Ep. #125 – The UFO Whistleblower Update – And, Why the Skepticism?

So what's new with the UFO Whistleblower, David Grusch? In this update video dropped June 30, 2023, (date noted as things change fast in this UFO world!), I go over an interesting development, as broken by Matt Laslo. Then, I address the biggest root of at least my skepticism to the claims of David Grusch.

The post Ep. #125 – The UFO Whistleblower Update – And, Why the Skepticism? first appeared on The Black Vault.

Episode Transcript

John Greenewald (00:32):
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's
a little bit of a short update,but also some thoughts as we
move forward here about thestory of the UFO whistleblower,
David grush. Now I'm sure you'veheard a lot of the media
stories, it's died down a littlebit, since it first appeared a

(00:55):
couple of weeks ago. But there'ssome new developments that I
think are pretty cool. So Iwanted to make this short update
video for you bring you thatupdate. But also to kind of give
you some thoughts of where I'mat with it. If you couldn't tell
from the from the first video Idropped to today. Now, as you
can tell from that video, forthose who did watch it, I'm

(01:15):
pretty skeptical about theclaims. And it's not just
because I or anybody else who'sskeptical about the claims,
wants to be a debunker and ispushing back on any good
development that has happened.Quite the opposite. When it
comes to me, you have to keep inmind for those who haven't been
around the field. For decades,I've been around this UFO stuff
for about 27 years. And in thattime alone, I have seen numerous

(01:41):
high ranking either governmentor military officials, or
private corporation, but highlycleared when it came to
classification. Let's say fromLockheed Martin, a Boyd Bushman
comes to mind highly clearedindividuals working on top
secret stuff irrefutable thatthey are, but have these
grandiose claims of evenspeaking with aliens, or having

(02:04):
photographs of aliens. PhilipCorso is another one that has
come to mind, you know that,look, it's a book that will
forever live in infamy in thisfield. But really, our world
didn't change after he came out,he didn't really bring anything
with it. But for the price ofhis book, you can hear all about
a lot of his claims, and so onand so forth. And those are only

(02:26):
two off the top of my head. Imean, there's a lot more over
the years that have comeforward, some with more
grandiose claims than others. Soskepticism towards David grush
is not because it's David grush.And we want to, you know,
completely combat any type ofclaim that's made today. No,
it's rather based on a longhistory of people making these

(02:46):
types of claims. But saying,trust me, I have the proof, but
I can't show you. Now, Davidgrush could have every good
intention in the world, and evenbelieve what he's saying, I can
absolutely buy that. But whetheror not he is being played, or
that he caught that he was beingplayed, or he's misinterpreting

(03:06):
information, or whatever thecase may be. Again, you don't
need to automatically labelsomebody a liar. They could
absolutely believe what they aretelling you. But what they are
telling you is not necessarilythe truth. So the skepticism, I
think is well deserved, again,for dealing with the big
picture, dealing with all ofthese claims that have come
around for decades. I think it'sthe right approach to treat this

(03:30):
with the same amount ofskepticism as all the other ones
that have come forward, butsadly, fell flat on trying to
prove their grandiose claims tous. But that brings me to the
newest development which makesDavid Gratias story kind of
stick out compared to the restwhether or not it's true or not.
This is where it gets kind ofcool. And now I'm kind of

(03:51):
popping the popcorn in the backin my kitchen there waiting for
what I hope is going to happennow. First, let me public, let
me publicize and give creditwhere it is due to the
journalist who broke this story,Matt Laszlo, and or Laszlo. I'm
sorry if I pronounced thatincorrectly, Matt. But but all
credit to him for breaking thisstory just a couple of days ago

(04:16):
that Kirsten Gillibrand isorganizing a hearing with David
grush. And possibly, along withother current and former
government officials, who seemedto cooperate crushes claims. Now
that makes grush automaticallystick out from the rest, because

(04:37):
here we are with a hearingpotentially getting grush in
front of the cameras in front ofthe Senate for a open hearing
available to the public. Again,as Matt reports here. jelibean
says they'll be open to thepublic if grush agrees to allow
cameras in. Now I'm a littlesurprised that that just simply

(04:59):
be because if you're giving,let's say whistleblower
protection or immunity, per se,to this person who's making the
claims, why is it their choicethen to have cameras in the
room, I get it. Maybe they theyget uncomfortable, maybe they
don't want to blast people'snames in front of everybody,
that's fine, we can make certainstipulations. But we're talking
about not only grandiose claims,and I don't want to diminish

(05:23):
this, but but rather things thattaxpayers paid for whether by
illegal funds or not, we arestill putting the money into the
coffers, we have a right toknow. And these are our elected
representatives who are goingfor this information, and going
to put grush under oath, put himin front of the committee, and

(05:45):
essentially have him tell hisstory. I don't believe that he
should have that choice. That'snot to be offensive towards
grush at all, but rather, comeon, let's This is ridiculous. We
shouldn't allow him to make thestipulations. If he wants to
make the claim. Let's make themhe doesn't have to put
accusations on anybody. Thosecan absolutely be behind closed

(06:05):
doors. So he doesn't have toname names. But let's, you know,
either make up pseudo names orsomething. But I think the
public definitely has a right toknow. So I'm a little surprised
to that maybe that's justprotocol and procedure for for
experts that they're going tobring in. So fine, you know, it
is what it is. But mydisagreement stands on whether
or not that should actuallyhappen. But definitely check out

(06:28):
Matt's blog here and reporting Ion his website, and I'll link
that in the show notes below. Soyou have that and you can
explore more in depth, he'sactually written some more
stories since since this one,not going to go through all of
them. But again, full credit tohim. He's the one that broke the
story. He's the one thatdeserves the credit. So make

(06:49):
sure you go check out hiswebsite, and in take a look at
this exclusive story that hewrote.
But I want to switch gears alittle bit with that
development. So there's theupdate, right, I wanted to just
give you like, this is wherewe're at if if the Senate is
finally taking this seriously,and they're gonna put grush
under oath in front of theircommittee. That's great. And I

(07:10):
hope that it happens, right, I'mcrossing my fingers. I hope that
the that the Senate will hearfrom grush. I hope that he
agrees to have cameras. And Ihope we all hear a little bit
more about his story. Butswitching gears a little bit
here is the deepest part of myskepticism about Russia's

(07:30):
claims. And although I coveredit a little bit in the first
video I did on this, I want topunch the note again with a
little bit more detail because Ithink it's deserving. And I
think that this can be appliedto anybody who's essentially
bringing forward any other typesof claims that are grandiose,
and nothing happens to them,meaning they don't get taken

(07:54):
away in cuffs for spillingsecurity secrets or whatever. I
think that this is somethingthat we have to take into
consideration all the time. Andit's routed to the security
classification guide on AeonUAP. And I believe that this is
going to be a key part inunraveling this mystery on what

(08:14):
truth there is behind grush. NowI hope that I am wrong. However,
this has bothered me since dayone. So I'm going to explore it
a little deeper with you.Because I got a lot of questions
for my skepticism when it cameto this as well. What and I had
brought up the the guide brieflybut also the dotser approval for
grush being able to speak aboutall of his claims that he has

(08:39):
been with, with essentiallyclearance from the Department of
Defense and their arm calleddotser. Now, quick refresher
dotser is the arm of the DoDthat essentially reviews
information from former orpotentially even current DOD
personnel that want to speakabout something, but they are or

(09:00):
were a clearance holder andadopters job is to ensure that
nothing that they talk about noclaim that they make no program
that they talk about, knowanything encroaches into, to to
classify territory. But the keyis, is that all they're looking
for they do not endorse theinformation and they do not fact

(09:23):
check the information. Theyensure that no classified
information is within somebody'smanuscript or book, television,
screenplay letter, speech,PowerPoint, presentation,
whatever. That's what they are,they're there for and they are
cleared at the top secret leveland their protocols and
procedures allow them to look atwhat is being put in front of

(09:46):
them, review it and then makethat determination. Once they
make that determination. Theywill put on their a stamped for
open publication. And that's it.Now part of brushes story was
that, as we are told, he didthis. He took his information.
He took his claims he put themall on paper on what he was

(10:08):
going to say to apparentlyLeslie Kane, Ralph Blumenthal.
And later news nation, put themto dotser and said, Okay, I want
to talk about this. And he gotthe open clearance to do it. Now
in Leslie Kane and RalphBlumenthal's article that was
published in the debrief. Thatwas a point that was punched.

(10:29):
Why? Because it's interesting,because he got the clearance.
But when you dig a little bitdeeper, the question should be,
why did he get the clearance? Ifso, if this stuff is completely,
highly classified at the mosttop secret level, entrenched
into Special Access Programs,and so on, and so forth, it
should have never passed dotser.And the biggest pushback on that

(10:53):
was two things. The first beingdoctors not cleared, they're not
high enough to be cleared. Sothey're not in the know. So to
them, it's all bunk. But inreality, they're just not read
into the program. Now, I'msorry, that does not hold any
weight whatsoever to me, becauseagain, their entire job is to

(11:14):
ensure that no classifiedinformation spills out into the
open. But that does notautomatically mean that they
have to be read in to everysingle Special Access Program or
anything like that, in order todetermine that because when
somebody puts information beforethem, I've never worked for
adopter never worked for the DoDdespite those conspiracies about

(11:35):
me. However, I know enough toknow that they're probably going
to do their due diligence to atleast put some feelers out, take
that information. And eventhough they're not clear to
again, have carte blanche accessto every special access program,
and government secret that thathas existed, from the beginning
of the government itself, eventhough that might not be the

(11:55):
case, their policies andprocedures are going to have
them take that information andextend to other arms of the DOD
to ensure that that informationthat may be more better served
asking department a ordepartment B, hey, is this
classified material, they willdo that. And in order for
department a or department B tolook at it, they will DOPS or

(12:19):
sends it over. And they don'tneed to read anybody in all they
have to say is no, we are notclearing this, that goes back to
dots or dots or sees that itgoes okay. It's not cleared. And
grush doesn't get his clearedfor open publication stamp. Now,
I'm not showing the protocolshere. But again, they have these

(12:39):
set procedures outlined becausethey have a specific mission and
has had that specific missionfor quite some time. So the
whole well, they're just notcleared enough. Doesn't make any
sense whatsoever. Because howmany times have they seen and I
don't have an answer to this.But how many times have they
seen information that they maynot have been, quote unquote,

(13:01):
read in on but ultimately gotdenied? Okay, so that
information would be invaluableat this point. And we probably
will never know the answerbecause it's not cleared for
open publication. So we probablywon't hear about that. But my
entire point is, is you can'targue the doctor isn't cleared
enough. So they just go aheadand stamp it for approval

(13:23):
anyway, because we'd probablysince dotser has come around and
these review processes have beendeveloped, we likely should have
seen maybe an accident or anoopsie by now. And I am not
aware of a single one. So Ithink based on that track
record, and please, if anybodyknows one, meaning one of those

(13:45):
oopsies let me know. But giventhat reality that we haven't
seen that yet, my guess is thepolicies and procedures are
fairly strong, and they couldn'treally verify anything was
classified. Okay, so thatargument just doesn't stand with
me. The other argument that isoften touted about grush is that

(14:09):
he can speak about this stuff,even though it's highly
secretive, and highlyclassified. Because he's giving
broad stroke details. He's notgiving you a program name, or a
blueprint to the alien saucer,or the biological makeup of an
alien dead pilot as he describedthem, or whatever. So he's, he's

(14:31):
absent those classified details,but he can broad stroke talk
about it with no problem becausethat's not classified. That to
me is also a horrible argument.And to me that is easily also
dismissed. Now, that's where Inow bring up the security

(14:53):
classification guide. When youtalk about highly classified
programs, And you talk aboutthese highly classified
programs. Without specificdetail, they're still
classified. I have long used thestealth fighter example just to
kind of make it easy. Back inthe day when the stealth fighter
was never known to the generalpublic and the f1, seven team

(15:16):
was in development and evenflying for however many years
that it was, you could not givebroad stroke details about an
aircraft flying in the sky. Thatwas essentially describing the
f1 17. And that's okay, youcouldn't do that. Right.
I mean, there was leaks all thetime to Aviation Week magazine

(15:39):
was notorious for getting theseleaks about what was in
development. However, you stillcouldn't talk about that, even
again, in broad strokes. Andit's because the details about a
classified program or classifiedpiece of technology, the facts
surrounding whatever we aretalking about, are classified in

(16:02):
themselves. Meaning it'sinherently classified, meaning
you can't go around describingstealth technology before it was
acknowledged. And just becauseyou didn't give the program name
it was involved in or theblueprint and chemical
composition of how it was made.That doesn't mean you can still
talk about it. And to prove thatit's very easy, we can use the

(16:24):
security classification guidefor UAP. Now, if you don't know
what this is, the securityclassification guide is
something that I had receivedback in, let me pull up the PDF
here. So we have it back inDecember of 2021. And this was a
big get for me, because this wasthe first time I'd ever been

(16:45):
released to the public. But italso proved what we kind of knew
already. But now it wasdefinitive that there was a
guide on how to classify UAP,what was classified what wasn't
and what level of classificationand UAP isn't the only thing
with a classification guide.There are many things with
classification guides. Itdefines the secrecy about

(17:08):
programs and or topics, in thiscase, UAP. Now, when you scroll
down, this is what I hadreceived. And I have a whole
video on this. So please, ifyou're if you're curious about
this, make sure that you checkout that video because I go into
much greater detail. But you cansee that it was prepared in
April of 2020. It was approvedby Scott Bray Yes, he's the one

(17:30):
that was at that first UAPhearing in front of Congress, he
was there with Ronald Moultrie.He approved it in April of 2020.
So this thing has been aroundfor a while. And again, just a
nutshell, it This defines thesecrecy behind UAP. Now you'll
see I'm not going to read it toyou because again, that video
goes into much more detail. Butthis is what I want to focus in

(17:52):
on. These are essentially thedefinitions of what and what
isn't classified. And you'll seehere that they're not blueprints
are not photographs are notanything but the facts
surrounding UAP. For example,the term UAP Well, we all know
it, it's not a classified term.So that is spelled out that the
classification is you orunclassified. One be the fact

(18:16):
that Navy pilots and otherDepartment of Navy personnel
have witnessed and that certaindo enter Department of Navy
technical systems have detectedat unspecified times and places
UAPs. That fact consideredunclassified. Another one, the
fact that the frequency of UAPsightings has increased in
recent years without any furtherinformation regarding when where

(18:39):
or how often sightings have beenreported that fact,
unclassified, I'll read onemore, the fact that Navy has an
ongoing effort to gain knowledgeand insight into the nature and
origins of UAPs, as well astheir operations, capabilities,
performance and or signatures.That fact, is unclassified. You
can see here that there's acouple more. The last one talks

(19:02):
about the task force mission,the fact that the task force
mission is to detect, analyze,catalogue, consolidate and
exploit non traditionalaerospace vehicles slash UAP.
posing an operational threat toUS national security and avoid
strategic surprise. That fact isunclassified. So again, you're

(19:24):
not seeing blueprints,photographs, videos, or anything
of great detail other than thefacts surrounding what is and
you can tell by here, a highlyclassified issue within the
United States military. When youget past those few facts on the
first page that are allunclassified, you get to all of

(19:46):
this. Now, we don't know what isunder all of this. We have a
header here, intelligencecollection, exploitation,
analysis, and productsunderneath that, all redacted.
You can See, they're allnational security reasons on why
it's redacted. Look, it evenkeeps going. Now, what does this

(20:07):
tell us? Even though we can'tread what's under the black?
What does this tell us? Well,let me take it back to grush. If
anything that grush is claiming,like dead alien pilots, like,
captured non human craft, all ofthat is connected to UAP. Me he
used the term. That's that'sjust what the whole topic is all

(20:29):
about. So those facts, therealization that again, dead
pilots, alien craft, that wehave all of this stuff,
wreckage, debris, all that kindof stuff. If that is true, it's
under this, it's under all thisblack, right? I don't think we
can all agree to that. That ifwhat grush is saying, let's

(20:50):
let's get beyond the debate, ifwhat are you saying it would be
under here, because the entirepoint of this guide in the
classified world is to defineclassification for UAP. So if
grush is telling the truth, thatstuff would have to be here.
That's just how this works. Andyet, all of it is redacted.

(21:15):
Ergo, it would be classifiedtranslation. dotser would never
let this fly. And since it wasdealing with UAP, we could
probably deduce, the doctor wentto a couple of different places,
since Grusha, claimed he wasfrom the UAP task force, then
the Navy would likely be a placethat they would extend out to

(21:37):
and say, Hey, we've got somebodywho wants to talk about XYZ, and
the Navy would come back again,doesn't have to read Doppler
into anything. Obviously, armsof the DoD would be places that
they would extend out to andsay, Hey, we've got a guy who
wants to talk about this, canyou talk about this. And
obviously, he got the stamp ofapproval. Yet, all of this all
the other details other than theselect few that I read to you.

(22:00):
And there's like one or two morethat I skipped, but they're
pretty non exciting. We've knownit for years. All unclassified,
everything else is classified.And I'm running into that
problem when dealing with UAPrelated requests that if I'm not
dealing with those few things,like pilots seeing something and
those very basic facts,everything is coming back

(22:21):
classified, yet grush was ableto talk about this, this is a
huge problem for me, because youcan't say look at this a proven
factual, irrefutable document,you can't look at this and
understand the true deepclassification nature behind
UAP. And then turn around andlook at Grusha go ha, I bet he's

(22:42):
totally fine to talk about allthis, those things do not go
hand in hand. Now I can smellthe third excuse that people are
gonna throw at me. When theyhear that I am saying, hey,
look, this classification guydefines all secrecy that
everybody is left in the dark.Anybody who played a role into
this, which we do know as UAPtaskforce members, I do believe

(23:03):
I know who wrote this. I don'tthink that that is public, yet.
I can't prove it yet. I am, too.I am 99.9% Sure I know who wrote
it. But I'm not gonna I'm nottrying to play secrets here. I
can't prove it. So I'm not goingto make the claim yet. But I
believe that I am close to doingso. However, there was another
UAP taskforce member who claimsto have helped write this. That

(23:26):
was Travis Taylor. So he hasopenly said that I don't have
any documentation to back thatup. I also don't have any reason
to dis, believe him. So fine. SoDr. Travis Taylor played a role
in making this. But we alsodon't know who else outside of
the task force may have been incharge of or overlooking this.
So that third excuse that Icould just see the writing's on

(23:49):
the wall that people are gonnathrow at me, well, all of them
are just in the dark, the UAPtask force was not read in as
grush claimed. So Travis Taylorwouldn't know about all of that
he wouldn't put that informationin the security guide, and so
on. But I don't have any type ofexample, in the history of
security classification guides,or anything like this, that I've

(24:11):
found yet anybody who has onesend it on, where there are
multiple security classificationguides, that security
classification guide is used atthis level. But then there's
another security classificationguide used at the top level that
deals with dead alien pilots andalien craft that we have in our

(24:32):
possession. I'm sorry, I don't Idon't know of any nor do I think
that that is even that makessense. So these types of excuses
to fall back on to kind of helpcrutch Gratias claims along,
they actually don't help in thelong run at all, because it's
going against a documentedhistorical fact about how all

(24:55):
these things work. And if peoplewant to fall back on that and
say that is the first time inhistory that any of that has
ever happened. But I canabsolutely see it happening.
Great, but you're gonna have totry and prove it somehow. And
that's the biggest problem thatI have with crushes claims.
Again, it's not that he's makingit all up, and he's some big fat

(25:15):
liar. No, he
could absolutely believe whathe's telling you that he could
have absolutely heard fromwhomever he heard it from the
claims that he's stating. Butlook at all the evidence on what
kind of throws a monkey wrenchinto the wheel of this being

(25:36):
true. And I think that there's alot going against it, which
again, is the root of myskepticism. But as we inch
closer, I hope anyway, to jellobrands effort to get grush in
front of the Senate and in frontof committees under oath. I
can't wait. Because I want tohear what he has to say. And I

(26:00):
understand he may not be able toname names in that setting.
That's not what I'm interestedin. But if they give him that
ability to go under oath, and toessentially speak freely, and to
have that immunity, and thewhistleblower language is solid,
and there's claims that grushplayed a role in helping write

(26:21):
that language. Okay, I mean, ifthat's true, again, little wonky
there that grush would be in theoffice, you know, helping but
fine. Okay, I mean, I'm notgonna I'm not gonna chastise it.
So if that's the case, and hewrote it, then then the language
here that's either coming or isalready on the books should be

(26:42):
okay. For him to feel okay tospeak. So I hope he doesn't have
a problem with cameras. I hopethat he goes in front of
everybody. And that I hope thathe tells everybody the reality
of what's going on. But in theend, this is what what kind of
worries me about the deepeningof secrecy behind this, coupled

(27:02):
with the claim that dotser justsigned off on it. No problem.
Yeah, David, you want to talkabout this? Not a problem,
you're cleared for openpublication, whatever. That
doesn't seem right to me. But Iwant to close this video with
one extra thought that nobody'sreally talking about. And I hope

(27:23):
that it becomes an outdatedfact, in, that's in my video
now. But I hope it quicklybecomes outdated because I want
this to change. What David grushhad submitted to dotser is being
hidden from you. And I. Why isthat? And I want to know, I
think that there's somethingthere, I think that there are

(27:44):
going to be more questions to beasked. Now we do know about page
one that has been released. Justbecause they showed it on screen
to new at news nation. So on oneof the pieces, they did kind of
a what I call it a graphicspread. And so they took the
documents and they you know,spread on like a fan and made a

(28:06):
graphic out of it. The only oneyou could see was page one. Now
that has been released that isout there. I know Mick West
actually contacted the networkand got a clear graphic of it.
But that was it. They would notrelease any other page that they
got because it was not shown onscreen. And it's not up to them
to release it. That's the bestof how I understand that played

(28:28):
out. And that's totallyunderstandable. I get it. So now
back to David grush. Whywouldn't he released this?
Obviously, the journalists sawit, I would hope anyway. But
they saw what he submitted todoctor and was cleared. I got
that impression from thereporting of Lesley Kane and
Ralph Blumenthal. So if theycould see it, and news nation,

(28:49):
graphic artists could see it,the general public should see
it. And I think it's importantto see exactly what David grush
submitted to dotser. Because ifit has all of what he has
claimed in there, again, thatdoesn't completely endorse it
from the DOD. But at least wenow have confirmation that what
was told to us was true.However, they're hiding it from

(29:12):
us. And that's what I don'tunderstand. And I've asked, I've
reached out I've tagged him I'veyou know, I've said this a quite
a few times publicly already andother people are asking to Can't
you show the entire thing thatDavid grush is cleared to talk
about, there's no reason not toshow it. He's cleared. So what's

(29:35):
the issue? And I think that thebottom line will be there will
be more questions generated oncewe see it than answers deduced
from that document, and I don'tget it. I I really don't. I have
a couple of ideas. But I don't Idon't I don't really get it and
I do hope that they release it.So those are some final

(29:56):
thoughts. Who knows when thenext update video on this UFO
whistleblower. Our story will bein normal congressional style.
I'm sure that hearing will belike seven years from now. But I
hope not. I hope it is somethingthat they fast track. Of course,
I was being facetious there.Hopefully it will be something
somewhat relatively in the nearfuture, because I think we all

(30:17):
deserve the right. We all havethe right to know and we deserve
the truth about what the storyis. I think we've heard enough
if there's congressionalinterest interest in the Senate
from senators and specifically,let's hear it, I'd love to hear
it. I'd love to see it. I wantto see it happen, but I'm not
holding my breath. But we'llsee. At the very least, let's

(30:40):
see that doctor paperwork. Ifyou guys agree with me,
definitely. Right. RalphBlumenthal, Leslie Kane, and
Ross Coltart Be nice, berespectful. But let them know
that you want to see that doctorpaperwork to let's just put it
all on the table. Are there moretidbits of information that was
not released to us? Were theredetails that are being bantered

(31:02):
about in the media right nowthat we're not in the Doppler
play? I mean, again, there's alot of different questions that
we can ask there. So why don'twe just see it? And none of
these stories are ever black andwhite are easy? I never
understand that. But thequestion Stan, so again, I
stress please be respectful toall of them. If you do decide to
reach out but let them know,hey, let's see the doctor

(31:22):
paperwork. Let's get Davidgrush. To publish it, we all
have a right to know. At least Ithink we do. If you like these
videos, please give a thumbs up.That's always a big help to me.
If you're listening on thepodcast version, just know there
are always audio live or excuseme video live streams as well
just go to www dot theblackbaud.com/live make sure
you're subscribed to thatYouTube channel. And on the

(31:44):
reverse. If you didn't know thatI dropped a lot of these to the
audio podcast version, under theblack vault radio on most of
your podcast streaming platformslike iTunes and Spotify and you
name it, it's on there. Justsearch for the black vault
radio, I take the videos, dropthem to audio sometimes they're
not as fun because you can't seeit but so many of you prefer

(32:06):
that even minus the visuals. Sothere you have it, both
resources are available to you.But again, please please leave
reviews if you can, no matterwhat platform that you are
looking at watching listening toor whatever. Thanks again for
that. This is John Greenewald Jrsigning off. And until next
time, we'll see you then