John Greenewald: 180 days, if you're anything like me, you've been waiting for this day for at least 180 days. Now it's here. And was it all worth the weight? What's up everyone? This is john Greenwald, Jr, founder and creator of the black vault calm. And that's right, the UFO or UAP, or whatever you want to call them report is here. And I'll go over just some of the key points about it. Because that report, all whopping nine pages of it is this subject of this quick blast. Stay tuned. That's right, the UFO UAP report is here. Now, I was debating on
whether or not I was going to do this video. And I thought, you know what, let's just go ahead and throw something out. Quickly update you guys. I'm not going to go over every single aspect of the report. But I am going to point out a few things. I know
some of you. And I'm surprised because I thought everybody use social media, but doesn't use social media like Twitter or Facebook, stuff like that, that you primarily just watch YouTube and those types of videos. So I thought, you know what, let's get this video out there and update you guys that the report is here. Fantastic. So let's get into it. Because I do believe that. Well, you might be a little letdown if you had high hopes. Now, if you did see my video about this, if you saw what essentially was kind of more little speculation and stuff like that on my part, but but also juxtaposing that with history, the question mark was, what were we going to get? And I truly thought that we weren't going to get much, and we didn't. But what really surprised me, was the fact that
we didn't get really anything at all. Yes, there are nine pages, but I thought it would be a little bit lengthier. And what I wanted to see and bear with me here because you might get mad at me for saying this is I wanted to see debunking on a small level, because it would show us that they actually are researching, investigating, and can solve some of this leaked material that has come out that they admitted was real, admitted that they were that it was taken by US Navy pilots, but they would not put a designation on it. They said it was even being
utilized by the task force that created this report that you're about to go over with me. yet. They wouldn't say if it was an identified or not. And I I'll be the first to say I thought that was part of the plan. I thought that meant that they were going to take that material and say, You know what, Senator Rubio and your committee we can identify this, the media got grabbed ahold of it made a big thing out of it. But there are some other
ones that we can't identify. But essentially, it would have shown us they are doing their job. In reality, we heard about no specific cases whatsoever. It was this broad overview. And as you can see from the cover page here, preliminary assessment, unidentified aerial phenomena, with today's date, this was the cover page. So that, in itself, at first glance, was a letdown to me, because I truly felt that we would get some type of admission to cases solved or not. But I thought that they would go into detail and they really did not. They kept it
very, very, very broad. And that would be my initial reaction to it. I've read through it a couple times, but obviously, this is very new to me. We're going to go over it a little bit together. But it's one of those things you do need to read a couple of times. I'm not going to read it like I said word for
word. This is page one with the scope and assumptions. What I do want to point out about this would be this paragraph here. odni which is the Office of the Director of National Intelligence prepared this report for the congressional intelligence and Armed Services Committee. UAP ATF and the odni National Intelligence manager for aviation drafted this report, with input from USD ins DEA FBI NRO nga NSA Air Force Army, Navy, Navy slash o ni or Office of Naval Intelligence.
DARPA, FAA, NOAA nga odni slash nim emerging and disruptive technology odni National counterintelligence and security center and odni National Intelligence council Say that three times fast, but that is one heck of an alphabet soup that contributed or allegedly contributed to this report. Nine pages doesn't seem like it culminated information from all of those agencies and components, but be that as it may I at least wanted to point that out to you on also on page one, the assumption Various forms of sensors that register UAP generally operate correctly and capture enough real data to allow initial assessments. But some UAP may be attributable attributable to sensor anomalies. It's a little disconcerting that they say, the equipment or sensors generally operate correctly, I would hope that they would always operate correctly. But that will probably be a video for another
day. The next page gives us what we always look for we as an investigators, researchers, essentially the executive summaries are key to understanding a lot of what big government reports have. The downside to this UAP report is, it's really not big at all. So it really wouldn't matter if they had an executive summary or not. But regardless, the first information page, we'll call it is just that. So this summarizes their findings. This essentially takes Well, not in this case, but a 200 page report, a 500 page report condenses it down to a couple of pages. In this
particular case, the report itself is obviously even less than nine pages, that was the total, but it condensed it into a page. So let's go over some of the key key facts that they wanted in the executive summary. The limited amount of high quality reporting on unidentified aerial phenomena hampers our ability to draw firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP. Now I'm going to tell you right now, from a historical perspective, I laughed when I read that the first time because that is absolutely Project bluebook. That's exactly what they said they they tried to say a lot about the 701. We know now that that's a much bigger number, but
the 701 unknowns in the project bluebook collection, they essentially said that they felt a lot of that was due to essentially lack of quality of evidence, lack of evidence, lack of, of essentially detail. So right off the bat, they're blaming taking a page from the project bluebook era and blaming the fact that they just didn't have enough data, even though that they've been collecting it for some time. Here's another quote from the report as a result, the UA PTF. When I say
that it's UAP Task Force. For those who aren't aware, concentrated its review on reports that occurred between 2004 and 2021, the majority of which are result of this new tailored process to better capture UAP events through formalized reporting. Most of the UAP reporting probably do represent physical objects, given that the majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors to include radar, infrared, electro optical weapon seekers and visual observation.
Essentially, what they're saying here is as technology advanced, they had better capability, they also had in turn, better capability to see or at least capture some type of visual imagery with this UAP phenomena, what whatever it is, it allowed them to, to essentially do that. Another point that they put in, in a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis. So this started off interesting. So they were exhibiting unusual flight characteristics and they immediately shoot it down pardon upon blaming potential sensor errors, spoofing, or the observer or the witness themselves. There are probably multiple types of UAP, requiring different explanations based on the range of appearances and behaviors described in the available reporting. Well, this is kind of a you know, word mash, where that's kind of a given not all uaps are going to have one explanation. We know
that so they're just kind of fluffing this up, in my opinion. UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to us national security. Absolutely. There's the threat word. Yet that's something I've never shied away from history proves it. Documentation proves that
evidence proves it, witnesses prove it, there is a potential threat behind whatever this phenomena is. And they're drilling that in this report, not a big surprise, because that more than all else will get the attention of the senate Intel committee, Armed Services Committee and beyond. Consistent consolidation of reports from across the federal government standardized reporting, increased collection and analysis and a streamlined process for screening. All such
reports against a broad range of relevant relevant United States government data will allow for some Morphosis sophisticated Analysis of UAP that is likely to deepen our understanding, what are they saying here, give us more money, we'll figure it out. And that there in lies. What I have felt is truly underlying all of this is to get additional funding and resources. I am not saying that is a bad thing. But what I am saying is that this up here, justifies this down here. For those listening to the audio version, this up here is the potential threat. This down here is give us money and resources, and we'll figure it out. And I think that that truly is the root of a lot of this. I would say, talk about that potential
threat. Again, I don't disagree with it. I don't think it's a bad thing. Some people are using that as a, they're just wasting money on military spending. No, on the contrary, I support it. But if this is what had to happen, to get them to look at unidentified objects, and UFOs, uaps, whatever, then that's, I think, a win that even though and I'll say it right now, after I went through the executive summary, even though this is only a nine page document, that we didn't get case files, we didn't get visuals, we didn't get photos, links to videos, evidence addendums nothing, even though we didn't get that this is something that actually is beneficial. Because there's no
way around them saying you know what, the UAP phenomena, it's a waste of time, let's not even focus on it. On the contrary, this is supporting that they should focus on it, even though if they're taking from the pages of Project bluebook, and the Condon report and so on saying well, we could probably explain most of it, earthly explanations, all that jazz, we just need more money and resources to do it. So I consider this a baby step. But at least on the surface, it looks like a baby step when which is what I feel is is is the key takeaway for me. A couple other things, I'll go
over really quick and I invite you to read it. For those who haven't noticed yet, in the description of this video, you will find a link over to the black vault. When I was recording this DNI was having a lot of problems with their website, some were able to download it no problems, others were getting an error screen. So if you're having a problem, don't worry, the link down there, my site hasn't crashed, at least not yet. So go ahead and you can download it from there.
So what what happens after an executive summary is they essentially go into more detail about all those bullet points that I went through to through with you know, again, I won't go over every word, but I feel that there's a couple things that do need to be pointed out. This under the heading of available reporting largely inconclusive. limited data leaves most UAP unexplained This, to me is the one of the most glaring errors. And I want to show you guys why. limited data and inconsistency and reporting are key challenges to evaluating UAP. No standardized reporting mechanism existed until the Navy established one in March of 2019. The Air Force subsequently
adopted that mechanism and in November of 2020, but it remains limited to US government reporting. The ua PTF regularly heard anecdotally, during its research about other observations that occurred, but which were never captured in formal or informal reporting by these observers. Here is the key part of this entire report that in, in my opinion, is wrong and fabricated. And here's my proof. I'm gonna pull up an article I wrote back in 2019. This is when I was pushing to get the Navy's
UFO or UAP guidelines that were classified, I was trying to get them declassified. Now first off credit to Brian bender of Politico. He broke the story that these guidelines even existed. So credit to him. What I did was I took those that that information and filed numerous FOIA requests for what was called the message to the fleet, which when Mr. Bender had reported it was in draft form, and tried to get that message, in the process of doing that found that it was no longer in draft form was issued. But when I tried to get it through FOIA, I was denied that this was something that essentially was going to remain classified. But I want to read you guys
something, because this is what was really interesting about that message. Now in short, that message was essentially showing the guidelines or at least pointing to the guidelines for the US Navy and how to report UAP. It was instructing all of those that saw UAP to report them and then again, either had or pointed to the guidelines for reporting them In the process of researching the story, I discovered this, although the original headline a political and I'm reading my own writing here, so let me start that over. Although the original headline at Politico insinuated that the UFO guidelines were quote, new. Subsequent statements released later in May by US Navy Public Affairs Officer, Joseph grabshare, to the New York Times, said they were not. Mr. grabshare explained that the
guidelines were an update to an older 2015 directive in response to multiple UFO encounters around the USS Theodore Roosevelt in 2014. And 2015, he told The New York Times that although some of the objects could have been commercial drones, Mr. gratis are also added. We don't know who's doing this, we don't have enough data to track this. So the intent of
the message to the fleet is to provide updated guidance on reporting procedures for suspected intrusions into our airspace. So this shows that the guidelines were already in existence in 2015, based on the 2014 and 2015 encounters, let me go back to that report that we've been going over, they said that they didn't have a reporting mechanism until March of 2019. I personally don't think that that is correct, based on the fact that that was just a re issuance of of guidance that was already issued, those guidelines had been around per the US Navy for at least four years prior to this date here. So that's an extra four years worth of data that they could have potentially been collecting. Now, maybe they didn't adhere to it, which is why they reissued it, and I get that, but regardless, for them to essentially say that in the report, I'm not trying to nitpick here, I'm just saying there's potential for years worth of some type of data, even if not everybody was following it. That could potentially be
there. yet. They said that it wasn't until 2019, just two years ago, little over two years ago when they had it. My opinion, that's wrong. Is that a mistake? Quite possibly. Am I mistaken? Oh, it's based on US Navy official statements that they said 2015. But who knows, maybe that they issued the guidelines, and not a single person ever followed them or read them? That's a possibility, too. I won't rule that out.
Jumping along here into the report, here is the number that the reports that they analyzed. And this was a number that I think the New York Times said something to the effect of 210. Here is the number 144 reports originated from US government sources, at reports involved observation with multiple sensors, most reports described UAP as objects that interrupted pre planned training, or other military activity. To me, that's
pretty interesting. I think that's part of the story here. That will probably be a tidbit in the future. Why is it always around training missions and essentially military activity? That is, I guess, open to interpretation. But the obviously the the incidents that we have heard about away from this UAP report, but the Nimitz encounter, they were doing a training mission, they had new radar, and instrumentation that they were testing, same with the 2014 15 Roosevelt encounters, they were out there with new equipment on on essentially training missions out there. So is that some type of you know,
common trait? Is there a reason for that? Or is that, you know, potentially just a coincidence. I'll let you guys decide that I'm not gonna say either way, cuz I don't know. But it is kind of interesting that that seems to be a thread here. I'm going to jump up because I want to read this paragraph to you as well. After carefully considering this information. The UAP ETF focused on reports that involved UAP largely witnessed firsthand by military aviators, and that were collected from systems we considered to be reliable. These
reports describe incidents that occurred between 2004 and 2021. With the majority coming in the last two years as the new reporting mechanism became better known to the military aviation community, we were able to identify one reported UAP with high confidence. In that case, we identified the object as a large deflating balloon, the others remain unexplained. The first thing that came to my mind on that with the deflating balloon was the USS Omaha footage that looked like a sphere slowly descending, hitting the water and potentially either you know, popping or just getting lost in a wave popping then and so on and so forth. Because it seems like it gets lost, comes back. It's lost again. MC West, I think I'm not speaking for him the one of the last videos, I think one of his last, he was kind of looking at maybe a flare of some kind and the sphere looking was part of the glare. I
don't know I'm not an analyst, so I'm not going to pretend I know. But it was very interesting for them to essentially bring in Some one case that we have no idea what it is that they were able to identify what that was at this point is kind of a mystery. I saw some people thinking was this the Batman balloon? I doubt it didn't look like a deflating balloon to me. But you know, who knows a balloon, it did look like a balloon. Sorry to upset anybody with that, but a deflating one that just didn't. But the Omaha footage, you know,
potentially that was that was something that could have been some of the other points here. And again, I'm even though I've read this a couple times, just kind of going over it with you here. And I don't want to speak forever on a nine page document where I'm not going word for word, but just kind of wanted to give you guys some reactions. And I'm also curious to your reactions, what you feel is the most important so go ahead and put any comments down there. And if you are listening to the
audio version, just head to the black vault comm slash live. Make sure you subscribe to the YouTube channel because I think the visual presentations are much more interesting because you can see what I'm actually pointing to. Here's a paragraph about potential patterns that they are seeing patterns where again when I talked about the military sightings in the training missions. Let me just read you this line. UAP sightings also tended to cluster around us training and testing grounds. But we assessed that this may result from a collection bias as a result of focused attention, greater numbers of latest generation sensors operating in those areas unit expectations and guidance to report anomalies so good on them for for realizing that there was potentially a collection bias on the the evidence there.
A handful of UAP appear to demonstrate advanced technology. This is where it started to get at least a little interesting and 18 incidents described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics. Some UAP appeared to remain stationary and winds aloft move against the wind maneuver abruptly or move at considerable speed without discernible means of propulsion, and a small number of cases, Military Aircraft Systems process radio frequency energy associated with UAP sightings. The UAP TF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management. Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to determine the nature and validity of these data. We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated. So obviously, that's a little
bit more interesting from what they've already tried to blow out of the water with deflating balloons and lack of evidence. So we're starting to get into obviously a much smaller percentage of cases they've collected, but a percentage of cases nonetheless, back to that original point about a single explanation. And of course, uaps it's just kind of obvious. These are the categories that they feel uaps could fit into one of these five airborne clutter. According to them, that would be birds. I really wanted to see seagulls in that area just to
kind of take a friendly jab at at that entire debate online. If you don't know what I'm talking about. Then inside joke to the UFO Twitter crowd but birds, balloons, recreational unmanned aerial vehicles, or airborne debris like plastic bags that model has seen and effect an operator's ability to identify true targets such as enemy aircraft. That's category one. Category two natural atmospheric phenomenon natural atmospheric phenomena includes ice crystals, moisture and thermal fluctuations. US government or industry dealt developmental programs this I found interesting. I really did. Because there is a big question on whether or not some of this UAP is classified tech. And some of that argument about well,
it's unidentified, so it can't be well, here is potentially a category that they're saying that UAP fits into some UAP observations could be attributable to developments and classified programs by us entities. We were unable to confirm, however, that these systems accounted for any of the UAP reports we collected. The question mark is here. What point and what access did they have and looking into potential black budget programs, stuff like the stealth aircraft that was in development for decades before being acknowledged? Does the UAP taskforce have that type of access? The fact that they're considering that as a as a category, yet they were saying that we were unable to confirm? I'm not sure if I lean towards the fact that maybe they're not as cleared to see All of that.
And that is a question that I think we may never have the answer to. And that is would they have access to let's say the saps, the unacknowledged saps, the black budget programs, all of that kind of stuff that we've heard bantered about for decades and decades, would they be able to access that information and understand that they maybe it's not even an aircraft unmanned drone versus a manned aircraft or a piece of technology? You know, that's that that is carried aloft into the atmosphere, whatever that might be. Again, lots of different possibilities there. But I found that interesting that they that they had US government developmental programs in their foreign adversary system, some UAE UAP may be technologies deployed by China, Russia, another nation or non government entity. Of course, that is what we keep
hearing about from the Senate Congress. Whomever is outspoken about uaps is it Russia is China. Who could it be? So that's not a surprise other. Although most of the UAP described in our dataset, probably remain unidentified, to limited data or challenges to collection, processing or analysis. We may require additional scientific knowledge
to successfully collect on, analyze and characterize some of them. We would group such objects in this category pending scientific advances that allow us to better understand them. The ua PTF intends to focus additional analysis on the small number of cases where a UAP appeared to display unusual flight characteristics or signature management a whole section on UAP threatened flight safety impossible national security, we have already gone over that. But they go into more details, I recommend you get into that explaining UAP will require analytic collection and resource investment. And there is more detail about potentially standardizing the report and consolidating the data, deepening the analysis and essentially doing that with additional resources and of course, funding to make all of that happen. They're looking to expand the collection, they have a whole section on that the UAP, ATF is looking for novel ways to increase collection of UAP cluster areas when US forces are not present as a way to baseline standard UAP activity and mitigate the collection bias in the data set. Is that a pathway
for them to potentially look at sightings by the normies out there, the US and me's the people that are not on a military mission or training mission at you know, 35,000 feet, we're not flying in an FAA team? Are they going to go out there and ask us questions if we go out there and see what we would call a UAP. And I think that if they do go down that route that would allow them to see is this essentially a collection bias where it's mostly around military training areas and so on? Or will this open up a whole new world, to the Congress to Senate to the UAE, PTF to God, upper management, whomever? Will it open up that world to show them this phenomena is happening nationwide, worldwide to everybody from every background, and it does not discriminate, who it shows itself to or who it potentially threatens. So if they open it up to commercial pilots, those that are flying for, let's say, Southwest Airlines, American Airlines united, what are they doing here? And I think that i think that that is a that is one of the bigger steps forward one proposal reading from the document here one proposal is to use advanced algorithms to search historical data captured and stored by radars. I'm wondering what they saw to
actually create that type of a drive and recommendation to do that. Here's that investment word increase investment in research and development. The UAP ETF has indicated that additional funding for research and development could further the future study of the topics laid out on this report. Such investment should be guided by a UAP collection strategy UAP r&d technical roadmap and a UAP program plan. That was
essentially the end of the report. The appendix with definitions, I don't really count that. But you can see they define unidentified aerial phenomena they're going definition, by the way, is airborne objects not immediately identifiable. The acronym UAP represents the broadest category of airborne objects reviewed, reviewed for analysis. So not as
I would say sexy as we would all think that that definition would be a true definition to UAP has been very hard to come by. I got one about two years ago, from the the Navy and it looks like is it's pretty Much along the lines of this, I'll dig that up for you guys and Lincoln as well. But airborne objects not immediately identifiable. I mean, that's essentially what they've gone towards for some time, but you can see some of the other terms there. And then Appendix B, this was about, essentially what the Senate was requesting, from them details about what they had requested. So there you have it, there are
some initial reactions, I have quite a few other thoughts that I won't go into yet. Here's my closing one for you guys, though. And I hope that I hope that you do take a couple moments to read those nine pages that doesn't take long digested and read it again. Because the reaction I got from myself, the
second time was a lot different than from the first time. And I really was let down when I took at first glance of this. The second time, I was still really let down. But at least I was starting to pick up that there were tidbits that there were nuggets that we can find and be encouraged by. But one thing
that I will say and what I even tweeted out today, for those who were watching with me, and we were all frantically pressing refresh on the DNS website, and really anticipating this together is that this is not the end, right? This this is not, regardless of this being the letdown, that it might be to you. Or maybe it's encouraging to you, maybe this is more than you thought. It doesn't matter what you think this is far from the end, not only for me, on a personal level, I've been doing this for 25 years pursuing UFO UAP information with the government. So I'm not going to stop now. But I hope it motivates all of you as well. Because even though this report, I can almost bet for all of you didn't have everything that you wanted in it. At least this shows us that there is movement, that the UAP topic is being taken seriously, that it is being acknowledged that it is being essentially looked at as a potential threat. And as much as some of you do not like that
word that will pave the way for them, meaning the Senate to look at this, that is not exciting or extraordinary by itself. But that is the route. Because once the additional funding, I'll be at maybe a small amount, that additional funding goes in, and that expansion of the data happens. And they expand it to commercial aviation pilots. they expand it to just the Jo schmoes
of the world that are seeing UFOs to essentially then really tackle this from a scientific standpoint, that is what we should all praise. I'm mad too, we didn't get what we really truly wanted. But if this is the route to potentially a bigger program, that will then pave that way for a bigger data set for them to call on. Hopefully, we the people will have access to that. But at least those are baby steps forward, forward to where I'm on the journey with you because I have no idea. As I said earlier, I'm always interested in your thoughts. If
you're watching on YouTube, of course, post them down there. A big thumbs up always helps on the video. And of course, sharing the word make sure you are subscribed to the channel, turn the notifications on. Because I would bet money there's probably a live stream coming up sometime in the future where that toll free line is going to be open. And we can all chat and have a good time because the last time I did that, that was a lot of fun. So make sure you do that if you are
listening on the podcast version, this is the first time I've put more of, of what I call a quick blast on as a podcast. Generally these are more long form on the audio, but let me know what you think about that. If you'd like to see more of these because there's a lot of videos I do not drop in podcast form. So if you want to see more, please drop me a line. It's pretty straightforward contact at the black vault comm that will come directly to me. And of course if you're
listening on those podcast platforms, I aim for five stars reviews are very, very helpful. And of course, make sure you help spread the word on the podcast as well. All of that said thank you all for listening and watching. This is John Greenewald Jr signing off, and we'll see you next time
2021-06-28