Steven Greenstreet Exposed: Bias, Bigotry and Bad Behaviour
OPINION ARTICLE
Steven Greenstreet (), a Senior Video Producer at the and host of The Basement Office series, has become one of the most polarizing figures in the UAP/UFO community. Positioning himself as a hard-nosed investigative journalist, Greenstreet frames his work as a crusade against hype, inconsistencies, and misinformation. To his supporters, he is a necessary skeptic exposing fraud in a field rife with it. However, to a growing chorus of critics, he represents a cautionary tale of how confirmation bias, aggressive conduct, and alleged ethical lapses can erode journalistic integrity.
This opinion piece, structured in three parts - Bias, Bigotry and Bad Behaviour - examines the controversy surrounding Greenstreet’s public conduct and commentary. By analyzing his social media behaviour and public statements, this article assesses whether his adversarial approach aligns with the accepted ethical standards of professional journalism, or if it serves a different agenda entirely.
Truth-Seeker, Clout Chaser Or Narrative Shaper?
To understand Steven Greenstreet’s adversarial posture toward the UAP community, one must look beyond the surface of "skepticism" and examine the convergence of professional, personal, and financial pressures that may shape his commentary.
While Greenstreet has previously stated he is motivated by the truth, critics have argued that other ulterior motives may be at play, including:
- Weaponized Skepticism (Personal Bias): Greenstreet’s approach is heavily filtered through the lens of past religious disillusionment. Rather than neutral inquiry, he appears to approach the topic with a predetermined outcome, actively filtering out data that contradicts his worldview. This converts skepticism from a tool of discovery into a weapon of ideological reinforcement.
- The Click Economy (Financial Incentives): Despite denials, the modern media economy directly incentivizes controversy. In a system where revenue is tethered to "clicks and views," Greenstreet’s confrontational tactics ensure a steady stream of traffic - regardless of the sentiment behind it.
- The Debt Driver (Financial Pressures): Public records of outstanding tax liabilities suggest a more urgent underlying motivator: a "performance-or-perish" dynamic. Critics question whether these financial burdens could have created a pressure to prioritize high-engagement content, where maximizing viral metrics becomes a mechanism not just for professional success, but for personal solvency.
- Narrative Engineering (Narrative Control): Critics argue that his employment history points to a coordinated effort to manufacture consent rather than inform the public. This suggests an intent to shape the narrative actively rather than report on it passively.
While Greenstreet may present himself as a neutral arbiter of truth, the weight of these factors suggests his skepticism has become transactional. When editorial direction is influenced by past trauma, financial liability, and the algorithmic demand for outrage, the resulting content ceases to be journalism and becomes performance. The question is no longer whether Greenstreet is finding the truth, but whether he can afford to find a truth that doesn't generate conflict. True accountability cannot exist when the reporter’s credibility is compromised by the very motives driving their coverage.
Weaponized Skepticism: A Crisis of Faith That Became a Worldview
Greenstreet’s deep skepticism appears rooted in his disillusionment with the Mormon Church. Raised in a devout family, he served a mission in Venezuela and studied at Brigham Young University before leaving to focus on documentary work. His 2010 film, (co-directed with ) criticized the church’s role in California’s Proposition 8, framing it as exposing institutional deception and opposition to LGBT rights.
That experience of rejecting a belief system with cosmological elements (including extraterrestrial themes in Mormon theology) may have informed his view of UAP advocacy as quasi-religious dogma. He often draws parallels between fervent “UFO believers” and religious followers, and critiques figures as "UFO celebrities" and "UFO grifters". His focus on debunking Mormon-affiliated cases (e.g., Skinwalker Ranch owner Brandon Fugal) adds to speculation of personal projection. This is significant because journalists are obligated to manage personal bias, not project it onto subjects. Repeated comparisons between UAP researchers and religious adherents suggest unresolved ideological framing rather than neutral analysis.
The Click Economy: “I Make No Money Off The Topic” - A Claim That Deserves Scrutiny
Greenstreet has repeatedly asserted that he derives no financial benefit from his UAP/UFO coverage, claiming it represents only a small fraction of his assignments at the New York Post. He describes his role as salaried, with no residuals or direct performance-based pay tied to The Basement Office. However, this claim invites scrutiny.
Sources: Steven Greenstreet et al.
The Basement Office series, which Greenstreet researched, wrote, hosted, produced, shot, and edited, has garnered millions of views across many episodes.
Source: Steven Greenstreet
The New York Post’s digital model thrives on viral controversy, and Greenstreet’s adversarial UAP content is a proven driver of high-value engagement. Readers should note a critical detail: every single UAP video Greenstreet has hosted for the is monetized. In an ecosystem ruled by clicks, his content isn't just reporting; it is explicitly engineered to generate revenue.
While the New York Post has not responded to multiple requests for comment and there is no public evidence to confirm direct commissions or residuals for Greenstreet personally, the series’ success likely boosts his professional value at the New York Post - potentially through job security, raises, bonuses, or editorial favor. Legacy media outlets often use traditional salaried models, but viral content creators can benefit indirectly in a clicks-driven environment. Skeptics view his denials as deflecting accusations of exploiting the topic for profit, especially given the series’ polarizing nature that generates ongoing engagement.
The Debt Driver: Unpaid Taxes - Context or Coincidence?
If Steven Greenstreet does or did receive direct financial kickbacks for content performance, public records introduce a tangible financial dimension to the analysis of his career trajectory, raising questions about external pressures that may influence editorial output. In June 2021, the Maryland Judiciary filed a state tax lien () against Steven E. Greenstreet for $17,753.87, stemming from unpaid taxes dating back to the 2010–2011 period. This filing established a significant personal liability just as his profile within the UAP reporting sphere was growing, creating a backdrop of financial urgency that often necessitates a focus on professional stability and income maximization.
Source: Maryland Judiciary
While the lien is reportedly now closed, its existence during a critical window of his reporting career provides a plausible hypothesis for his aggressive pivot toward high-conflict journalism. In the modern digital media landscape, financial solvency is frequently tethered to performance metrics; high-engagement, viral content secures job security and potential bonuses. Facing a five-figure debt to the state may have inadvertently created a "performance-or-perish" dynamic, where the production of sensationalized, controversy-generating content became a necessary mechanism to ensure the liquidity required to resolve personal obligations.
It is important to note that there is no evidence of a direct quid pro quo between these debts and his specific editorial decisions. The link between his unpaid taxes and his reporting style is the author's speculation, not a proven motive.
Narrative Engineering: Allegations of Being a Paid Disinformation Agent
The accusations surrounding Steven Greenstreet often centre on his documented history in government media production, specifically his past role as a video producer for the U.S. State Department. During an , Greenstreet publicly admitted that this work involved creating "soft American propaganda," a role that undoubtedly honed a specific skillset: the ability to craft compelling narratives designed to influence public perception and align with institutional goals. In a social media disclosure made in January 2026, Greenstreet clarified the specifics of this employment, stating that he worked for a contractor rather than the State Department directly on a 12-month contract from March 2009 to March 2010, during which he was granted a temporary "Secret" security clearance. Critics argue that his background in government messaging may influence his current editorial style - specifically the combination of a federal security clearance and professional experience in government messaging - is not merely a footnote in his resume but raising questions about whether the techniques used to promote U.S. interests abroad are reflected in his current commentary on UAP.
Source: UFO Classified with Erica Lukes
This professional history provides a lens through which his dramatic editorial pivot can be interpreted. Greenstreet’s shift from publishing pro-UAP articles between 2019 and 2021 to adopting a posture of aggressive, hardline skepticism from 2022 onward is viewed by some not as a personal evolution, but as a calculated disruption. By utilizing his production expertise to ridicule prominent figures and dismiss credible data, he effectively "muddies the waters," replacing serious inquiry with conflict and doubt. To his detractors, this resembles a classic counter-intelligence strategy: sowing distrust within a community to stall progress and delegitimize the subject matter, effectively using the "propaganda" toolkit to dismantle the UAP conversation from the inside.
While no concrete evidence or "smoking gun" currently links his commentary to ongoing covert government directives, the optics remain a source of intense speculation. While Greenstreet has clarified his past work was a limited contract, the perception of him as a 'disinformation agent' persists among his critics due to his specific skillset for such contract work. If an entity wished to disrupt the UAP narrative, hiring a professional with a proven track record in government messaging - now confirmed to have held a Secret clearance - would be a logical tactical move. Whether driven by genuine skepticism, editorial mandates, or external contracts, the result is the same: a highly effective campaign that mirrors the mechanics of disinformation, leaving the community to question whose narrative is truly being served.
Part I - Bias
In the pursuit of investigative journalism, neutrality is the bedrock upon which credibility is built; however, Steven Greenstreet’s coverage of the UAP phenomenon frequently abandons this principle in favor of rhetorical shortcuts that prioritize stigma over substance. This section examines how Greenstreet utilizes logical fallacies - specifically "guilt by association" - to dismiss credentialed whistleblowers not by disproving their evidence, but by mapping their social proximity to controversial figures. Furthermore, it analyzes his reliance on confirmation bias, exemplified by his selective use of outdated scientific literature to pathologize David Grusch’s neurodivergence, effectively framing a decorated intelligence officer’s testimony as a product of cognitive vulnerability rather than professional competence.
Discredit by Association: The Fallacy Substituting for Investigation
A distinct pattern has emerged in Steven Greenstreet’s reporting for the New York Post and social media engagement, revealing a modus operandi that relies heavily on discrediting UAP witnesses, whistleblowers and officials not through the falsification of their evidence, but through their social proximity to controversial figures. As seen in his recurring "" visual motif and numerous social media posts, Greenstreet frequently dismisses the testimony of highly credentialed individuals like David Grusch or Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet by tethering them to easier targets such as Jay Stratton or "ghost hunters" from Skinwalker Ranch. By labeling them a "wacky group of 'religious' paranormal activists" or highlighting that Gallaudet is a "good friend" of a "nutjob", Greenstreet attempts to invalidate their professional claims solely based on who they know rather than what they know.
Source: Steven Greenstreet
This rhetorical strategy is a textbook example of the guilt by association fallacy, an intellectual shortcut that bypasses the rigorous work of factual analysis. By arguing that an individual’s credibility is contagious - and that knowing someone with "spooky" beliefs infects a whistleblower’s testimony with falsehood - Greenstreet avoids addressing the substance of their allegations. For instance, dismissing a decorated combat veteran and intelligence officer’s classified complaint to Congress because he is "directly connected" to someone who believes in "werewolves" is a logical failure. It presupposes that professional competence is negated by personal acquaintances, a standard that would dismantle the credibility of nearly any figure in Washington if applied universally.
Ultimately, this reliance on "discredit by association" betrays the core tenets of impartial investigative journalism. The role of a reporter is to examine facts, scrutinize data, and verify claims, not to map out social networks to construct a smear campaign. When a journalist relies on casting a wide net of stigma to impugn an entire group - categorizing them as a "dubious UFO 'religion'" rather than engaging with their individual arguments - they cease to be an objective observer and become an active participant in narrative suppression. Greenstreet’s approach suggests a prioritization of character assassination over truth-seeking, substituting the hard work of investigation with the easy impact of a guilt-by-association smear.
Confirmation Bias: The Smear Against David Grusch
Steven Greenstreet used his platform to cast doubt on the reliability of David Grusch by focusing on his autism diagnosis, insinuating that neurodivergence makes him inherently susceptible to being misled. On June 26, 2023 - shortly after Grusch publicly emerged as a whistleblower - Greenstreet posted a tweet citing a release to claim that the ability to distinguish truth from lies is "diminished" in people with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). By bolding the phrase "putting them at greater risk of being manipulated," Greenstreet framed Grusch’s claims not as the result of his intelligence credentials or investigation, but as a byproduct of a cognitive vulnerability, implying that Grusch was merely a gullible pawn rather than a credible witness.
Source: Steven Greenstreet
However, Greenstreet’s reliance on this specific narrative displays a significant lack of due diligence regarding the scientific literature on autism and deception. Research published a few years later in the directly contradicts the premise that individuals with ASD are categorically worse at identifying lies. The study found that adults with ASD were "equally likely" to detect deception as their neurotypical counterparts, and in scenarios involving "complex cases of deception," they were "even more likely" to successfully detect it. The researchers noted that while individuals with ASD might process social information differently, they do not suffer from a "deficit in the ability to strategically deceive" or detect when they are being deceived.
Source: Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
Source: Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
By ignoring this more nuanced and current scientific understanding, Greenstreet promoted a stigmatizing trope to discredit a subject he was reporting on. The academic text highlights that while people with ASD may struggle with the representation of social information, they are, in principle, "equally good - and in some cases even better" at navigating truth and lies than people without ASD. This suggests that Greenstreet’s characterization was not a neutral observation of medical fact, but a strategic selection of outdated or limited data designed to pathologize Grusch’s neurodivergence and dismiss his testimony without addressing the evidence itself.
Part II - Bigotry
Real investigative journalism is built on a foundation of education, ethical rigor, and, most importantly, a baseline of respect for both sources and subjects. However, Steven Greenstreet’s engagement on social media and public platforms tells a different story, highlighting a track record of conduct that frequently deviates from these professional standards. Rather than maintaining the necessary distance to report objectively, his history is marked by a pattern of repeatedly ridiculing and insulting the very individuals he covers, substituting journalistic critique with personal animus.
This departure from ethical conduct is perhaps most visible in his use of offensive language and discriminatory tropes. Greenstreet’s digital footprint reveals a disturbing history of derogatory comments directed at reporting subjects, alongside documented instances of past offensive social media posts. Furthermore, his behaviour has extended to the objectification of women, employing sexualized imagery to diminish a female target in a manner that would be unacceptable in any reputable newsroom.
Ultimately, these actions suggest a fundamental shift away from respectful, evidence-driven journalism toward a brand of performance art built on sensationalism and hostility. By prioritizing shock value and insults over substance, Greenstreet appears to cultivate a fan base fueled by conflict rather than clarity. This pattern of behaviour is not merely "edgy" reporting; it represents a failure of the ethical obligations required of a serious investigative journalist.
Objectification over Investigation: The Luna Incident
On February 24, 2024, Steven Greenstreet published a post on X purporting to critique U.S. Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna () for her allocation of taxpayer resources toward the investigation of UAP. In the text of the post, Greenstreet challenged Luna’s theological interpretation of the phenomena, citing her belief in "inter-dimensional beings" and her "Christian perspective." However, rather than illustrating this legislative critique with an official congressional headshot or footage from a hearing, Greenstreet attached a high-cut swimsuit photograph from Luna’s past modeling career. This deliberate selection of "thirst trap" imagery over relevant editorial photography marks a significant departure from standard journalistic ethics.
Source: Steven Greenstreet
The decision to pair a discussion on government spending and theological belief systems with sexualized imagery serves no informational purpose; instead, it functions as a tool of objectification. By reducing a sitting member of Congress to her physical appearance, the post shifts the narrative focus from her policy decisions to her body. In the field of professional investigative journalism, visual evidence is expected to support the report's thesis. In this instance, the image had no relevance to the "dubious alien religion" Greenstreet claimed to be exposing, revealing a prioritization of sensationalism and titillation over factual reporting.
Furthermore, this tactic employs a well-worn trope of misogyny in media designed to diminish the professional authority of female politicians. By presenting Representative Luna through the lens of a "pin-up" rather than a policymaker, the post implicitly argues that her value - or lack thereof - is tied to her attractiveness rather than her intellect or legislative capability. Such conduct is widely viewed as unbecoming of a serious reporter, suggesting a lack of respect for the subject that borders on internet trolling rather than objective criticism.
Sources: Various on X
Ultimately, this behaviour erodes the credibility of the journalist himself. When a reporter resorts to sexual humiliation to make a point, they effectively delegitimize their own argument, allowing the audience to dismiss the reporting as petty and exploitative. Instead of offering a rigorous critique of Rep. Luna’s stance on UAPs, Greenstreet’s use of sexualized imagery alienated neutral observers and framed his "investigation" as a personal attack, reinforcing the perception that his work is driven more by the desire for engagement than the pursuit of truth.
Derogatory by Design: Greenstreet’s Pattern of Offensive Conduct
Steven Greenstreet’s conduct exposes a disturbing pattern of bigotry that stands in direct violation of the ethical and expected of a New York Post investigative journalist. In February 2024, a verified New York Post YouTube account linked to Greenstreet’s content stream widely interpreted as a personal insult targeting , a highly respected, immunologist, inventor, and Professor of Pathology at Stanford University, co-founder of , and openly gay man. Whether this was a lapse in oversight or a deliberate insult, the deployment of such derogatory language against a reporting subject is conduct unbecoming of a professional journalist, eroding the impartiality required of the press and potentially breaching his employer's own code of conduct.
Source: YouTube via Lu Reviews
This incident is not an outlier but the latest chapter in a documented history of racist and inflammatory social media activity. Internet sleuths have alleged a connection between Greenstreet and the Reddit user, u/MFLUDER whereby in the 2010s, Greenstreet repeatedly used the phrase "Black? click Black" - a phonetic dog-whistle mocking African American people - often in threads discussing crime or race, accompanied by laughing emojis. This recurring trope suggests a comfortable familiarity with racial caricature that far exceeds the boundaries of "edgy" humor.
Source: Reddit u/MFLUDER
Perhaps the most egregious example occurred in February 2018, when Greenstreet sparked widespread condemnation for attacking former First Lady Michelle Obama. He posted the viral "Monkey Christ" meme - a botched restoration of a Jesus fresco known for its simian features - and captioned it, "The official national portrait of Michelle Obama." This comparison was not an artistic critique; it was a dehumanizing racist caricature invoking the historical slur likening African American people to primates. By selecting an image colloquially known as "Monkey Jesus" to represent the first African American First Lady, Greenstreet displayed a profound lack of racial sensitivity and judgment.
Source: Steven Greenstreet
This pattern of targeting marginalized groups extends to sexism as well. In 2011, he faced significant backlash for creating a blog and video series titled "," which stripped female protesters of their political agency to objectify them for male consumption. Taken together, these incidents establish a reputation where the boundaries of human decency are frequently crossed for engagement.
How Offensive Language and Insults Became Greenstreet’s Brand
Steven Greenstreet has publicly positioned his adversarial relationship with the UFO community as a testament to his journalistic integrity, explicitly boasting about the large number of "UFO celebrities" and "UFO personalities" who have blocked him on social media. As seen in his post displaying a collage of "You're blocked" notifications from prominent figures such as Lue Elizondo, Christopher Mellon, and Garry Nolan, Greenstreet frames this mass exclusion not as a professional hindrance, but as a badge of honor. He argues that any journalist not blocked by these individuals is merely performing "free public relations for a dubious alien religion," thereby categorizing his reporting subjects as active participants in a belief system rather than neutral sources.
Source: Steven Greenstreet
This aggressive posture makes his use of crude language toward these same figures come as little surprise to observers. For instance, in a separate tweet dated May 4, 2022, Greenstreet wrote, "Fuck Tim Burchett, respectfully," directing a harsh expletive at the U.S. Congressman () known for his advocacy on UAP transparency. Such outbursts suggest a blurred line between professional criticism and personal antagonism. When a reporter openly disparages the subjects of their beat with such blunt hostility, the resulting alienation from those subjects appears less like a conspiracy of silence and more like a standard social consequence of the reporter's own conduct.
Source: Steven Greenstreet
Ultimately, the dynamic Greenstreet highlights creates a self-reinforcing cycle. By publicly celebrating his alienation from the core figures of the UFO topic and employing derogatory language against them, he cements his status as an outsider to the community he covers. The "blocks" he showcases serve as evidence of his combative approach, which he interprets as hard-hitting journalism, while his critics - and likely the subjects themselves - view the blocking as a predictable reaction to public insults and hostility.
Part III - Bad Behaviour
Investigative journalism and documentary filmmaking are traditionally predicated on a sacred trust: the commitment to uncover truth, protect vulnerable sources, and present reality unvarnished by performance. However, a corrosive shift in modern media practices threatens to dismantle this integrity, as the pursuit of virality increasingly supersedes ethical rigor. When practitioners trade impartiality for the public ridicule of their subjects and betray confidential agreements to doxx sources, the profession ceases to inform and begins to manipulate. This descent into adversarial entertainment not only de-legitimizes individual reporting but fundamentally erodes public trust, leaving audiences unable to distinguish between genuine inquiry and engagement-driven fabrication.
From Reporting to Ridicule: A Shift in Editorial Method
The trajectory of Steven Greenstreet’s coverage of the UAP topic reveals a troubling metamorphosis from objective reporting to adversarial theatrics. While his initial work in 2019 engaged with the subject as a legitimate national security concern, his methodology shifted markedly by 2022, trading investigative rigor for ridicule and performative conflict.
This shift is not merely a change in tone; it is a fundamental abandonment of journalistic neutrality. As evidenced by his social media activity, Greenstreet now routinely frames whistleblowers, scientists, and independent journalists not as sources to be vetted, but as targets to be mocked. He characterizes subjects as "grifters" and "frauds", dismisses serious inquiry as chasing "space goblins" and "dinobeavers", and reduces complex government programs to the work of "crazy" bosses. In one particularly egregious instance, he referred to the late as both a "major douchebag and a complete moron".
Source: Steven Greenstreet
This pattern reflects a deep-seated confirmation bias where ridicule replaces analysis, signaling to his audience that conclusions should be drawn based on insults rather than evidence.
Betrayed on Background: Allegations of Source Exposure
In the realm of investigative journalism, few principles are as sacrosanct as the golden rule: journalists must protect the confidentiality of their sources, particularly when information is shared on background or without explicit permission for attribution. This foundational ethic safeguards whistleblowers, insiders, and others who risk personal or professional repercussions by speaking out. Yet, in his coverage and commentary on UFO/UAP topics, Steven Greenstreet is accused of violating this rule by revealing his source. The breach occurred in connection with the now infamous 2018 confidential Skinwalker Ranch briefing, attended by high-level figures, including then-AARO director, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick.
During a June 2022 interview with Brandon Fugal, prominent business leader and the owner of , Greenstreet learned details of the 2018 briefing on strict background terms. Brandon Fugal () described an attendee at the head of the table stating that all present were “well aware” of the reality of UFO phenomena, implying no need to convince them further. Fugal shared this information confidentially, showed Greenstreet related photos (without allowing filming), and never authorized public identification or direct attribution to him regarding Kirkpatrick’s attendance. In fact, Fugal never once mentioned Kirkpatrick by name in the interview that was publicly aired. via an “anonymous source familiar with the briefing,” attributing the remark to Kirkpatrick without naming Fugal.
Source: New York Post - Skinwalker Ranch: Judgment Day (Pt 5)
The violation escalated in May 2024. After , who denied leading any discussion and claimed he was merely an independent reviewer, Greenstreet publicly linked the original claim back to Fugal. This action identified Brandon Fugal as the source allegedly without consent, revealing his identity and confidential admissions of Kirkpatrick's attendance. Greenstreet repeated the unauthorized disclosure in earlier posts as well, including one five months prior, compounding the ethical lapse. No evidence - such as recordings, notes, or on-record confirmation - has ever been produced to substantiate Greenstreet's reporting that Fugal explicitly named Kirkpatrick as leading the briefing or making definitive UFO-reality statements.
This conduct not only undermines journalistic integrity but erodes trust within the UAP community, where sources often share sensitive information at great personal risk. By betraying Fugal’s confidence, Greenstreet has demonstrated a lack of professional conduct and integrity, prioritizing narrative advancement over source protection. Prospective informants may now hesitate to engage with him, fearing similar exposure. The incident highlights how even self-proclaimed evidence-driven reporters can prioritize agenda over ethics, damaging credibility in an already contentious field.
For a comprehensive breakdown of how this incident unfolded and was exposed with supporting evidence, watch the X exclusive video titled, .
Libel and Laslo: A Case Study in Manufactured Conflict
The feud between Steven Greenstreet and political journalist, Matt Laslo () escalated significantly in October 2024, when Laslo formally accused Greenstreet of libel and unethical conduct in a . Laslo, the founder of the news service , alleged that Greenstreet engaged in a campaign of defamation by publicly labeling him and his publication as "UFO fanatics" to discredit their reporting. Laslo argued this characterization was a deliberate falsehood designed to marginalize a veteran political reporter whose work has been cited by mainstream outlets like The Hill and The Daily Mail.
The controversy deepened when Laslo exposed a direct contradiction in Greenstreet's public statements. While Greenstreet claimed on X that he was "not a subscriber" to Ask a Pol UAP and framed his knowledge of their content as casual observation, Laslo provided digital evidence to the contrary. Subscription logs revealed that Greenstreet had subscribed to the service twice using two separate New York Post email addresses - one in August 2023 and another in April 2024. This discrepancy suggests that Greenstreet was not merely a passive critic but an active consumer of the very reporting he sought to publicly delegitimize, lying about his access to the platform to maintain a facade of distance.
Source: Matt Laslo (Founder, Ask a Pol UAP)
Laslo's complaint highlights a troubling pattern where Greenstreet appears to weaponize false narratives to attack professional peers. Laslo noted that Greenstreet had participated in Ask a Pol's private Discord livestreams and even questioned federal lawmakers himself, only to later misrepresent the nature of the platform to his own audience. This behaviour, Laslo asserted, crossed the line from professional rivalry into actionable defamation. The seriousness of the allegations prompted a swift response; Laslo reported that within an hour of sending his formal complaint, a New York Post editor called him to apologize. This rapid institutional damage control underscores the precariousness of Greenstreet's tactics, which appear to violate not only the ethical norms of journalism but potentially the legal boundaries of libel.
The "Sock Puppet" Scandal: Manufacturing Consent and Anonymous Harassment
In an era where digital transparency is paramount for journalistic credibility, evidence suggests that Steven Greenstreet allegedly engaged in "inauthentic behaviour" to covertly manipulate the discourse surrounding his own reporting. Allegations center on a pseudonymous X account operating under the handle (display name: "DownIsTheNewUp"), active from April 2023 until its abrupt deletion in November 2025. While the account presented itself as an independent observer, digital evidence appears to link the account to Greenstreet. Key evidence includes a password reset request suggesting the account was registered to an email address matching the format of Greenstreet’s official New York Post work email. Furthermore, the user behind the account appeared to inadvertently unmask themselves in a reply to a thread involving Jay Stratton, opening the post with "SG here" - Greenstreet's initials - before slipping back into an attack on the subject.
Source:
The account functioned as a dual-purpose tool for self-aggrandizement and anonymous harassment, allowing Greenstreet to bypass professional norms. On one front, frequently praised Greenstreet’s work in the third person, framing his past propaganda experience as "top secret 'tactics'" used to "subvert and manipulate the UFO community". This technique, known as "sock puppeting," creates a false appearance of grassroots support, artificially inflating the perceived impact of his reporting. On the other front, the account targeted specific subjects of his investigation - such as investigative journalist George Knapp - with derogatory comments about "taxpayer-subsidized ghost festivals" and personal insults that would likely be deemed unprofessional if posted from his verified handle.
This alleged conduct represents a severe breach of the ethical standards expected of any legitimate investigative journalist. By operating a shadow account to attack sources and critics while simultaneously reporting on them, a journalist effectively erases the line between objective observer and active manipulator. Using an anonymous account for the purpose of harassment and ban-evasion also likely violated X’s Terms of Service regarding inauthentic identities.
Prior to the publication of this article, the author made attempts to solicit comment from Steven Greenstreet via social media regarding the specific allegations detailed above, including his widely regarded insult targeted at Dr. Garry Nolan and the ownership of the alleged ‘sock puppet’ account. To date, these inquiries have gone unanswered.
Conclusion: The Merchant of Chaos - A Legacy of Distraction
Steven Greenstreet presents himself as a crusader against misinformation, yet his critics argue that he frequently employs the very tactics of distortion he claims to expose. From the allegations of "sock puppet" accounts to the documented instances of derogatory conduct and the controversial handling of confidential sources, the pattern of behaviour outlined here suggests a departure from standard investigative ethics. When viewed in its totality, Greenstreet’s body of work risks appearing less like objective reporting and more like "narrative engineering" - a style that prioritizes conflict over clarity.
Greenstreet’s X biography conspicuously includes the disclaimer "Opinions mine", a standard shield used to separate personal views from employer liability. However, this distinction rings hollow when the individual holding those opinions also trades on the title of "Investigative Journalist" for a major legacy outlet. The UAP community - and the public at large - deserves better than a self-proclaimed truth-seeker who seemingly retreats behind a liability shield to justify conduct that would be unacceptable in any serious newsroom.
The field of UAP investigation demands dispassionate scrutiny to separate anomalous signals from cultural noise. However, by prioritizing viral engagement and ideological battles over factual nuance, Greenstreet’s approach converts skepticism from a tool of discovery into a weapon of reinforcement. In doing so, he risks polluting the very information ecosystem he claims to clean. Rather than acting as a neutral gatekeeper of truth, the evidence suggests Greenstreet has positioned himself as an agent of chaos, thriving in a polarized environment where the mystery remains unsolved - and profitable - so long as the conflict continues.
About Grant Lavac
Grant is a UAP activist, researcher and podcaster residing in Melbourne, Australia. Grant frequently leverages the Freedom of Information Act to better understand Australia’s involvement (or rather, lack thereof) on the UAP issue, and engages both his elected representatives and the legacy media in the hope they’ll take the topic seriously and treat it with the respect it deserves. Grant reports on his FOIA findings and engagement efforts via his podcast, The Unexplained Rundown, which is freely available on Spotify and YouTube. To follow Grant's ongoing research, visit .
Want to publish your own Article?
Upgrade to Premium