John Greenewald, Jr. : WSJ の UFO 記事を強く批判

June 30, 2025 · 123 min read

前置き

John Greenewald, Jr. が WSJ の UFO 記事（有料）を強く批判している。

音声対話

https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/bb6a8c31-8819-4c43-b799-8f58ff64266d/audio

情報源 : Youtube 動画(1:26:30)

The Wall Street Journal Covers UAP - My Take

ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナルUFO記事の検証

このソースは、ジョン・グリーンウォルド・ジュニア氏によるYouTubeポッドキャストの文字起こしで、ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナル紙のUAP（未確認航空現象）に関する記事を検証しています。

彼は、ジャーナリズムにおける情報の省略と、それがどのように誤解を招くかについて論じています。グリーンウォルド氏は、自身の広範な情報提供が記事に反映されなかったことに対する不満を表明し、ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナル紙が特定の政府のディスインフォメーションの物語に焦点を当て、UAPに関する分類された文書の豊富な歴史を無視したと主張しています。

彼は、根拠のない主張を盲目的に信じることに対する批判を展開し、完全な証拠に基づく分析の必要性を強調しています。

ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナルUFO記事の検証：

主要テーマと重要な事実の要約

ジョン・グリーンウォルド・ジュニアによるこのYouTubeポッドキャストは、ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナル（WSJ）のUAP（未確認航空現象）に関する2部構成の記事を検証し、その主要なテーマ、主張、そしてグリーンウォルド氏がWSJに提供した情報がなぜ記事に採用されなかったのかについて深く掘り下げています。グリーンウォルド氏は、WSJの記事がUAP現象に関する誤報と情報の限定的な側面を強調しすぎていると批判しています。

WSJ記事の主題とグリーンウォルド氏の主な批判点

WSJの記事は、UAP現象の多くが政府の極秘技術の隠蔽や、意図的な誤情報・偽情報キャンペーンの結果であるという見解を提示しています。特に、エリア51周辺でのUFO神話の拡散が、政府によるトップシークレット技術の隠蔽目的で行われたという「空軍大佐がバーでUFO写真を仕掛けた」という噂を取り上げています。

グリーンウォルド氏の主要な批判は以下の通りです。

証拠の欠如と限定的な視点: WSJの記事は「誤情報と偽情報、この話題には何も関係ない」という印象を与えていますが、その主張を裏付ける具体的な情報源や証拠に欠けています。記事は特定の個人からの証言に依存しており、「信頼できる兄弟」の物語と同じレベルで、証拠がないとグリーンウォルド氏は指摘します。
重要な情報の省略: グリーンウォルド氏は、自身がWSJに提供した数時間にもわたるインタビューと膨大な文書（FOIAを通じて入手した数千ページの政府文書を含む）が、記事に一切使用されなかったことを強く批判しています。これらの文書は、UFO/UAPが依然として高度に機密化されており、長年にわたって世界中で遭遇が記録されていることを示しています。もしこれが単に政府のトップシークレット技術であれば、多くの情報が半世紀以上も機密化されたまま存在し続けることは考えにくいと主張しています。
軍事技術との区別: B-2ステルス爆撃機やF-117ステルス戦闘機のようなかつて極秘だった軍事技術でさえ、数十年後には一般に公開され、航空ショーなどで見られるようになっているにもかかわらず、UAP関連文書が今なお高度に機密化されていることは、それが既知の軍事技術ではない可能性を示唆していると述べています。

WSJ記事が取り上げた具体的なテーマとグリーンウォルド氏の反論 WSJ記事が焦点を当てたいくつかの具体的なテーマに対し、グリーンウォルド氏は反論を提示しています。

「ヤンキー・ブルー」ハラスメントの儀式: WSJは、ペンタゴンが2023年に「ヤンキー・ブルー」と呼ばれるハラスメントの儀式を発見し、これにより人々がエイリアン技術に関わる極秘プログラムに参加していると誤解させられたと報じました。しかし、グリーンウォルド氏がAFOSI（空軍特別捜査局）に提出したFOIA請求では、2021年以降に「ヤンキー・ブルー」に関連する調査の記録は一切見つかりませんでした。
ロバート・サラス氏の証言とEMPテスト: WSJは、ロバート・サラス氏が主張する1967年のミサイルシャットダウン事件について、EMP（電磁パルス）テストが原因である可能性を示唆する文書のスクリーンショットを掲載しました。しかし、WSJは関連する文書全体を公開せず、グリーンウォルド氏は、この文書がサラス氏の体験全体を否定するものではないと指摘しました。また、サラス氏の事例以外にも、核施設や軍事基地へのUFOの侵入が多数報告されており、これらもWSJの記事では無視されていると批判しています。
ルイ・エリゾンド氏と「To the Stars Academy」: WSJの記事のパート2は、ルイ・エリゾンド氏と「To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science」に焦点を当てていましたが、グリーンウォルド氏はこれを「昔のニュースの焼き直し」と評しました。

省略された重要な情報源と文書

グリーンウォルド氏は、WSJに提供したにもかかわらず記事で省略された重要な情報源や文書をいくつか挙げています。

CIAのUFO関連文書: 政府がUFO調査を終了したと主張した後も、CIAがUFO/UAP問題を監視し続けていたことを示す文書。
UAPタスクフォースによるNASAへのブリーフィング資料: UAPがいかに高度に機密化されているかを示すもので、一部が黒塗りされており、全てのUAPの選択肢すら開示されていない。
UAP関連の写真・動画の機密扱い: ロシアのジェット機による無人機への燃料噴射の映像が速やかに公開される一方で、UAP関連の全ての画像は100%機密扱いされている現状。政府は「能力」の開示を理由にしていますが、グリーンウォルド氏はこれを「馬鹿げている」と一蹴しています。
UAPセキュリティ分類ガイド: UAP情報の機密性を定義する文書で、これがUAPが単なる既知の軍事技術ではないことを示唆していると主張。
国家安全保障局（NSA）および国防情報局（DIA）のUFO関連ファイルの紛失: これらの機関が多数のUFO関連ファイルを「謎の紛失」としており、これは情報隠蔽の可能性を示唆しています。
OSAPプログラムに関する誤解: DIAのOSAP（高度航空宇宙脅威識別プログラム）の真のミッションと、それが「スキンウォーカー牧場でのダイナビーバー狩り」のような逸話と混同されていることへの批判。グリーンウォルド氏は、これによりUAP研究全体の信頼性が損なわれていると懸念しています。

メディアと一般への提言

グリーンウォルド氏は、WSJのような大手メディアの「マストヘッド」が、記事の真実性や完全性を保証するものではないと強調しています。彼は読者に対し、記事を鵜呑みにせず、自身で情報を検証し、複数の情報源を検討するよう促しています。また、懐疑論者も建設的な対話に参加すべきであると認めつつ、WSJの記事を盲目的に拡散する態度は「思考の浅はかさ」を示していると批判しています。

その他の言及

ティム・バーチェット上院議員の主張: バーチェット議員が「エイリアンが水中に基地を持っている」と発言したことについて、グリーンウォルド氏は彼を「誠実な人物」と評価しつつも、信頼できない情報源に惑わされている可能性を示唆しています。
ジェイク・バーバー氏の主張と新しいUFO組織: バーバー氏のUAP映像（卵型）が「妙に感じる」と述べ、また、彼の経験から新たなUFO研究組織が設立される傾向に疑問を呈しています。彼は「これ以上UFO調査組織は必要ない、必要なのは証拠だ」と述べています。
UAP召喚の主張: UAPを「召喚」できると主張する人々に対し、もし本当に人類を変える情報を持っているなら、それを共有すべきであり、個人的な利益のために料金を請求すべきではないと批判しています。

全体として、グリーンウォルド氏のブリーフィングは、UAP現象の報道におけるジャーナリズムの責任、情報の透明性、そして既存の政府文書が示す複雑な現実を無視することへの強い懸念を表明しています。彼は、WSJの記事がUAPに関する広範な証拠の全体像を捉え損ねており、誤解を招くような、限定的な物語を提示していると主張しています。

ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナルUFO記事の検証 - タイムライン

1950年代:

政府によるUFOの誤報・偽情報流布の噂が始まる。
CIAがUFO目撃をU-2偵察機の飛行と関連付けようとするが、U-2は1950年代半ばまで飛行しておらず、主要な目撃事件とは結びつかない。

1960年代:

Malmstrom空軍基地などで、核施設へのUFO（未確認ヘリコプターと後に呼ばれることもあった）の侵入が複数報告される。

1967年:

Robert Salasが、UFO目撃と関連してミサイル発射施設がシャットダウンされた経験を語る（後に内容に一部変更が見られる）。

1969年:

政府のUFO調査プロジェクト「Project Blue Book」が終了する。

1970年代以降:

国防情報局（DIA）や国家安全保障局（NSA）など、様々な政府機関がUFO/UAPに関する高度に機密化された情報を収集し続ける。これらの記録は2000年代まで続く。
Project Blue Book終了後も、CIAがUFO/UAP問題に引き続き関心を持ち、追跡していたことが内部文書で示唆される。

1980年代:

Wall Street Journalの記事で、空軍大佐がエリア51近くのバーでUFO写真を仕込み、UFO神話を広めたという噂が取り上げられる。

約30年前（John Greenewald, Jr.の活動開始）:

John Greenewald, Jr.がUFO/UAPの調査を開始する。

数年前（John Greenewald, Jr.の調査）:

John Greenewald, Jr.が、今日の機密保持の根源となる「セキュリティ分類ガイド（Security Classification Guide）」を初めて公開する。

2000年代初頭から中頃:

ドットコムブームの中で、多くのUFO関連ウェブサイトや組織が立ち上がり、新しい証拠を謳うが、多くは短命に終わる。

2021年:

John Greenewald, Jr.がAFOSI（空軍特殊捜査局）に対し、Wall Street Journalの記事で報じられた「Yankee Blue」ハラスメント儀式に関する調査記録を要求するFOIA申請を提出（2021年以降の期間を対象）。

2023年:

Wall Street Journalの記事で、AAROが「Yankee Blue」と呼ばれるハラスメント儀式を発見し、ペンタゴンがこれに関するメモを発行したと報じられる。
国家情報長官（DNI）のAvril Hainesがこの件についてブリーフィングを受け、「啓示に愕然とした」と報じられる。
John Greenewald, Jr.がAFOSIからのFOIA応答で、「Yankee Blue」に関する記録が一切見つからなかったことを知る。

今年（配信時）1月:

John Greenewald, Jr.がWall Street Journalの記者からUAPの開示に関する最近の動きについての記事でインタビューを受ける。

数ヶ月間（今年1月以降）:

John Greenewald, Jr.はWall Street Journalの記者と数時間にわたる複数回の会話を行い、FOIAで得た大量の政府文書を提供する。

配信時:

Wall Street JournalがUAPに関する2部構成の記事を公開。Greenewaldは自身の提供した情報が記事にほとんど含まれていなかったことに不満を表明。
ペンタゴンの2024年報告書（AARO Volume 1）が政府のUFO神話拡散への役割を省略したとWall Street Journalが報じる。AARO Volume 2は公開が大幅に遅れている。
John Greenewald, Jr.がライブ配信を行い、Wall Street Journalの記事を検証し、批判する。彼は特に、記事が誤報・偽情報と機密技術を強調し、広範な歴史的証拠や政府の機密文書を無視している点を指摘。

登場人物

John Greenewald, Jr. (ジョン・グリーネワルド・ジュニア):

UFO/UAP調査の分野で30年近く活動している研究者。
「The Black Vault」というウェブサイトを運営し、情報公開法（FOIA）を通じて政府文書を入手・公開している。
Wall Street JournalのUAP記事の取材を数時間にわたり受けたが、自身の提供した情報がほとんど使用されなかったことに不満を抱いている。
Wall Street Journalの記事の偏りや証拠の欠如を厳しく批判している。
著作活動も行っている。

Robert Salas (ロバート・サラス):

1967年にミサイル発射施設でUFO目撃に関連したミサイルシャットダウンを経験したと主張する人物。
彼の証言は長年にわたり物議を醸しており、内容に一部変更が見られると指摘されている。
Wall Street Journalの記事では、彼の証言がEMP（電磁パルス）試験と関連付けられ、その信憑性が疑問視された。

Ryan Graves (ライアン・グレイブス):

Wall Street JournalのUAP記事の取材を受けた人物の一人として言及されているが、具体的な内容は触れられていない。

Christopher Mellon (クリストファー・メロン):

Wall Street JournalのUAP記事の取材を受けた人物の一人として言及されているが、具体的な内容は触れられていない。

Luis Elizondo (ルイス・エリゾンド):

ペンタゴンのUFO/UAP関連プログラム（AATIP）に関与していたとされている人物。
Wall Street JournalのPart 2記事で取り上げられた。
「To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science (TTSA)」のCRADA（共同研究開発協定）や、U.S. Armyへの「芸術品（art parts）」提供、彼のオフィスにあったとされる金庫の話題に言及されている。
Greenewaldは彼の主張に対しては「留保」があるが、Wall Street Journalの記事が彼を完全に反証しているとは考えていない。
NPSMS（Naval Programs for Security Management Solutions）の元ディレクターとして、その機密性についてGreenewaldはFOIAを通じて調査している。

David Grusch (デビッド・グラシュ):

最近のUAPに関する「過激な主張」を行ったとされる人物。
Wall Street Journalの記事は、彼のように「証拠も文書も提出しない」人々を批判しているが、記事自体も証拠に乏しいとGreenewaldは指摘している。

Avril Haines (アヴリル・ヘインズ):

国家情報長官（DNI）。
Wall Street Journalの記事で、軍隊における「Yankee Blue」ハラスメント儀式に関するブリーフィングを受け、「啓示に愕然とした」と報じられた。

Tim Burchett (ティム・バーチェット):

アメリカの政治家（上院議員）。
「エイリアンが水中に基地を持っている」という主張についてGreenewaldが言及。Greenewaldは彼を「誠実な人物」と評価しつつも、誤った情報に導かれている可能性を示唆している。

Jake Barber (ジェイク・バーバー):

UFO/UAPに関する自身の経験を持つと主張する人物。
Greenewaldは彼に関連する「卵」のビデオを「奇妙」だとし、新たなUFO組織の設立に懐疑的である。

Chris Bledsoe (クリス・ブレッドソー):

UFOを「召喚」できると主張する人物。
Greenewaldは彼を以前は誠実だと考えていたが、彼の活動が「カルト的」になり、SpaceXの打ち上げをUFOと誤認し、亡くなった娘をそれに結びつけるなど、信憑性を失ったと批判している。

Timothy Phillips (ティモシー・フィリップス):

Greenewaldの聴衆からの質問で、ArrowとFBIの関係について言及される人物。
Greenewaldは、Wall Street Journalの記事でKilpatrickと共に、証拠なく「信頼できる」証言を提供する「私人」として彼が語られたことに不満を表明している。

Kirkpatrick (カークパトリック):

Wall Street Journalの記事でPhillipsと共に、証拠なく「信頼できる」証言を提供する「私人」として彼が語られたことにGreenewaldが不満を表明している。

Jay Stratton (ジェイ・ストラットン):

GreenewaldがWall Street Journalに送った資料に関連して名前が挙がった人物。

Travis Taylor (トラヴィス・テイラー):

GreenewaldがWall Street Journalに送った資料に関連して名前が挙がった人物。

主張と反論のより大きな文脈において、これらのソースがロバート・サラスの証言に対する反論について何を言おうとしているのかを議論してください。

主張と反論のより大きな文脈において、ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナル（WSJ）紙がロバート・サラスの証言に対して行った反論と、それに対するジョン・グリーンウォルド・ジュニア氏の批判が、情報源で議論されています。

ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナル紙の反論:

WSJ記事は、ロバート・サラスが1967年に経験したICBMミサイル停止とUFO目撃事件について取り上げました。WSJは、この事件に対する説明として、ミサイルサイロを停止させる可能性のある電磁パルス（EMP）試験に関する文書を持ち出しました。彼らは記事内でこの技術と文書のスクリーンショットを示しました。

ジョン・グリーンウォルド・ジュニア氏の反論と批判:

時間的な矛盾の指摘:

グリーンウォルド氏によると、WSJが引用したEMP試験の文書は、サラスの事件から数年後に作成されたものであり、その技術自体も1967年の事件より数年後にようやく試験されたものでした。彼は、「当時存在しなかった技術が、この事件の責任を負うとはどういうことか」と疑問を呈し、WSJがこの資料を提供した人物に質問し、裏付けとなる情報（試験の証拠、試験責任者からの証言など）を求めるべきだったと主張しています。

根拠と証拠の欠如:

WSJがこの文書を引用しながら、それが未公開であったことに対し、グリーンウォルド氏は「未分類の文書であればなぜ公開しないのか」と疑問を投げかけました。彼は、WSJがこの情報を「投げつけ、それが定着することを望んだ」だけで、サラスが誤解しており、何もなかったという印象を与えようとしたと批判しています。

より広範な文脈の無視:

グリーンウォルド氏は、サラスの話の真偽はともかく、WSJがその他の文書化されたUFO遭遇事例を完全に無視していると強調しています。彼は、マルムストローム基地だけでなく、核貯蔵施設や軍用飛行場など、高度なセキュリティが施された多くの施設で未確認の航空機が侵入した、検証可能で文書化された歴史があることを指摘しました。

これらの情報はグリーンウォルド氏がWSJに提供したにもかかわらず、記事から省略されました。彼は、これらの事件を「ヘリコプター」だと説明するならば、なぜ軍の装備や能力をもってしても、それらの機体が特定されたり捕獲されたりしなかったのか、と問いかけています。

偏向報道の意図:

グリーンウォルド氏は、WSJがサラスのEMP試験の話を「ガセ」であり「検証済みのガセ」であると知りながらも、それを記事に掲載し、一般の人々に信じ込ませようとしたと考えています。彼は、WSJの記事が、UAP（未確認航空現象）の話題を「誤報、偽情報に根ざしている」「全く根拠がない」という印象を与えるように意図的に構成されていると見ています。

要するに、グリーンウォルド氏は、WSJがサラスの証言に対する反論として提示した情報が、時間的に矛盾しており、裏付けとなる証拠が欠けていると指摘しています。さらに彼は、WSJがUAPに関するより広範で文書化された歴史を意図的に省略し、読者に偏った、不完全な全体像を与えていると批判しており、これは同氏が指摘するWSJ記事全体の「ばかばかしさ」の具体例であるとしています。

提供された情報源のより大きな文脈において、ジョン・グリーンウォルド・ジュニア氏は、「問題点」として、UAP（未確認航空現象）に関する報道や議論において見られる矛盾と偽善について、自身の経験と分析に基づいて以下のように詳細に論じています。

ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナル（WSJ）紙の報道における矛盾と偽善

グリーンウォルド氏は、WSJが「誤った印象を与えた」として、その報道姿勢に強い失望を表明しています。

報道意図と結果の乖離:

WSJは当初、「UAPに関する開示への最近の動き」を調査する記事として売り込みましたが、最終的に公開された記事は「このテーマが誤情報、偽情報に根ざしており、全く内容がない」と主張するものでした。

グリーンウォルド氏は、自身が何時間もかけて提供した「情報公開法（FOIA）を通じて提供できる情報が、彼らが伝えようとしていたメッセージを本質的に無効にする」と述べ、これらの情報が記事で使われなかったことを批判しています。

証拠の欠如と情報の省略:

WSJは、記事の主要な主張（政府がUFO話を仕立てて極秘技術を隠蔽しているという説）を裏付ける情報源や証拠を提示していません。彼らは元AARO（全領域異常現象解決局）のディレクターであるショーン・カークパトリック氏とティモシー・フィリップス氏の発言のみを根拠にしていますが、これらの発言は国防総省の公式見解ではないと指摘しています。
WSJは、グリーンウォルド氏が提供した何千ページもの極秘レベルのUFO関連文書（国防情報局や国家安全保障局が収集したものを含む）の存在を完全に無視しました。これらの文書は、UAPが未だに高度に機密化されており、軍事技術に起因するものではないことを示唆していると彼は主張します。
CIAが都合よく特定のUFO関連記録を「紛失」した事実や、第一次世界大戦時代の文書でさえ分類が解除されて公開されているにもかかわらず、UAP関連文書が半世紀以上経っても機密扱いであるか紛失しているという矛盾についても触れていません。
WSJは、ロバート・サラス氏のミサイル停止事件を電磁パルス（EMP）テストで説明しようとしましたが、その文書や技術が事件の数年後のものであるという決定的な矛盾を掘り下げていません。さらに、核施設や軍事基地への未確認航空機の侵入に関する、サラス事件とは別の検証可能で文書化された多くの事例を無視しました。
国防総省がロシアのジェット機とドローンの事件の動画を速やかに公開する一方で、UAP関連の全ての写真や動画を「100%機密」として公開しないという矛盾をWSJは完全に無視しました。

ジャーナリズムの倫理違反:

グリーンウォルド氏は、WSJが何時間ものインタビュー時間を無駄にし、記事のテーマに「敬意を払わなかった」と批判しています。彼らは支払われているにもかかわらず、この分野の長年の歴史と複雑さを伝えようとせず、特定のナラティブに沿わない情報を排除しました。

懐疑派の偽善

グリーンウォルド氏は、WSJの記事を盲目的に称賛する懐疑派の態度を「偽善的」だと断じています。

ダブルスタンダード: 彼らはデビッド・グラッシュ氏やルイス・エリゾンド氏といった情報提供者が「証拠や文書を提示しない」と批判する一方で、WSJの記事が何の裏付けとなる文書や証拠も提示していないにもかかわらず、それを擁護し、転送していることを指摘しています。これは彼らの「思考の浅薄さ」と「偏見」を示していると述べています。
事実確認の怠慢: WSJの記事を声高に支持する人々は、**「全く調査に指一本動かさない」**と批判し、真実を求めるのではなく、自分たちの既存の信念を補強するためだけに記事を利用していると示唆しています。

政府や元政府関係者の矛盾

公式発表の欠如: カークパトリック氏やフィリップス氏のような元政府関係者が、政府の極秘技術がUFO現象の背後にあると主張しても、国防総省はこれらの主張を裏付ける公式声明や文書を全く出していません。グリーンウォルド氏は、彼らの主張は「私を信じてくれ（trust me, bro）」という説話と大差ないと皮肉っています。
情報の隠蔽と紛失: DIAやNSAといった主要な情報機関がUFOに関する大量の機密ファイルを「不可解にも紛失した」という事実は、政府がこの現象を完全に理解し、説明しているという印象と矛盾しています。
ハラスメント疑惑への対応不足: WSJが報じた「ヤンキー・ブルー」という「ハラスメント儀式」（UAPに関する誤った情報で人を欺く行為）についても、AFOSI（空軍特殊捜査局）が調査記録を全く見つけられなかったことがFOIA要求で判明し、DNI（国家情報長官）が「愕然とした」という報告にもかかわらず、実際の調査や国防総省のメモが存在しないか、隠蔽されている可能性を指摘しています。

UAPコミュニティ内の一部の主張における矛盾

「卵」のビデオと新しいUFO団体の設立: ジェイク・バーバー氏に関連する「卵」のビデオについて、グリーンウォルド氏は「かなりおかしい」と感じ、もし本当に並外れたものであれば「それ以来、多くのことが起こっていただろう」と指摘しています。さらに、この一件から**「またしても別のUFO団体が設立された」**ことに失望しており、「これ以上、別の頭文字を覚えるUFO調査団体を必要としていない」と述べています。彼にとって必要なのは「証拠」に焦点を当てることであり、高額な会費を請求しながら情報を共有しないこれらの団体は、かつての「UFOテーマの.comサイト」と同じ「古い話」の繰り返しだと批判しています。
クリス・ブレッドソー氏の発言: グリーンウォルド氏は、ブレッドソー氏がスペースXの打ち上げを「亡くなった娘さんを利用して」誰かの「サイン」として結びつけた発言に「胸が張り裂けそうになる」ほどの失望を表明しています。彼は、ブレッドソー氏が誰かの「痛みを利用して」科学的に説明可能な現象を神秘化していると批判し、「もしあなたが間違っているのなら、それは許されるべきだ」が、「ケースが解決された時に気分を害する人々は、本当に知りたがっているのか疑問だ」と述べています。
UAPの召喚: UAPを「召喚」できると主張しながら、人々にその方法を「教えるために料金を請求」する行為についても、「人類を変える情報」であれば「集団的な知識として共有されるべき」であり、金銭を要求すべきではないと批判しています。

総じて、グリーンウォルド氏は、WSJの記事、懐疑派の反応、さらにはUAPコミュニティの一部で見られる行動が、真実を追求する上で不可欠な証拠に基づく公平性と透明性を欠いていると一貫して批判しています。彼は、ジャーナリストや研究者、そして一般の人々に対し、情報源を盲目的に信用せず、事実確認を行い、すべての証拠の全体像を考慮することの重要性を強調しています。

クリス・ブレッドソーの主張のより大きな文脈において、これらのソースがスペースX打ち上げと死んだ娘を結びつけた発言に失望について何を言おうとしているのかを議論してください。

クリス・ブレッドソーの主張のより大きな文脈において、提供された情報源は、ホストであるジョン・グリーンウォルド・ジュニア氏が、ブレッドソーがスペースXの打ち上げを亡くなった娘と結びつけた発言に深く失望したと述べています。

具体的には、以下の点が挙げられます。

グリーンウォルド氏は、以前はクリス・ブレッドソー氏を「誠実な人物」だと考えており、空にあるものを見間違えているだけだと認識していたと述べています。しかし、彼の感情は変わりつつあるようです。
彼のブレッドソー氏に対する感情が大きく変わった決定的な出来事は、スペースXの打ち上げに関するブレッドソー氏の発言でした。
ブレッドソー氏は電話で誰かと話しており、その人物の亡くなった娘を利用し、スペースXの打ち上げを「これは彼女たちからのサインだ」などと述べたとのことです。
グリーンウォルド氏は、父親として、この発言を「胸が張り裂けそうになる」ものだと表現しています。彼は、ブレッドソー氏が誰かの痛みを利用して、それをスペースXの打ち上げという現象に結びつけていると批判しています。
ブレッドソー氏の認識では、それは「どこか彼方からの航空機」や「天国からのサイン」であったとされています。
グリーンウォルド氏は、この動画の音量を下げて見れば、実際にはスペースXの非常にクールな打ち上げと隕石が映っていることがわかると指摘しています。しかし、音量を上げて聞くと、ブレッドソー氏がそのような解釈をしていることに「やめよう」という気持ちになったと述べています。

この経験は、グリーンウォルド氏にとってブレッドソー氏に関する考え方を大きく変えるものであり、UAP（未確認航空現象）に関連する主張や情報がどのように提示され、解釈されるべきかという彼の倫理観と深く関連しています。彼は、たとえ誠実な誤解であっても、事実が示された際にはそれを受け入れるべきであり、解決された事例に対して怒ったり、不快感を示したりする人々は、本当に真実を知りたいのか疑問だと付け加えています。

Jake Barber の卵型 UFO の件について

Jake Barber の卵型 UFO とは…

White egg-shaped object was seen from helicopter: Air Force veteran

https://www.facebook.com/NewsNationNow/videos/white-egg-shaped-object-was-seen-from-helicopter-air-force-veteran/598213042960045/

https://x.com/BartoSitek/status/1881501285515690454

視聴者からの質問への回答のより大きな文脈において、これらのソースがジェイク・バーバーの主張について何を言おうとしているのかを議論してください。

視聴者からの質問への回答というより大きな文脈において、ホストのジョン・グリーンウォルド・ジュニア氏は、ジェイク・バーバーの主張について以下のように述べています。

グリーンウォルド氏は、ジェイク・バーバーを「いつか証明してほしいと願う信念を持つ、非常に誠実な人々」のカテゴリーに分類しています。
しかし、バーバーに関連付けられた**「卵」のビデオについては、「かなりおかしい」**と感じており、「非常に奇妙な点がいくつかある」と述べています。彼は直感で却下するわけではありませんが、もし本当に並外れたものを示すのであれば、「それ以来、多くのことが起こっていただろう」と指摘し、実際にはそうではないと述べています。
グリーンウォルド氏は、多くの主張が「誇大広告のため」や「クリックのため」に行われると示唆しています。バーバーが意図したものではないかもしれないが、ニュース番組に出演させたり、記事を書いたり、ソーシャルメディアに投稿したりするなど、「より興味を持つ人々」と「絡み合ってしまった」可能性があると推測しています。
彼が最も失望した点の一つは、この一連の出来事から「またしても別のUFO団体が設立された」ことでした。彼は、「私たちは、別の頭文字を覚えたりする、これ以上UFO調査団体を必要としていない」と不満を述べています。
グリーンウォルド氏は、必要なのは「証拠」であり、それに「焦点を当てる」べきだと強調しています。彼は、「私たちは役員会や、誰が役員をしているのか、誰が元政府関係者の名前を挙げているのかに焦点を当てる必要はない」と述べています。
彼は、この現象を2000年代初頭の「UFOをテーマにした.comサイト」と比較しています。それらのサイトも「最新で、最高で、最も驚くべき証拠が間もなく公開される」と豪語していたが、多くは数ヶ月で閉鎖されたと指摘しています。現在の団体も同様に、「高額な会員費」を請求するが、「情報を共有しない」と批判しています。
彼の意見では、もし団体がお金を集めるのであれば問題はないが、「透明性を説くなら、透明性を示すべきだ」と強調しています。
全体として、彼は、バーバーの事例は「古くからの話」であり、時間の経過とともに形を変えているものの、根本的には同じであると見ており、証拠への集中と透明性の重要性を訴えています。

参考

WSJ(the Wall Street Journal)誌の "Peter Jennings" に関する変更について。

Me: WSJ とは別に、第三者からなされた Peter Jennings に対する批判はどういったものでしたか？

Gemini 2.5 Flash

ピーター・ジェニングスに対する第三者からの主な批判は以下の通りです。

経験不足と「グラマーキャスター」としての批判: キャリアの初期、ABCニュースのアンカーに抜擢された際、経験不足であると批判されました。特に、彼のカナダなまりの英語（例：「lieutenant」を「leftenant」と発音する）や、アメリカの文化や情勢に関する知識の不足から、「グラマーキャスター（見かけ倒しのキャスター）」と揶揄されることもありました。
中東報道における偏向の疑惑: ベイルート支局長時代には、アラブ・イスラエル紛争においてアラブ側に肩入れしているという批判を受けました。特に、1972年のミュンヘンオリンピック事件の報道では、黒い9月（ブラック・セプテンバー）のメンバーを「テロリスト」ではなく「ゲリラ」や「コマンドー」と表現したことに対して批判がありました。また、イスラエルに対する偏見があるという指摘も長年にわたってなされており、パレスチナ側の暴力に言い訳を与えている、あるいはイスラエルとパレスチナの行動に道徳的な同等性があるかのように示唆している、といった批判がありました。
銃規制に関する誤報: 銃規制に関する報道において、誤った情報を提供したとして批判されたことがあります。例えば、特定の銃器が「アサルトウェポン」であると誤って報じたり、銃規制法が施行される前の事件にその法律が適用されるかのように示唆したりしたことに対し、正確性を欠いていると指摘されました。
政治的偏見の疑惑: 1994年の議会選挙で共和党が全国的に勝利した際、「有権者はかんしゃくを起こした」という発言をしたことが、彼の政治的偏見を示していると解釈され、批判を浴びました。

これらの批判は、彼のジャーナリズムの客観性や正確性、そして特定の政治的・社会的問題に対するスタンスに向けられたものでした。

文字起こし

(transcript 1of2)

（以下は John Greenewald, Jr. の Youtube Podcast 動画の文字起こしです。全体で 1:26:30 に及ぶ長時間なので 2分割し、以下はその前半です。）

This is the second sentence. And this is the third sentence. And this is the fourth sentence. That's right, everybody. As always, thank you so much for tuning in and making this your live stream of choice. I've missed you guys. I realized I was live streaming all the time, but I just never pressed go live and I was doing it for myself. I'm so sorry. It's been so long. I know the last time that we had chatted. (0:01:45)

And let me switch over to make sure my audio is okay because I'm kind of learning everything again for the first time. It's been so long. Volume is a tad low. Okay, I appreciate that. So I will do my best to try and switch this. The software that I use to stream is absolutely horrible. So let me go ahead and turn it up and I hope that that's okay. (0:02:06)

So let me know in the chat if this is now too loud or what's going on. It doesn't give me levels. So I'm just kind of, you know, going a little bit by eyeball here. But it's been a long last couple of months. For those that have followed me on social media, you'll know a little bit about what's going on. And yes, I was off for a while. I'm seeing those comments. A little bit more volume. Okay, well, let's see here. (0:02:39)

I don't know why it wouldn't be. How about that? Hopefully that's a little bit better for you guys. So please, again, just let me know. I just don't want to blow it out. So hopefully this will start to level out here any more. I mean, I can. I don't know what's going on. Hold on. This is the joys of live. Here, I'll just kind of go all the way up on the mic volume. Let me know if that works. (0:03:08)

If not, I can go ahead and try something else. But yeah, let me know in the comments here. So sorry as we go live and I work out all of these. Okay, so I'm seeing that that might be a little bit better. Okay, so the short of it is, and I owe you guys an explanation, simply because it's been so long. But one of the last live streams I did was way too long ago. And I had said in that live stream, I'm getting into the position of essentially being able to talk to you guys a little bit more and, you know, get into a position to live stream more. (0:03:46)

And that was absolutely true. Shortly after that, I had to have a surgery in December. And I don't want to go into detail. I try and like to keep some things private in my life. But it was abdominal and I couldn't lift anything. It wreaked havoc on my normal day job away from all of this. And had to call in a lot of favors with friends because I ship a lot of boxes of headphones, which is the business that I run. (0:04:12)

So had to call in a lot of favors, but I couldn't even lift the green screen. I couldn't sit in a chair for that long. (0:04:17)

And that was about six, eight weeks. Well, shortly after that, as some of you know, my father had passed away. It's now been a little over two years. And my mom took some time to grieve and go through that process. But she had decided to move. (0:04:44)

So my childhood home where I grew up in, I left my early 20s, late teens, I think it was, very early 20s. And have been gone ever since. But my mom was there. It was a pretty big house for my dad and my mom. Once he passed, it became even bigger for my mom. So she decided to leave. And I have done nothing but that for the last few months. (0:04:59)

Preparing her. They lived in that house for more than 50 years. She was 52 years by the time she walked away. And I just helped her as much as I could. So I was kind of balancing parenting and my normal day job. But obviously going out to her home and packing up 50 years worth of stuff. And it was absolutely insane. I mean, I've used some parts of social media to vent periodically because it is an absolute insane thing to go through. (0:05:34)

But that took every spare second. So it was like every time that the light was at the end of the tunnel and I could see it, I realized it was just another train. And then there was just thing after thing after thing. So I had to sacrifice a lot is where I'm going with this. So parenting first, job, you know, parenting and family first. Obviously a job up there which helps me support my family. (0:05:59)

But every free minute after that was helping my mom move. And happy to say that as of yesterday, everything's done. So everything is packed. I had an emotional goodbye with the home, as silly as it sounds. Anybody who's gone through this will know what I'm talking about. If you haven't, you probably will think I'm just absolutely being nuts at the moment. But that's what I've been going through. And so I've kind of taken a deep breath from all that and the emotional craziness. (0:06:29)

And now I was like, hey, just the stars aligned. My son's at a birthday party. The rest of my family is actually visiting my mother who's a few hours away. I'm going tomorrow. But my son had a... his social networking is huge at 11. So he had a birthday party to go to. So he's there. He's having some fun. So I thought I'd come hang out with you guys and talk a little bit about what's going on. (0:06:54)

Update you on that. Thankfully, that is now a chapter behind me, a very emotional one at that. And let's get back to business and dive in into some of these topics. Even though I was doing that, I can tell you this. I didn't go away. I was watching what was going on in the UFO field. (0:07:14)

We're talking about UFOs today. Talking about that today, but I've been watching. I never went away in that regard. That's my winding down at night after I have a long day or whatever. Just sit down. I read, like to do news articles, like to see social media, see what people are talking about. And obviously, I stayed active on those fronts as well. But it's nuts. I don't even know where to start today. (0:07:39)

And I thought I would start with a more timely story of the Wall Street Journal stuff and dive a little bit into that. Because obviously, a lot of people are talking about the two-part UAP article that they did. So that's what we're going to dive into today. But man, there is so much to talk about and kind of dive into. And it seems like a lot of people, I think, are kind of falling for quite a few different things. (0:08:05)

And I think that's both sides of the spectrum. And what I aim to do kind of moving forward here is to dive into some of those topics and make sense of it all. I'm not here to say that I'm right or wrong, but rather I have a lot of fun diving into these topics because I look at online and I've seen it now months and months. (0:08:22)

I can't tell you how many times I wanted to just say, oh my gosh, I got to go turn on the camera and chat with everybody because this is ridiculous. There's a lot of misinformation out there, again, on both sides of the spectrum. So many times I wanted to do that. And that's how much that's been going on in the Wall Street Journal absolutely is along those same lines of absolute ridiculousness. (0:08:46)

So let's go ahead, if I haven't forgotten how to use all of this software, because I'm sure I'll screw something up here. But let me just go ahead and kind of pull up the visuals here so we can go through it and talk a little bit about the Wall Street Journal article. Now, if you haven't heard it, I'm going to go over a little bit, but I always encourage everybody to read things that I talk about. (0:09:08)

Nothing irks me more about somebody saying, oh, this is all full of it. You shouldn't read anything. Listen to what I have to say. I've never been like that, nor am I going to start now. So I absolutely encourage you to read it. The problem with the Wall Street Journal article, and I can see the irony in this as you kind of move forward and see what they dealt with and see how they're treating the UFO topic, there are some pretty big fat paywalls to get through to actually see the article. You can't see it. (0:09:38)

There's no free articles, from what I understand about the Wall Street Journal, at least I've never saw any when I tried to access these. (0:09:45)

There are websites out there that kind of bypass the paywalls, but the problem is I don't know how kosher that is, so I'm not going to post the link here. I've done it on social media because I think it's fair game. YouTube has weird rules, so I don't know if you can bypass it, whatever. But look on X, it's on my account there, and I'm sure if you Google it, you can easily find these articles. (0:10:12)

But why I wanted to talk to you guys about it is not only the information that's within it, but I have an absolute direct connection in the sense that I was interviewed numerous times for the article. Now before, in a fit of rage, you log off from this channel, let me finish the second part of that, which is nothing really that I talked to them about ended up in the article. (0:10:35)

Now I'm fine if what I have to say is absolutely boring to somebody and they don't want to use it. Not a problem. So there's no ego with me saying nothing was used. But rather, as you go through what they dealt with, then you see what I gave them through literally hours worth of interviews. I think, and this is just my personal opinion, the information that I can offer through the Freedom of Information Act essentially negates the message that they were trying to convey. (0:11:09)

And I've seen that a lot, and it's happened quite a few times in my day. I've been around for, gosh, it's approaching 30 years, not to age myself here, but I started nearly 30 years ago now in this topic. And I've seen a lot. I've seen a lot of good media coverage. I've seen a lot of bad. And this kind of thing has happened before, even where I've seen it firsthand. (0:11:32)

And a prime example was a Peter Jennings special that obviously was many, many years ago. Same kind of deal, that they had a specific message. So in order to convey that message, they carve out everything else. And that's an issue to me, because you're doing a disservice to the story. Not me, not the government, not researcher X, Y, or Z, but the reality of what's going on. (0:12:02)

And with the Wall Street Journal, they did exactly that. Now, I see the comment, Andromeda spins audio is low on the phone, fine on the computer. I'm not sure. I'll research it after. But as long as you guys can hear me, I'm just going to keep going with this way. So if you are on mobile and it's a little bit low, I'm sorry. I'll see what's going on here. So, yes, apologies. Again, being live, I do see where we're going here, and I can't control the volume between mobile and desktop. (0:12:29)

So I'm going to do my best here going forward. So back to the point is that I've seen this happen a lot. And sadly, the Wall Street Journal did the same thing. But what I wanted to give you guys a look at was how I, as one of many people, I obviously wasn't the only one, but I was interviewed for this thing and how they approached me. (0:12:48)

And I want you guys to see on whether or not this was actually how the article came out. And before I read it, let me preface it with this. I do not share private communications, nor will I in this video. Now, there's not a whole lot to share. Everything was on the telephone. But I do highly respect when somebody is interviewing me that I don't go around talking about it. (0:13:16)

A lot of people name drop, oh, I was interviewed by so-and-so today. No, I don't talk about it until after. I also don't talk about what they said. I don't consider them on the record unless I specifically ask. Why am I making a big deal out of it? Because a ton of people online wanted me to share exactly what the Wall Street Journal and the journalists said that I had spoken to. And look, I'm not hiding anything. It's not like you said anything extravagant. (0:13:42)

But I just want to appreciate that boundary. But the one thing that I will share, which I do feel is important, is how he pitched the article and what they were doing. And that was, as he described, a story looking at the recent push for disclosure around UAPs. Now, why I like to know what in the world they're doing is I don't get paid for this, nor do most people anyway, when they get interviewed, especially by print media journalists. And for people like me, that's okay. I feel that this information is important. And look, if I'm not taking my son to soccer or doing something important to me, I'm happy to spend the time and do it. (0:14:28)

So when I saw this, I thought, okay, if they're going to do it, it's the Wall Street Journal, you would hope that they would do a good job at researching. And I trusted that. And I was told that this was the scope of the article. And therein, and that was January, by the way, of this year. And through the course of the next couple of months, on and off, I mean, it wasn't like every day or anything. (0:14:56)

But I had quite a few conversations that collectively lasted for hours. And I gave them a stack, a pile of information to back up everything that I was saying in response to their questions. And we'll go through all of the topics. I'll show you 100% of what I wrote. Even though I don't show their side, you don't need to see it. It doesn't matter. (0:15:22)

My side shows you everything that we talked about and everything that I had offered to the Wall Street Journal. And then you can see and juxtapose that between what they published and what they actually had in front of them. And I was only one person. I know that they spoke to other people that likely negated that whole entire message as well. (0:15:43)

I've seen messages from Ryan Graves. I've seen messages from Christopher Mellon. And look, even if you do or don't agree with them on any or all of what they say, that's fine. My whole point, though, is that the Wall Street Journal and the one journalist that I knew was involved—apparently there were two, but I never spoke to the second one—how much time that they wasted of people to ask them questions. (0:16:07)

I don't know how long the other gentleman that I know of spent. I just know I wasted hours of my life that I'll never get back, and for nothing. And that's, I think, one of the more frustrating things, because when you read Part 1, they had split the article into two parts. And I think it's important to talk about what they dealt with in this article to kind of understand then where my frustration comes in, is that they were talking about the misinformation and disinformation that essentially the government was orchestrating these UFO stories to help boost the UFO myth in order to cover up their top-secret technology. (0:16:54)

Now, for those who haven't been around for a while, this is nothing new. I mean, these rumors have been around for decades, for a long time, that the government is orchestrating these stories, but it has nothing to do with aliens. It's all top-secret tech. Could that be true? Absolutely. I'm not here to push the alien narrative, nor did I with the Wall Street Journal. I haven't in 30 years pushed that narrative. (0:17:18)

But what I do push is that these kind of silly explanations, when you use some common sense, they just don't make sense. And the Wall Street Journal was talking about an Air Force colonel who walked into a bar near Area 51, which is likely Rachel, Nevada, and the little alien, which, by the way, was a fantastic burger when I was there years and years ago. So I haven't been there in a while. It may not even be there. I think it still is. But regardless, great burger that I had at the time. (0:17:46)

But rumor has it that this Air Force colonel went in there in the 80s and planted these UFO photos. And, okay, what I don't understand, disinformation is probably very rampant with the U.S. government. That's what ties into what I've talked about with the counterintelligence value of the UFO conversation, because there is an aspect of this that absolutely could be mis- and disinformation. And that's fine. I totally buy that. (0:18:16)

I have no problem with that. But you see in the Wall Street Journal article, as they start setting this up with this Air Force colonel planting photos about Area 51 and creating these myths that then would therein last for decades, they're creating this impression that that is what the UFO topic is. And a lot of people walked away from that. And there are a select handful that will argue, well, in this sentence here, the Wall Street Journal said this, and that paves the way for other things, too. No, I'm not going to mince words. We all know what the Wall Street Journal was doing. It was very evident. They were saying, essentially, that this topic is rooted in misinformation, disinformation. There's absolutely nothing to it. (0:19:06)

And they reinforced that by saying that the Pentagon's 2024 report had omitted some of these key findings in the government's own role in helping kind of spread this myth a little bit. (0:19:19)

Now, rumor has it that it's going to be in their Volume 2, they meaning the US government, and Aeros Volume 2, which is wildly late the last time I checked. So they're way past due. I don't know why. I mean, look, I'm sorry. I won't completely bash Volume 1. I feel that there was a lot of great history in there, and I feel that they did a great job in certain areas. (0:19:43)

But let's face it, all of that is really not blowing anything that we haven't already talked about already. They just kind of put it more clear, concise, and kind of put it all together. They omitted a lot of stuff, but they did a good job on some of that history. So I won't knock that. But where's Volume 2? What's the problem there? And that I haven't heard an answer yet. But regardless, they said that that hoax, that disinformation, those campaigns that the US military or whomever was doing at the time, is going to be in Part 2. So I look forward to seeing that. It won't surprise me. I hope there's evidence. (0:20:24)

But the Wall Street Journal lacked the evidence. They were conveying this to their readership, all about disinformation and misinformation and talking about this angle, which is fine. But they made it seem like this was the end-all, be-all, but they didn't have any sourcing or evidence. And as you read through, that became even more evident, that they had none. They were talking about Sean Kirkpatrick and Timothy Phillips, the former director of Aero and then the deputy director, Mr. Phillips, who later then became the interim director before Dr. John Kozlowski took over. However, that's all they're using. And those two gentlemen are not speaking on behalf of the Department of Defense. So what's going on here? You have to ask this question. (0:21:18)

If all of this stuff is unclassified and it's true, it should be incredibly easy, number one, publish Volume 2 and get it over with. It may not be the entirety of Volume 2, but if it's all declassified, you can openly talk about it, then do it. Get it out there into the open. The other part of it is, it should be incredibly easy for the Department of Defense to then issue statements. So what Phillips is talking about and what Kirkpatrick is talking about, put it out there. Make it an official position. If that's what you guys are saying, say it. (0:21:57)

But instead, we have private citizens out there that are talking about their former government work, offering no evidence whatsoever, no documentation whatsoever, and their stories are just as, hey, trust me, bro, as some of the wild outlandish alien stories that you're hearing. It's just one side of the spectrum to the other. That's the only difference. At the end of the day, at the bottom line, they're offering you absolutely nothing. (0:22:26)

And that's what's frustrating, because the Wall Street Journal, what did they have? They had nothing. They had the word of these two guys, and that was it. No sourcing for anything else. Where was it? The Wall Street Journal talked about military officers admitting to using forged documents to support UFO narratives. (0:22:46)

Okay, I can actually buy that too. Not a problem. But you're probably talking about a very minuscule part of all of this story. And why I say that is you have thousands of pages of U.S. government and military documents that shouldn't exist if what you're seeing here in the Wall Street Journal was primarily the whole truth. You wouldn't have that at all. They say that disinformation goes back to the 50s. I could buy that too. (0:23:40)

Not a problem. However, they completely omit the fact that thousands of pages exist, some of which going all the way to the top secret level, on UFO encounters all around the world, not just the United States, but intelligence records going all around the world, dating far beyond the government's UFO investigation Project Blue Book in 1969. You find heavily redacted and classified UFO-specific documents in the 1970s, in the 1980s, in the 1990s, and all the way into the 2000s. So why would that be if we're talking about disinformation, misinformation, classified tech, all of that, that again, the Wall Street Journal is giving that impression, none of which would exist, and yet it does. (0:24:05)

Did the Wall Street Journal talk about it? Absolutely not. No. But they talk about fake documents, and that's fine. Cool. Great. It's part of the story. Nobody's going to negate that. But you can't give the false impression that all of this roots to Majestic 12, Project Aquarius, the Special Operations Manual. That, to me, was ludicrous. And they did it. And they omitted all of that information. (0:24:33)

And I will interject on one point on this that I think is important. And that is, journalists have their work cut out for them, and I sympathize when they cover the UFO topic. Because they have people like me that will fact-check the period that they used at the end of their sentence. But on top of that, they're trying to condense 60, 70 years worth of history and stuff and put it into an article that's cohesive, that's factually correct, and that makes sense. I absolutely sympathize with that. (0:25:08)

So that's why I enjoy helping. That's why I want to spend the time, if I have it, and do it for free. They're getting paid, by the way. I'm not. These journalists, this is their job. So they're getting paid. I am not. And neither were anybody else who helped them. I'm not the lone wolf here. And I don't mind because it's very, very, very important. (0:25:34)

And when you see this happen, it becomes very, very frustrating. And then that's when we should speak out. So there's a difference between those that have their work cut out for them and they genuinely try but maybe they screwed up. Cool. I ain't going to harp on them that much. This one, they had the evidence in front of them. I know that for a fact because I gave it to them. (0:25:54)

It would have negated the image of this. Could this have been a bullet point in a bigger article that was centered around how they originally pitched it to me? 100%. Absolutely important history. There's nothing wrong with that. Is it the whole story? Absolutely not. And they falsely gave you that impression. (0:26:12)

They omitted these types of documents that show that UFOs to this day are highly classified and they don't stem back to classified military technology. We don't have any type of proof of that in the decades and decades and decades that the FOIA has been around on top of the more than half century that these encounters have been taking place. The only evidence we do have is the silliness that the CIA tried to put in there that the UFO sightings in the 1950s were flights of the U-2. Yet the U-2 didn't even get off the ground until halfway into the 1950s. And then the rest of the 1950s, any major UFO sighting was not attributable to the U-2. Did the U-2 cause UFO sightings? No doubt. Sure. No argument on my front. (0:27:03)

But that's the silliness is that they try and say it's classified tech. But when they do, it falls absolutely short. So here we are in 2025, we see the Wall Street Journal do it. But what happens? They omit hundreds and hundreds, just what you're looking at here was from the Defense Intelligence Agency, hundreds and hundreds of pages alone of intelligence on UFOs collected from around the world. (0:27:30)

That's just one agency. (0:27:55)

Yes, the Wall Street Journal got this from me. And it should have played a role, not because I want to be mentioned. Take me out. That's fine. It has nothing to do with it. This is the history that they are omitting. If this was all top secret tech, none of this really would exist, or it would not exist in this way well into the 2020s. The Defense Intelligence Agency also has mysteriously lost the majority of their UFO intelligence files. Just poof, gone. And why I found that out was that I was pushing to get a lot of these redactions lifted in a legal manner, which I've done countless times over the decades, and in some cases, sadly not all, but in some cases gotten those redactions lifted. (0:28:20)

So there are legal arguments you can put up, it's called a mandatory declassification review, to get this kind of stuff reviewed again. Because what was classified in 1999 is not necessarily classified in 2025. So you can essentially petition for it to be re-reviewed. Gone. All of those records are gone. Other agencies as well. All of this was omitted from the Wall Street Journal, but all have collected UFO and UAP, if you want to call them that, information stretching to the top secret levels that are still highly classified. Now if you go back 50 years, how much technology that we have is still that classified 50, 60 years into the future. (0:29:06)

There's not much. You look at the evolution of the B-2 stealth bomber, you look at the F-117 stealth fighter, you look at the secret code names that they once had, like Senior Spark, Senior Trend, all of those senior programs, all of that. Now we might not be able to get a blueprint, so there is obviously some aspects of this that are still classified. (0:29:27)

But you look at those aircraft today and you can see them. You see them fly over. You can walk around them at an air show. It's not that secret anymore. Was it one day? So why I bring this point up is that when you go back 30, 40, 50, 60 years and you're seeing these documents that still to this day are highly classified and they're all around the world, these encounters are all around the world, is the argument really it's top secret? (0:29:57)

Yeah, we can't talk about it. Really? From the 1950s? Still? You can't even admit to it? Because if this was all true, here's what, in my opinion, what you would have. You would have the declassification of, let's say, 80% of all of this. (0:30:12)

You know, we'll give 20% for the secret part of the stealth technology, the blueprints, as we'll loosely refer to it as, the schematics, you know, those types of things, the composition of stealth material, all of that. Fine, right? That's 20%. The other 80%, we should be able to start drawing lines, especially through the 40s and 50s and 60s and heck, even the 70s, right? We're still over 50 years ago. (0:30:40)

You can draw the line between those top secret pieces of tech that have been declassified and everything that quote-unquote UFO researchers have found over the years and go, oh, that's what it is. That makes sense. Okay, we can put that one to bed. But you can't. Wall Street Journal omitted all and everything of what I'm talking about. They have these documents. Whatever this is, it is still highly classified. Now, I mentioned the Defense Intelligence Agency mysteriously lost all of their UFO records. So did the National Security Agency. All of them. All the comment reports are C-O-M-I-N-T. That's the acronym, Communications Intelligence. And there were hundreds and hundreds of pages, a lot of which were secret and top secret in classification levels. (0:31:36)

Most of which I did get them released in partial form. So a lot of it was whited out or blacked out or a combination of both. And I think that they did that because people that were appearing on television at the time, myself included, held these things up. And when you look at blacked out documents, obviously they are pretty visually jarring because they obviously tell a story in themselves. (0:32:05)

All of those documents, when you go back and try and find essentially the unredacted version for the National Security Agency to review, they're all gone. They lost them. All of them. So that's just two agencies. And there's actually more. The CIA, which by the way, I sent this to the Wall Street Journal as well, the CIA conveniently has lost very specific UFO-related records over the years that are pretty interesting. One of which even talks about material of some kind that were in the halls of the CIA after Project Blue Book. So they were keeping tabs on something that the U.S. government said, hey, we solved it, but internally they were still watching. (0:32:55)

Is that top secret tech of our own? Likely not. Is it a foreign adversary? Quite possibly. And let me quickly say, if that was the case, 40, 50, 60 years later, do you really think that we would be facing this with all of the intelligence agencies still classified at a top secret level? Because I'm sorry, you can only hide behind sources and methods for so long. You can only hide behind that for so long. (0:33:21)

And yet they still continue to do it. Other topics, you can have World War I, and that's not an exaggeration, World War I era, still classified documents found, reviewed, and released. So this is not about age of a document like, well, come on, John, cut him some slack. It was 50 years ago. That doesn't matter in the U.S. government standards. (0:33:50)

Because certain documents are not only kept, they're kept for a very long time. And that includes documents, again, that stretch all the way back to World War I era. And yes, there are classified... I've got a report on the Black Vault that talks about classified World War I era documents still at the National Archives. Now, if they're reviewed, they'll in large part be declassified. But my point is, those weren't lost. These agencies are saving these documents and you can find them. And that's what's going on. Yet with UFO and UAP related information, it's completely gone. (0:34:28)

One of the other points that I had made to the Wall Street Journal was the root of the secrecy for today. And the root of the secrecy stems from this. And I first published this. This had never been released before a few years back. And this is what's called a security classification guide. And this security classification guide essentially defines the secrecy to a particular topic. In this case, UAP. And where I kind of say defines the secrecy is it outlines what you're supposed to do when it comes to that type of information. (0:35:05)

Now, you'll find on this channel a video all about this one document because it's important. But I break down all of what you can see and clearly what you can't. You can see up here, let me get the laser pointer, up here, it may be hard to see on your screen, but it says intelligence collection, exploitation, analysis, and property, I believe it is. (0:35:29)

Sorry, it's small on your screen, it's smaller on mine. But regardless, you can zoom in on the PDF and you can see it. This is how classified UAP is. Now, this is UAP, not our top secret tech, not a top secret drone that's in development, not Lockheed Martin technology that's been in development. And in the process of testing these, are there airmen and enlisted military members that are seeing some of that top secret tech? Absolutely, no doubt. Yet we have yet to see any type of claim that 100% or near 100% of what these people are reporting to Aero or previously the UAP task force was all of our technology. I think they call that blue force technology. (0:36:18)

And yet we don't see that. We don't even see the claim. The Wall Street Journal is kind of giving that impression, but even the government is not giving that claim. And that's ridiculous about this, because as a journalist, you should look at this and go, okay, maybe the disinformation absolutely is a notch in this story. Maybe some of the stuff that they did to kind of inflate some of the rumors about Area 51 and make them extravagant so people believed in more the extraordinary instead of what they were actually doing. (0:36:58)

Sure, I can find truth of that. Is that a notch in this whole story and timeline? Absolutely. Is it everything? No. But a lot of people were forwarding around that Wall Street Journal article going, aha, see, told you, told you it was nothing. It's not aliens. Well, I'm not here to argue it was aliens. But if you don't take the totality of the evidence and consider this long history of what's going on and then see the Wall Street Journal article for what it is, that is an incredibly biased way to look at it. (0:37:25)

And I saw a lot of skeptical people, which absolutely will sometimes bring up some excellent points, and I think that they should absolutely be a part of this conversation. But those that just bought this hook, line, and sinker and forwarded around and said, ha, told you guys, and kind of gave that attitude, shows the shallowness of their thinking, that they haven't gone beyond what they go and read in a Wall Street Journal article. No one would try and verify it. (0:37:52)

They just forwarded it around blindly and said, ha, ha, that's it, told you. And they don't even try. And that, to me, is one of the more frustrating things, because skeptics, debunkers, self-proclaimed, I hate the word because it sounds so negative, but those that are proud of the word and that's who they are, great, they should be involved in the conversation. But this is how biased they became when forwarding around this article. (0:38:18)

I've had my reservations about the stories of Luis Elizondo and David Grush, but let me play devil's advocate for a second. The same people that are praising this Wall Street Journal article and are forwarding it around blindly going, ha, ha, look at this, told you, are the same ones that say David Grush, Luis Elizondo bring no evidence and no documentation to back up their claims. (0:38:43)

In one breath, they say that. In the second breath, they say, look at this Wall Street Journal article. (0:38:48)

Spoiler alert, the Wall Street Journal article had absolutely nothing that they claim they demand. And yet they were still free, like, ha, ha, told you. That, to me, is bias. That is, you can't get any more bias and hypocritical than that. The hypocrisy there is ridiculously high. Because if you are not going to believe one side for no documentation or evidence, then don't praise an article that profiles no documentation and no evidence. (0:39:21)

Sorry, you just can't. So you have to rise above that, no matter what your personal beliefs are, and see all of this for what it is. I still have my reservations, again, about the stories of Luis Elizondo and David Grush and those extravagant claims. (0:39:47)

But what I say about why I have those reservations, I can't turn around and go, aha, look, the Wall Street Journal completely disproved Luis Elizondo. No. If they don't have the evidence and documentation, you got to call it out. Some of the other points that they talked about were these hazing rituals called Yankee Blue. And the impression here was that these hazing rituals were essentially taking people and giving them the false impression of the fact that they were being read in and or working on a top-secret, highly classified program that dealt with alien technology. (0:40:16)

And this hazing ritual became apparently discovered in 2023 by Arrow during their investigation, and that there was a Pentagon memo that came out from the DoD that essentially said, stop these hazing rituals. Because clearly people are getting to the point of believing it. The Wall Street Journal reported that even Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines was briefed on this very matter, and she was, quote, stunned at the revelation. (0:40:50)

By the way, the Wall Street Journal did not even bother to either ask for, or if they did, I didn't see that, the DoD memo. It should be unclassified. Why would it be classified? They're talking about it openly. (0:41:13)

So the existence of it should be absolutely, at the very least, acknowledged by the DoD, but I don't recall reading that in the Wall Street Journal. So there was no memo here. There was no talk about exactly why DNI would be briefed. Why not the SecDef? Why not the Secretary of Defense? Why not Arrow's direct superiors, the director of OUSDINS? So we're skipping a couple levels here. Is that just because the journalists skipped that part of the history? Okay, cool. But maybe we should deal with that, because it's so weird to go from that point to, and we briefed DNI. Why? (0:41:45)

That, to me, that didn't make sense. Nobody really talked about that, but I'll bring it up now. There was no reason to jump to Haines. But let's just say all of that is true. And if she was stunned, is she just going to go, oh, wow. Okay, next, you know, and move on? No. Because when stuff like this happens, hazing rituals, call it even psychological issues that they are causing on people, because now, not only do they believe it, they're going out and whistleblowing, they're making accusations against the U.S. government and U.S. military. (0:42:17)

They're making accusations that the intelligence community is keeping Congress in the dark. If all of this truly did stem from a hazing ritual, would there be an investigation? My answer would be yes. Now, this was an Air Force, from what it was reported anyway, kind of an Air Force hazing ritual. (0:42:38)

So for me, common sense tells me that if there's going to be an investigation, and there should be, then who would do it? And in my opinion, that would be the Air Force Office of Special Investigation, AFOSI. So even though I have trouble with these articles, I still act on them. So I filed numerous FOIA requests based on the information in this to try and fact check what the Wall Street Journal said. If I have my doubts and documentation later proves it, guess what, I'll publish it for you. Not a problem. I got no skin in this game. If it doesn't pan out, I'll publish that too, because it's important. (0:43:15)

In this particular case, AFOSI searched for any investigation they've done since 2021 on anything that referenced anything called Yankee Blue. So the way I structure these requests is you don't get too specific, because if you're wrong with any of your facts or anything like that, you can absolutely get yourself in trouble where they say, oh, sorry, John, we got nothing. But if you were wrong with how you described it, then it's not going to come up in the search. In this particular case, I was broad enough in both the wording, and then some of you may be scratching your head, why 2021? That covers all of the Aero years, and then some. (0:43:59)

And why I did that is because it was reported Aero discovered it, and then the memo was in 2023, and Avril Haines was briefed around that time. So if there was an investigation, it would be post-2021 easy. Under FOIA, you have to limit the scope of time. The wider time frame you have that you request, either the longer it will take, or you risk them kicking it back saying, hey, this is too broad, we can't do it. (0:44:28)

So that's why I chose 2021 on. They found absolutely nothing in their records that mentioned anything related to Yankee Blue. And this is not the end of the line here. This isn't my aha moment either, so let me say that very quickly. But what's important about this is, if you ask me, AFOSI would have been the one to investigate, because there could have potentially been criminal acts behind it, even though it's, you know, a hazing ritual and whatever, they thought it was all good and fun and nobody got physically hurt that we know of. It still created a domino effect that landed in Congress, making accusations against the U.S. military, Air Force, so on and so forth. So that's an issue. (0:45:18)

So even though this isn't the closing of the book, it was very interesting to me. But I will say, and these cases are still open, I have other cases seeking out information with ODNI, seeing if they did anything. More likely it would be a referral to AFOSI to investigate, but whatever, I'm, you know, covering all the bases here, including the Air Force Inspector General to see if potentially they did anything, and also the Department of Defense's Inspector General to see if they did anything. (0:45:48)

(transcript 2of2)

（以下は John Greenewald, Jr. の Youtube Podcast 動画の文字起こしです。全体で 1:26:30 に及ぶ長時間なので 2分割し、以下はその後半です。）

Again, I mean, this is a guess on my part. If you ask me, I would have had AFOSI lead the charge on that one, given the facts, quote-unquote, who knows if they're true, but the facts of the story as reported by the Wall Street Journal, AFOSI would have been the place. But hey, regardless, it came up no records. (0:46:09)

Moving on, the article talked about Robert Salas, and this was the one that really blew the lid of a lot of people, because they attacked then Robert Salas, who has been around, talking about his experience in 1967 and the missile shutdowns, the ICBM missile shutdowns, due to UFO sightings. Now obviously there's a lot of controversy behind this, not only for obvious reasons, but also Mr. Salas has kind of altered his story over the years, and that should be noted. (0:46:36)

Now, anybody who's been around for decades and decades telling a story, they may absolutely alter the way they say it. Sometimes maybe it's a mistake, other times maybe it's, hey, you forgot how you were telling this story. Whatever is true, it's controversial nonetheless. In the Wall Street Journal article, they brought up this document that talked about an EMP, or an EM, I should say, pulse test, so electromagnetic, that would essentially shut down missile silos, and they showed some screenshots in their article of this technology and from this document. (0:47:15)

The problem was, though, that the document came years after the incident itself, and on top of that, if you look into the documentation, the technology itself was not tested until years after the 1967 event with Salas. So the question mark is, well, how can technology that didn't exist at the time absolutely take credit for this incident? And that's kind of the issue here. How is that? (0:47:43)

And those are all questions that the Wall Street Journal should have asked whoever gave them this material and followed up on it. That if the document was made years later, but the technology itself was being tested and here's the proof of that testing, it just wasn't written about until years later, cool, okay, not a problem. Let's see that sourcing. Let's see that evidence. Let's see that documentation. Let's hear from that person that was in charge of the test, whatever you found. Instead, they kind of throw this out there, and hopefully it sticks. (0:48:18)

Now, one of the things I noticed right away was, hey, what's this document? And sure enough, the Wall Street Journal didn't publish it, at least not on the day that they published the article. I'm kind of curious if they went back and maybe linked to it. Last I heard and checked, they did not. But why wouldn't you publish the document? If you're making reference to it and it's unclassified, why wouldn't you do that? And that, to me, made absolutely no sense. And then when you start digging, you start to realize, oh, did they want to give the impression, hey, this is it, Salas was mistaken, nobody read him in on what was going on, so here he thought it was aliens, and, you know, sorry, nothing to see here, move on. (0:49:02)

But when you look at the document, it kind of can't be true that these tests didn't take place or the technology wasn't there. It just doesn't make sense. One of the other things, too, that I gave the Wall Street Journal, even though I did not talk about Salas, I'm not an expert on Salas's story or, you know, he's around and can speak for himself, and it's not really an incident that I've gotten into. I've spoken broadly about it. (0:49:27)

But one thing, though, that I did send to the Wall Street Journal, if they bothered to read anything, was you can actually ignore Salas's story, and there were other UFO encounters, not only at Malmstrom, but in tons of other facilities, highly, with high levels of security, I should say, some of which with nuclear storage yards, that were being encroached upon by not only UFOs, but at the time, in the 1960s. In the mid-1970s, what were being described as unidentified helicopters. And even though, again, the skeptic in me goes, okay, it was a helicopter, there's a reason that they're calling it that, nothing was ever found that connected any helicopter to what these flights were, these unidentified craft that were flying over. (0:50:20)

And there are quite a few different reports that you can find, that were all previously classified at some time, of these encroachments of unidentified craft. But nothing was ever caught, nothing was ever solved, and so this, too, was a point in history where, look, if you're telling me that this one isolated incident is an EMP test of a weapon that can strategically shut down ICBM silos, fine. (0:50:49)

Give it a notch on the timeline in your story, no problem. But what's the bigger picture? The bigger picture is a verifiable and documented history of encroaching unidentified craft on nuclear facilities, nuclear storage yards, and military airfields, and military bases, all provable with the information that I gave him, and yet you ignore all that? (0:51:17)

That's part of the story. Why would you ignore that? If you want to explain all of this away, no problem. I got no problem. I'd love to hear it. Please, tell me what these unidentified craft were. And if you think that they're helicopters, cool. Why didn't anybody ever catch one? You're telling me with all of the military equipment, all of the military flight capability, all of the military everything, fill in the blank, you're telling me not one of these helicopters could be caught? Not one? Or identified? Not one? That doesn't make any sense. But all of that was omitted. (0:51:56)

Now, there was a Part 2. Part 2 maybe is a video for another day. Part 2 wasn't a Part 2 at all. It was kind of silly to even call it a Part 2. This was all about Luis Elizondo, the To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science CRADA, if you remember that, and essentially arts parts that was given to the U.S. Army for testing, and they did that agreement and so on. All of that is kind of old news. (0:52:24)

To me, it was just a rehash primarily of stuff we already knew. Sure, if a Wall Street Journal-esque type of masthead wants to cover it, great. Have at it. Have a great time. There was one part of the story that interested me about a safe in Luis Elizondo's office or old office. Look, there was no sourcing to it is the bottom line. Is it interesting and intriguing? Yes. Am I going to look into it? Yes. Do I think there's truth in it? I don't know. (0:52:56)

Because you look at Part 1, who knows where he's getting the story? I'm not familiar with the story before this, so I'm not sure if he's trying to give the impression that Elizondo told him about it, and then the safe was empty, but there was UAP material. I don't know. Sadly, after Part 1, I just don't have a whole lot of faith in Part 2, but as you can see, I look into it and I try and figure it out, and so maybe this is a video for another day. (0:53:25)

So what I want to do now that I've already gone over Part 1 and kind of told you about my experience with them, let me go just one step farther and show you, based on all the telephone conversations, what information I sent over. Again, I've already referenced a few things, but I want you guys to see exactly, not because I think you should look at it. This was based specifically on the information that we talked about. (0:53:54)

This was specifically what he asked me about or that came up in my answer. Because if I make a claim to either Wall Street Journal or somewhere else, then I will back it up. And so after every conversation, I would send a link of everything that I talked about. This included all the CIA material that I made reference to, where UAP material was in the halls of the CIA, that they were still looking in to the UFO and UAP issue and phenomena. (0:54:30)

I use plural for a reason. But they were looking into it and keeping tabs on it for years and years after the government investigation of it. I made reference to the UAP Task Force briefing of NASA that shows just how highly classified this really is. (0:54:48)

Now, if we're dealing with primarily top-secret tech and Blue Force technology and stuff that's readily identifiable, maybe not to the pilot who saw it, but to the U.S. military that's getting the report and it goes up the chain a little bit. And they go, yeah, we can't tell Sergeant so-and-so that this is what they saw. But yeah, this has been tested for a little bit. We got it stationed out in wherever. (0:55:10)

So that's not what happened here. We can now see how classified the UAP topic is by this briefing that I got declassified and I published out there that the UAP Task Force was showing NASA. And they were going into detail about what UAP were and I think I did a video on this document as well. Getting a report on the audio again. I'm not sure what to do. So I haven't seen a whole lot of issues here. So I'm going to keep going and I'm sorry. I'll try and figure out what may be the problem. But yeah, I'm not sure what I can do about that one. (0:55:49)

So anyway, sent them this briefing material. And again, super important on how classified it is and how much they don't want to tell you one answer of what UAP were in this briefing. So they explore a couple things on the top corner. One of the possibilities was redacted. So they didn't even want to tell you what all the options of UAP were. Why not? (0:56:14)

If it was top secret classified tech, okay. You got former personnel going out and talking about it. So the idea is not classified. There's absolutely no reason for you to have an issue saying that. But they redacted it nonetheless. So is that saying top secret classified tech? If you ask me, no, because it doesn't make sense. I also talked about all the UAP photos that have been taken. And then I also made reference to videos as well that were found, but under FOIA, they would not release them. Now I reported on this because I think it's incredibly important. When a Russian jet sprays an MQ-9 Reaper drone with jet fuel, within 24 hours, boom, you have a beautiful looking video that's published for the media. They play it 12 million times over. (0:57:07)

Why? Because it's cool looking. And the DoD has no problem releasing that. By the way, the MQ-9 Reaper drone and its capabilities do have part classified aspects to it. Yet they were able to send that out, no problem. Some of the other encounters, no problem. Release them within days of the encounter. That's how fast they can get this stuff out there. When it comes to UAP related photographs, videos, and so on, all that imagery, all classified. 100%. Across the board, top to bottom, can't tell you anything about it. Their excuse? Well, it's the capabilities that they have, not the UAP or the photo, but we can't reveal the capabilities that we have. (0:57:56)

How stupid is that? They're releasing videos, no problem, of that Russian jet, or that Russian bomber, or whatever the incident is, when it behooves them to do so. But releasing UAP related stuff doesn't behoove them at all. Because it shows that there is a much bigger issue here than the silliness that's being bantered about in not only the Wall Street Journal, but beyond. And yet they classify everything. (0:58:23)

The Wall Street Journal, by the way, completely ignored all of this. (0:58:27)

They did deal with the TTSA CRADA, but I did send that on. (0:58:52)

I believe that I was the first site to publish this when it first came out. It was very important to see. The UAP security classification guide, same deal. This was a big deal when it first appeared, and I got it through FOIA because it showed the level of secrecy of UAP. Obviously, the story of Luis Elizondo did come up with me. I did find, and still find, Luis Elizondo's confirmed position, the director of what's called the NPSMS, what they did. (0:59:11)

And I talked about how, like through FOIA, when it says our mission, this was actually written by the director of the NPSMS after Elizondo had retired, and they said the mission relates strictly to, and then they wouldn't say what. In my opinion, that says SAPS, S-A-P-S, Special Access Programs. I can't confirm that, obviously, because it's redacted, but I do believe the NPSMS does deal with SAP access. (0:59:37)

I went into details about that. Clearly, the Wall Street Journal didn't talk about this aspect of the story, and, you know, maybe that just wasn't their angle, and I can... that's fine, whatever, I'm not going to harp on them for that. But it is a very interesting story, nonetheless. The OSAP documentation, obviously, OSAP coming up. There is a huge differentiation, if you ask me, between the DIA's mandated OSAP mission, and what they essentially contracted out, and what Bigelow Aerospace's subsidiary BAS, the contractor for OSAP, actually did. (1:00:16)

I believe that there is a huge gap, and a huge separation. I think it is a fantastic story. I think a lot of it is not written yet, but I do not believe the Skinwalkers at the Pentagon aspect to all of this is what the DIA wanted. And I believe that that is very important. (1:00:53)

Because in the process of all of this, a lot of those skeptical-minded people that are constantly bashing this whole topic, they kind of connect the quote-unquote government's program, OSAP, to chasing dino beavers at a ranch in Utah. And they kind of put it all together, and say, see, this is all just stupid, and the government's dumb for investigating it, because all it is is rooting to these people who run around looking for werewolves and dino beavers and chasing ghosts. (1:01:09)

Now, I'm not here to talk about dino beavers and werewolves and ghosts. Maybe they exist, who knows. But my point is, is that you can't conflate the two missions. And I think that you have a lot of money that maybe was just private sector money, and they piggybacked on to some taxpayer-funded program known as OSAP. Or maybe there's some misappropriation of funds, but obviously that gets pretty dicey. (1:01:38)

Nobody wants to talk about that. But that is also a, and I stress the word possibility, that funds were not managed and spent appropriately within the DIA. So the DIA signs off on a program that we all know as OSAP, a forward-looking, 40-years-into-the-future technology program, what can we learn about propulsion X, Y, and Z. And then that's spun off into, let's go to Skinwalker Ranch and hunt the dino beaver. There's a lot of questions there that a lot of people aren't asking. But it's a very, very crucial differentiation, because I think you do have a true mission on the side of the U.S. government to figure out what these phenomena are, and that. (1:02:24)

And I don't believe they're one and the same. Others try and push them together, and I think the one side, that dino beaver side, cheapens the other. And as a result, the general public goes, yeah, just a bunch of crazy people looking for dino beavers. It's stupid. And they just kind of dismiss it. And I'm sorry, that's kind of the generalized outlook that people have on this topic. (1:02:50)

Because if that's what they're confronted with, with tabloid-style journalism from New York Post and this type of stuff, lazy journalism from Wall Street Journal, then they kind of just, in their mind, because they're not like you and I, where they're watching videos and stuff like that, they just shove it all together and go, yeah, it's just a bunch of crazy stuff. (1:03:08)

And that's why I get frustrated, because you have to separate the two. And you look at what Arrow did, and this may not even be to their fault, but a lot of their focus was the OSAP stuff, the looking at Skinwalker Ranch, that type of funding, the people that were involved in that, that those really outlandish stories all kind of root to the same couple of people. (1:03:34)

I think they called it a core group of people. And that is absolutely true. So you take the pie, which is the truth, you take one piece of it out, and you take a bite and put the bite on the side. The Wall Street Journal and Arrow both are looking at that one little bite and think they know everything about the pie. That is the way that I look at it, and that's why I get frustrated, because no, it's not about that bite. You can throw that away, I really don't care. There is so much more to talk about, but if you throw the pie out, then you really don't care about the pie, do you? Stop the pie analogy. But you get what I'm saying, is that they're looking at a very small, microscopic part of this very big issue. (1:04:16)

I've never been on the PSYOP bandwagon, but maybe that's the point. Maybe there is an effort out there to say, hey, start focusing in on some of the crazier aspects of this, that albeit may be just an absolute microscopic look of the whole issue, but when you focus on that, everybody's attention is going to go to that. And it's the greatest trick of a magician. You look at my right hand, so you don't see what my left hand is doing. And more and more, I see evidence that there is some type of effort. I'm not saying it's some secret government cabal of people around a dark boardroom table, but what I am saying is that I'm sure they love this. (1:05:02)

They love the Wall Street Journal saying goodbye to the verifiable evidence, to the documentation, to the claims that can actually be backed up with evidence. Say goodbye to all of that and profile TTSA's arts parts. Say goodbye to all of the evidence and just throw something that's not even true. Let's just say the Solace EMP test story or whatever. Let's just say that's bunk and it's verified bunk. They know it. They just want to throw it out there and let it stick because to the majority of the people, it will stick. (1:05:44)

It could absolutely be proven true tomorrow that that is bunk. I bet you the Wall Street Journal would not make any correction whatsoever. But if they do, it'll be like on page 9 with font 2 and just like you could barely read it. That's going to be their correction. So it's one of the two. And their online version, which then at that point no one will be reading, that's if you even want to choose to pay them to get past the big old fat paywall, it'll just be in a font size negative 2 at the bottom. And you read this whole article and they say, oh, correction. We X, Y, Z. We regret the error and that's it. But it's made six months after the fact and who really cares? Like nine people will see it and a few people will post it on social media, but nobody cares. The damage is done. (1:06:38)

So it seems like people want that. (1:06:41)

Moving on on some of the links that I sent them. Jay Stratton came up. I'm using Twitter screenshots just so you can see them. But the link doesn't show on this one. But Travis Taylor as well, I had sent over. I also sent them specifically the DIA records and the CIA ones. Those were records I showed you earlier in the visuals here. There was a reason for that. It came up. And if you really start to think about it, in my opinion, disproves a lot of the angle that the Wall Street Journal had. No wonder they wanted to ignore it. (1:07:15)

Another thing that came up, I'm showing it really wasn't in the article at all, but it did come up was a 1980s document written by Hal Puthoff. And at that time, James Randi had refuted it and fought it. And there was just kind of this battle back and forth. So I, to be honest with you, don't remember exactly why that had come up. But obviously we were talking about Puthoff and some of his classified history. And all of this wasn't just OSAP. Obviously, he played a role in the Stargate program through SRI and so on. So I had gotten a lot of those documents. And I think in the course of one of the conversations that had come up. (1:07:57)

And lastly, these unidentified helicopter documents. I put it in quotations. That's how they refer to it as. But again, none were ever identified even as a helicopter. On top of that, none were found through investigation. On top of that, never photographed, caught, shot down, nothing. So unidentified helicopter, whatever. But there was that wave. So you can see just based on the links that that kind of stuff was specifically talked about with the Wall Street Journal. So the information that I gave through answers, I turned around and sent them documentation. And again, with any journalists that I talk to, with you guys as well, if I'm on a live stream or if I'm doing my own written articles, if I make a claim, I do my darndest to cite it and give you a documented piece of information. (1:08:49)

A piece of evidence to go along with it. If it's an opinion of some kind, then I try and tell you that as well. So therein lies the Wall Street Journal story and kind of my experience with them going through talking. The bottom line is I urge you all to read it. I'll say it one more time, but it's ridiculous because I can see firsthand the stuff that they put people through that they're talking to. (1:09:20)

If it was a 10-minute conversation, that's fine. But if you waste hours of somebody's time and you're getting paid and they're not, have the decency to respect the topic you're covering. That doesn't mean you have to mention them. That doesn't mean you have to credit them for anything. It just means if they spent the time to tell you about what they've done research-wise and the discoveries that they've made, and you're getting paid to write an article about it, give the topic the respect it deserves. That shouldn't be too much to ask. (1:09:57)

Let alone the respect to the person who's spent hours of their time with you. That aside, give the topic the respect. And I don't care what you're writing about—UFOs, whatever scientific pursuit of whatever. It doesn't matter. Fill in the blank. If you're covering something and you're trying to get background on something, respect people's time and respect the information that you're getting and respect the topic that you're covering because people are relying on you to tell them the truth. (1:10:25)

And that's what's weird about all of this because when you go back to the original slide that I showed you and how I was pitched what this Wall Street Journal article was, was it that? No. No, it wasn't. Was it an article worthy on its own? No. Not if you ask me, but sure. I mean, if some people want to read it, fine. Publish it. But do the topic its justice. And this wasn't. And that's how I think I want to end that part of it. (1:10:53)

I'll take your questions. (1:11:23)

I've got a couple minutes before I have to go pick up my son here. But I think that that's what I hope journalists in the future understand. But more than that, that's what I want you guys to understand and people around you, if you help spread that word, that just because the Wall Street Journal is the masthead, that that's the logo at the top of an article, that means absolutely nothing about the truth of that article. That means absolutely nothing about the completeness of that article. So, so many people, when I posted kind of my opinion about Part 1 on social media, fired back and said, don't you think the Wall Street Journal would do their due diligence? Yeah, you'd think. But no, they didn't. Or they ignored it. That was the issue. (1:11:50)

Yes, they did it, or at least they had access to it, but didn't care enough to actually utilize it. And that's what was frustrating. So ignore the masthead. Don't be afraid to ask a question. And don't be afraid to fact check. Because I guarantee, and I posted this on social media as well, the people that are screaming the loudest about this Wall Street Journal article and all these like silly Dr. Kirkpatrick and Tim Phillips private citizen claims. (1:12:20)

About what's going on with UAP and how there's nothing to the topic and it's all stories and this and that. The same people that are screaming the loudest about it are not lifting a finger to research it at all. But by the way, what's interesting is those are still the same voices that aren't lifting a finger to verify, but are very proud to tell you about it. They're the same people saying, don't believe anybody else because they don't have evidence or documents. Ignore them. (1:12:49)

They're grifters. They're shysters. Well, you can't have that vision on one side, but not on the other. Be fair or your hypocrisy is showing. (1:13:00)

All right, so let me see if there's any questions here. (1:13:29)

Please, as I read this one, go ahead and put questions in all caps. I've got only about 10 minutes or so. Questions in all caps. Any super chats that come in, I will get to those first and foremost. Thank you for that support. If you've never been to this channel before or you don't know what super chats are, you can donate to the Black Vault. I do not take it personally, meaning I don't go buy myself a steak dinner or anything. 100%. 100% goes right back into the website. Hosting fees, I've got about three dedicated servers. Software licenses, so a lot of the PDF programs that I use to OCR and make them searchable. The background databases, all of those have monthly and yearly licensing fees, so it gets pretty expensive. (1:13:53)

So 100% of what comes in, I make up the rest. So anything that you can provide is very, very, very helpful. Holy crud, John is back. Just getting in. Did you ever comment on Senator Burchett saying he thinks aliens have bases underwater? The level beyond human. Thank you so much for that. So no, I haven't commented on that. Look, I really like Tim Burchett. I think he's a very genuine guy. I have respect for people, even though I may not believe all of their beliefs or agree with all of their beliefs. And I think the same is true with Tim Burchett. I think that he has some beliefs. I think he's listening to people that maybe he hasn't taken the time to vet. I think that they are quote unquote helping him. And what he hasn't realized yet is that they're not helping him at all. (1:14:39)

I say that respectfully because, again, I really do like Tim Burchett. I know some of you will fire at me because he's a Republican and you're a Democrat or you think he's too conservative or he's crazy or he owns a gun. Whatever. Take your politics and take it elsewhere. What I'm saying is, as a human being, I think he's actually genuine. I think he has beliefs that I don't necessarily agree with. And sadly, I think he's being misled by people I think he thinks are trustworthy. And that's unfortunate, but I say that with all due respect. (1:15:07)

So that being said, I do appreciate your support of the channel. So thank you for that. All right. Let me get to this one here. BrianStory8128, thank you for that. Thanks from the community. We are here with you and appreciate your efforts. Thank you so much, Brian. Really do appreciate that. Definitely means a lot to me. So let me go back to the normal chat. (1:15:43)

Again, I will see any comments that I can here. All caps really helps. I don't have moderators. You're looking at the entire staff of the Black Vault. HyperSonicT6W, John, what do you think of Jake Barber's claims? Okay. So, I mean, this is a video in itself. I think that there are some very genuine people out there that have beliefs that I hope they prove one day. (1:16:01)

And I think Jake Barber fits in that category. I believe that the video that was released that was connected to him of the egg was... I don't know what the right word is to me, but it was pretty wonky. (1:16:12)

It just something seems very off to me. I don't dismiss it just because I have a gut feeling. So don't take that the wrong way. But rather, look, when you look at the video, it just doesn't seem right. And I feel that if it really did show something extraordinary, we would have had a lot happen since then. And we haven't. And I think a lot of these things are said for hype. I think a lot of these things are done for clicks. And that doesn't necessarily mean the root of the video is. So maybe Jake Barber didn't go out there to say, hey, I need to get some clicks and views. (1:16:50)

But rather, he did so and got entangled with people that said, hey, let me put you on a news program. Let me write an article about you. Let me put you on my social media, whatever that is more interested in that. I was kind of let down that yet another UFO organization was started out of that whole thing. So, you know, even though I kind of feel like maybe that's not the original intention, when you come out with another UFO organization, it's just frustrating because we don't need more UFO investigation organizations with a different acronym to learn and whatever. (1:17:28)

All of that is great, but we need the evidence. We need to focus on the evidence. We don't need to focus on boardrooms and who's on my board of directors and who's name dropping former government people. I don't need to name names, but you look at some of these and some of their director people have been involved in seven other organizations. And that's great that they really want to help, but it's like, okay, we don't need more of that. It's just the same. Let's move beyond it. In 30 years, near 30 years, I can tell you I have seen so many UFO organizations, especially through the .com craze. (1:18:07)

You know, what is that, like the early 2000s and mid 2000s? UFO focused .coms. To me, that's like the UFO organizations that we see today, back then, that they were the .coms and all of them boasted the newest, the greatest, the most amazing evidence coming soon. By the way, it's going to be $9.99 a month, you know, and then you just sign up and you go, okay, this sounds good. And then, you know, it goes under like six months later and you have nothing, like the .com just goes away. Those organizations are kind of the same, in my opinion, the same way. (1:18:46)

You see a lot of high price tags for membership fees, but they're not sharing any of the information. It's okay. I feel any way that it's okay. If an organization collects money, not a problem. But don't preach transparency if you're not going to be transparent. And I think that that's very important also. So I'm kind of getting a little bit beyond Jake Barber there, but that's where I was let down with him, is that, you know, you have this guy who comes forward and he's got experiences. He has a video, albeit a little wonky, but at least there was something there. And then it's like, oh, by the way, I'm now going to be heavily involved with creating a new UFO research organization, blah, blah, blah. (1:19:23)

And it's the age-old story, and it just gets tweaked over time. But again, the .coms of the early 2000s to, you know, all these UFO research organizations and efforts today, it's all the same to me, sadly, which is a shame. (1:19:39)

John, what do you think about the latest claims of summoning UAPs? Again, if you can summon UAPs, you shouldn't charge people to go out and teach them how to do it. It should be collective knowledge that you change humanity with, and you'll sell a billion copies of your book. If you were to really prove that and share it with the masses, and then write a book on the side to say, hey, this is how it all came to be, great. But if you claim you've got humanity-changing information, show it. And that goes for the people that charge you for it, and that goes for the people that are like, ah, I could do it, but never really show you. (1:20:23)

Or there's like a, you know, select group of people that they'll take out in private to show. Sadly, you also got the Chris Bledsoe's of the world and him included. I will get hate mail for saying this. Chris genuinely strikes me as someone who I thought was genuine. I used to think that. I think maybe my feelings are changing a little bit. But he always struck me as someone who was genuine, that was misidentifying stuff in the sky. (1:20:51)

Now, it has turned very cult-like. I'm sorry, but it just has. And you look at the information that's coming out, people seeing these UFOs, quote-unquote UFOs that are with him, that are like satellites. Like, you don't... I live in North Los Angeles County. It gets pretty dark up here. I can go out any single night and see UFOs, excuse me, see satellites that some people equate as UFOs, but they're satellites. (1:21:18)

There's apps to help you track. There's historical data you can reference. And you see that with the Bledsoe material. And he just turns a blind eye to it. The one that really, really changed my feelings on him was the SpaceX launch. And he utilized... he was on the phone with somebody and utilized somebody's dead daughter, a daughter who had passed away, and used that and said, oh, this is a sign from them and so on and so forth. (1:21:52)

That, as a dad, was absolutely heart-wrenching to hear because you're utilizing the pain of somebody and connecting that to a SpaceX launch. But in his mind, and how he was conveying it over the phone, was this was a craft from somewhere beyond. This was a sign from the heavens. And it ultimately, if you turn the volume down, super cool video of a SpaceX launch and then a meteorite came in. And you see that in the video, super cool. But you turn the audio up and you go, yeah, let's not. That changed my mind on a lot of stuff, which is unfortunate. But I'm sorry. If you're mistaken, I believe that that's forgivable. (1:22:34)

You should want to know more. You should keep asking questions. If you look up, you see an airplane, you take a photo of it, you post and go, oh, I saw a UFO, but you were genuinely thinking it was unidentified, that's okay. You're not going to get grief from me. But if somebody points out definitively it was an aircraft, don't freak out and don't take offense to that. And those that take offense to these cases being solved shows how much they really, really want to know. (1:23:03)

I've only got time for maybe one more. Grant, always a pleasure seeing you. Hey, John, always good to see you. Did you happen to catch the Timothy Phillips interview? So what are your thoughts on Arrow's seemingly close relationship with the FBI and the use of B7? (1:23:17)

Yes. So the short of it, Grant, and that's an excellent question, is I have talked about the B7 connection for a long time. They've utilized that for a long time. They cannot name the law enforcement reasoning that they're using behind it. And if they have a connection with the FBI, which is fine, the FBI can only utilize, or FBI information can only have the B7 exemption utilized if there's an active and current law enforcement investigation or it kind of blows their law enforcement techniques. (1:23:52)

Other than that, you can't. Now, you can't just blanket everything with B7. Even if Arrow was an investigative agency, which I've argued legally, even if they were, you can't do these blanket denials, which they have. So if I'm understanding your question correctly, you know, is that connection with the FBI may be playing a role in the B7? Possibly, but it's Arrow's mandate, not the FBI's. And the FBI, I would almost guarantee, is not involved with every aspect of information that Arrow gets. Or we just wouldn't have an Arrow. I mean, plain and simple. (1:24:34)

So the fact that Arrow is blanket denying what they are, I believe is still not legally justifiable, even if the FBI is playing a role. That's if you ask me. Those are my two cents. So, Grant, like I said, always thank you so much for that. Let me do one more resolute decide. Yeah, where you been, man? Sorry. Listen to the beginning if you didn't hear it, but I do apologize of my absence. I've missed the one grounded voice in this field. Any future content I can look forward to? Yes, and that's a great closing note. (1:25:12)

At this point, since I am done with the kind of family obligation of moving my mom, very happy I'm done there. So a lot of that free time I will be able to, not that there is much free time, but I'm definitely in more of a position to be able to flip the camera on, sweat under the lights here and talk to all of you guys. So I look forward to that. (1:25:35)

Anyway, thank you guys. I really do appreciate it. Always a blast to hang out with you and talk a little bit about what I've been doing. I've written a ton of stories on TheBlackVault.com, so please make sure you take a look at that and see what you're maybe missing because I don't have time to do videos on everything. That would just be a full-time job in itself. (1:25:58)

But I will try and bring more to you guys, so definitely take a look at those recent articles, and there are more to come. That's not a coming soon tease. You know I'll deliver on that one. Anyway, thank you guys. Truly appreciate it. We'll see you next time. (1:26:11)

(2025-06-30)

前置き​

関連​

音声対話​

情報源 : Youtube 動画(1:26:30)​

ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナルUFO記事の検証​

ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナルUFO記事の検証：

主要テーマと重要な事実の要約​

ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナルUFO記事の検証 - タイムライン

1950年代:​

1960年代:​

1967年:​

1969年:​

1970年代以降:​

1980年代:​

約30年前（John Greenewald, Jr.の活動開始）:​

数年前（John Greenewald, Jr.の調査）:​

2000年代初頭から中頃:​

2021年:​

2023年:​

今年（配信時）1月:​

数ヶ月間（今年1月以降）:​

配信時:​

登場人物

John Greenewald, Jr. (ジョン・グリーネワルド・ジュニア):​

Robert Salas (ロバート・サラス):​

Ryan Graves (ライアン・グレイブス):​

Christopher Mellon (クリストファー・メロン):​

Luis Elizondo (ルイス・エリゾンド):​

David Grusch (デビッド・グラシュ):​

Avril Haines (アヴリル・ヘインズ):​

Tim Burchett (ティム・バーチェット):​

Jake Barber (ジェイク・バーバー):​

Chris Bledsoe (クリス・ブレッドソー):​

Timothy Phillips (ティモシー・フィリップス):​

Kirkpatrick (カークパトリック):​

Jay Stratton (ジェイ・ストラットン):​

Travis Taylor (トラヴィス・テイラー):​

ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナル紙の反論:​

ジョン・グリーンウォルド・ジュニア氏の反論と批判:​

ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナル（WSJ）紙の報道における矛盾と偽善​

報道意図と結果の乖離:​

証拠の欠如と情報の省略:​

ジャーナリズムの倫理違反:​

懐疑派の偽善​

政府や元政府関係者の矛盾​

UAPコミュニティ内の一部の主張における矛盾​

Jake Barber の卵型 UFO の件について​

参考​

前置き

関連