The Black Vault Lays Naked the Fallacies of the WSJ Articles

WSJ’s long-held good standing that they might strategy the subject with
journalistic neutrality, being honest and balanced (no pun meant) if you’ll;
nevertheless, fairly than serving as a balanced entry into a fancy discipline, the
articles—based on veteran researcher John Greenewald (and lots of others) of
The Black Vault—symbolize a evident case examine in narrative bias, selective sourcing, and
evidentiary omission.

Greenewald’s critique (video beneath) delivered in an in depth livestream dated June 28, 2025,
raises a number of scientifically and journalistically vital issues. His
expertise—as an extensively interviewed supply who noticed none of his
evidence-based enter included—gives a novel vantage level for assessing not
solely the WSJ’s reporting, however the broader implications for public
understanding of UAP information.

Misdirection by Design: Framing the UAP Subject as Disinformation

On the coronary heart of Greenewald’s critique lies the assertion that the
WSJ framed your entire UAP challenge as an orchestrated disinformation
marketing campaign—primarily by the U.S. army to masks categorized aerospace
applied sciences. This framing is just not novel; Chilly Struggle-era narratives usually
advised that UAP sightings have been inspired to hide stealth plane like
the U-2 or SR-71.

What’s problematic, Greenewald contends, is just not the inclusion of this
speculation however its presentation as the first explanatory mannequin, unsupported
by sturdy sourcing. The sequence leaned closely on anecdotal recollections, such
as a narrative of an Air Power colonel allegedly planting pretend UFO photographs in a
Nevada bar. Based on Greenewald, such tales have been provided with out
corroborating documentation, successfully decreasing a long time of world UAP information
to the extent of rumor and fantasy.

Selective Silence: Ignoring Documented, Declassified Proof

Maybe probably the most critical allegation Greenewald ranges towards the
WSJ is the deliberate omission of government-verified
documentation. Based on Greenewald, he offered the paper’s reporters with
a whole bunch of pages of major supply materials—obtained legally by means of the
Freedom of Info Act (FOIA)—exhibiting long-term, categorized curiosity in
UAPs throughout a number of businesses together with the DIA, CIA, NSA, and DoD.

These “closely redacted and categorized UFO particular paperwork” span a long time
earlier than and past Challenge Blue Ebook’s official closure in 1969. Greenewald
emphasizes that if UAPs have been nothing greater than Chilly Struggle-era misidentifications
or misinformation, such persistent classification—effectively into the 2000s and
past—would make little logical sense.

By omitting these supplies, the WSJ not solely narrowed the scope of the
article however arguably misled its readers in regards to the state of official information
and concern. The result’s a story vacuum—one which falsely suggests there
is not any “there” there, when in actual fact substantial authorities documentation
confirms in any other case.

The “Yankee Blue” Incident: Reporting With out Verification

The WSJ sequence launched a declare about “Yankee Blue,” an alleged Air
Power hazing ritual through which personnel have been tricked into believing they have been
a part of a categorized UAP retrieval program. The articles claimed this follow
was so persuasive that it led people to whistleblow beneath false
assumptions, and that even Director of Nationwide Intelligence Avril Haines was
briefed and surprised by the invention.

Whereas intriguing, Greenewald sought to confirm this account by submitting a number of
FOIA requests with the Air Power Workplace of Particular Investigations (AFOSI) and
different oversight businesses. As of his broadcast, no data confirming
investigations or official documentation of Yankee Blue have been
discovered.

Once more, the WSJ’s failure to corroborate this sensational declare—and even
present the alleged memo—violates primary journalistic requirements. Within the absence
of documentation, presenting such narratives as truth dangers crossing the road
from skepticism to disinformation by omission.

Ignoring the International Scope: The Helicopter & Nuclear Incursions

One other vital hole within the WSJ reporting was the failure to deal with
documented incidents of
UFO/UAP incursions over nuclear services and army installations, each within the U.S. and internationally. Greenewald referenced declassified
experiences from the Seventies describing encounters with unidentified helicopters and
craft over Strategic Air Command bases and nuclear storage services.

Whether or not these have been terrestrial, international adversary, or genuinely unknown in
origin, they symbolize verifiable, unresolved instances involving nationwide
safety infrastructure. The WSJ not solely ignored these instances but additionally
failed to analyze how usually UAP sightings contain extremely restricted
airspace—an analytical dimension crucial to any good-faith inquiry.

As a substitute, the paper selected to solid doubt on one well-known nuclear incident
involving
Robert Salas
in 1967, by citing an EMP weapons check doc that was not contemporaneous
with the occasion and seems to misalign with the technological timeline. No
sourcing or technical evaluation was offered to help the implication that
EMP testing may clarify the missile shutdowns.

Bias by Comparability: Hypocrisy in Evidentiary Requirements

Greenewald additionally highlights a double customary in how proof is weighed.
Critics of whistleblowers like David Grusch and Luis Elizondo usually decry the dearth of exhausting documentation supporting their claims. But lots of those self same critics celebrated the WSJ article, which itself offered
no documentation to substantiate its central claims about
misinformation campaigns, protected contents, or hazing rituals.

Misused Authority: Mistaking Mastheads for Reality

Maybe crucial theme in Greenewald’s video-editorial is the
misplaced belief in journalistic status.
The Wall Road Journal, he notes, is a masthead that instructions
credibility. However when that popularity is used to publish poorly sourced claims
beneath the guise of investigative reporting, it turns into a car for
institutional bias fairly than public service.

Greenewald makes clear that the WSJ had each alternative to inform a
extra full, balanced story. They’d interviews with researchers, entry to
major supply documentation, and ample time to analyze claims. That they
didn’t displays not a lack of knowledge, however an absence of
editorial will.

The decision for UFO/UAPs transparency has been extant because the delivery of recent
day Ufology in 1947. Conversely, that is aim has been led by unbiased
researchers, similar to John Greenewald and or Unbiased UFO organizations
alongside the best way—the Fourth Property which needs to be the spearhead on this endeavor
has been a hindrance at finest and or inaccurate propaganda machine at its worst.
The Wall Road Journal’s current articles, as criticized by John Greenewald
proceed on this vein.

Conclusion: A Name for Scientific Integrity in Journalism

The decision for UFO/UAPs transparency has been extant because the delivery of recent
day Ufology in 1947. Conversely, that is aim has been led by unbiased
researchers, similar to John Greenewald and or Unbiased UFO organizations
alongside the best way—the Fourth Property which needs to be the spearhead on this endeavor
has been a hindrance at finest and or inaccurate propaganda machine at its worst.
The Wall Road Journal’s current articles, as criticized by
John Greenewald proceed on this vein.

They current a slim speculation (disinformation) as definitive rationalization.
They ignore a long time of declassified documentation. They promote unverified
anecdotes over publicly accessible proof. They usually selectively report claims
that align with their narrative, whereas excluding equally credible
counterpoints.

In doing so, the WSJ has not superior the general public dialog—it has
obscured it. And that’s maybe the best disservice of all:
Not the conclusion the paper drew, however the dialog it selected to not
have.

As Greenewald reminds us, skepticism is just not the rejection of chance. It
is the insistence on proof—constantly utilized, transparently
sourced, and pretty examined. That precept should information all inquiry into
UFOs/UAPs, from FOIA requests to front-page tales. Something much less is just not
journalism. It’s misdirection.