I've had to deal with crap like this from the US government trying to decipher things very similar to this away from a Tip, but in a lot of cases, UAP, UFO related, classified programs, stuff like that. To try and decipher this is so challenging sometimes, and that is why I will continue to beat the dead horse and call this a mess, because it absolutely is. Now in the article I wrote, I made reference to this because it's important. The reason I followed up, and this is based on a follow up, not the DoD proactively releasing this the week that that Elizondo, his book came out. All of this is documented. Anybody can verify it, if you want to file FOIAs, but I sent a follow up on August 21 so what is that? Six days ago? And as I noted in my in my article, I sent that follow up specifically to 20 1f, 0964, it's references 21 fr, because it was remanded. I won that first appeal. When they said, Oh, we've got nothing. I won that. So again, I was saying, hey, what's the status with this case? You know, it's been going on for years. It was seeking out all of tipton's emails, as I've already went over, without explanation, none, no response. When it came to what's the status, the FOIA case officer sent the attachments of the FOIA response to that, 0964, case, the date of the letter was March 29 2024 they closed this case and released the documents back in March, and that was prior to the release of the A tip redaction that I told you about, that I've appealed on that other case. This was prior to that. So prior to that, according to the DOD,

they released that email with no redaction, then after decided to redact it. In the other case, roughly, may I think it is off the top of my head. So what happened in the two months? Why did they decide to redact it after the fact? Why didn't I get this response in March when it was sent out at all? And then further to that, remember that gray square that was a full redacted page. Here it is, that memo that I've fought for for years is finally here. Now I'm sorry to have to go 52 minutes to give you guys, you know, an explanation here on the context to get to probably, why you guys are here, but you have to hear it. You have to hear this lead up to this memorandum. You have to hear what the DOD has put me through to get this because so many conspiracy theories have been concocted about this that I can't even name them all. I'll take one off the top of my head, from both sides, the US government released this stuff to somehow make Luis Elizondo look bad last week. I don't understand that one, because arguably, this didn't make them look bad, it made them look good. So why would they do that? Well, people glommed onto the timing of it as connected to Luis Elizondo his book, despite me already addressing that and again, anybody can verify this, that it was sparked by me reaching out to them, and I didn't even get this when they claimed to have processed this request in March. So whether they screwed up and goofed and didn't send me the documents maybe, or they didn't screw up closed the key. Case, and just conveniently didn't send it. I don't know. The fact remains that they didn't, and by the way, I haven't mentioned when that case was remanded back after I won the appeal, they mysteriously forgot to send me acknowledgement that the case was remanded, that they reopened it, and that they were processing it. It wasn't for a year and a half for to go by a year and a half later, I got sick of waiting, and I was like, guys, what's going on with this case? It was another follow up. And they go, oh, sorry, we must have, I think they said it was an oversight or an overlook. I have it quoted properly in the in the article, but that it was essentially an oversight. So what are the odds? I does? Has that happened before? Of course, Does it happen often? Not really. But look at the case and the magnitude and what is all involved just adds to that ridiculous mess that is the story. Let me read you the memo, because it is important, the subject advanced aerospace threat Identification Program, some of you noted on X especially today. Hey, what date is this? There is no date. It's a draft the the from the emails that you can deduce Luis Elizondo wrote this. So this is authored by Luis Elizondo, sent to Neil Tipton with the intent that Deputy Secretary of Defense at the time was going to issue this memo to all DoD components, and what does it say? I'll quote it. The Department has maintained a strategic advantage over its adversaries by remaining cognizant of and investing in new emerging technologies, especially in the area of aerospace. In 2008 US Congress provided DoD funding for the advanced aerospace threat Identification Program, or a tip focused on beyond next generation technologies and areas of lift propulsion, cloaking and human effects, DOD continues to consider a tip a priority. Excuse me, especially given recent recent advancements with unmanned aerial surveillance us UAS platforms that are becoming widely available as the principal staff Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for all intelligence and security functions, the Under Secretary of Defense for intelligence has demonstrated interest for any and all reporting involving anomalous UAS threats from the department of defense agencies for the purposes of intelligence analysis and exploitation as such, all DoD elements are hereby required to provide a courtesy copy of any data and information obtained from the field that relates to unexplained or unknown aerial systems, to the director of Defense Intelligence for technical collection and special programs, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for intelligence, please direct any questions too, and then it's redacted. That's normal. That's just privacy. So whomever was under there, I have a guest though, the director of Defense Intelligence for technical collection and special programs. Who was that? Neil Tipton, so essentially, all things didn't say UFOs. Didn't say UAP, but it does get close involving anomalous UAS threats. Okay, so if that's an argument that they want to make, that the drone reference to anomalous and then later unidentified. It was an unidentified or unexplained, unexplained or unknown aerial systems. Is how the memo says, Fine. If that's the way they wanted to refer to UAP at the time, that's fine. But this is the first official document that's ever come out that at least went there as you read through it, UAS stands out. Obviously, we're talking about drones. I've long said, for years, I will continue to say it drones play a role in the UAP conversation. Full stop. That's it. Skeptics and debunkers want to label everything drones and UAS is that's silly and stupid and unfounded. So for those touting those lines, I'm sorry that's that's a that's a cop out and easy way out, but it does play a role in this conversation. So this really solidifies that. But again, the the references to the anomalous UAS threats here, unexplained or unknown aerial systems here, now we're finally getting a little bit closer to what we've heard about, connecting it to essentially UAP and unidentified objects and so on. So that's, that's the memo that, again, authored by Elizondo, sent to Neil Tipton. Finally, we get it out in the open. Now, one thing to one thing to keep in mind here, and I purposely did messy arrows, because I always at this point in not only doing these presentations, but just in my life itself, whenever I really dig into these documents, I am that guy standing in front of the board with the red yarn going from one point to another, trying to connect the dots. That's how I feel, because that's the only way to do this. You have to look at so many different elements and. I catch myself sometimes waking up seeing something and going, Oh my God, I am that guy. I see a connection between this and this, and there's absolutely no documented connection between the two. But my head automatically goes there, and you go, No, John, don't go there. You're going nuts. You know, don't, don't, don't, don't go down that road. So you gotta take a deep breath and start over. But for fun, I'm using the messiness here, because you can draw a connection between how Luis Elizondo has explained a tip in the past with lift, boom. Lift. This is a presentation he did, or one of the presentations that that he has done in front of public audiences, propulsion, Boom. There you go. Cloaking. You know you want to call that signature reduction, or spatial temporal translation, or whatever. You're loosely connecting it there, but human effects, boom, you've got that connection there. But it's not only how he describes ATIP. It's actually the mission objectives of what was OSAP. Now that's a program name that I haven't talked about yet, but essentially what that is, is is the same exact thing. Os app was that 2008 to funded through 2012 but it looks like the majority was 2008 to 2010 and that was the bass contract through Bigelow Aerospace. That was a forward looking look at advancements in the next 40 years of aircraft propulsion systems, again, analyzing exactly what we saw in this memo, lift propulsion, cloaking, human effects and so on. This is a document that I got from the DIA it was public documents, so this wasn't the first time it was seen, but rather just one of the many copies that was being passed around of what OS app was all about. Now I know some you know, connect OS app to Skinwalker Ranch, and that has been the argument when with James McCaskey and you know, George Knapp and that kind of whole crowd, as they've done their podcast and interviews, look, I will stand by that. I do not believe that the official scope of OS app was supposed to have anything to do with Skinwalker Ranch, and this is a mess in itself, but I will stand by what I've said on that. I find absolutely no connection to that. And I believe that when you try and connect that, you have to fill in the blanks a little bit on what people have said and and how certain things played out. And in order to do that, you have to go in an area that's incredibly sensitive, and I won't give real details, because I don't get sued, but I will say I'd be very surprised if I don't get documents on them investigating what happened with that money. So I'll leave it at that. But i i First and foremost, am about government transparency and responsible spending. And, you know, having these agencies operate responsible in a responsible manner, and that's with fiscal issues and moral issues and so on. That's why I deal with all sorts of different things. So there is a lot that intrigues me about offset, but it's less about Skinwalker Ranch. It's more about if that really was what taxpayer dollar went to. Taxpayer dollars went to how.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai