January 25, 2024 • 30 mins
Recently released documents to The Black Vault via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) offer a rare glimpse into the Department of Defense Inspector General’s evaluation of the DoD’s response to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP).
The post Ep. #130 – DoD Inspector General Releases Details of Interview With UFO Whistleblower David Grusch first appeared on The Black Vault.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
David Grusch (00:07):
My name is David Charles grush. I was an
intelligence officer for 14years in the US both in the US
Air Force, both active duty AirNational Guard and Reserve.
There has
John Greenewald (00:17):
been a lot of talk about UFO whistleblower
David grush lately, and it allstarted when he submitted a
complaint to the Department ofDefense Office of the Inspector
General back in 2021. We knownow about at least one meeting
grush had with them thanks tonew documents released via the
Freedom of Information Act. Andwe have an idea of what was
(00:38):
talked about. To my surprise,not only were there very few
redactions, but there was a bitof a surprise to go along with
it. Stay tuned, you're about tojourney inside the black vault.
(01:17):
That's right, everybody. Asalways, thank you so much for
tuning in and taking thisjourney. Inside the black vault
with me. I'm your host, JohnGreenewald, Jr. And today, as
you just heard, we're divinginto some new documents that
came to me through the Freedomof Information Act straight from
the Department of Defense'sOffice of the Inspector General.
Now, for some quick background,if you aren't aware, the UFO
(01:39):
whistleblower David grush, inabout July of 2021, has had
submitted a complaint to the DoDIG about some stuff he was
finding when it came to UFOs UAPreverse engineering crash
retrieval biologics as hereferred to them non human
intelligence, he was seeing allof this stuff and issued a
(02:00):
complaint to the DoD IGessentially alerting them that
Congress was not made aware alot of about a lot of these
programs. Now he felt accordingto him that there was some
reprisal from that, that theystarted, essentially maybe not
treating him right. We don'tknow the details of that. He
doesn't like to go into them inthe interviews that he has done,
(02:22):
simply because he he I, fromwhat I understand, anyway, feels
that if he were to go into thatdetail, and may harm an ongoing
investigation, we've we'vereally kind of very heard very
little about that. So there'sthere's not many details to
report. So what I did is I filedmultiple FOIA requests on
everything that he has said,anything that I could kind of
(02:45):
pick up on, maybe find a papertrail of, and one of those
things, was digging into theDepartment of Defense inspector
general complaint that he hadsubmitted. And any
communications that went alongwith it again, the timeframe
from what we were told, wascirca July of 2021. So I filed
the request, went after thosedocuments. And to my surprise,
(03:06):
some stuff came up not exactlywhat I was thinking, not exactly
what I was expecting. But therewas some surprises and a little
bit of a twist that came alongwith it. So if you haven't seen
this article, I published it acouple of weeks ago, it was
January 12, to be exact. And Ijust sadly, just didn't have my
new office here set up to whereI can create a video for you
(03:28):
guys here in the in the videorealm versus just the textual
one when I publish thesearticles. So with that being
said, I will put the link to thearticle in the show notes below,
it will give some other sourcelinks. And we'll give a little
bit more detail from this videoas well, along with the links to
the documents that we're aboutto go over. There's not a whole
(03:48):
lot of them. But I think thatit's pretty important to go
ahead and highlight. So one ofthe let me just go ahead and
scroll down here to thedocuments themselves. Now when I
got these things, again, I waskind of more expecting some
correspondence from him abouthis complaint. So see his
(04:11):
complaint, or at least a portionthereof, obviously, they'll
redact some of that, and maybesome correspondence about what
he had submitted. On thecontrary, there wasn't really
anything about that, but ratherit had tied into the evaluation
that the DoD IG was doing thatthey started back in May of
2021, shortly before theinterview with David grush, and
(04:35):
when he was communicating withthis specific office, and if
you're not familiar with thatevaluation, I'll link this as
well, but essentially that whatthey were doing was creating
what they called it a evaluationon the DoD actions regarding
UAP. There wasn't a whole lot ofscope or context or mission
(04:55):
objectives on this. So we werekind of left a little bit out to
dry But when it came to whyexactly they were doing this,
but we knew that the IG wasstarting to look into it. Well,
unbeknownst to us, the generalpublic a couple of months after,
that's when David grushsubmitted what he did, and the
ball started rolling, so tospeak, that kind of led to him
(05:17):
coming out into the open acouple years thereafter. And
essentially, really creating alittle bit of a storm with his
claims. And, and what he kind ofbombshell to the world, very
controversial, obviously, not awhole lot of proof or evidence
that went along with his claims.But it has gotten a lot of
(05:40):
press. So these documents then,were about this evaluation,
which I was pretty surprised at.Let me scroll down here. This is
the the foyer release letter.Anybody can verify these FOIA
cases and so on. Don't worry,that's a public address. So I'm
not flashing where I live oranything. But I always
appreciate those concerncomments when I flashed my
address that is public, so noworries there. So let's talk
(06:04):
about what first came up. Now.This was a July 12 2001 meeting.
We don't know the exact datethat David Gresh had submitted
what he did to the IG we canonly assume since he was on the
radar to be interviewed, it waslikely prior to that July 12,
date, purpose of this workpapersto document our interview with
major David grush on July12 2021. So obviously the IG sat
(06:27):
down with him on that day, weinterviewed major graphs to
determine whether he couldprovide background information
that might be relevant to ourevaluation. So obviously, they
were looking at him to providesomething that could help them
about the DoD actions. Again, wedon't know really what the exact
scope of this evaluation was oris. So that's kind of the gray
(06:50):
area here where we have no ideawhat they were really looking
for. The overall classificationof this meeting was at the top
secret, no foreign or no foreignintelligence level due to the
vulnerabilities subject matterdiscussed and potential
compilation of informationsources. The interview was
conducted on June 12 2021. Hereare the attendees. Now these are
(07:11):
one of the few redactions weobviously no major David grush
was there. And then on behalf ofthe IG, those are redacted for
privacy reasons. That's notuncommon. I wouldn't. Again, if
you're not used to seeing thesetypes of redactions, it's not
really an alarm. I've dealt witha lot of these documents before.
And agencies very much protecttheir own personnel. So unless
(07:33):
it's their director or assistantdirector or somebody who's in
the news all the time,generally, they will redact that
under what's called exemption Bsix, but we at least get to know
where they're from within theIGs office of the DOD, space
missile and nuclear division,research and engineering
division, evaluations, and theintelligence portion of their
(07:56):
evaluations as well. Soessentially, all from the IGs
office, all from different, youknow, departments if you want to
call them that within theiroffice, and they were all part
of this meeting. Now, here's thescope of the meeting. The stated
objective of the project is todetermine what actions the DOD
has taken in regard to UAPreporting and policies. The
(08:17):
scope of this interview is todetermine what efforts DARPA has
published, developed, receivedand implemented, that is
associated with UAP, sightingsand events. Now, this started to
now give a little bit of a scopevery, very briefly of what the
evaluation was, which led to thescope of this particular
interview. The mention of DARPAand what DARPA had published was
(08:40):
kind of an interesting littletidbit there. But essentially,
we got a little bit of a peekinto what exactly they were
looking for. Next sectionmethodology the interview was
accomplished to gain testimonialevidence from a member of the
UAP Task Force to gain a betterunderstanding into what the DOD
has done and should be doingregarding the UAP problem set.
(09:01):
The team prepared a list ofquestions to guide the
discussion with major grushregarding the DOD has actions
taken in response tounidentified aerial phenomena.
However, the interview wasconducted in less in a less
structured manner, allowingmajor grush to provide any
information he believed wasrelevant to our evaluation, all
pretty straightforward infosummary of the interview on July
(09:22):
12 2021, we met with Davidgrush. To obtain information he
had regarding our evaluation ofthe DoD is actions taken in
response to unidentified aerialphenomena or UAP. A redacted
name recommended that we speakto major grush regarding the
topic of our evaluation, referto the quote Source tab of his
(09:42):
of this work paper. For aspecific list of the meeting
attendees we've already goneover that the overall
classification of this meetingwas at the top secret no foreign
level due to thevulnerabilities, subject matter
discussed and potentialcompilation of information. The
remainder of this work paperssummarizes the discussion that
occurred during the meeting. Andthe statements that were
(10:03):
attributed to major David grush.Major Gresh provided us with
general background informationon the DOD has actions regarding
UAP. To his knowledge. Nowhere's one of the bigger
redactions and
one that's obviously a muchbigger than a name. Major grush
stated that and then if you'relistening to this, there's, you
(10:26):
know, in total about two orthree lines, full line and then
two half lines or so a littlebit more than half. So we don't
know exactly what's under there.But Major gruff stated that and
then a bunch of redaction, hestated that he has been studying
UAPs for 15 years, and that heserves as the NRO liaison to the
UAP Task Force. This became avery controversial line. When I
(10:49):
published the article, I leftthis alone, simply because I
have tried, but cannot get aresponse from David grush.
myself. So I to be blatantlyhonest with you just didn't want
to go ahead and create anaccusation that he was lying
about this, because this is aclear contradiction to what he
has said publicly. So when Iread that I just kind of like to
(11:13):
myself rolled my eyes a littlebit and go, Okay, I know that
I'm not going to be able to geta line to him. The only contact
information I found for him wasbunk. And I don't do the
stalker, you know, look him upand find his phone number thing.
So I know some people that thatworks for them. I don't agree
with that. So it's well knownthat I've been wanting to talk
(11:36):
to him. I know that for a factthat people have passed on. And
he does not care to reach out,which is fine. That's his right.
He doesn't owe me anything. So Ileft this part out, I just
didn't want to create, you know,this drama, well, a lot of you
are very smart, and you payattention. And you noticed it.
And it started popping up onsocial media, that it stated he
(11:59):
was involved in studying UAPsfor 15 years, when essentially
he was telling everybody that hedidn't really have an interest,
or think about him until, youknow, much more recent days. So
that was a clear contradiction.Now I'm going to stop reading
the document and read somethingto you. I have tried, since this
appeared online to verify it.And I'm going to be honest with
(12:22):
you and say I haven't, because Idon't have a line to David
grush. And I've reached out toRoss Coltart he did not respond.
Sadly, that is not new. I'vereached out to him a couple
times about David grush, inhopes that either he can help me
and assist me in getting answersor put a line to him. For me,
(12:42):
and neither has been successful.I have no reason to doubt this
though. So I'm going to read itto you anyway. This was
according to Michelangelo givento him through direct message
from Ross Coltart essentiallyMike, who was a Twitter user or
ex user, who has quite afollowing posts a lot of videos,
(13:05):
a lot of information from fromvarious angles of this
conversation. He had posted thisand explained that when he
reached out to Ross Coltart hegot this this on the record
comment in return relating towhat I published. So this is
what David grush said. The DoDIG foyer released to black vault
(13:28):
today highlights an organizationproposal to succeed UAP TF that
myself and my colleaguesdeveloped on our own time before
the arrow office was created.Not only did I briefed DoD IG
evaluations team on thisproposal, but I also presented
the same chart deck to SenatorHarry Reid in April of 2021. in
(13:48):
a personal capacity for hisguidance, he was very
enthusiastic on the idea of aNational Space Lab to receive
records and UAP material fromexact executive branch agencies
who would then federate it outto academia, and other partners
and a whole of governmentapproach. He was going to use
the OSA our proposal as a basisof this next discussion with
(14:12):
President Biden, the interviewerreports that I've been studying
UAP for 15 years, I have not,and may have misconstrued my
total time in uniform serviceCadet plus commissioned officer
at the time. And that was fromDavid grush. The first part of
that may not make sense to you.If you haven't seen the document
yet. Don't worry, we'll get tothat. I'm just not there yet.
(14:33):
But I wanted to make sure that Iput this in there that David
grush has refuted what was inthese documents. But I will say
and again, this is somethingthat I would love to ask him
about. If you look at all thisstuff, and the summation of what
was talked about, there are veryfew quotes direct quotes the use
of quotation marks.Interestingly, this was in a
(14:56):
quote. So the document states hestated that he He and then in
quotes, has been studying UAPsfor 15 years and that he serves,
unquote. And that he serves asthe NRO liaison. So whatever. So
whatever this was, it came fromsomewhere. I mean, I'm guessing,
you know, these guys, when theydo these, these summations and
(15:17):
so on. They're not just pullingit off the top of their head and
making it up as they go. When itcomes to exact quotations. What
does that mean? Who knows? Look,if it was a mistake, then it's a
mistake. We'll move on. But Iwanted to make sure I got
Gratias words in there. Back tothe document, major grush stated
that there was no formalreporting mechanism for
(15:38):
reporting UAP observations andinitiating investigations.
However, he stated that therewere some forms that should be
emailed to and then the therewas a redaction. That's just an
unnamed by the way, in case thatwasn't clear, major grush stated
that, in his opinion, theanalysis done for the Director
(16:00):
of National Intelligence UAPreport was not very in depth,
there's another quote was notvery in depth, major grush
stated that we should speak withand then a redacted name, and
Air Force point of contactregarding potential recovered
UAP materials. Now, this was themost interesting part of this
(16:21):
document. Because this was theonly thing as you'll see, as we
go through this. That touched onUAP material of some kind, what
we have come to know about Davidgrush, biologics, nonhuman
intelligence retreat, crashretrieval programs. All of that
(16:41):
was absent from this discussion.Why I mean, that I don't
understand. This was hisopportunity to really put in the
evaluation by the DOD, hey,there's some stuff going on
here. The DoD has not treatedthis correctly. They are not
informing Congress about this.This is what they're doing. It's
illegal. He mentions whitecollar crime in his, in his
(17:05):
interviews, there's all sorts ofstuff that he could have put in
here, and he doesn't, but thisone line did actually allude
that someone from the Air Forcehad or knew where to get
potential recovered UAP materialthat to me was really
interesting. who that is, itwould be very, very helpful if I
knew, or if we all knew, sadly,we don't, but at least we got a
(17:27):
little bit of a of a hint there.Now back to the document. Major
growth stated that herecommended the DoD fund and
conduct quote, red and blueassessments, unquote, of UAP, in
addition to establishing apermanent office to investigate
what he called strategicanomalies. Additionally, major
(17:48):
grush provided us with a copy ofa briefing regarding a proposed
permanent office to handle suchstrategic anomalies, including
UAP. Conclusion major grushprovided us with general
background information on theDoD actions regarding UAP to his
knowledge, updated by and thenagain, some redactions there for
(18:08):
names and so on, and so forth.The next part was a little bit
of a surprise. This wasobviously like a PowerPoint
presentation or a printout of apresentation, strategic anomaly
resolution. But look at this,look at the seal here, Office of
Strategic anomaly resolution.Something that was never before
(18:29):
revealed. So when I first sawthis, I'm thinking, okay, is
this a government proposal? Thething that I noticed right off
the bat, there's noclassification markings, which
indicates likely not official.And then if we go back when we
go back to his statement, thatended up being correct. So if
(18:50):
you remember, let me see here.The proposal to succeed UAP TF
that myself and my colleaguesdeveloped on our own time. So
when I had kind of asked thatquestion in the article for
those that that did read itoriginally, that ended up being
confirmed where it was not notofficial. But you can see here,
(19:13):
as we go through the proposal byDavid grush, for this office,
which is, you know, pretty,pretty interesting to see. You
can see here with a task forceresolution here, right in the
center, we have one side of thespectrum, on the slide for
background where you go fromgreen all are explainable,
whether aeroplane balloons,space debris, but you can kind
(19:34):
of see the spectrum of what he'strying to propose. And we just
have to guess a little bit ofexactly what went along with the
presentation if he was there,you know, giving some kind of
idea for the DOD to implementwho knows. But you can see here
Task Force right in the center.A task force is temporary, what
(19:55):
should an enduring comprehensivecapability look like? So
obviously must have talked aboutthat. objectives key questions?
What is it? How does it work?Those are the primary questions,
operations and IntelligenceResearch and Development. That's
the focus secondary, what do weknow about it? How do we talk
about it? How do we work withothers? How
do we protect our equities,enablers, policy, communication,
(20:17):
partnership security. So again,he's obviously got some kind of
proposal slash presentation thatgoes along with all this written
stuff. So this isn't a documentthat should be read by its own.
But again, I'll link it in theshow notes, I'll stop, you know,
regurgitating and just guessingwhat the slides fully meant. But
you did get a little bit of anidea here, I'll keep scrolling,
(20:40):
you get a little bit of an ideaof where he was going with what
he felt should come after theUAP T F. Here are some of the
more colorful slides strategicanomaly and observation
resolution, or soar, prototype,knowledge management, visible
visual visualization, the goalis create an environment to
capture store and interact withdata in an intuitive and rapid
(21:03):
manner. Integrate an analyticspackage to create both
standardized and customizableoutputs for trend analysis and
prediction, and predictionincorporate artificial
intelligence algorithms tocontinually assess data quality
through association or erroneousdata identification, Project
Bluebook used his first testcase, so he was really getting
(21:23):
into this and trying to create asystem where they can just make
one central source for all ofthe data that sounds great,
nothing wrong with that this is,uh, you know, very cool, I would
have hoped that the UAP TF wouldhave tried to do something like
this, or at least later the AOAMSG or later arrow, you know, I
mean, the name the acronym, Iwould have hoped that they would
(21:45):
do that, where they're bringingall that data together, he put a
visualization using ProjectBluebook, as as an example,
there were over 10,000 casefiles. You know, that's, that's
roughly, I mean, it was12,006 18, I think was the exact
number. But he must have, youknow, integrated somehow the
(22:05):
locales of all of those cases,just to kind of show an example
of if they collected all ofthese particular sightings, how
they could, you know, visuallydisplay it, see where those
hotspots are, what'sproblematic, where are weak,
weak points, and so on.Observations, obviously, you can
zoom in on these particularcases, and then come up with
case details, all of this very,very cool. And oddly, similar to
(22:30):
some of the stuff that we areseeing on the private sector
side. You know, those apps thatkeep coming around that there's
a lot of controversy about seemto do exactly this, though, I
don't think Russia is involvedin that. Or those those
projects. You know, this is verysimilar to what people are
trying to do in the privatesector as well. And in fairness,
(22:53):
there's been a lot of us thathave created a database, myself
included with interactive mapsand stuff like that. In fact, if
you're not familiar with it,I'll just pull it up so you guys
can see it. There's the MSN newssite, so just ignore that for
now. But this is actually avery, I would say under
advertised on my end, I don'ttalk about it a lot. You see up
(23:16):
here at the menu on the blackvault, these FOIA documents, I
have a case files as well. Andyou can go through all sorts of
different case files. Includedon there is a global map, same
type of concept, where you have,in my case, a couple 1000 cases
all around, and then you clickon the particular locale of
(23:36):
where the cases are iconstipulate what type of case you
click on it, and then you can goright in and see what it is this
is a scientific analysis onplastic found at Mac Brussels
Ranch, in Roswell, New Mexico,just outside of Roswell. So
there's all sorts of stuffthere. My whole point being is
(23:58):
that, you know, this conceptreally isn't new. But it would
be very fascinating for the USgovernment and military to
implement it. And I think thatDavid grush saw the value of
that from an intelligencestandpoint, so good for him.
Data Analytics. So obviously away to spit out all that data,
federal Labtech exploitation. Soagain, it just kind of keeps
(24:18):
going to the last slide, but itjust kind of keeps going into
what his ideas work. So that's abreakdown of what it is. So
let's go to what what it wasn'twhere is all the stuff about the
complaint? Right? Where is thestuff where if he submitted the
material to the IG, where istheir investigation? Now? Let's
just play some hypotheticalhere. I think that this meeting
(24:41):
took place post what he says hesubmitted to the IG. So again,
July 2021, he submitted all thatstuff to the IG. My guess is, it
goes to the evaluation team.They go okay, maybe he can add
something and they interviewhim. But where is all the talk
about biologics crash retrieval,non human intelligence and
(25:04):
really getting into what we knowhim for meaning that's what his
claims are. That's That's it.This was his opportunity. Now
that hypothetical, let's justsay that this came just prior to
him submitting that IGcomplaint. This was a perfect
opportunity for him to say, hey,look, guys, by the way, because
(25:26):
it was a top secret meeting. Sonobody come back at me and say
all that and they weren'tcleared to hear it. No, they had
this top secret umbrella,shielding this interview for a
reason. So the fact that Davidgrush just does not say anything
whatsoever, about that kind ofstuff. Look, that's, that's a
(25:48):
little bit of a red flag to me,you would think that you would
you would have that you wouldthink that you would make
mentioning it. And it's nowhereto be found. Now, I'm not saying
that there's anything nefariouswith that. But what I am saying
is, why not. And that's anotherone of those really weird things
here. Because if you look at thetimeline, if you look at what he
(26:10):
was trying to accomplish, thatJuly 2021 timeframe was getting
the IG IG knowledgeable aboutwhat he had discovered through
the 40 eyewitnesses that hetalked to, which tie into again,
that nonhuman intelligence orNhi, the crash retrieval
program, all of that all of thatstuff, the biologics, none of
(26:32):
that is in there, the onlymention was the Air Force point
of contact, regarding potentialrecovered UAP material. So
that's just something to keep inmind. I mean, the like he he had
an opportunity here and didn'ttake it. So none of that is
there. Now, since this request,I have filed a new one. Because
(26:53):
the way that my wording worked,and I always it's kind of a
double edged sword here, right?If you stipulate a tighter
timeframe, which I did on thisrequest that it was circa July
2021. How do they then stopsearching? Do they just go to
present day? Or do they onlystick around the July 2021
(27:15):
timeframe? So I filed anadditional request with a wider
net, and stating you can excludeeverything in this particular
case. But give me everythingthat you have on communication,
essentially the same wordingthat yielded this, but with a
much broader net? When it comesto the timeframe? What will come
out of that? I really don'tknow. But it will be interesting
(27:39):
to to see what did the IG dopost this interview. If
anything, there are other casesthat I have just to give you a
kind of a quick teaser of whatthat is. They are open on key
individuals within the DOD IGoffice, one or two of which are
probably one of these. One ortwo oops, I went too far, one or
(28:03):
two of these redacted names hereon on this particular page. So
you'll be able to hopefully seea glimpse into not only who was
there, but what were theytalking about outside of the
meeting via email. And thosecases strategically target, so
to speak, those individuals thatwere likely involved in the
(28:24):
meeting, including some of theupper brass within the IGs
office, including the IGhimself. But that being said,
hopefully that will yield someeven more stuff. So lots of
puzzle pieces that are stillmissing. We have still lots of
questions that remainunanswered. And if anybody's
watching this, and you havealigned to David grush, let them
(28:44):
know, I am not interested inmaking anybody look bad. I just
want to try and answer some ofthose outstanding questions. So
if you know him, let them knowabout this video, let them know
that we're exploring thesedocuments. And we're kind of
left with a lot of questions.And he can offer some
unclassified, but very helpfulcontext to the conversation. And
(29:05):
that's all I'm interested in.
Hopefully, someone out there,you can help me out HOW DO ME A
SOLID and get aligned to him?I'm pretty easy to find online.
So all my contact informationgoes right to me, the black
vault is just one single personyou're looking at him. So any
contact form he fills out willcome right to me. Other than
that, we're just left to kind ofexplore this on our own. Ask
(29:26):
those questions, throw them outinto the cosmos and hope one
day, they get answered. But youknow, I keep digging. I'll keep
digging. I'll post those FOIArequest responses when they come
in even the denials. But thiswas a very cool one because
again, no redactions when itcame to national security
information, which was kind of aweird thing in itself, but hey,
I'll take it when it happens. Wegot a little bit of a glimpse.
(29:48):
That said, Thank you so much forlistening and watching if you
can, if you're watching onYouTube, clicking that thumbs
up, making sure you'resubscribed to the channel is a
huge help. If you find thecontent worthwhile, please
Spread the word. That's thebiggest way that you can help me
get more exposure to thischannel and get the message out
all of this information you canfind in the show notes below.
(30:11):
Feel free to click if you'relistening on a podcast channel,
the black vault radio is thetitle on most any podcast
platform of your choice. Justsearch for that. And if you're
listening on one of those, I aimfor five stars I won't tell you
what to do. But if you can add areview, I'd really appreciate
it. I do shoot for the five starrating as well. All of that is a
huge help to the channel. It'sgood to be back. Thanks for
(30:33):
tuning in and watching. This isJohn Greenewald Jr signing off.
And we'll see you next time.
My name is David Charles grush. I was an
intelligence officer for 14years in the US both in the US
Air Force, both active duty AirNational Guard and Reserve.
There has
John Greenewald (00:17):
been a lot of talk about UFO whistleblower
David grush lately, and it allstarted when he submitted a
complaint to the Department ofDefense Office of the Inspector
General back in 2021. We knownow about at least one meeting
grush had with them thanks tonew documents released via the
Freedom of Information Act. Andwe have an idea of what was
(00:38):
talked about. To my surprise,not only were there very few
redactions, but there was a bitof a surprise to go along with
it. Stay tuned, you're about tojourney inside the black vault.
(01:17):
That's right, everybody. Asalways, thank you so much for
tuning in and taking thisjourney. Inside the black vault
with me. I'm your host, JohnGreenewald, Jr. And today, as
you just heard, we're divinginto some new documents that
came to me through the Freedomof Information Act straight from
the Department of Defense'sOffice of the Inspector General.
Now, for some quick background,if you aren't aware, the UFO
(01:39):
whistleblower David grush, inabout July of 2021, has had
submitted a complaint to the DoDIG about some stuff he was
finding when it came to UFOs UAPreverse engineering crash
retrieval biologics as hereferred to them non human
intelligence, he was seeing allof this stuff and issued a
(02:00):
complaint to the DoD IGessentially alerting them that
Congress was not made aware alot of about a lot of these
programs. Now he felt accordingto him that there was some
reprisal from that, that theystarted, essentially maybe not
treating him right. We don'tknow the details of that. He
doesn't like to go into them inthe interviews that he has done,
(02:22):
simply because he he I, fromwhat I understand, anyway, feels
that if he were to go into thatdetail, and may harm an ongoing
investigation, we've we'vereally kind of very heard very
little about that. So there'sthere's not many details to
report. So what I did is I filedmultiple FOIA requests on
everything that he has said,anything that I could kind of
(02:45):
pick up on, maybe find a papertrail of, and one of those
things, was digging into theDepartment of Defense inspector
general complaint that he hadsubmitted. And any
communications that went alongwith it again, the timeframe
from what we were told, wascirca July of 2021. So I filed
the request, went after thosedocuments. And to my surprise,
(03:06):
some stuff came up not exactlywhat I was thinking, not exactly
what I was expecting. But therewas some surprises and a little
bit of a twist that came alongwith it. So if you haven't seen
this article, I published it acouple of weeks ago, it was
January 12, to be exact. And Ijust sadly, just didn't have my
new office here set up to whereI can create a video for you
(03:28):
guys here in the in the videorealm versus just the textual
one when I publish thesearticles. So with that being
said, I will put the link to thearticle in the show notes below,
it will give some other sourcelinks. And we'll give a little
bit more detail from this videoas well, along with the links to
the documents that we're aboutto go over. There's not a whole
(03:48):
lot of them. But I think thatit's pretty important to go
ahead and highlight. So one ofthe let me just go ahead and
scroll down here to thedocuments themselves. Now when I
got these things, again, I waskind of more expecting some
correspondence from him abouthis complaint. So see his
(04:11):
complaint, or at least a portionthereof, obviously, they'll
redact some of that, and maybesome correspondence about what
he had submitted. On thecontrary, there wasn't really
anything about that, but ratherit had tied into the evaluation
that the DoD IG was doing thatthey started back in May of
2021, shortly before theinterview with David grush, and
(04:35):
when he was communicating withthis specific office, and if
you're not familiar with thatevaluation, I'll link this as
well, but essentially that whatthey were doing was creating
what they called it a evaluationon the DoD actions regarding
UAP. There wasn't a whole lot ofscope or context or mission
(04:55):
objectives on this. So we werekind of left a little bit out to
dry But when it came to whyexactly they were doing this,
but we knew that the IG wasstarting to look into it. Well,
unbeknownst to us, the generalpublic a couple of months after,
that's when David grushsubmitted what he did, and the
ball started rolling, so tospeak, that kind of led to him
(05:17):
coming out into the open acouple years thereafter. And
essentially, really creating alittle bit of a storm with his
claims. And, and what he kind ofbombshell to the world, very
controversial, obviously, not awhole lot of proof or evidence
that went along with his claims.But it has gotten a lot of
(05:40):
press. So these documents then,were about this evaluation,
which I was pretty surprised at.Let me scroll down here. This is
the the foyer release letter.Anybody can verify these FOIA
cases and so on. Don't worry,that's a public address. So I'm
not flashing where I live oranything. But I always
appreciate those concerncomments when I flashed my
address that is public, so noworries there. So let's talk
(06:04):
about what first came up. Now.This was a July 12 2001 meeting.
We don't know the exact datethat David Gresh had submitted
what he did to the IG we canonly assume since he was on the
radar to be interviewed, it waslikely prior to that July 12,
date, purpose of this workpapersto document our interview with
major David grush on July12 2021. So obviously the IG sat
(06:27):
down with him on that day, weinterviewed major graphs to
determine whether he couldprovide background information
that might be relevant to ourevaluation. So obviously, they
were looking at him to providesomething that could help them
about the DoD actions. Again, wedon't know really what the exact
scope of this evaluation was oris. So that's kind of the gray
(06:50):
area here where we have no ideawhat they were really looking
for. The overall classificationof this meeting was at the top
secret, no foreign or no foreignintelligence level due to the
vulnerabilities subject matterdiscussed and potential
compilation of informationsources. The interview was
conducted on June 12 2021. Hereare the attendees. Now these are
(07:11):
one of the few redactions weobviously no major David grush
was there. And then on behalf ofthe IG, those are redacted for
privacy reasons. That's notuncommon. I wouldn't. Again, if
you're not used to seeing thesetypes of redactions, it's not
really an alarm. I've dealt witha lot of these documents before.
And agencies very much protecttheir own personnel. So unless
(07:33):
it's their director or assistantdirector or somebody who's in
the news all the time,generally, they will redact that
under what's called exemption Bsix, but we at least get to know
where they're from within theIGs office of the DOD, space
missile and nuclear division,research and engineering
division, evaluations, and theintelligence portion of their
(07:56):
evaluations as well. Soessentially, all from the IGs
office, all from different, youknow, departments if you want to
call them that within theiroffice, and they were all part
of this meeting. Now, here's thescope of the meeting. The stated
objective of the project is todetermine what actions the DOD
has taken in regard to UAPreporting and policies. The
(08:17):
scope of this interview is todetermine what efforts DARPA has
published, developed, receivedand implemented, that is
associated with UAP, sightingsand events. Now, this started to
now give a little bit of a scopevery, very briefly of what the
evaluation was, which led to thescope of this particular
interview. The mention of DARPAand what DARPA had published was
(08:40):
kind of an interesting littletidbit there. But essentially,
we got a little bit of a peekinto what exactly they were
looking for. Next sectionmethodology the interview was
accomplished to gain testimonialevidence from a member of the
UAP Task Force to gain a betterunderstanding into what the DOD
has done and should be doingregarding the UAP problem set.
(09:01):
The team prepared a list ofquestions to guide the
discussion with major grushregarding the DOD has actions
taken in response tounidentified aerial phenomena.
However, the interview wasconducted in less in a less
structured manner, allowingmajor grush to provide any
information he believed wasrelevant to our evaluation, all
pretty straightforward infosummary of the interview on July
(09:22):
12 2021, we met with Davidgrush. To obtain information he
had regarding our evaluation ofthe DoD is actions taken in
response to unidentified aerialphenomena or UAP. A redacted
name recommended that we speakto major grush regarding the
topic of our evaluation, referto the quote Source tab of his
(09:42):
of this work paper. For aspecific list of the meeting
attendees we've already goneover that the overall
classification of this meetingwas at the top secret no foreign
level due to thevulnerabilities, subject matter
discussed and potentialcompilation of information. The
remainder of this work paperssummarizes the discussion that
occurred during the meeting. Andthe statements that were
(10:03):
attributed to major David grush.Major Gresh provided us with
general background informationon the DOD has actions regarding
UAP. To his knowledge. Nowhere's one of the bigger
redactions and
one that's obviously a muchbigger than a name. Major grush
stated that and then if you'relistening to this, there's, you
(10:26):
know, in total about two orthree lines, full line and then
two half lines or so a littlebit more than half. So we don't
know exactly what's under there.But Major gruff stated that and
then a bunch of redaction, hestated that he has been studying
UAPs for 15 years, and that heserves as the NRO liaison to the
UAP Task Force. This became avery controversial line. When I
(10:49):
published the article, I leftthis alone, simply because I
have tried, but cannot get aresponse from David grush.
myself. So I to be blatantlyhonest with you just didn't want
to go ahead and create anaccusation that he was lying
about this, because this is aclear contradiction to what he
has said publicly. So when Iread that I just kind of like to
(11:13):
myself rolled my eyes a littlebit and go, Okay, I know that
I'm not going to be able to geta line to him. The only contact
information I found for him wasbunk. And I don't do the
stalker, you know, look him upand find his phone number thing.
So I know some people that thatworks for them. I don't agree
with that. So it's well knownthat I've been wanting to talk
(11:36):
to him. I know that for a factthat people have passed on. And
he does not care to reach out,which is fine. That's his right.
He doesn't owe me anything. So Ileft this part out, I just
didn't want to create, you know,this drama, well, a lot of you
are very smart, and you payattention. And you noticed it.
And it started popping up onsocial media, that it stated he
(11:59):
was involved in studying UAPsfor 15 years, when essentially
he was telling everybody that hedidn't really have an interest,
or think about him until, youknow, much more recent days. So
that was a clear contradiction.Now I'm going to stop reading
the document and read somethingto you. I have tried, since this
appeared online to verify it.And I'm going to be honest with
(12:22):
you and say I haven't, because Idon't have a line to David
grush. And I've reached out toRoss Coltart he did not respond.
Sadly, that is not new. I'vereached out to him a couple
times about David grush, inhopes that either he can help me
and assist me in getting answersor put a line to him. For me,
(12:42):
and neither has been successful.I have no reason to doubt this
though. So I'm going to read itto you anyway. This was
according to Michelangelo givento him through direct message
from Ross Coltart essentiallyMike, who was a Twitter user or
ex user, who has quite afollowing posts a lot of videos,
(13:05):
a lot of information from fromvarious angles of this
conversation. He had posted thisand explained that when he
reached out to Ross Coltart hegot this this on the record
comment in return relating towhat I published. So this is
what David grush said. The DoDIG foyer released to black vault
(13:28):
today highlights an organizationproposal to succeed UAP TF that
myself and my colleaguesdeveloped on our own time before
the arrow office was created.Not only did I briefed DoD IG
evaluations team on thisproposal, but I also presented
the same chart deck to SenatorHarry Reid in April of 2021. in
(13:48):
a personal capacity for hisguidance, he was very
enthusiastic on the idea of aNational Space Lab to receive
records and UAP material fromexact executive branch agencies
who would then federate it outto academia, and other partners
and a whole of governmentapproach. He was going to use
the OSA our proposal as a basisof this next discussion with
(14:12):
President Biden, the interviewerreports that I've been studying
UAP for 15 years, I have not,and may have misconstrued my
total time in uniform serviceCadet plus commissioned officer
at the time. And that was fromDavid grush. The first part of
that may not make sense to you.If you haven't seen the document
yet. Don't worry, we'll get tothat. I'm just not there yet.
(14:33):
But I wanted to make sure that Iput this in there that David
grush has refuted what was inthese documents. But I will say
and again, this is somethingthat I would love to ask him
about. If you look at all thisstuff, and the summation of what
was talked about, there are veryfew quotes direct quotes the use
of quotation marks.Interestingly, this was in a
(14:56):
quote. So the document states hestated that he He and then in
quotes, has been studying UAPsfor 15 years and that he serves,
unquote. And that he serves asthe NRO liaison. So whatever. So
whatever this was, it came fromsomewhere. I mean, I'm guessing,
you know, these guys, when theydo these, these summations and
(15:17):
so on. They're not just pullingit off the top of their head and
making it up as they go. When itcomes to exact quotations. What
does that mean? Who knows? Look,if it was a mistake, then it's a
mistake. We'll move on. But Iwanted to make sure I got
Gratias words in there. Back tothe document, major grush stated
that there was no formalreporting mechanism for
(15:38):
reporting UAP observations andinitiating investigations.
However, he stated that therewere some forms that should be
emailed to and then the therewas a redaction. That's just an
unnamed by the way, in case thatwasn't clear, major grush stated
that, in his opinion, theanalysis done for the Director
(16:00):
of National Intelligence UAPreport was not very in depth,
there's another quote was notvery in depth, major grush
stated that we should speak withand then a redacted name, and
Air Force point of contactregarding potential recovered
UAP materials. Now, this was themost interesting part of this
(16:21):
document. Because this was theonly thing as you'll see, as we
go through this. That touched onUAP material of some kind, what
we have come to know about Davidgrush, biologics, nonhuman
intelligence retreat, crashretrieval programs. All of that
(16:41):
was absent from this discussion.Why I mean, that I don't
understand. This was hisopportunity to really put in the
evaluation by the DOD, hey,there's some stuff going on
here. The DoD has not treatedthis correctly. They are not
informing Congress about this.This is what they're doing. It's
illegal. He mentions whitecollar crime in his, in his
(17:05):
interviews, there's all sorts ofstuff that he could have put in
here, and he doesn't, but thisone line did actually allude
that someone from the Air Forcehad or knew where to get
potential recovered UAP materialthat to me was really
interesting. who that is, itwould be very, very helpful if I
knew, or if we all knew, sadly,we don't, but at least we got a
(17:27):
little bit of a of a hint there.Now back to the document. Major
growth stated that herecommended the DoD fund and
conduct quote, red and blueassessments, unquote, of UAP, in
addition to establishing apermanent office to investigate
what he called strategicanomalies. Additionally, major
(17:48):
grush provided us with a copy ofa briefing regarding a proposed
permanent office to handle suchstrategic anomalies, including
UAP. Conclusion major grushprovided us with general
background information on theDoD actions regarding UAP to his
knowledge, updated by and thenagain, some redactions there for
(18:08):
names and so on, and so forth.The next part was a little bit
of a surprise. This wasobviously like a PowerPoint
presentation or a printout of apresentation, strategic anomaly
resolution. But look at this,look at the seal here, Office of
Strategic anomaly resolution.Something that was never before
(18:29):
revealed. So when I first sawthis, I'm thinking, okay, is
this a government proposal? Thething that I noticed right off
the bat, there's noclassification markings, which
indicates likely not official.And then if we go back when we
go back to his statement, thatended up being correct. So if
(18:50):
you remember, let me see here.The proposal to succeed UAP TF
that myself and my colleaguesdeveloped on our own time. So
when I had kind of asked thatquestion in the article for
those that that did read itoriginally, that ended up being
confirmed where it was not notofficial. But you can see here,
(19:13):
as we go through the proposal byDavid grush, for this office,
which is, you know, pretty,pretty interesting to see. You
can see here with a task forceresolution here, right in the
center, we have one side of thespectrum, on the slide for
background where you go fromgreen all are explainable,
whether aeroplane balloons,space debris, but you can kind
(19:34):
of see the spectrum of what he'strying to propose. And we just
have to guess a little bit ofexactly what went along with the
presentation if he was there,you know, giving some kind of
idea for the DOD to implementwho knows. But you can see here
Task Force right in the center.A task force is temporary, what
(19:55):
should an enduring comprehensivecapability look like? So
obviously must have talked aboutthat. objectives key questions?
What is it? How does it work?Those are the primary questions,
operations and IntelligenceResearch and Development. That's
the focus secondary, what do weknow about it? How do we talk
about it? How do we work withothers? How
do we protect our equities,enablers, policy, communication,
(20:17):
partnership security. So again,he's obviously got some kind of
proposal slash presentation thatgoes along with all this written
stuff. So this isn't a documentthat should be read by its own.
But again, I'll link it in theshow notes, I'll stop, you know,
regurgitating and just guessingwhat the slides fully meant. But
you did get a little bit of anidea here, I'll keep scrolling,
(20:40):
you get a little bit of an ideaof where he was going with what
he felt should come after theUAP T F. Here are some of the
more colorful slides strategicanomaly and observation
resolution, or soar, prototype,knowledge management, visible
visual visualization, the goalis create an environment to
capture store and interact withdata in an intuitive and rapid
(21:03):
manner. Integrate an analyticspackage to create both
standardized and customizableoutputs for trend analysis and
prediction, and predictionincorporate artificial
intelligence algorithms tocontinually assess data quality
through association or erroneousdata identification, Project
Bluebook used his first testcase, so he was really getting
(21:23):
into this and trying to create asystem where they can just make
one central source for all ofthe data that sounds great,
nothing wrong with that this is,uh, you know, very cool, I would
have hoped that the UAP TF wouldhave tried to do something like
this, or at least later the AOAMSG or later arrow, you know, I
mean, the name the acronym, Iwould have hoped that they would
(21:45):
do that, where they're bringingall that data together, he put a
visualization using ProjectBluebook, as as an example,
there were over 10,000 casefiles. You know, that's, that's
roughly, I mean, it was12,006 18, I think was the exact
number. But he must have, youknow, integrated somehow the
(22:05):
locales of all of those cases,just to kind of show an example
of if they collected all ofthese particular sightings, how
they could, you know, visuallydisplay it, see where those
hotspots are, what'sproblematic, where are weak,
weak points, and so on.Observations, obviously, you can
zoom in on these particularcases, and then come up with
case details, all of this very,very cool. And oddly, similar to
(22:30):
some of the stuff that we areseeing on the private sector
side. You know, those apps thatkeep coming around that there's
a lot of controversy about seemto do exactly this, though, I
don't think Russia is involvedin that. Or those those
projects. You know, this is verysimilar to what people are
trying to do in the privatesector as well. And in fairness,
(22:53):
there's been a lot of us thathave created a database, myself
included with interactive mapsand stuff like that. In fact, if
you're not familiar with it,I'll just pull it up so you guys
can see it. There's the MSN newssite, so just ignore that for
now. But this is actually avery, I would say under
advertised on my end, I don'ttalk about it a lot. You see up
(23:16):
here at the menu on the blackvault, these FOIA documents, I
have a case files as well. Andyou can go through all sorts of
different case files. Includedon there is a global map, same
type of concept, where you have,in my case, a couple 1000 cases
all around, and then you clickon the particular locale of
(23:36):
where the cases are iconstipulate what type of case you
click on it, and then you can goright in and see what it is this
is a scientific analysis onplastic found at Mac Brussels
Ranch, in Roswell, New Mexico,just outside of Roswell. So
there's all sorts of stuffthere. My whole point being is
(23:58):
that, you know, this conceptreally isn't new. But it would
be very fascinating for the USgovernment and military to
implement it. And I think thatDavid grush saw the value of
that from an intelligencestandpoint, so good for him.
Data Analytics. So obviously away to spit out all that data,
federal Labtech exploitation. Soagain, it just kind of keeps
(24:18):
going to the last slide, but itjust kind of keeps going into
what his ideas work. So that's abreakdown of what it is. So
let's go to what what it wasn'twhere is all the stuff about the
complaint? Right? Where is thestuff where if he submitted the
material to the IG, where istheir investigation? Now? Let's
just play some hypotheticalhere. I think that this meeting
(24:41):
took place post what he says hesubmitted to the IG. So again,
July 2021, he submitted all thatstuff to the IG. My guess is, it
goes to the evaluation team.They go okay, maybe he can add
something and they interviewhim. But where is all the talk
about biologics crash retrieval,non human intelligence and
(25:04):
really getting into what we knowhim for meaning that's what his
claims are. That's That's it.This was his opportunity. Now
that hypothetical, let's justsay that this came just prior to
him submitting that IGcomplaint. This was a perfect
opportunity for him to say, hey,look, guys, by the way, because
(25:26):
it was a top secret meeting. Sonobody come back at me and say
all that and they weren'tcleared to hear it. No, they had
this top secret umbrella,shielding this interview for a
reason. So the fact that Davidgrush just does not say anything
whatsoever, about that kind ofstuff. Look, that's, that's a
(25:48):
little bit of a red flag to me,you would think that you would
you would have that you wouldthink that you would make
mentioning it. And it's nowhereto be found. Now, I'm not saying
that there's anything nefariouswith that. But what I am saying
is, why not. And that's anotherone of those really weird things
here. Because if you look at thetimeline, if you look at what he
(26:10):
was trying to accomplish, thatJuly 2021 timeframe was getting
the IG IG knowledgeable aboutwhat he had discovered through
the 40 eyewitnesses that hetalked to, which tie into again,
that nonhuman intelligence orNhi, the crash retrieval
program, all of that all of thatstuff, the biologics, none of
(26:32):
that is in there, the onlymention was the Air Force point
of contact, regarding potentialrecovered UAP material. So
that's just something to keep inmind. I mean, the like he he had
an opportunity here and didn'ttake it. So none of that is
there. Now, since this request,I have filed a new one. Because
(26:53):
the way that my wording worked,and I always it's kind of a
double edged sword here, right?If you stipulate a tighter
timeframe, which I did on thisrequest that it was circa July
2021. How do they then stopsearching? Do they just go to
present day? Or do they onlystick around the July 2021
(27:15):
timeframe? So I filed anadditional request with a wider
net, and stating you can excludeeverything in this particular
case. But give me everythingthat you have on communication,
essentially the same wordingthat yielded this, but with a
much broader net? When it comesto the timeframe? What will come
out of that? I really don'tknow. But it will be interesting
(27:39):
to to see what did the IG dopost this interview. If
anything, there are other casesthat I have just to give you a
kind of a quick teaser of whatthat is. They are open on key
individuals within the DOD IGoffice, one or two of which are
probably one of these. One ortwo oops, I went too far, one or
(28:03):
two of these redacted names hereon on this particular page. So
you'll be able to hopefully seea glimpse into not only who was
there, but what were theytalking about outside of the
meeting via email. And thosecases strategically target, so
to speak, those individuals thatwere likely involved in the
(28:24):
meeting, including some of theupper brass within the IGs
office, including the IGhimself. But that being said,
hopefully that will yield someeven more stuff. So lots of
puzzle pieces that are stillmissing. We have still lots of
questions that remainunanswered. And if anybody's
watching this, and you havealigned to David grush, let them
(28:44):
know, I am not interested inmaking anybody look bad. I just
want to try and answer some ofthose outstanding questions. So
if you know him, let them knowabout this video, let them know
that we're exploring thesedocuments. And we're kind of
left with a lot of questions.And he can offer some
unclassified, but very helpfulcontext to the conversation. And
(29:05):
that's all I'm interested in.
Hopefully, someone out there,you can help me out HOW DO ME A
SOLID and get aligned to him?I'm pretty easy to find online.
So all my contact informationgoes right to me, the black
vault is just one single personyou're looking at him. So any
contact form he fills out willcome right to me. Other than
that, we're just left to kind ofexplore this on our own. Ask
(29:26):
those questions, throw them outinto the cosmos and hope one
day, they get answered. But youknow, I keep digging. I'll keep
digging. I'll post those FOIArequest responses when they come
in even the denials. But thiswas a very cool one because
again, no redactions when itcame to national security
information, which was kind of aweird thing in itself, but hey,
I'll take it when it happens. Wegot a little bit of a glimpse.
(29:48):
That said, Thank you so much forlistening and watching if you
can, if you're watching onYouTube, clicking that thumbs
up, making sure you'resubscribed to the channel is a
huge help. If you find thecontent worthwhile, please
Spread the word. That's thebiggest way that you can help me
get more exposure to thischannel and get the message out
all of this information you canfind in the show notes below.
(30:11):
Feel free to click if you'relistening on a podcast channel,
the black vault radio is thetitle on most any podcast
platform of your choice. Justsearch for that. And if you're
listening on one of those, I aimfor five stars I won't tell you
what to do. But if you can add areview, I'd really appreciate
it. I do shoot for the five starrating as well. All of that is a
huge help to the channel. It'sgood to be back. Thanks for
(30:33):
tuning in and watching. This isJohn Greenewald Jr signing off.
And we'll see you next time.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.