Ep. #129 – Breaking Down the October 2023 UAP Report

The Department of Defense (DoD) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) just released a detailed report on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) as mandated by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2022.

The post Ep. #129 – Breaking Down the October 2023 UAP Report first appeared on The Black Vault.

Episode Transcript

John Greenewald (00:31):
That's right everybody. As always, thank you
so much for tuning in and takingthis journey inside the black
vault with me. I'm your host,John Greenewald, Jr. And today,
we are diving into the newestUAP report released, which for
many was a huge fat, nothingburger as many of them likely
are. For others like myself, Ilike to dig in, dive in, look at

(00:53):
every single character, why theydid some things, why they didn't
do some things. And just kind ofbreak it down that way. Because
even though the report may nothave a whole lot of information
we can use, there are thingsthat you can deduce from it,
that if you use the FOIA or evenif you're just kind of curious
and want to dig in a little bitmore, it really kind of is

(01:15):
helpful to look at these typesof things in a different lens.
And that's my intent for videoslike these. So let's just go
ahead and get right into it. Letme pull up the presentation, if
you will. And some slides, I'mnot going to read the whole
report to you. But I am going tobreak down some of the parts

(01:36):
that were most interesting to menow the report was only 16
pages. And let me stress, I urgeyou to read the whole thing. I'm
not going to go over everything,like I said. So you know, you
might find something interestingthat I didn't. So it's very much
a matter of perception and howwe approach these topics. But
what I'm going to go throughwith you. And I'm going to read

(01:59):
some sections, especially forthe audio version, but read some
sections, so we can go throughit and kind of talk it out a
little bit and see some of theinteresting parts of this, but
also some of the concerningparts, as well. So for those
watching on YouTube, and thenthroughout some of the other
social media networks where thisvideo may pop up, in the show

(02:21):
notes section, you will find adirect link to the black vault
with the entire report. So youcan download, follow along with
me on this video, download itfor yourself, read it, print it,
put it on your wall frame it,throw darts at it, whatever you
like to do. But that link is isthere for you. Now, with these

(02:42):
reports, even though it's only16 pages, a lot of times they
will put what's called anexecutive summary. So the report
itself is you know, roughly 12pages or so minus the table of
contents and cover page and theexecutive summary. So the
executive summary is roughly apage page and a half of taking
the report condensing it down,making it a little bit more

(03:03):
digestible for those who don'tlike the nitty gritty details.
So that's where we're going tostart and I'm going to go
through some of the paragraphsthat I think properly summarizes
some of the things that we'relearning with this. I'll quote
The report covers unidentifiedanomalous phenomena UAP reports
from 31 August 2022 to 30 April2023, and all UAP reports from

(03:26):
any previous time periods thatwere not included in an earlier
report. The all domain anomalyresolution office received a
total of 291 UAP reports duringthis period, consisting of 274
that occurred during this periodand another 17 that occurred
during previous reportingperiods from 2019 to 2022. But

(03:51):
had not been conveyed inprevious submissions. In other
words are just getting thereport post any previous
reporting that they did, andthey were in those past
timeframes, really wordy forsuch a kind of simplistic data
point. during the reportingperiod, Arrow received no
reports indicating UAP sightingshave been associated with any

(04:11):
adverse health effects. However,many reports from military
witnesses do present potentialsafety of flight concerns. And
there are some cases wherereported UAP have potentially
exhibited one or more concerningconcerning performance
characteristics, such as highspeed travel or unusual
maneuverability. Aero hasdeconflict these cases with

(04:33):
potential us programs andcontinues to work closely
closely with its DOD andintelligence community mission
partners to identify andattribute any objects found in
these cases. Additionally, Arrowcontinues to investigate and
research all cases and itsholdings. While the mere
presence of UAP in the airspacerepresents a potential hazard to

(04:54):
flight safety. None of thesereports suggest the UAP maneuver
to an unsafe proximity to civilor military aircraft, positioned
themselves in flight paths, orotherwise posed a direct threat
to the flight safety of theobserving aircraft. Although
none of these UAP reports havebeen positively attributed to
foreign activities, these casescontinue to be investigated. And

(05:16):
it should be important to pointout, if if it's not obvious to
you, I take away from all ofthis, that this is just the
reports in this particularperiod. So not the totality of
everything aro has collected. Sojust kind of keep that in mind
that even though it's a fairlyuneventful and kind of snoozy
expos A of this particular timeperiod, it is just that

(05:39):
particular time period. So theymay have other cases that have
done health hazards after theencounter, that maybe was not in
this time period, but somethingin the past. So just kind of
keep that in mind that this isthe lens of the timeframe, a
smaller timeframe, not a summaryof everything that they have.

(06:02):
While this progress isfacilitating collection and
analysis of the UAP problem set,the continued volume and
unidentified nature of most UAPis a direct consequence of gaps
in domain awareness. These gapsare the direct result of
insufficient data secured byradar, electro optical infrared
sensors, the presence of sensorartifacts such as IR flare, and

(06:25):
optical effects, such asparallax that can cause
observational misperceptions,based on the ability to resolve
cases to date. With an increasein the quality of data secured,
the unidentified and purportedanomalous nature of most UAP
will likely resolve to ordinaryphenomena, and significantly
reduced the amount of UAP casesubmissions. To me, this is the

(06:52):
most concerning part of thisreport. Now, any viewers of this
channel, you'll know that I talka lot about the secrecy
surrounding UAP and why it'sthere, and the lack of official
explanation of why it's there.But on top of that, the
parallels between the1950s 1960s primarily through

(07:13):
the late 1960s, of how thegovernment and military at that
time, had set up theinvestigations that they did,
ultimately, we refer to it asProject Bluebook. But there were
a few programs in there. And howthey dealt with it, why they did
it. And ultimately, them closingeverything. And then we didn't

(07:37):
hear about UFOs literally fordecades and decades. I talk a
lot about the parallels, becauseit has concerned me now for a
couple of years, that that isexactly what is playing out now.
Now for those who don't know me,I know and believe based on
evidence, both through FOIA andoutside of FOIA, that there's

(07:59):
something to these phenomena. Isay it plural, I think that
there's multiple facets to this,I think there may be multiple
Well, there's obviously multipleexplanations, some of which are
just very earth based.
And I'm not here to argue thethe alien hypothesis to you. But
rather that there is a sectionhere that we humans, I think

(08:22):
just don't quite understand yet.And that I believe is is evident
throughout history. But when youget to the investigations, like
again, Project Bluebook, you seehow that played out? You
juxtapose that with how this isplaying out, all of a sudden,
you start to see things reallyunfolding in the exact same way.

(08:44):
And this, again, has been aconcern of mine for quite some
time. Now put it visually foryou. It all started with a
threat. Now I'm obviouslytalking about Project Bluebook.
But also juxtapose that againwith today that it all started
with a threat that there was aproblem the military had to
investigate, because there was apublic interest on top of that

(09:05):
threat, the concern in the postworld war two environment, you
know, through 1946 4748, thattimeframe when you got into
project sign, then grudge andthen project Bluebook.
Ultimately, that public interestcoupled with the threat pave the
way for a decade, a couple ofdecades long UFO investigation,

(09:29):
but the evidence once it cameout more and more, you can
realize that it was much less ainvestigation, but rather much
more in explanation. Now that isa whole video presentation in
itself. I've talked a little bitabout it in past videos, I won't
regurgitate it all here. Theproject Bluebook was a farce.
But it had to deal with thosetwo things the threat and the

(09:53):
public interest that was notgoing away. The UFO phenomena
was given more credibility atthe At time by military
personnel and prominentpoliticians as it progressed,
which prolong funding andinterest, you look at those
former and current at the time,military personnel that were
saying things, sometimes inbooks, sometimes in press

(10:17):
conferences, and you fastforward through the mid 60s,
then you have people like GeraldFord, prior to him becoming
president, pushing the UAP issueas a huge concern, and something
that needed to be dealt with. Alot of this sounds familiar, you
start exchanging some of thesenames with people today. And

(10:38):
they fit almost identically tohow this has played out in the
past. Now, all of that interest,the threat and all of that
dialogue in the public sphere,led to the military, obviously
starting grudge sign laterBluebook and doing the
investigation for decades,looking at the cases, digesting

(10:58):
everything, and then coming to aquote unquote, conclusion. They
concluded that the majority ofthe cases were explainable. Now,
even by their own admission, itwas not everything. There's a
famous number 701 that remainedunidentified after a project
Bluebook closed. However, theproblem with that is once you

(11:20):
start looking at a lot of thecases, you realize that 701
Number was likely much, muchlarger. On top of that, the the
section on the black vault thatI call from the desks of brought
project Bluebook added othercase files that were found from
a former project Bluebookpersonnel member in a garage

(11:44):
somewhere, you realize thatthere were cases that weren't in
the massive data set that is nowat the National Archives, a lot
of stuff didn't survive, it goteither destroyed, shredded, or
copies were taken home by otherpeople. But the fact remains
that that 701 Number likelyisn't accurate at all. Another

(12:06):
quick point on that when Iposted project Bluebook
documents, gosh, probably closeto a decade ago, and created
this massive search engine kindof turned into an ugly story of
copyright claims byancestry.com. I'll bore you with
that story another day. But thebottom line was at got major

(12:26):
press and publicity. And as aresult, people from the 1960s
and even 50s were writing medirectly because they found
their sighting in the Bluebookfiles that even though it was
readily available, if they caredto go to the National Archives,
the resource that I had createdallowed people to search for it
and find it like that. And sothey did and I started compiling

(12:50):
responses from people thatstretched into the double
digits. I'm not talking abouthundreds, but rather probably
1520 people that had found theircase file, saw what the
government and military labeledit as. And they said there is no
way that this was theexplanation for my case, and

(13:10):
that they changed part of thefacts behind it. And I started
piling these up realizing Wow,Bluebook was much more of a
farce than I than I everrealized. So sorry to go off on
that tangent. But all of thestatistics and stuff that we've
learned about Bluebook, in myopinion is provably false, that
the the percentage ofunexplained is likely much, much

(13:33):
larger. And I think that that'san important point to punch with
that particular era. So eventhough they claim that most were
explainable, they convened apanel back in the 1960s, of
scientists to independently lookat the findings. And you kind of
look at the NASA effort andstuff like that you start to

(13:57):
juxtapose all of this, it seemsvery, very familiar. But that
being said, that panel ofscientists came together, looked
at decade's worth of cases. Andthey determined that the UFO
phenomena, whatever it may be,was not a threat to national
security didn't warrant furtherinvestigation, and recommended
that the investigation beclosed. And that's exactly what

(14:19):
the US Air Force did. Theyhalted the investigation, they
stopped it and for well over 40years, the government stopped
talking about UFOs and boughtthem decades. Now documentation
proves that's not entirely true.They wanted you to believe they
didn't care. But in reality, theCIA, the NSA, the DIA, and quite

(14:40):
a few other places, were stillcollecting and looking at UFO
reports from around the globe.So that also was a lie by the US
government. However, they usedkind of that, that effort to
justify them saying, Oh, we justdon't care about UFOs we looked
at it we gave it a shot. andeverything is primarily

(15:02):
explainable the cases, and I'mparaphrasing their point on
this. But the cases that did nothave an explanation, they felt
if they had better data, betterinstrumentation, or essentially
more data in front of them aboutthose respective cases, they
too, would be identified. That'sexactly what I just read to you

(15:26):
from this new report, thatessentially they're saying if we
have better data, that we'dlikely be able to solve the
majority of these. Well, thereality is they probably could,
but it's the small percentage ofstuff that truly is anomalous.
Don't take my word. I'm notguessing. That's Dr. Kirk,
Patrick's word that he said inthe congressional hearing that

(15:47):
he took part in that there was asmall percentage of truly
anomalous cases that they couldnot identify that they were
collecting. And I did the mathat the time with his percentage
that he gave it was roughlyabout 30 to 40 cases, or so,
obviously, a rough estimate. Butthat's a lot of cases that

(16:08):
they've collected that would betruly anomalous. Now, what's his
definition of truly anomalousthat it's hard to tell? We don't
really know that. But for him togo on the record and say that,
that, to me is a big deal. Butthose types of statements are
lost in these reports, thesetypes of reports AR better data,
everything explainable? Well,that's probably not true, given

(16:32):
the documented history that wecan already call back on. And
it's playing out the exact sameway. Now, moving on from that
point, this was another reallyfascinating section to me that I
bet the majority of people justkind of skipped. Now the 2022
report on UAP, published by thesame office, headed by arrow,

(16:56):
and then they consulted withother places as well, I put it
in quotes, because it wasactually published in 2023, they
were very late on it. But that'swhy it's in quotes, the section
of where they say, the agenciesthey coordinated with were
listed. That, to me isfascinating, because here's the
comparison of the newest report,which is over here. And the 2022

(17:22):
report, which came out early,early in 2023. And you look at
the growth of consultingagencies that arrow is working
with. Now, that's encouraging,it means that they really are
branching out. So kudos to them,because it really shows some
growth there that they're notconfining themselves to data to

(17:44):
only a handful of agencies, butrather, it's grown considerably.
Now I went through one by one,the yellow highlights are the
ones that we already heardbefore. The ones that aren't
highlighted at all, are brandnew, that they were not in the
previous report. And you'll seetwo pink highlights in there
too, which are, again, easilymissed. And I'm not I'm not

(18:05):
really sure what the explanationis here. But I think it's worthy
of a mention that in the 2022report.
OD and eyes nem aviation, inconjunction with Arrow made that
report. This newest was draftedby Arrow and ODNI is National
Intelligence manager formilitary integration. So that's

(18:28):
nem mill, not nem. Aviation. Sothere was a change there that
name aviation doesn't evenappear here. Now, is there an
easy explanation for that?Possibly. But I actually tried
to search in Google for thismilitary integration. And every
one of the links minus one atthe recording of this video, by
the way. So that could changelater. But at the recording of

(18:52):
this video, when I Googled thisand tried to research it a
little bit more, because that'snew to me. They were all
references to this UAP report.Meaning is it new? Is it a name
change from them aviation one,name, aviation still has a
website. So either they haven'tupdated yet and this is a new
name, or there was a change. Whyfor that change? Not really

(19:14):
sure, but I think it's worthy ofnote there. The other pink
highlight ODNI is nem economicsecurity and emerging
technology. This may also be avariation of the previous ODNI
nem emerging and disruptivetechnology. But it's worthy of

(19:35):
note because it is different andthe DIA is missing. Dia was in
the 2022 report, not in the newone. So also of note, why not?
Where did the DIA go? Theyexhaust all contributions that
they can give. Is it a mistake?You know, your guess is as good
as mine, but I at least wantedto point that out as we go

(19:57):
through the report itself. Oneother point that came out that I
felt was interesting theincrease in reporting is in part
due to deepening federalrelationships and Arrow's
ability to incorporate newreports into its adjudication
and research process. UAPmission partners continue to
coordinate collaborate andstreamline processes. With these

(20:19):
new reports, as of 30, April2023, Arrow has received a total
of 801 UAP reports. Soobviously, showing the growth
obviously, the screenshot priorthat I just showed you,
justifies this kind of, again,explosive, increase that may be
explosive is a little bit toodramatic there. But the increase

(20:42):
in reporting the increase ofdata that's becoming available
to them, it's because they arebranching out and coordinating
with more and that'sencouraging. The report, it may
be hard to see on your screenhere, but it's not really
important. Gave some pie charts,which we've seen in the past,
obviously just updated with thenewest numbers. The first one
reported UAP morphologies, theseare the shapes that just seem to

(21:05):
be a very elusive dataset. Thewas a 2021 classified report
that I got partially releasedthrough FOIA showed that they
wanted to redact for nationalsecurity reasons, the shapes of
all the UAP and examples of theshapes of those UAP. My appeal
on that is still open.Obviously, they have lessened

(21:27):
that a little bit. So hopefully,we'll see some encouraging
results from from that specificappeal. But that pie chart
obviously is breaking down someof those shapes. The biggest
data set, or the data portion,53% not reported. Excuse me, so
why, who knows. But you've gotorbs sphere, as the biggest

(21:53):
reported shape, and then itbreaks it down from there,
rectangle, triangle disc,cylinder, all stuff that you can
probably just guess on your own.But interesting that the
majority of cases don't evenreport a shape, while those that
do 25% are round spheres andorbs. This is a pretty pointless
chart if you ask me. Reportedlights for fiscal year 2023.

(22:18):
Lights 21%, no lights 79%. Butthere's so many variables in
that that would make thatactually matter. Was it a
nighttime or daytime sighting?Was it instrumentation only if
it was just instrumentation onlywould that instrument be able to
see or deduce lights on or offso many different, you know,

(22:39):
factors there, which kind ofmakes that a little bit
pointless? Why I point that outis I think they just like to
beef up these reports, you'llnotice as you go through the
report to they, they love toskip like half pages, they'll
start a new page just sometimesseemingly randomly. And I think
it's just to increase the pagecount a little bit to make it a
little bit more, you know,complete in their, in their

(23:02):
view. Here's some more visualsand eye candy. We kind of see
these from time to time, theexact same graphics, I mean, and
they've just updated numbers,the altitudes of which UAP are
reported breaking it down. Andthen obviously the heat map of
distribution of reports this isanother kind of pointless one.
Obviously, there's data biashere because they're only

(23:25):
collecting it from militaryinstallations, which obviously
will limit you to where ourmilitary installations are going
to be heavy in the US. Andobviously looking at other parts
in the world have a US presence,so on and so forth. So it's kind
of a biased chart, but you know,eye candy nonetheless. Now, here

(23:46):
is kind of a breakdown of somemore interesting stuff. I hate
to read a whole page to you. Butagain, for audio reasons on the
podcast itself, I think it'simportant. Increased FAA
reporting, shifting geographiccollection bias and morphology
trend, which is obviously what Ijust went over with kind of how
silly some of those those chartsare when it comes to the bias.

(24:09):
Arrow has received over 100 UAPincident reports from FAA that
contribute to the trend analysisof activity over the US and
adjacent waters of the incidentreports FAA, FAA has shared with
Aero the vast majority concernsightings of unidentified lights
without specific shape at widelyvarying estimated altitudes from

(24:30):
less than 5000 feet up to 60,000feet. None of these reports
suggest the UAP were exhibitinganomalous characteristics
maneuver to an unsafe proximityto civil aircraft, or posed a
threat to flight safety to theobserving aircraft. arrow will
continue to add these reports asappropriate to the active
archive where they will be usedin the overall trend analysis.

(24:53):
No health slash physiologicalimpacts from UAP incidents
reported to date, no encounterswith UAP have been confirmed to
have directly contributed toadverse health related effects
to the observers ODNI and DODacknowledge that health related
effects may appear at anytimeafter an event occurs.
Therefore, any reported healthimplications related to UAP will

(25:16):
be tracked and examined if andwhen they emerge, data, data and
intelligence sources receivedthrough various intelligence
channels. Arrows new integratedanalysis process ensures the raw
intelligence related to UAP fromvarious intelligence disciplines
are assimilated into all sourcedata packages analyzed by teams

(25:36):
of scientists and intelligenceanalysts. Aeros analysts scour
multiple classified andunclassified databases to
identify any existing data oneach UAP case, prioritizing
technical sensor informationthat yields the highest quantity
of pertinent, valuable data forreview. As the office employs

(25:57):
more sensors specificallytailored, tailored for UAP
detection, the amount andvariety of technical data
produced will increase,facilitating more and better
analytic analytic fidelity.Arrow program updates in regards
to the analytic division, arrowsanalytic efforts are confirming
that only a very smallpercentage of UAP reports

(26:20):
display interesting signatures,such as high speed travel, and
unknown morphologies. Themajority of unidentified objects
reported to arrow demonstrateordinary characteristics of
readily explainable sources.While a large number of cases in
arrows holdings remaintechnically unresolved, because
of lack of data. Does that soundfamiliar? Without sufficient

(26:43):
data, these cases cannot beresolved. For the few objects
that do demonstratecharacteristics of interest.
Arrow is approaching these caseswith objectivity and analytic
rigor. This approach includesphysical testing, and employing
modeling and simulation tovalidate analyses and the
underlying theories. And thenpeer reviewing those results

(27:04):
before reaching any conclusion.Look, this is, in my opinion,
the more interesting part I knowit's dry to hear me read. But
for those on the podcast, Ithink it's important to hear
this as I show it to you on thevideo versions. You look at
this, and it sounds great. Itseems like they're really
approaching this in the rightway. But as you go through this,

(27:24):
you look at how much time theyspent on what they can explain.
And then just kind of like weavein subtly, that small percentage
of cases that they can't andyeah, yeah, we're looking at it.
But they don't really focus onthat. And let's face it, that is
what this is all about. Do anyof us care about those cases?
They can explain? No, but theyspend the most time on that. I

(27:46):
think it's an important thingfor them to point out their
investigation processes areworking. Phenomenal. That's
awesome. Kudos to them. Let'sget beyond that, though. Let's
talk about that small percentageof cases now that we hear about
yet again,
we heard it from Kirkpatrick inthat hearing that already went
over. Now we're hearing it andwriting in these reports that
there is that small percentage.Now, before all the debunkers

(28:10):
out there start screaming at me.No, that doesn't mean that it's
alien. But when you couple thatwith the inner woven data,
analyses above, in this report,that they couldn't connect it to
any foreign adversary starts toget a little bit more
interesting. When you add inthat woven in, we tried to look
for essentially, US assets anddidn't find any. You couple all

(28:35):
that together, you've got apretty kind of interesting thing
here. But in this report, it'slike point zero 1%. And it's
largely lost by all this otherfluff. And they're like, yes,
we're great. We're identifyingalmost everything. And that's
what really resonates with themainstream media that doesn't
really do a good job analyzingthis, they'll sit Kirkpatrick

(28:57):
down like you did with CNN, oh,the majority of cases are
explainable. Great. Who caresthen? Right? Well, sadly, that
is how they approach this, notthe right approach. But sadly,
that's how they approach. Sothose are the little things that
you have to look at in thesetypes of reports, because they

(29:19):
hide things, and they subtly putin the most interesting aspects,
interwoven with a bunch offluff. Strategic Communications
Division. Aro successfullyexercises the process for
declassifying data in fullmotion videos of UAP events for
an open congressional hearingheld on 21 March 2023. This

(29:44):
process is a complicatedsynchronized effort that
involves various stakeholdersand information owners with
differing processes. Arrow isworking to standardize and Rutan
routinized routines routinize.This declassification process to
ensure as much transparency aspossible, not a word I use every
day. Arrow has launched a publicfacing website that shares

(30:06):
information about its missionoperations UAP analytic trends
and statistics, and declassifiedUAP data and footage. The
website will also link to arosecure mechanism for authorized
reporting of UAP. Arrow hasestablished classified
collaboration mechanisms toencourage cooperation on UAP

(30:26):
investigation and research amonggovernment agencies. Now, this
is obviously resonating with me,they're talking about
declassification as a hugeproblem when it comes to arrow
and the information that theyare collecting. Now to give you
guys a little bit of a behindthe scenes look and how I'm
approaching this and haveactually for the last couple of

(30:47):
years, is that obviously arrowas that that arm in the DOD,
that's collecting all thisinformation from not only DOD,
military branches, and so on,but also it seems like assets
outside Department of HomelandSecurity, like Customs and
Border Patrol, stuff like that.So obviously, they're going out
there and they're collecting allof this information. The way to

(31:11):
kind of nutshell, what I justread to you is this, they cannot
look at that and go Yeah, yeah,let's just declassify it and
send it out. Rather, the, let'ssay Customs and Border
Protection or DHS as a whole, orwherever that asset first came
from. That's called the OCA, theoriginal classifying authority.

(31:31):
They're the ones that actuallyhave to review it, for
declassification. So yeah, thereare some aspects of this that
get a little bit complicated.But this is also in my opinion,
kind of another one of thosethings, that arrow is trying to
make things a lot morecomplicated arrow doesn't have
to do anything, when it comes tothe declassification, they just

(31:52):
have to ultimately ask theagency to declassify the
material, put it through thereview. And I think that this is
what they're referring to, I'mguessing a little bit there. But
it's just based on what I readto you that that I think that
they're making this a little bitbigger than it should. So what
I've been doing is kind ofreversing this process. I'm

(32:14):
going to various agencies andmilitary branches, outside of
arrow, and outside of the theoffice of Secretary of Defense,
which is where you file arrowrelated request to going to
outside agencies, and requestingall UAP material, including
photos and videos, and testimonyand so on, that they sent to

(32:36):
arrow. Now, all of those casesare still underway. So I'm not
trying to tease that I've gotanything that I haven't shown
you guys, I publish things very,very quickly when they come in.
But what I'm trying to show youis arrow is making it seem like
they're doing this very longdrawn out process for

(32:56):
declassification. And it'sreally complicated. So what I'm
doing is trying to fast trackit, that as long as as for
whatever reason, they would tryand put this under a law
enforcement exemption. And thatis going to be another video
just so you guys know, that issomething I've talked a lot
about on social media in thelast couple of months, I have
refrained from doing a video onthis because I was hoping to get

(33:19):
a pentagon comment on it, theyrefuse. So heads up that I'll
definitely break this this downfor you even more. But for the
sake of this video, as long asthey don't say it's a quote
unquote law enforcementinvestigation, there's no reason
that they can't declassify it.Or if it's unclassified already,

(33:39):
there's no reason why they can'trelease it. So it's kind of that
roundabout way of filing FOIA isto go to, let's say, an agency
like DHS, or the FAA, orwhatever, and say, Okay, here's
a four year request foreverything that you guys have
transferred over to arrow in thelast year and a half or

(34:01):
whatever, however long they'vebeen around and see what
happens. And I do have movementon a lot of those cases, will it
produce results, your guess isas good as mine, I never get
excited. But I just wanted togive you guys a little bit of
that, behind the scenes of howthat works. Bottom line, I think
arrow is really beefing up thereport in areas that they

(34:24):
shouldn't, and really kind ofmaking some things a little bit
more time consuming than itshould be. Because you know,
with the FLIR gimbal and go fastvideos being unclassified from
their from their capture. And Igot that in writing, they never
had to go through adeclassification process. They
did, however, have to go througha security review, because

(34:46):
unclassified information can becontrolled. But I think with
those facts, I think thatthere's a lot of other
information out there. In those801 cases, that likely
unclassified and likely can beeasily seen monetized
declassified and released to thepublic, so I'm trying, but I'm
hoping that that might expeditethis. This process of Arrow

(35:08):
doesn't step in the way andblock that. But again, that'll
be the topic of a future videohopefully pretty quick. Back to
the report way forward, thespace and maritime domains need
to be fully integrated intoarrows processes. Airborne UAP
continue to dominate UAPreporting with 290 of the 291
reports from this reportingperiod occurring within this

(35:31):
domain, and consequently, therelationship between arrow and
air domain elements such as nemmill, the airforce including
basic and the Air Force ResearchLab, and air command elements
remains strong, and continues todeepen and expands in terms of
collection, analysis,exploitation, and resolution.

(35:51):
Collaboration with Space ForceUS Space Command NRO and NASA is
well underway. That's one thingI failed to point out to you.
But it reminded me here, theSpace Force was not included in
that 2022 report breakdown ofcollaborators, but was in this
report. So obviously, there'smovement in the space domain.

(36:12):
And if you ask me, that we'llprobably whether or not we see
it or not, who knows, producethe most interesting aspects of
what arrow does. Because nowthey're obviously tying things
to commercial aircraft and todrone technology and stuff like
that, you look at that breakdownof the chart of elevations.

(36:33):
Obviously, you know, we've gotvery much a bias in that
particular domain. But when youstart looking at the Space
Command, equipment, sensors andthe data that they collect, you
look at the Space Force and thedata and the instrumentation and
the data they collect. That'sgoing to change that a lot. In

(36:55):
my opinion, sure, you're gonnahave instrumentation that's
looking towards Earth, notnecessarily away from Earth. So
it may help in certain areas,let's say at a 35,000 foot
elevation, that's that that'sfine or altitude, that's fine.
But when you get above that, andyou start talking about
instrumentation that may not belooking at Earth, but rather

(37:16):
looking out that is, issomething pretty fascinating.
The NRO, which although isn'tnew in this time period, for
those who haven't seen it, lookup the document that was
published, I did a video on itas well, on this channel of the
sentient system, the artificialintelligence highly classified

(37:37):
NRO system that detected a tictac UAP their words, not mine, a
tic tac UAP, just a couple ofyears ago. So when you look at
all of that, you realize, okay,right now, sure, a lot is
explainable a small percentageof, of, of cases that

(37:59):
remain anomalous. But when youstart adding in the Space
Command, the Space Force, andreally start utilizing the data
collected, like, like from theNRO, or from the NGA, you have a
whole new world, you really do.And that's not based on any kind
of guesses or anything likethat. It's a whole new world,
because you look at the systemsthat those places have. And it's

(38:21):
a hell of a lot different thanthe FAA, or arguably even
someplace like NASA. So you lookat those types of, of
surveillance systems that theyhave, I think it's going to be a
whole new world, what we willlearn as the general public,
what will be the people here,your guess is as good as mine,
but encouraging nonetheless. AndI think that internally, they're

(38:44):
going to see that data skew alot. Case closure report, this
was kind of interesting.attached as a pilot example of
the result of arrows full phaseanalytic process, the files and
accompanying data in each casehave been given to arrows IC and
s&t partners for their analysis.And this resolution resolution

(39:07):
report reflects arrows totermination based on the
results. These case resolutionsand accompanying unclassified
analyses will be published onArrow's website. So that's all
great, right, encouraging, we'rebeing transparent with the
public. This is what you guyswill get the report itself case,

(39:28):
quote, Western United States,aid may 2023, is when they
solved it, and it looks like youyou see here what they do, I'm
not gonna read the whole thingbut key findings, intelligent
assessment case essentials. Theyobviously were likening this to
commercial aircraft traveling ondifferent air routes to, again,

(39:52):
just just kind of like that casebreakdown summary, explaining
what these are and we'll likelyget a ton of these as time goes
was on solving cases, fairlymuch like Project Bluebook did,
because keep in mind those wereavailable to the media. If the
media asked at the time theywere not classified, there were
some classified cases. But themajority of them were open to

(40:16):
the general public. So yetagain, when you look at what
they're doing here, they'regoing to probably bombard you
with commercial aircraft,drones, maybe even the
exhaustive and F 18. If theywant to go there, they've
already said parallax in theirreport here, IR glare, all
things that we've seen banteredabout through social media

(40:38):
ramblings. However, here, theyare officially putting it on
paper as explanations. Sothey're gonna bury you in those
but those small percentageagain, those cases that were
woven into this report andalluded to hinted at, you kind
of have to put the pieces of thepuzzle together, you likely
won't see those. What about theSpace Force? When that gets into

(40:59):
play? Are we going to seeanything that comes from that
likely not, not the way thesecrecy is going? So again, it's
it's all about perception andoptics, when it comes to stuff
like this. That's not conspiracytalk. That's history. And that's
well documented history, thatthe era of project Bluebook, it
was all about the optics. Hey,media, if you want to look at

(41:21):
our reports, come on in. Let'sshow it to you look at this
weather balloon case, look atthe swamp gas case. Look, we
have scientists that say it'sswamp gas. So it has to be swamp
gas. And that's exactly whatthey did at the time. Here we
see the roots of something verysimilar. But in the 21st
century, a website that willhave cases very much like this,

(41:45):
that essentially here casestatus resolved. The lights were
aircraft up to 300 nauticalmiles away from the sensor. It's
great that they can solve it, Iwon't even fight it. It probably
is lights from a commercialaircraft. But the problem is, is
that it's the optics andperception that they want to
give, call it psyops if you willcall it whatever you want, call

(42:05):
it PR. But that's exactly whatBluebook did. The optics and
perception then was that themajority of the cases were
easily explainable. What theydidn't tell you then was that
there was a percentage that theyreally couldn't identify, they
admitted to 701. But they likelyskewed the number down again,
verifiable, there are been bookswritten by people, much smarter

(42:30):
than me, that analyzed all thatdata looked at it and assumed
that the 701 was wildly wrong.But regardless, even if it was
right, they didn't want you toreally look at those cases that
were unidentified, some of themreally didn't have the evidence,
that's fine, gonna happen. Butthere's other ones that just did
not have an explanation. Nor dothey, to this day, we're seeing

(42:52):
the roots of the exact samething. And that's what's
worrisome. Because again, you'regonna get bombarded by this,
look at these phenomenalpictures here, that they
released on the report. If yousquint and turn your head
slightly, you can see thecommercial lights, I don't know,
whatever, that's what it is,apparently western US UAP shape
distorted, due to sensorvibration. So you're gonna see a

(43:15):
lot of this kind of stuff thatyou just kind of like fall off
your chair, and who cares, I'mnot going to waste the bandwidth
to load this and print it. Sothat's, in my opinion, the
optics and perception of what weare seeing unfold. And that is
kind of really upsetting. Itreally is frustrating. And
although a lot of people see meas more of a skeptic and

(43:35):
debunker, I guarantee you, I'mnot and it's for reasons like
this, because when you takehistory, and you take the
evidence that's available to us,you don't need the
whistleblowers to tell us thatthere's more to this story than
they want us to know. You don'tneed a rocket scientist to
figure out, hey, look, theirperception and the optics of all
of this is likely skewingreality in order to push a

(43:59):
certain agenda. And that agendais to deal with the threat. And
the public interest very muchlike Project Bluebook did. Those
are the same words that we keephearing about today? Public
interest, massive publicinterest, we see it in FOIA
documents. We see it in emails,we hear about it in the press
and the press statements. Thepublic interest is partially

(44:21):
fueling this, based on thosefrom the military from the
government pushing whatnarrative is the threat
narrative, exactly how it wasback then. So it's incredibly
fascinating to see thoseparallels. Now one thing that I
do want to point out, I didn'tmake a slide for it, but I will
link it after the show. I hadreceived maybe going back a year

(44:45):
ago or so a breakdown of arrowscases. Now what they gave me was
essentially like the spreadsheetgraph of hundreds of six digit
numbers essentially The casenumbers that coincided with
cases like this. Now case,Western United States, how many

(45:08):
western United States cases dothey have? It's such a silly way
to label these things. I don'tquite understand understand the
logic there. But why I bringthis up? Is that if you were to
ask me, and this is purespeculation, put the alarm on,
it's just speculating. But thosesix digit numbers represented

(45:30):
cases like this. Do you see asix digit number on here that
coincides with that database?They sent me through FOIA? I
don't. Hopefully, I didn't missit. But it's just two pages. So
I think I didn't, but pleasecorrect me if I'm wrong. What's
my point? Those six digitnumbers mean something

(45:52):
somewhere. And they should havereports that coincide with
western United States to a sixdigit number. Where am I going
with this? I think theunclassified, sanitized, boring
as heck reports are going to bewhat you and I are fed through
that website, which theyoutlined extensively in this
report. But I believe thatthere's going to be another

(46:16):
layer of reports of the onesthat they do not push, the ones
that do coincide with those sixdigit numbers, the ones that
maybe aren't unclassified. Andthose are the ones internally
that they're using and sharingwith their industry partners in
the intelligence community. Youknow, that I'm filing requests
for stuff like that, because theone piece of the puzzle, which

(46:38):
to me was useless, like what thehell can I do with hundreds of
six digit numbers that don'tcoincide with anything? This
comes out, and it just put alight bulb in my head, that
there's a whole nother layer tothis. Now, we can assume that
there's classified reports. Sono, that's not some huge
revelation. But I think thatthere's actually another layer

(47:00):
of published internal publishedreports that they're sharing
within the intelligencecommunity, that I don't think
they're going to name it WesternUnited States, they're going to
have probably some other moredescriptive name, but case
number 752368. And then they'regoing to coincide that number.
With the report itself. That'sgenerally how government reports

(47:22):
work. When you have thingsserial numbered, labeled,
whatever term you want to use,for their respective operations,
there's always a uniqueidentifier, to those particular
reports. You don't see it here.So I'm searching for those other
layers that I believe are there.So that useless document,

(47:44):
although had a little, it's kindof interesting, just got a heck
of a lot more interesting to me.For that. Here's the last slide.
And that is
the index of key terms orglossary of terms 2020 report
had what you see there on theright side of the screen. The
left side of the screen is thenewest report, you see a heck of

(48:06):
a lot more. Now, why this isinteresting is a lot of these
terms did not appear in thereport. So generally, when you
see things in an index, ordeath, like key definitions is
another label I've seen invarious government reports.
Essentially, you see thosedefinitions are the words that
they're defining in the index,in the actual report, and a lot

(48:30):
of these you don't have in theactual report. So where did
these terms come from? Well,what's interesting is they come
from somewhere, just not thisreport, you look at spaceborne
UAP, they already have thatdefined sources of anomalous
detections above the KarmanLine, ie 100 kilometers above
Earth mean sea level. So they'redefining all this already. Just

(48:53):
as the Space Force and SpaceCommand collaborations are
underway. Now, that's good.Again, not a huge revelation.
But the fact that they have thisalready set means they will
likely start filling out thesecategories. And these labels of
spaceborne UAP airborne UAP is agiven seaborne UAP is another
given trans medium UAP. So Idon't have to read you all the

(49:16):
definitions, those are prettyself explanatory. But again, you
start to see these flushed outfrom the 2022 report, you don't
have them. In fact range.Fowler, by remember, did not
exist in the newest report. SoI'm kind of curious those range
valor reports. Look, they'rethey're kind of cool to look at.
But I think that what we'redealing with with the range

(49:37):
valor reports are mostlyincursions by drones and stuff
like that into trainingexercises. Years ago, I got
something very similar from theNCIS of drones, going over
military training installations.They were more hobbyists than
like, you know, espionage oranything like that. But
regardless, it's you know, not agood thing to do. So A range

(50:00):
Fowler's, I think really kind oflean towards very explainable,
important but very explainableobjects, interesting to see
range, Fowler's has dropped offfrom the glossary of terms. And
it's, I don't want say replacedby but obviously spaceborne,
UAP, and so on, kind of took itsplace, so to speak, that that's

(50:21):
what they're focusing in onhere. So I would definitely read
those definitions see thedifference? Because it's
interesting. And I know some ofthese are, some of these
observations get a little bitdry and are like, what, why does
that really matter? But what'sinteresting is that when you do
juxtapose history, documentedhistory evidence from decades

(50:43):
ago and see how things areplaying out in a certain way,
you have to start to digest andrealize, okay, there may be some
parallels here that we're not onthe path to disclosure that some
people want, but rather one ofstrengthening secrecy. And
that's a that's a bad thing. Andwhy I like to point all of this
out, is to kind of spread thatawareness out there because we

(51:05):
can't lose sight of the ball, wecan't lose sight of the finish
line. Finish Line, meaning wehave to get through this era of
increased secrecy, we have tofigure out why the DoD added
numerous other layers to my FOIArequests, but obviously others
as well. But the secrecy layersare piling on top of secrecy

(51:27):
layers. And in the coming days,I will break down exactly what
all that means and the problemthat it's caused. But above all
else, what I like to point out,is that entwined in some of this
dry, boring, obviously,Government speak of trying to

(51:49):
calm the nerves of everybody andsay, Oh, I lose interest,
because there's nothing here.There are things put into there,
that once you pick up on yourealize there's something here.
And it coincides with that smallpercentage that we knew about
decades ago and reinforced itonce more evidence came out.
We're seeing that again, thesmall percentage is what keeps

(52:12):
people like me around but mespecifically, around because
there's something here that theUS military and government can't
identify. And they'll admit itif you pay attention, but they
want you to get lost in thefluff of commercial aircraft
lights. And we can explain itjust give us more data. Don't
get lost in that read betweenthe lines and sometimes you

(52:35):
don't even have to read betweenthe lines then the lines just
got to read them. I hope youenjoyed it. If you're watching
here on YouTube, please give athumbs up it is a huge help to
me to have you do that. Thebiggest help just share the
channel if you find these videosworthwhile. I know that not
everybody agrees with me. That'sokay. That's what this channel
is all about. It's about thedialogue. That's why I love the

(52:57):
live streams because the chatrooms are always flying. There's
always great calm comments fromeverybody. I love to read all
that. So please Please share thechannel if you find anything
worthwhile. Thumbs up if you'relistening on the podcast five
star reviews is what I aim for.I won't tell you what to do, but
just add a review nonethelessbecause it helps across the

(53:18):
board. Thank you so much forlistening and or watching
wherever you might be doing. So.This is John Greenewald Jr
signing off. And I'll see younext time