In an unprecedented revelation, The Black Vault was the first to report that the Department of Defense (DoD) had destroyed Elizondo’s emails, a move that surprised many and intensified the scrutiny surrounding the government’s handling of this sensitive subject. It also hindered efforts to verify many of Elizondo’s claims, with the use of what would likely reside in these emails. Therefore, this presented a significant barrier to the standard Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process while investigating his claims.

Yet, where one door closed, another opened.

Recognizing that communication is a two-way process, The Black Vault initiated a strategic approach. By targeting FOIA requests on the email archives of DoD personnel who had likely corresponded with Elizondo, it was possible to indirectly recover portions of Elizondo’s email exchanges. This indirect method, albeit unorthodox, proved to be a way to shed light on conversations that would have otherwise remained obscured.

The archive below, which is still being added to due to the fact that numerous FOIA requests are still open, is a collection of emails offering a glimpse into the world of Luis Elizondo and his interactions within the Department of Defense. In addition, it also logs those that may have communicated with Elizondo, but according to the FOIA final response, ‘no records’ were found. That is archived here as the inability to find records can be used to fact check claims in the past made.

Document Archive

Records Released Archive:

Name Withheld [10 Pages, 1MB] – The Black Vault has opted to keep the identity of this particular person anonymous. The name, discovered by The Black Vault, was one that the DoD aimed to not reveal in the FOIA release, and the DoD opted to remove the name in their FOIA case logs that referenced The Black Vault’s request. As a courtesy, and in the interest in privacy, the name is withheld. However, the documents are here for research and reference. This person was likely a subordinate who, as you can see from the emails, did various tasks for Elizondo. Notably, this was the person that got DOPSR’s email address that Elizondo utilized to coordinate a review of the FLIR, Gimbal and GoFast videos for use in an internal DoD database.

Marcel Lettre [3 Pages, 1MB] – Marcel Lettre served as the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence at the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) from December 2015 to January 2017. In this role, he was the principal intelligence advisor to the Secretary of Defense. Lettre’s tenure at the DoD intersected with the time frame during which Luis Elizondo claims he was involved with the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). Given the overlapping periods of their service, a request was filed for communications.

McKernan, Brennan [28 Pages, 0.8MB] – Brennan McKernan is a U.S. Navy intelligence analyst who served as director of the Pentagon’s Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF), the unit responsible for collecting and analyzing military UFO/UAP sightings prior to its replacement by newer offices like AARO. The request, filed by The Black Vault in June of 2021, asked for all communications between McKernan and Elizondo for all dates available.

“No Records” or Other Records Destroyed Archive:

James Clapper [3 Pages, 1MB] – James Clapper served as the U.S. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) from 2010 to 2017, overseeing the country’s 17 intelligence agencies. Before his tenure as DNI, Clapper held various key positions within the U.S. intelligence community, including the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) from 1992 to 1995 and the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence from 2007 to 2010. During Clapper’s time in the Department of Defense (DoD), particularly his stint as the Undersecretary, Luis Elizondo was also affiliated with the DoD, so their paths in the sprawling DoD apparatus may have intersected. A FOIA request which had combined a few names did not yield communications between Elizondo and Clapper. However, above, you will see the release relating to Marcel Lettre, which was in the same combined request as this one.

Mark Sanders [3 Pages, 1MB] – It is likely that Mr. Mark Sanders was the Director of the Foreign Material Program at the time Luis Elizondo stated he briefed him on AATIP, as claimed by Elizondo’s IG complaint, as published by the NY Post. Although the name was redacted, a DoD resource indicates Sanders was likely in that position. A request was filed, but it was determined through the processing of the FOIA case that Sanders’ emails were destroyed after he left the DoD in 2017. Therefore, a “no records” determination was given.

Patrick Shanahan – Patrick Shanahan served as the 33rd Deputy Secretary of Defense from July 2017 until January 2019 and then as the Acting Secretary of Defense from January 2019 to June 2019. Prior to his time in the Pentagon, Shanahan had a distinguished career at Boeing. During his tenure at the Department of Defense (DoD), Luis Elizondo claimed to have headed the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) until he resigned from the DoD in 2017. Given their overlapping time at the Pentagon and the significant attention AATIP and related UAP issues have received, it’s plausible that Shanahan and Elizondo may have had some level of interaction or awareness of each other’s work, however, FOIA case 20-F-0049 showed “no records” were found in regards to communications.

The post Archive of Luis Elizondo’s “Deleted” Emails first appeared on The Black Vault.

The FOIA request, originally submitted May 30, 2025, sought comprehensive records related to an Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon (UAP) observed by flight PWA192 during its return trip from San Francisco International Airport (SFO) to Chicago Executive Airport (PWK). The FAA issued a partial denial response under case number FAA-2025-03957, releasing limited material while withholding others under federal exemptions.

The case first came to light through an anonymous tip submitted to The Black Vault. While anonymous sources are typically treated with caution, the details provided were corroborated through FAA documentation and audio recordings released under FOIA.

The most direct official acknowledgment appears in the FAA’s Daily Record of Facility Operation (Form 7230-4), which documents the event as it was recorded in real time by Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center (ZOA).

At approximately 0210 UTC, the log states:

This entry establishes several key facts: the object was visually observed, it appeared aircraft-like, it maintained a parallel course, and it was not detected on radar systems available to controllers.

Audio transcripts from Oakland Center sectors provide a more detailed and dynamic description of the object as observed by the flight crew and discussed with controllers.

Initial descriptions suggested a “black circle” or object with possible wing-like features. As the encounter progressed, the characterization shifted. At one point, the object was described as resembling “some sort of fighter,” aligning with the wording later used in the FAA’s official log.

The object reportedly maintained position alongside the aircraft for an extended period of approximately 100 miles while pacing the jet at cruise altitude. This sustained proximity is notable, as it implies controlled flight behavior rather than a transient or incidental sighting.

The encounter concluded with the object rapidly ascending and disappearing from view. This abrupt vertical departure was emphasized in the communications, distinguishing the object’s behavior from conventional aircraft operating profiles.

While the FAA log provides a concise summary, the ATC audio reveals a broader range of uncertainty and evolving interpretation among those involved.

The official entry frames the object as “similar to a fighter,” whereas real-time communications included more ambiguous descriptors, including references to unusual shape and unclear configuration. The progression from an undefined “black” object to something potentially resembling a military aircraft highlights how interpretation shifted during the event.

Flight PWA192 is operated by Priester Aviation and utilizes a Gulfstream G150, a twin-engine business jet designed for mid-range operations.

The G150 typically cruises at altitudes up to 45,000 feet and speeds approaching Mach 0.85. Equipped with modern avionics and collision avoidance systems, it is representative of advanced civilian aviation platforms, making its inability to identify the nearby object—visually or electronically—noteworthy.

The FAA withheld radar data under FOIA Exemption 3, citing Sensitive Security Information (SSI).

According to the response letter, “We are withholding in full 12 En Route Automation Modernization radar files because the SSI cannot be segregated.”

The FAA further noted that certain material was withheld under 10 U.S.C. § 130e, which allows for the protection of “sensitive, but unclassified information” where disclosure could reveal vulnerabilities in Department of Defense infrastructure or operations.

However, the only visible redaction within the released Daily Record of Facility Operation appears minimal and tied to an earlier log entry unrelated to the PWA192 incident, referencing navigational aid outages and coded facility status notes. The section documenting the unidentified aircraft encounter at approximately 0210 UTC remains largely intact and unredacted, suggesting the withheld DoD-related information does not directly pertain to the unidentified object.

The log itself provides additional operational context surrounding the event. Routine oversight checks, system certifications (including ADS-B and CPDLC), and periodic pilot report (PIREP) reviews were conducted throughout the shift, with only minor weather-related entries such as turbulence and thunderstorm tops recorded. Just prior to the encounter, a PIREP check logged no significant anomalies beyond light to moderate turbulence, reinforcing that the airspace environment was otherwise stable at the time of the sighting.

The absence of radar data leaves a significant gap, particularly given the FAA log’s explicit statement that no radar targets were observed in the area.

The encounter occurred northeast of Reno, Nevada, which is an area surrounded by multiple military testing and training facilities.

Nearby installations include:

• Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake (California)

• Naval Air Station Fallon (Nevada)

• Tonopah Test Range (Nevada)

• Nellis Air Force Base and the Nevada Test and Training Range

These locations are associated with advanced aviation testing, including classified and stealth aircraft programs. Given this proximity, it remains plausible that the observed object could have been, and maybe is even most likely, a military asset operating under restricted or non-cooperative conditions.

The FAA’s records ultimately categorize the object as unidentified. While the log leans toward an aircraft-like explanation, the lack of radar correlation, the extended pacing behavior, and the rapid vertical departure leave key questions unresolved.

The event also highlights broader aviation safety considerations. Objects operating undetected in controlled airspace, regardless of their origin, present potential risks to civilian aircraft. The inability to identify or track such objects in real time underscores ongoing challenges in airspace awareness and coordination.

The released records provide a rare, document-supported glimpse into such an encounter, capturing both the uncertainty and the operational response as it unfolded.

###

Document Archive

FAA-2025-03957 Release Letter and Incident Report [7 Pages, 1MB]

Audio Archive (Unedited – Right Click, Save As)

PWA192_R43_052025_0130-0245.wav – 140MB

PWR192_R29-32_052025_0130-0245.wav – 140MB

The post FAA Records Detail Pilot Encounter with Unidentified Object Pacing Aircraft Over Nevada first appeared on The Black Vault.

A newly released Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) provides limited insight into internal communications involving unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), despite a broad request targeting multiple keywords tied to the subject.

The request, submitted on May 23, 2024, sought all emails to, from, or copied to Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm containing terms such as “UAP,” “UFO,” “AARO,” and “Grusch,” among others. It also explicitly requested any associated attachments and directed the agency to search both classified and unclassified systems.

According to the DOE’s final response, the search, which was conducted by the Office of the Secretary, identified just two responsive documents. Both were released in part, with significant portions withheld under multiple FOIA exemptions.

During the course of processing, the scope of the request was amended to exclude news bulletins and later limited the search specifically to emails referencing “Luis” Elizondo vs. just “Elizondo”. This narrowing likely contributed to the relatively small number of responsive records, but omitted a lengthy review time of either already publicly available material, or responsive records that include name irrelevant to the topic requested.

The two responsive documents consist of internal DOE emails dated May 22–23, 2024, sent by a staff member to Secretary Granholm in preparation for an oversight hearing.

Both emails reference attached materials that include “UFO and UPA (sic) talking points,” indicating that UAP-related subject matter was included as part of briefing materials prepared for congressional engagement.

One attachment, partially visible in the release, specifically notes that Rep. Tim Burchett, and possibly Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, may raise issues related to “unidentified anomalous phenomena, aka UAPs or UFOs.”

The same document references the July 2023 House Oversight Committee hearing on UAPs and reiterates the Department of Defense’s public position that it has found no verifiable evidence supporting claims of recovered extraterrestrial materials or reverse-engineering programs.

While the presence of UAP-related briefing material is confirmed, the majority of substantive content is withheld which totals more than half the page. The content or context of the information withheld is unknown.

The DOE relied heavily on Exemption (b)(5), which protects “pre-decisional” and “deliberative” communications within agencies. The agency stated that the withheld material consists of internal discussions and recommendations that are part of its decision-making process, and that release “would compromise the deliberative process.”

Despite the original request spanning multiple UAP-related keywords and covering more than three years of potential correspondence, the resulting production consists solely of two emails tied to a single event: preparation for a May 2024 oversight hearing.

No standalone discussions, investigative material, or substantive internal analysis related to UAP topics were released. Additionally, while attachments were included, much of their content remains withheld or unrelated to UAP, focusing instead on energy policy topics such as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The release ultimately confirms that UAP-related references did exist within DOE briefing materials at the Secretary level, but provides little additional detail due to the extensive application of FOIA exemptions.

The Black Vault has filed an appeal to argue the extensive (b)(5) redactions. Those results will be posted, when available.

###

Document Archive

HQ-2024-01974-F Release Package [14 Pages, 1.3MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [1.38 MB]

The post FOIA Request on UAP Keywords Produces Minimal Results, Heavy Redactions, from Energy Department first appeared on The Black Vault.

The outcome raises questions not only about the scope of the Navy’s search, but also about the content and context of the briefing itself.

The names of the individuals who participated in the briefings are fully redacted from the released records.

The first request, assigned case number DON-NAVY-2021-007791, sought:

“A copy of all emails, sent to and/or from and/or cc’d and/or bcc’d Brennan P Mckernan (CIV USN DCNO N2N6), which contain the following keywords/phrases: ELIZONDO.”

The second request, DON-NAVY-2022-007539, broadened the scope. It requested:

“A copy of all emails, sent to and/or from and/or cc’d and/or bcc’d Brennan P Mckernan (CIV USN DCNO N2N6) and Luis Elizondo (as a private citizen)…”

(Note: Luis Elizondo’s personal emails addresses have been redacted by The Black Vault to protect his privacy. Although listed in the FOIA, The Black Vault is not publishing them in this article, and has redacted them in red in the FOIA response letter below.)

Both requests instructed the Navy to search across classified and unclassified systems, including SIPRNET, NIPRNET, and JWICS.

In both cases, the Navy responded that “one responsive record was found.”

That single responsive record, which is identical in each release, is an email chain arranging and confirming attendance for a March 23, 2022, presentation at Roosevelt Hall on the National Defense University campus at Fort McNair.

The subject line of the email chain reads:

The fact that the email chain originates from a message labeled “[Non-DoD Source]” is significant because it establishes that the initial outreach for the AATIP/AOIMSG presentation did not begin from within an official Department of Defense email system. Instead, it was forwarded into DoD channels from an external account, indicating coordination between government personnel and at least one non-DoD entity.

Although the sender’s identity and email address are fully redacted under Exemption (b)(6), the record’s responsiveness to both FOIA requests strongly suggests that the redacted header fields contained names central to the scope of the searches. The combination of a non-DoD originator, redacted recipient lines, and subsequent TS-SCI-level scheduling inside a SCIF at Roosevelt Hall demonstrates that external actors were engaged in arranging or participating in classified briefings involving AATIP and AOIMSG. While the redactions prevent identification of the individuals involved, the structure of the chain confirms that communications spanning government and non-government systems were directly connected to the secure sessions. Even though the scope of the original requests may offer a likely hint on who this was, it can not definitively be proven.

The event was scheduled for March 23, 2022, and structured into three sessions:

The classified sessions were explicitly described as TS-SCI (Top Secret-Sensitive Compartmented Information) level briefings:

The unclassified session would run approximately 50–55 minutes, followed by a 15-minute Q&A.

The invitation email stated that:

Brennan P. McKernan’s name, who was reported to be the director of the Pentagon’s UAP task force by Politico, does not appear anywhere in the released emails. Yet, both FOIA requests were explicitly scoped to emails “sent to and/or from and/or cc’d and/or bcc’d” him.

The fact that the email chain was deemed responsive strongly suggests that his name appears in a header field, which includes the To, From, Cc, or Bcc lines, and was redacted under FOIA Exemption (b)(6), which protects personal privacy.

Similarly, because the first request required the presence of the keyword “ELIZONDO,” and the second explicitly sought emails involving both McKernan and Luis Elizondo as a private citizen, the record’s responsiveness indicates that the term “Elizondo” appears within the email metadata or body. It is most plausibly located in a recipient or sender field, given the structure of the chain.

All personally identifying details, including email addresses, were redacted under (b)(6).

Although the released version does not visibly display Elizondo’s name in the body text, the document met the scope of both requests. That fact alone demonstrates that communications involving him likely were circulating in connection with this AATIP/AOIMSG briefing at the TS-SCI level. These documents do not prove he was in attendance, or played a role, in those briefings, but do indicate a mention, at the very least.

The Department of Defense has long maintained that AATIP had limited scope and was not a broad-based UAP investigative program, though later admitted it researched a wide variety of information channels, “from a wide variety of sources, including reports of UAPs”. At times, officials have stated that Luis Elizondo had “no assigned responsibilities” within AATIP, which has yet to be walked back or changed since they first issued the statement.

Yet this March 2022 briefing, years after AATIP’s reported 2012 end and Elizondo’s resignation from the DoD in 2017, was explicitly framed as an “AATIP/AOISMG Presentation.”

AOIMSG, established in 2021 as a successor UAP effort, was tasked with synchronizing the Department’s approach to airborne object identification. The presentation appears to have linked AATIP’s legacy activities with AOIMSG’s ongoing mission, discussing congressional reports and the “Tic-Tac” incidents, while emphasizing “adversary overmatch.”

The reference to “Tic-Tac” incidents, plural, is also notable. Public discourse has largely centered on a single 2004 USS Nimitz encounter. The email language suggests that multiple such events were discussed in the briefing itself. (Note: The Black Vault reported on a released NRO document involving a “tic-tac” incident in 2023, after this 2022 briefing. There is no other “tic-tac” incidents that are known to have been reported by any outlet beyond the Nimitz encounter at the time of the briefing, so it is unclear if it being plural was a typo, or a reference to other related “tic tac” incidents beyond the Nimitz encounter that were being discussed at the briefing.)

The use of a SCIF at the TS-SCI level for two of the three sessions clearly emphasises the classified nature of at least part of the material presented. The location, Roosevelt Hall at the National War College on the Fort McNair campus, places the event within a senior-level military academic and policy environment. However, without the recipient list which would lend hints to at least some of those who attended, it’s near impossible to determine.

None of this definitively and ultimately disproves the Department’s prior characterizations of AATIP or Elizondo’s role. However, it complicates them. A former program described as limited in scope was presented alongside its successor office in a 2022 briefing that included congressional staffers and required TS-SCI clearances.

Whether additional records exist in other offices or components about this briefing, or others, remains an open question. The releases demonstrate that communications tying together AATIP, AOIMSG, and classified briefings involving redacted participants did occur, and were documented.

They also show that even years after AATIP’s reported closure, its name continued to appear in formal presentations delivered in secure facilities to government and/or military personnel.

A request has been filed for information relating to this briefing specifically. Those results, if any, will be posted when available.

###

Document Archive

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [684.80 KB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [683.24 KB]

The post AATIP Resurfaces in 2022 TS-SCI Briefing, According to Navy FOIA Release first appeared on The Black Vault.

The decision, dated February 24, 2026, upholds a prior full denial of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by The Black Vault in September 2022 under case number DON-NAVY-2022-012661. The appeal was assigned tracking number 2026-NavyAppeal-000123.

The original request sought “all photographs with the designation of ‘unidentified aerial phenomena or ‘UAP’ as archived by the U.S. Navy.” In November 2024, the Navy’s initial denial authority determined that 78 responsive photographs existed but withheld them in full under FOIA Exemption (b)(1), citing classification under Executive Order 13526 and the UAP Classification Guide.

Appeal Denied in Full

In its appeal response, the Office of the Judge Advocate General confirmed that all 78 photographs remain classified.

“The IDA confirmed that as of today, these records are still classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526,” the letter states.

The decision further concludes that “given the nature of the requested documents, segregation was not possible,” meaning that no portion of the photographs could be released in redacted form.

The Navy emphasized that when information is properly classified under FOIA Exemption (b)(1), there is effectively no discretion to release it. Citing federal regulations, the letter states: “If potentially responsive information qualifies as exemption (b)(1) information, there is ‘no discretion’ regarding its release.”

The appeal authority added that it must defer to the Original Classification Authority (OCA), explaining: “I am satisfied that the OCA’s classification of the records responsive to your request satisfies the requirements under FOIA exemption (b)(1)… Therefore, as the DON appellate authority for FOIA appeals, I have no authority to tell the OCA otherwise.”

Accordingly, the appeal was denied.

Executive Order at the Center of Secrecy

The legal foundation for the continued withholding is Executive Order 13526, which governs the classification of national security information. The Navy’s letter reiterates that under FOIA Exemption (b)(1), agencies must withhold information that is “properly and currently classified in the interest of national defense or foreign policy, as specifically authorized under the criteria established by Executive Order.”

Executive Order 13526 permits classification of information concerning “military plans, weapons systems, or operations,” and once deemed properly classified, courts traditionally grant agencies broad deference.

The irony is difficult to overlook. The same executive authority that enables a president to order declassification is also the mechanism currently cited to block release of UAP imagery. While public rhetoric has increasingly emphasized transparency, the binding legal structure of Executive Order-based classification continues to prevail inside the FOIA process.

Public Calls for UAP Transparency

The appeal submitted in November 2025 argued that there is substantial public interest in the photographs, particularly in light of recent Congressional scrutiny over alleged UAP overclassification. It cited testimony from the November 13, 2024, congressional hearing titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth,” where witnesses raised concerns about excessive secrecy surrounding UAP-related material.

For now, the photographs remain classified, and the tension between calls for transparency and entrenched classification authority remains unresolved, despite the words of a sitting U.S. President and calls from Congress for the release of records.

###

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [632.52 KB]

The post Despite Trump’s Call to Release UAP Files, Navy Denies Appeal for 78 Classified UAP Photographs first appeared on The Black Vault.

A recent Freedom of Information Act response issued by the Department of War raises significant questions about the government’s obligations under FOIA, after officials declined to conduct even a basic email search tied to allegations surrounding the so-called “Immaculate Constellation” program.

The request, filed by The Black Vault and assigned case number 25-F-3827, sought a search of emails sent to or from Maj. Gen. Derek J. O’Malley, Director of Special Programs and Director of the Department of Defense Special Access Program Central Office, for communications containing the phrase “Immaculate Constellation.” The request explicitly asked for both classified and unclassified records.

In its final response dated January 26, 2026, the Office of the Secretary of War/Joint Staff stated that no search would be conducted at all. According to the letter, “a search was not conducted as they confirmed the subject matter itself does not exist, and an extensive email search on the custodian would not yield responsive records.”

The rationale offered by the Department of War hinges entirely on the premise that because the alleged Special Access Program does not exist, records discussing it cannot exist either. That position stands out as unusual within FOIA practice, where agencies are generally expected to conduct searches for records responsive to the wording of a request, regardless of whether the subject matter later proves to be inaccurate, unsubstantiated, or false.

Allegations, Denials, and Congressional Attention

The phrase “Immaculate Constellation” entered the public record in late 2024 following the submission of a document by Congresswoman Nancy Mace, during the “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth” hearing held on November 13, 2024. The document was later revealed to have been authored by Matthew Brown, who was subsequently profiled in a NewsNation investigation examining claims that his whistleblower allegations regarding unidentified anomalous phenomena were ignored by government agencies.

Journalist Michael Shellenberger, who testified at the UAP hearing in November 2024, also submitted extensive testimony about Immaculate Constellation and the UAP topic in general.

In parallel, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a one-page, unclassified document under FOIA case DF-2025-00021, explicitly addressing the allegation. That document summarized press reporting on the purported unacknowledged SAP and included an unequivocal denial from the Department of Defense.

“The Department of Defense has no record, present or historical, of any type of SAP called ‘IMMACULATE CONSTELLATION’,” DoD spokesperson Sue Gough stated in the document.

The ODNI record itself exists precisely because the allegation was circulating publicly and required internal documentation and assessment. The document also noted that the press had reported the issue would be raised during open hearings with the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office in November 2024.

Government Denial of Existence Does Not Eliminate FOIA Obligations

A central issue raised by FOIA case 25-F-3827 is not whether the alleged “Immaculate Constellation” program exists, but whether the government may decline to process a FOIA request based solely on its own assertion that the subject matter is fictitious.

In its response, the Department of War asserted that because the alleged Special Access Program “does not exist,” an email search would not yield responsive records and therefore was not conducted. That reasoning conflates the government’s position on the validity of an allegation with its separate obligation under FOIA to search for records responsive to the language of a request.

FOIA does not require a requester to prove that an allegation is true, nor does it allow agencies to decline a search simply because they believe a claim to be false. Federal agencies routinely create and retain records discussing inaccurate reports, rumors, hoaxes, or media-driven allegations, even when those allegations are ultimately rejected. Those records may include internal emails responding to press coverage, coordinating official denials, briefing senior leadership, or assessing whether an allegation requires follow-up. The potential falsity of an underlying claim does not negate the existence of records discussing the claim itself, nor does it relieve an agency of its obligation to search for them.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s one-page release on “Immaculate Constellation” illustrates this distinction. While the document explicitly denied the existence of the alleged SAP, it nonetheless documented internal awareness of the allegation, summarized press reporting, and recorded official responses. The existence of that record demonstrates that even when a program is denied, responsive records discussing the allegation itself can and do exist.

That distinction is directly implicated in the Department of War’s handling of case 25-F-3827. The request did not seek confirmation that “Immaculate Constellation” is real. It sought emails containing a specific phrase, which is language that had already entered official government documentation, congressional submissions, press reporting, and interagency discourse. Declining to conduct a search on the grounds that the subject matter is alleged to be nonexistent sidesteps the core procedural requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.

Contrasting FOIA Responses Across Agencies

The Department of War’s refusal to conduct a search also contrasts sharply with how other agencies have handled similar requests.

In December 2024, The Black Vault received a response from the National Security Agency to a FOIA request seeking records related to the “alleged USAP ‘Immaculate Constellation.’” Rather than asserting that no search was necessary, the NSA issued a Glomar response, stating it could neither confirm nor deny the existence of responsive records.

“For reasons described below, we are not able to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of these records,” the NSA wrote, adding that “the fact of the existence or non-existence of the materials you request is a currently and properly classified matter.”

The NSA further noted that this was its “standard response to all requests where we reasonably believe that the request seeks intelligence records or records revealing intelligence related activity involving UFOs/UAP.”

While Glomar responses are themselves controversial, they nonetheless reflect acknowledgment of FOIA’s requirement to address the request through established exemption frameworks. The Department of War’s approach, by contrast, bypassed the search process entirely based on an assertion about subject matter non-existence.

Why the Distinction Matters

The core issue raised by FOIA case 25-F-3827 is not whether “Immaculate Constellation” is real. It is whether an agency may refuse to search records simply because it believes an allegation is false.

FOIA does not permit agencies to pre-judge the outcome of a search and decline to conduct it on that basis alone. Records discussing false claims, responding to media narratives, or coordinating official denials are still records. Some may be classified, some exempt, and some releasable, but the search itself is a foundational requirement.

By asserting that “an extensive email search on the custodian would not yield responsive records,” without conducting that search, the Department of War effectively substituted an assumption for a records determination. That approach risks undermining the transparency mechanisms FOIA is designed to enforce, particularly in areas involving secrecy, special access programs, and public controversy.

The response letter does leave the door open for further action, inviting additional “event or file-related information” that might justify a search. Yet the existence of ODNI records, NSA correspondence, congressional submissions, and widespread press coverage already demonstrates that “Immaculate Constellation” was discussed at senior levels of government, regardless of its factual basis, thus has paved the way for The Black Vault to file an appeal on their initial decision to not honor the request.

###

Document Archive

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [225.26 KB]

The post Pentagon Refuses to Search for ‘Immaculate Constellation’ Emails first appeared on The Black Vault.

The responsive document, released under FOIA case number 24-F-0895, consists of the email invitation sent by Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough to a limited list of media recipients, outlining the terms, restrictions, and conditions for participation in the briefing with Acting All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) Director Tim Phillips.

According to the invitation email, the briefing was described as an “embargoed invited-media roundtable” focused on “AARO’s Historical Record Report Volume 1 (HRRV1), the initial volume of the congressionally directed historical record report on U.S. government UAP-related programs”.

The report itself was required by Congress in the Fiscal Year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which directed the Department of Defense and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to produce a comprehensive historical review of U.S. government involvement with unidentified anomalous phenomena dating back decades. The March 6, 2024, briefing was held two days before the public release of the unclassified version of the report.

The invitation imposed strict conditions. It was marked:

“OFF THE RECORD / FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY / NOT FOR DAYBOOKS”

While the roundtable itself was described as “on-record and off-camera,” participation was contingent upon agreeing to an embargo until the Department of Defense announced the public release of the report on March 8. Invitees were instructed:

“To receive an embargoed copy of HRRV1 and be allowed into the roundtable, please respond with an email that states: ‘I agree to the embargo.’”

Only one representative per outlet was permitted to attend, and the invitation was explicitly “not transferable” without prior approval from the Pentagon press office.

Who Was Invited and Who Was Not

The FOIA-released email reveals by name a small group of journalists and outlets that were granted access. Among those listed in the invitation or BCC fields were representatives from The New York Times, CNN, Politico, Task & Purpose, and The Washington Post, including Kayla Guo, Jeff Schogol, David Martin, Oren Liebermann, Lara Seligman, and Dan Lamothe.

Several of these names were already known publicly due to their participation in the briefing itself. In March 2024, The Black Vault published the full transcript of the roundtable, in which some reporters identified themselves by name and outlet when asking questions. That transcript provided partial insight into who had access, but not a complete accounting of all invitees.

The newly released invitation fills in additional details, but also raises new questions.

At least two individuals listed in the BCC field of the email were redacted by the Department of Defense under FOIA Exemption (b)(6), which protects against what the agency described as “a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of individuals”.

The redactions obscure whether those recipients were additional journalists, staff members from major outlets, or other media-affiliated personnel who were included quietly on the distribution list. The possibility that these names were possibly other military or government personnel rather than media invitees also can’t be ruled out.

The presence of redacted BCC recipients underscores that the publicly known list of participants, which was from the derived previously from the transcript, was incomplete. It remains unknown which outlets, if any, were represented by those redacted names, or whether additional media voices were given access without being publicly identifiable.

Unlike more typical Pentagon press engagements, which often allow larger pools of credentialed media to listen in remotely or submit written questions, this roundtable was tightly controlled. Attendance was limited, listening access was restricted, and participation was conditional on advance agreement to an embargo.

The email emphasized that the event was “an invited-media roundtable only,” reinforcing that access was selectively granted rather than broadly available.

This stands in contrast to many background or senior-level briefings, where dozens of outlets may be allowed to listen in even if only a subset are called upon to ask questions. In this case, even passive access was limited to those specifically chosen by the Department of Defense.

Transparency Concerns Around UAP Disclosure

The subject of the briefing, which highlighted the government’s historical accounting of UAP programs, has been the focus of sustained public, congressional, and media interest. The NDAA mandate reflected bipartisan concern over secrecy, oversight gaps, and inconsistent public disclosures related to unidentified objects and alleged legacy programs.

Against that backdrop, the decision to brief only a small group of journalists, under embargo, before public release has drawn scrutiny. While embargoed briefings are a common practice across government agencies, the narrow scope of this invitation, combined with the classified history and ongoing public debate surrounding UAP transparency, has amplified questions about information control and selective access.

The FOIA response letter confirms that the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs located only this single responsive document, and that no additional invitation records were released beyond the email itself.

Taken together with the previously published transcript, the FOIA-released invitation provides a clearer, albeit still incomplete, picture of how the Department of Defense managed media access to the release of Volume 1 of their UAP report.

It confirms that only a handful of outlets were selected, that participation required adherence to strict conditions, and that at least some invitees remain unidentified due to privacy redactions. As debates over UAP transparency continue, the records illustrate how access to information about the government’s historical review was carefully controlled even as the report itself was framed as a step toward openness.

The documents released in FOIA case 24-F-0895 are now part of the public record, offering a rare look behind the scenes at how the Pentagon curated press engagement on a topic Congress has explicitly directed it to clarify for the American public.

###

Document Archive

 24-F-0895 Release Package [3 Pages, 0.5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [593.18 KB]

The post Closed-Door 2024 UAP Briefing: FOIA Discloses Select Media Invitees first appeared on The Black Vault.

A heavily redacted Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG) release made public on January 7, 2026, reveals a UAP-related whistleblower reprisal investigation centered on the revocation of classified access that was closed in February 2025. The records do not identify the complainant by name, but the chronology and subject matter overlap with publicly documented whistleblower filings that have been associated with former intelligence official David Grusch. The documents do not confirm that connection, but with the dates and information publicly available, the connection seems highly likely.

(Note: Grusch has repeatedly ignored past attempts by The Black Vault to contact him both via his attorney and close associates, so no additional attempts were made for this story. He is always welcome to contact The Black Vault to respond to a number of open questions.)

This document release was in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by The Black Vault in April 2025 seeking DoD/IG complaints and reprisal investigations involving whistleblowers who reported UAP-related programs or technologies.

What the DoD IG Investigated

The DoD OIG report describes a reprisal complaint alleging that officials revoked the complainant’s eligibility for access to classified information and refused access to compartmented programs because of UAP-related reporting to the Inspector General.

The Executive Summary states:

“We conducted this investigation in response to a reprisal complaint alleging that officials at the [REDACTED] revoked [REDACTED] (the Complainant) eligibility for access to classified information and refused to grant him access to [REDACTED] compartmented programs. The complaint alleged that this was done in reprisal for reporting Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP)-related matters to the DoD Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG).”

The DoD OIG found the complainant “made four protected disclosures,” including one “to the DoD OIG,” with additional recipients redacted.

The Adverse Actions at the Center of the Complaint

The released report ties the reprisal allegation to specific clearance-related actions handled through the Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF), including the initial proposal to revoke access and the final revocation.

The report documents an August 29, 2022, notice:

“On August 29, 2022, the [REDACTED] CAF provided the Complainant an LOI and an SOR notifying him that it intended to revoke his eligibility for access to classified information… The notice also removed the Complainant’s access to classified systems and facilities and required him to relinquish his access badges and be placed on paid administrative leave pending the adjudication process.”

It further records the final revocation:

“On December 12, 2022, [REDACTED] signed the final letter of revocation, and on December 13, 2022, emailed the letter to the Complainant notifying him that the CAF revoked his eligibility for access to classified information.”

While the report confirms the existence of UAP-related protected disclosures, the substance of those disclosures is largely obscured by redactions.

The Bottom Line: “Not a Contributing Factor” and “No Recommendations”

The DoD OIG concluded that the protected disclosures were not a contributing factor to the initial intent to revoke and that the final decision would have been the same even if the disclosures had not occurred.

The report states:

“Therefore, we concluded that the Complainant’s protected disclosures were not a contributing factor in the CAF’s initial intent to revoke the Complainant’s eligibility for access to classified information.”

It adds that even after CAF personnel later learned the complainant was claiming whistleblower status, the outcome would not have changed:

“However, clear and convincing evidence established that [REDACTED] would have taken the same action absent the Complainant’s protected disclosures.”

What the Inspector General found was a contributing factor were substantiated findings of misconduct, which the report describes as independent of any whistleblower activity and sufficient, on their own, to justify adverse action. After those findings were developed, the investigation states that CAF was formally notified and conducted its own assessment. According to the report, “on receiving [REDACTED] findings, [REDACTED] reviewed the derogatory information, as well as the Complainant’s history, and felt a revocation was warranted in accordance with DoDM 5200.02.” The report further explains that this determination “was based on a pattern of misconduct,” and referencing a “pattern of behavior issues” underscoring that the decision was not tied to a single event or disclosure, but to cumulative conduct evaluated under established adjudicative standards.

The Inspector General also addressed whether the complainant was treated differently because of his whistleblower status and found no evidence to support that claim. In a section titled Disparate Treatment of the Complainant, the report states plainly, “We found no indication that [REDACTED] CAF personnel treated the Complainant disparately during their review and adjudication.” Testimony from CAF personnel and a review of comparable cases, the report continues, “indicated that nothing was unusual about the Complainant’s case or that he was treated disparately from any other [REDACTED] employee who was not a whistleblower.”

The investigation adds that “On receiving [REDACTED] findings, [REDACTED] reviewed the derogatory information, as well as the Complainants history, and felt a revocation was warranted in accordance with DoDM 5200.02.” It goes on to state that, “This was based on a pattern of misconduct, including the Complainants [REDACTED].”

While much of the underlying conduct and history remains obscured by redactions, the report repeatedly signals that additional, sensitive factors informed the outcome. Large portions of the analysis referring to the complainant’s conduct and history are withheld under privacy and national security exemptions, indicating that information materially relevant to the adjudication could not be publicly released without identifying the individual. Based on the totality of the evidence reviewed, including those redacted elements, the Inspector General concluded the disclosures themselves did not drive the decision, and the complaint was ultimately not substantiated.

Internal Messages Show Confusion Over the Whistleblower Claim and Optics Concerns

One of the more revealing windows into the case appears in redacted internal messages summarized in the findings. Those communications show CAF personnel questioning what, exactly, constituted whistleblowing in the first place, suggesting a disconnect between the clearance adjudication process and the reprisal allegation being asserted.

The report recounts an exchange dated September 29, 2022, including the following:

“On what grounds does [the Complainant]have for a whistleblower case. He didn’t blow any whistle or bring to light any info. What’s his grounds?”

A reply followed:

“I have no idea I have no information about any of that.”

Then came the line that underscores the uncertainty:

“[W]here is whistle blowing?!!! … [I]s there more out there we just don’t know about[?]”

Later communications reflect hesitation about timing and “optics,” including instructions to delay sending the revocation letter:

“[W]e haven’t gotten the OK … to do that[.] … [H]e’s claiming whistleblower status … and [REDACTED] doesn’t want the optics to be terrible[.]”

The report also notes a “stand down” directive tied to concerns about how the action could be perceived.

Those passages do not change the DoD OIG’s final conclusion, but they do document uncertainty and communication gaps inside the process at the time key steps were unfolding.

Return to Work and Restoration of Clearance

While the DoD Inspector General ultimately rejected the reprisal allegation, the report documents that the complainant’s security clearance was later restored through a formal appeals process and that he returned to work. According to the findings, after CAF revoked the complainant’s eligibility for access to classified information, he appealed the decision to the Personnel Security Appeals Board (PSAB). The report states: “On January 9, 2023, after the CAF revoked his clearance, the Complainant appeared before a Personnel Security Appeals Board (PSAB) and presented his appeal to the revocation.” The following day, the outcome changed. As the report records, “the PSAB overturned the original determination to revoke his eligibility for access to SCI, and that his TS/SCI was reinstated this date.”

The investigation further explains that the board’s decision was based on mitigation presented by the complainant rather than any whistleblower considerations. According to the report, during the PSAB hearing the complainant “provided compelling information on each of the other factors outlined in the SOR, which the board felt mitigated the security concerns.” As a result, “the board… voted unanimously to restore the Complainant’s security clearance.” The report also notes that appeals boards overturn revocations with some regularity, with one official estimating that reversals occur “one third of the time,” and stating that there was “nothing unusual about the Complainant’s case.”

Following the restoration of his clearance, the report documents the complainant’s return to duty. Under a section titled The Complainant’s Return to Work, investigators write that “after the Complainant returned to work with his restored security clearance,” officials resubmitted him for compartmented accesses in February 2023. The report states that while those submissions did not result in immediate access, supervisors attempted to reintegrate him into his position. One official told investigators that after the complainant returned to work in January 2023, he “tried to integrate the Complainant back into meaningful work.” The report also notes that the complainant was later formally debriefed on his security clearance status on March 22, 2023.

Taken together, the DoD OIG record shows that although the reprisal complaint was not substantiated and the clearance revocation was deemed justified at the time, the complainant ultimately regained his clearance through the established appeals process and returned to work. The report treats these events as procedurally separate from the whistleblower reprisal analysis, reinforcing the Inspector General’s conclusion that the protected disclosures themselves were not the driving factor behind the original adverse action.

Heavy Redactions and What the FOIA Exemptions Mean

The DoD OIG letter accompanying the release states that “an additional 44 pages are exempt from release in their entirety” and that the withheld material was determined in coordination with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).

Among the exemptions cited:

The DoD OIG invoked FOIA Exemption (b)(3) for information “exempted from release by statute,” citing 50 U.S.C. § 3024(i)(1) for intelligence “sources and methods,” 50 U.S.C. § 3024(m) for ODNI personnel identifying information, and 5 U.S.C. § 407 for “the confidentiality of employee complaints to the Inspector General.”

The release also relied on (b)(5) for deliberative process material, (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) for personal privacy, (b)(7)(D) for confidential sources, and (b)(7)(E) for sensitive law enforcement information that could risk circumvention of the law.

The combined effect of these exemptions is substantial: identities, offices, and much of the UAP-related content are removed, limiting independent verification of the complainant’s narrative beyond the broad framework described by the DoD OIG.

The Grusch Question: What Can Be Proven From Public Sources and This Report

The released DoD OIG report confirms a UAP-related reprisal allegation tied to clearance access, investigated under a whistleblower reprisal framework, involving protected disclosures to the DoD OIG and subsequent adverse security clearance actions in 2022.

Public records and reporting associated with David Grusch describe a notably similar structure, but the available evidence does not conclusively establish that this DoD OIG case is his, mainly due to the name being redacted.

Despite that, there is supporting evidence suggesting this case directly relates to Grusch.

An unclassified procedural filing to the Intelligence Community Inspector General  associated with Grusch is dated May 25, 2022, and reflects a “DISCLOSURE OF URGENT CONCERN(S); COMPLAINT OF REPRISAL,” signed under penalty of perjury by “DAVID C. GRUSCH.”

The same filing states that Grusch “confidentially provided UAP-related classified information to the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG)” and describes alleged retaliation and “numerous adverse security clearance actions” after those protected disclosures.

A 2023 report by The Debrief stated the Intelligence Community Inspector General found Grusch’s complaint “credible and urgent” in July 2022.

In sworn congressional context, a hearing document published on Congress.gov reflects Grusch describing reprisals and reporting the matter to an inspector general before filing a whistleblower complaint. Congress.gov

The Black Vault has also previously documented the May 25, 2022, date of the procedural filing and its general allegation of “adverse security clearance actions.”

The FOIA request that this case tied to, as filed by The Black Vault, did not specifically ask for, nor even mention, Grusch in any way. The exact wording of the request was:

“I respectfully request a copy of the following records: all Inspector General complaints, reprisal investigations, threat assessments, or disciplinary communications created from January 1, 2021, to present referencing whistleblowers within the Department of Defense or Intelligence Community who reported UAP-related programs or technologies. This includes, but is not limited to, complaints referencing retaliation for disclosures made to Congress or the media.”

In the responsive records, only one case came up, which indicates given the timeline above, this is most likely Grusch’s case he has made reference to in the past.

But beyond all that, what is arguably the most convincing evidence, though still not definitive proof, is the comparison of the redacted report just released by the DoD OIG, and the previously released, unclassified and un-redacted, “Disclosure of Urgent Concern(s) Complaint of Reprisal” submitted to the Intelligence Community Inspector General. The signature block comparison is below, which indicates it was likely the same law firm that drafted both documents, with a similar signature block structure, length, phrasing choices, and use of fonts.

The released DoD OIG records strongly indicate a UAP-related whistleblower reprisal dispute involving clearance access and protected disclosures. The public timeline and subject matter overlap with publicly available filings and testimony associated with David Grusch. However, the documents released by DoD OIG do not provide enough verifiable information to prove the complainant is Grusch, and the identity cannot be confirmed from this release alone.

Why This Release Still Matters

Even with heavy redactions, the report provides a rare, document-based look at how a UAP-related reprisal allegation moved through an internal national security adjudication and investigative pipeline. It also documents internal confusion about the whistleblower allegation and explicit concern about “optics” while clearance actions were pending.

The DoD OIG’s final position is unambiguous: the complaint was not sustained, and the clearance revocation would have occurred regardless of the protected disclosures.

###

Document Archive

FOIA Case DODOIG-2025-000932 [66 Pages, 8MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [7.81 MB]

The post DoD IG Releases Final UAP Whistleblower Reprisal Report first appeared on The Black Vault.

In June 2009, then–Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to the Department of Defense requesting heightened protection for what he described as the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). The four-page letter, addressed to then–Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn III, argued that portions of the program warranted Restricted Special Access Program (SAP) status due to sensitivity involving “unconventional aerospace-related findings,” advanced technologies, and national security implications.

The letter itself is no longer in dispute. After years of denials, confusion, and contradictory statements, the Department of Defense ultimately acknowledged its authenticity, and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) released the document publicly. What remains unresolved, even after more than six and a half years after a Freedom of Information Act request first sought it, is the Department of Defense’s response to Reid’s request.

A final FOIA response issued by the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff on December 15, 2025, under case number 19-F-0948, again produced only Reid’s original letter, directing The Black Vault to the same DIA-hosted copy previously released years earlier. The response asserted that this constituted a “full grant” of the request and stated that no additional responsive records were found.

That conclusion directly conflicts with prior on-the-record statements from the Pentagon.

A Confirmed Response—But Still Missing

In 2021, Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough confirmed to The Black Vault that the Department of Defense did, in fact, respond to Senator Reid’s 2009 memo.

“I can confirm that the memo you’re referring to is authentic. DOD received it and responded to Sen. Reid,” Gough stated at the time. She added that her office could not release the response because “the Public Affairs office does not release Congressional correspondence.”

The statement strongly implied that a tangible written response existed and had been located. Yet, when specifically requested under FOIA, and after the scope of the request was amended to remove any ambiguity, the Department of Defense now maintains that no such response can be found.

That amendment was formally submitted in April 2020, explicitly asking that all responses to Senator Reid be included in the search. The Department acknowledged receipt of that amendment and confirmed it was incorporated into the case file.

Despite this, the final determination issued in 2025 claims that no response letter exists within the scope of records searched.

Procedures That Require a Written Answer

The unresolved absence of a response raises procedural questions that extend beyond AATIP itself.

Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 5400.04 governs the provision of information to Congress and requires that inquiries be answered in a “responsive and expeditious” manner, generally within 30 days. Additionally, DoD Manual (DoDM) 5110.04-M outlines the internal handling of congressional correspondence and requires that an initial reply or draft be prepared within 14 calendar days for leadership review.

Taken together, these procedures make clear that a written response to a sitting Senate Majority Leader, especially one requesting Special Access Program consideration, would not be optional or informal. At minimum, a written reply or draft response would normally be generated, staffed, and preserved.

The Department of Defense has not explained how such a response could have been sent, as confirmed by its spokesperson, yet leave no recoverable record across multiple offices years later.

A Program Still in Dispute

The missing response letter adds another layer to the long-running controversy surrounding AATIP itself.

On one side of the debate, Reid’s 2009 letter explicitly refers to AATIP as an existing program, describes work already underway, and requests additional security protections. The attached “Attachment 1” lists AATIP as an unclassified nickname, identifies preliminary funding periods, and names both government and contractor personnel associated with the effort.

On the other side, the Department of Defense has repeatedly stated that AATIP was not an official, standalone program and that Luis Elizondo, often described publicly as its director, “had no assigned responsibilities for AATIP while he was in OUSD(I).” That language was reiterated by Gough even while confirming Reid received a response.

The Department has characterized AATIP references as administrative or informal, while critics argue that such explanations do not reconcile with the detailed content of Reid’s memo or the apparent need for a formal Pentagon reply.

A Pattern of Difficulty

Compounding the issue is the unusual history of locating Reid’s original letter itself. For years, the Department of Defense stated it could not be found. It was later located and released by the DIA. Now, after more than six years of FOIA processing, the Pentagon again claims it cannot locate a closely related record that its own spokesperson has acknowledged exists.

Other correspondence between Senator Reid and the Department of Defense has been located and released without comparable difficulty. Only the response to the 2009 AATIP letter appears to fall into a category of persistent absence.

An Unanswered Question

Whether AATIP existed as a formal program, an informal effort, or something in between remains a matter of ongoing dispute. What is no longer speculative is that Senator Reid requested action, and the Department of Defense has stated it responded.

What remains unanswered is why, under procedures that require written congressional correspondence, no response can now be produced. It also begs the question on why this particular document continues to elude release long after the original request was filed.

Until that question is resolved, the 2009 AATIP letter remains not just a controversial document, but part of an incomplete paper trail at the center of one of the Pentagon’s most debated modern mysteries.

###

19-F-0948 FOIA Release Package [6 Pages, 0.5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [574.24 KB]

The post Six and a Half Years Later, the DoD’s Reply to Harry Reid’s AATIP Memo Remains Missing first appeared on The Black Vault.

The DoW originally stated that no such memorandum was found, but the appeal has now been granted, and the case remanded for a new search.

An Unverified Claim and a Growing Controversy

In June 2023, the Wall Street Journal published claims that a directive from the Secretary of Defense’s office had been circulated across the military services “ordering the practice to stop immediately.” The article tied the alleged directive to a hazing ritual in which service members were falsely told that they were working on operations involving retrieved non-human craft.

The WSJ did not publish the memo, identify its specific date, or provide sourcing for the claim. Following publication, no document surfaced publicly, and no military component acknowledged knowledge of the directive.

In September 2025, the DoW stated in a formal FOIA response to The Black Vault that it had located no such memorandum. On October 1, when asked again about the WSJ claim, Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough stated, “Regarding the alleged memo: I cannot confirm the existence of any department-level memo as described in the article. You may want to ask the Air Force or other military services whether they put out such a memo to their personnel.” In the original email, the word “alleged” appeared underlined for emphasis.

The Air Force did not respond after a request for comment, and the FOIA case seeking information on the alleged “Yankee Blue” ritual is still open.

A FOIA Challenge to the Pentagon’s “No Records” Determination

The Black Vault’s FOIA request filed with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) on June 17, 2025, sought a copy of any directive issued in spring 2023 ordering the halt of “Yankee Blue”-related practices or other activities involving fabricated claims of reverse-engineering non-human technology.

OSD searched solely within the Correspondence Management Division (CMD) and reported no responsive records.

A formal appeal was filed on September 17, 2025, arguing that the search was inadequate and not legally sufficient under FOIA. The appeal emphasized that:

• The Wall Street Journal presented the alleged memo as fact, not speculation, and attributed some related details to DoD spokesperson Susan Gough.

• FOIA requires agencies to conduct a search “reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents,” as established in Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

• Limiting the search to CMD failed to meet that standard because a Secretary-level directive could reasonably reside in multiple offices, including policy directorates or the OSD Executive Secretariat.

• Agencies must pursue logical leads that emerge during the inquiry, under Campbell v. DOJ, 164 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

• Any such memorandum from 2023 would fall under mandatory federal records retention, and its absence would raise records management concerns.

The appeal requested either a broadened search across all appropriate OSD components or a formal clarification as to whether the directive was ever issued at all.

The Appeal Decision: A Full Remand for New Searches

On December 12, 2025, the Acting Chief of the FOIA Division issued a written decision:

“After carefully considering your appeal, and as a result of discussions between FOID personnel and this office, I am remanding your request to FOID for a search for responsive records.”

The letter states that if any releasable records are found, they will be provided, and that the requester may appeal again should a future adverse determination occur.

The appeal victory does not confirm that the memo exists, will be found, or will be released. The decision establishes only that the prior search was insufficient under FOIA and that a renewed, expanded search is now required.

However, in the broader context, the remand highlights several unresolved inconsistencies:

• The WSJ reported a memo as fact, but has not addressed follow-up reporting by The Black Vault, provided a copy of the memorandum, or clarified sourcing.

• The DoW stated to The Black Vault in two separate channels through their FOIA office and Public Affairs office, that it could not confirm the memo’s existence, emphasizing the word “alleged” in their response from the latter.

• The appeal determination directly contradicts the prior FOIA conclusion that no responsive records existed, ordering a new search despite earlier categorical statements.

The result places the question back with the Pentagon: either locate the memo described by the WSJ, or formally resolve whether it was never issued at all.

###

Document Archive

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [290.04 KB]

The post Pentagon Reopens Search for Alleged “Yankee Blue” Memo After Initial Denial first appeared on The Black Vault.

A newly released set of Defense Department documents reveals how the Pentagon handled former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Christopher Mellon’s request to publish a message he said referenced an alleged effort to exploit “recovered off-world technology.” The records also reveal that Mellon’s first attempt to submit the material was returned to him after a DOPSR employee deemed his three-page mailed package a “security threat,” a detail he did not disclose in his public article.

The documents, sent to The Black Vault under FOIA case 24-F-1134, include Mellon’s original submission to the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR), internal emails, coordination records, and the March 1, 2024 approval that cleared him to release the message.

The 17 pages released by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) document DOPSR’s handling of Mellon’s submission from January through March 2024. The records show repeated delays, escalating internal pressure, and direct involvement from the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), which was tasked with coordinating on the review.

Mellon’s Submission: A Message Alleging Access to a Recovery Program

The FOIA file begins with Mellon’s January 19, 2024, email to DOPSR, in which he submitted the text message screenshot he later published publicly. Mellon wrote that he was seeking confirmation “to confirm it is not classified,” and noted that a submission mailed earlier had been returned “because some employee deemed it a security threat.”

In that letter, Mellon explained that the message was sent to him “some years ago” by a former DoD employee alleging they were “being read into a program involving the exploitation of recovered off-world technology”. Mellon also indicated he had “redacted the name of the alleged ‘gatekeeper’” and emphasized that he respected the confidentiality of the source.

He informed DOPSR that his intent in releasing the material was to show “why I have taken such extraordinary claims seriously,” but also  adding that he did “not have a position on the validity of the allegations” as he hears “credible claims, but also credible denials.”

Internal Confusion, Delays, and Pressure

The released emails show that by late February 2024, DOPSR was struggling to obtain required reviews from AARO and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security (I&S). On February 20, a DOPSR official wrote: “These cases need to be completed ASAP. Not only is DOPSR under a lot of pressure from [ redacted ], but [ redacted ] has complained publicly about how long reviews are taking and DOPSR is now receiving emails from ‘concerned citizens’ all around the world (including Norway) about the matter.” It goes on to state that, “Further delay is simply not ok.”

The delays also appear to reflect procedural issues. One email states that DOPSR staff were “attempting to assign down for USI review” because the system “isn’t currently cooperating,” while other messages note that AARO responses were “not there” from CATMS, the DoD’s coordination tracking system.

AARO and I&S Ultimately Approve the Release

Despite the coordination issues, both reviewing authorities ultimately issued “NO OBJECTION” determinations.

The released SD Form 403 shows the official worksheet signed on March 1, 2024. AARO’s confirmation, according to a memorandum for the record included in the FOIA release, states that “AARO response coordinated with his leadership and is for AARO.” I&S also returned a “NO OBJECTION as Received” notice on February 9, 2024.

The approval stamp, dated March 1, 2024, appears on the version later published by Mellon in April 2024, when Mellon published the message and an accompanying explanation. In it, he emphasized that he received the text years earlier from “a senior government official” who he said “had plausible access and was high-ranking,” and whose claim of access to a crash retrieval program was why he believed at least some allegations merited attention.

He also acknowledged that the sender later told him they were denied access to the alleged program and had not seen any recovered craft.

The newly released FOIA documents do not validate or contradict Mellon’s claims or the claims within the Signal messages. Instead, they reveal the internal pathway through which the Pentagon processed and ultimately approved his request to release the material.

While the content of the message Mellon sought to publish had already been public since April 2024, this FOIA release marks the first time the government’s internal handling of his submission has been documented.

###

Document Archive

FOIA Case 24-F-1134 Release Package [19 Pages, 2.5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [2.73 MB]

The post Inside the Pentagon’s Review of Christopher Mellon’s Alleged UFO Crash Retrieval Text first appeared on The Black Vault.

A newly released Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has revealed that no records exist for an August 28, 2017, meeting listed on the official calendar of Neill Tipton, then Director for Defense Intelligence, Collection and Special Programs.

The finding stands in contrast to an earlier FOIA-released calendar showing the meeting was scheduled as an UNCLASSIFIED “SAP Coordination Meeting,” with a point-of-contact phone number matching one found on Luis Elizondo’s DD Form 1910 request to release three Navy UFO videos back in 2017.

OSD’s “no records” determination, issued today to The Black Vault under FOIA case 24-F-0839, asserts that a search of OUSD(I&S) systems “could reasonably be expected to produce the requested records if they existed,” but that none were identified when it came to seeking out records relating to the meeting.

The Black Vault immediately appealed the decision, arguing that the agency overlooked evidence already released under FOIA case 20-F-1026, as filed by Lt. Tim McMillan, co-founder of The Debrief, which documented the meeting on Tipton’s official schedule.

That release to McMillan showed:

“SAP Coordination Meeting (UNCLASSIFIED) — Luis, 571-2393.”

The same phone number appears on Elizondo’s DD Form 1910 as his Pentagon office line at the time he submitted UFO videos known today as “FLIR1,” “Gimbal,” and “GoFast.”

The presence of the phone number in both documents, combined with a claim in Elizondo’s DoD IG complaint that he briefed Tipton in the July–October 2017 period, has fueled long-standing questions about whether the meeting took place, what it was about, and now, why OSD says no records exist.

The Tipton calendar released in FOIA case 20-F-1026 spans August 2017 and includes a clear entry at 12:55 p.m. on August 28, 2017, indicating a meeting took place between Tipton, and likely Elizondo himself.

These types of calendar entries are government records typically retained within OUSD(I&S) systems, which generally indicate that related materials exist such as:

• Scheduling emails

• Briefing papers

• Read-ahead materials

• Meeting notes or summaries

• Follow-up taskings

The FOIA appeal filed by The Black Vault argues that federal case law establishes that agencies must search all locations where related records are likely to be found, especially when an existing record points directly to their existence, like this calendar entry does.

OSD stated it could locate no responsive materials, even though this official calendar entry clearly confirms the meeting was at least scheduled at one time. Under normal circumstances, even a cancelled or preliminary meeting would generate minimal administrative records, all of which would be responsive to The Black Vault’s request.

In Elizondo’s May 2021 complaint to the Department of Defense Inspector General, he states that between July and 3 October 2017, senior Pentagon officials directed him and a colleague to brief Neill Tipton on the status of AATIP and to transition responsibilities to him. Elizondo states:

“From July to late September, Mr. [Brennan] McKernan and I had several personal meetings with Mr. Tipton to brief him on the nuances of AATIP.”

“Mr. Tipton agreed to assume the management role of AATIP…”

The complaint frames these meetings as part of a coordinated handoff of AATIP responsibilities, which has become a central element in Elizondo’s public claim that he led the program. But the Pentagon has consistently stated:

“Luis Elizondo had no assigned responsibilities for AATIP.”

The Pentagon’s position has remained unchanged for years, and to date, no document has been released that places Elizondo within any official program titled, or nicknamed, the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). The Tipton calendar entry has been one of the few government-generated materials cited as potential evidence of interaction between Elizondo and senior OUSD(I&S) leadership on UAP-related matters, but still does not definitively prove that the meeting was AATIP, or even UAP, related.

But additional context to this meeting may emerge from email exchanges between Tipton and Elizondo, as published in Elizondo’s DoD/IG complaint. These messages, dated August 22–25, 2017, fall just days before the August 28 calendar entry and depict active communication about a planned meeting, efforts to schedule it, and discussions of an unspecified portfolio Elizondo described as “nuanced.”

In a message sent on August 22, 2017, Elizondo informed a Navy counterpart that he had spoken with Tipton “about our collective efforts” and recommended an in-person meeting once staff returned from leave. Tipton was copied and described as “amicable for a discussion” in his role as Acting Director for Defense Intelligence, Technical Collection and Special Programs. This message, which explicitly references coordination among OUSD(I), the Navy, and others, demonstrates that meeting preparations were already underway.

Tipton replied the following morning, August 23, adding a staff member to assist with scheduling. Elizondo responded on August 25, thanking Tipton “as discussed” and asserting that Tipton, as the “principal SES” in his directorate, was the appropriate figure “to help take our effort to a new level.” Elizondo further stated he had been managing another “nuanced effort within the Department for some time,” and that he had already “laid the foundations with SECDEF’s front office” to transfer this portfolio under Tipton’s oversight. He referenced meetings at the “front office,” partners in industry and other agencies, and the need to analyze and exploit material, an apparent reference to ongoing technical or operational work. Tipton replied the same morning: “Thanks Lue. All good – although, at some point I need to know what this actually ‘is’…”

Additional insight comes from a September 11, 2017, email, where Elizondo informed Tipton that “the front office is aware that you are now part of this endeavor and they are happy with the decision,” then proposed meeting the following Wednesday for a one-hour discussion. He also referenced a colleague as “a friend of the program,” noting Tipton would be speaking with him the next day.

Tipton’s reply, positioned directly above Elizondo’s email in the FOIA release and evidently written within the same timeframe, stated: “Thanks Lue. I’m around next week… For specific date/time, just work with [redacted]. I’m not allowed to muck around with my calendar.” He added that he had “a discussion with [redacted]tomorrow,” which suggests he was already engaged on issues connected to the effort Elizondo was attempting to advance.

When read alongside the August emails, the September 11 exchange reflects a notable shift. In late August, Tipton had asked Elizondo, “at some point I need to know what this actually ‘is’…,” indicating uncertainty about the nature of the portfolio. By September, Elizondo was telling Tipton that senior leadership, aka the “front office”, supported his involvement. The progression documented in these emails does not identify AATIP explicitly, but it does show an evolving effort in which Tipton was being brought into a role with responsibilities Elizondo believed were being aligned under him.

Then, in a communication dated September 25, 2017, released via FOIA to The Black Vault, Elizondo sent Tipton a “DRAFT DepSECDEF letter” written “at the unclassified level” so Tipton could “better assume the new responsibilities for AATIP.”

Elizondo wrote that the memo had been drafted “per SECDEF’s Front Office guidance to you and me,” and asked Tipton for edits. Tipton replied on October 3, 2017, saying he would review and provide comments.

The attached draft memorandum, the now-public AATIP memo, is one of the only official DoD documents ever released that refers directly to AATIP. It outlines congressional funding for the program in 2008, describes its focus on “beyond next generation technologies,” and directs all DoD elements to provide reporting on “unexplained or unknown aerial systems” to the Director of Defense Intelligence for Technical Collection and Special Programs, the office Tipton held at the time.

Although the memo remains heavily debated in terms of its status and was clearly written by Elizondo and not the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the emails show that Elizondo was transmitting the draft to Tipton in late September 2017 as part of what he described as a transfer of responsibilities “to you and me” per guidance from senior leadership. Combined with Tipton’s acknowledgment on October 3 that he was “getting spun back up” and would review the document, the records finally demonstrate that AATIP was explicitly referenced in correspondence between the two men during this period.

Elizondo resigned later that same day.

Taken all together, these communications do not establish whether the August 28 meeting took place or what its precise subject was. They do, however, document an active dialogue from late August through early October, involving scheduling, follow-up discussions, and the transmission of a memo directly labeled “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.” The presence of these records strengthens the central question raised by the FOIA “no records” determination: if emails exist showing coordination between Elizondo and Tipton on a portfolio as directed by senior offices, why does the Department of Defense report that it can locate no material whatsoever associated with a meeting that appears on Tipton’s official calendar between him and Elizondo within that timeframe?

OSD’s letter states that its search would have found records “if they existed.” But the calendar entry, which the authenticity of is not in dispute, suggests they did, at one time, likely did exist. So where are they?

The documentation presents several possibilities about the August 28th meeting:

If the meeting occurred
Then associated records should exist somewhere within OUSD(I&S) or SAP coordination channels.

If the meeting was cancelled
There is still no explanation for why no scheduling emails or cancellation notices were located during the search.

If the meeting occurred but involved no Elizondo-related content
Responsive materials would still be expected under a FOIA request for all records “pertaining to” the event.

If records once existed but were later deleted or misplaced
That issue is not addressed in the FOIA response, and the appeal argues that OSD must examine alternative systems or archives.

This calendar entry remains one of the few official documents linking Elizondo to a senior Pentagon intelligence official during the period when he says he was transitioning AATIP responsibilities. The government’s position, reiterated for years, is that he had no assigned role in AATIP. The calendar entry does not resolve that contradiction, but it does establish that a meeting involving “Luis” at Elizondo’s known office number was officially recorded at a time it is confirmed Elizondo was talking to Tipton about transferring a portfolio.

With OSD’s latest FOIA search producing no related documents, the question becomes not just whether the meeting occurred, but how an official record of a scheduled SAP-related meeting can exist with no underlying materials preserved in any system searched by the Department of Defense.

The Black Vault’s appeal seeks clarity on all this, and requests a new search based on evidence and established case law requiring a proper one be conducted. Until that search is fully completed, the August 28, 2017, “SAP Coordination Meeting” remains a documented but unexplained artifact in one of the most debated chapters of the Elizondo/AATIP saga.

###

Document Archive

FOIA Response Letter

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [299.84 KB]

FOIA Release of Calendar to Lt. Tim McMillan

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [1.34 MB]

The post Pentagon Calendar Lists an AATIP-Era Meeting — But All Supporting Records Are Missing first appeared on The Black Vault.

The update was issued under FAA Notice N 7110.800, effective October 26, 2025, and applies to all Air Traffic Organization (ATO) personnel. The notice modifies two key sections of FAA Order JO 7110.65, the governing document for air traffic control procedures. Specifically, it updates paragraph 1-2-6, “Abbreviations,” and paragraph 9-8-1, “General,” to remove the word UFO and introduce UAP in its place.

(Editor’s Note: As of publication, the FAA’s online version of Order JO 7110.65 does not yet reflect the revisions outlined in Notice N 7110.800. The updated language appears only in the notice itself, pending formal incorporation into the manual.)

FAA’s Revised Directive

The updated manual instructs that controllers must now:

“Inform the operations supervisor/CIC of any reported or observed unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP)/unexplained phenomena activity.”

The section also references FAA Order JO 7210.3, paragraph 4-7-4, which addresses formal reporting channels for such incidents. The change, while procedural, reflects a broader institutional recognition of UAPs as a legitimate aviation safety and national security concern.

The FAA explained the reasoning behind the update in the “Background” section of the notice:

“On December 22, 2022, Title 50 United States Code (50 U.S.C.) section 3373, Establishment of All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, created and defined the term unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) which effectively, for governmental purposes, replaced the term unidentified flying object (UFO).”

“As a result, the FAA will require air traffic control (ATC) to notify the National Tactical Security Operations (NTSO) Air Traffic Security Coordinator (ATSC) team on the Domestic Events Network (DEN) of any pilot reports or air traffic personnel observations of UAP activity.”

A Quiet but Notable Shift

While the change primarily involves terminology and reporting clarification, it marks the first time the FAA has explicitly tied UAP procedures to the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) framework created under federal law. The acknowledgment of UAPs as “a potential national security concern” represents a subtle but significant shift in how the agency treats such reports.

Kevin Cortes, writing for Americans for Safe Aerospace, described the change as “a quiet but important” development that “places UAP reporting within [the FAA’s]core safety framework,” adding that “when pilots and controllers can document what they have seen without fear or stigma, that information becomes data.”

Graves and ASA have consistently advocated for standardized UAP reporting channels to ensure that safety and national security implications are taken seriously. The organization called the update “a meaningful step forward,” noting that it helps normalize transparent reporting across the aviation community.

Historical Context: The FAA and UFO Reports

The Black Vault has tracked FAA policy on UFO and UAP reporting for more than two decades. Earlier FAA documentation referenced “unidentified flying objects,” with reports sometimes routed through nontraditional channels, which included Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS), during the same period the Defense Intelligence Agency operated the Advanced Aerospace Weapons System Applications Program (AAWSAP), in which BAASS was the contractor awarded the program at the time.

In 2019, The Black Vault published an investigation into the FAA’s earlier handling of UFO sightings and the agency’s acknowledgment of maintaining a database containing such reports. That reporting can be reviewed here:

• FAA Denies Tracking UFOs, Publishes Database Containing UFO Sightings
• The Bigelow Aerospace, NIDS and BAASS UFO Connection with the FAA

Those earlier FAA relationships were significant because they marked the only period in which a private aerospace entity, which has been reported by some media outlets as having links to government-funded UFO research, were explicitly named in FAA reporting instructions.

Toward Standardized and Safe Reporting

ASA emphasized that the FAA’s 2025 update should be seen as part of a larger movement toward openness, bolstered by pending legislation. The Safe Airspace for Americans Act, introduced in Congress in September 2025, seeks to establish a standardized, national system for UAP reporting by aviation professionals, protect employees from retaliation, and ensure transparency in the data collection process.

According to ASA, the FAA’s policy change “is not the end goal” but a foundational step toward a “culture of transparency” in U.S. airspace safety.

###

Document Archive

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [215.50 KB]

The post FAA Updates Controller Manual to Reflect New UAP Reporting Policy first appeared on The Black Vault.

On December 17, 2022, a Cessna 172 pilot approaching Tucson, Arizona, reported an unusual airborne object to air traffic controllers. Now, following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by The  Black Vault, the FAA has released official documents and audio transcripts detailing the encounter.

The FOIA case, filed January 19, 2023, was prompted by a comment on Reddit in response to a Black Vault posting about pilot sightings. A user referenced a recording of air traffic control communications and mentioned a pilot describing a strange red and silver object. That tip led directly to the FOIA request, which the FAA confirmed in a February 28, 2023 disclosure letter responding to “records pertaining to the Red and Silver Ironman Unmanned Aircraft Systems on December 17, 2022, near Tucson, Arizona”.

The Encounter

The official FAA Mandatory Occurrence Report (MOR) states that Cessna N21272 “reported a red and silver drone at 80 at the TUS091006 moving east bound. N21272 advised drone looked like Iron Man. Possibly a balloon. No other sightings of drone”.

A Quality Assurance review further noted that “while descending through 8,400 feet, N21272 reported passing a silver and red drone that was off of their left side and slightly below them. No evasive action was reported”.

Air Traffic Control Audio

The released air traffic control audio provides a clearer picture of what the pilot described in real time. At 12:06 p.m. local time, the pilot transmitted:

“There was something strange that just flew by off the left side. It looks like some type of drone, but it was like red and silver. I couldn’t really tell the altitude, just a little bit below me”.

Controllers later followed up to clarify the report:

“And the drone, you said at 8,000 feet?”

The pilot responded:

“It was a little bit below me, I was at 8,000, and it wasn’t like a normal looking drone. It looked more vertical than like the quadcopter type and it was silver and red”.

When asked again to describe the object, the pilot elaborated:

“Yeah, it was silver and red. It almost reminded me of, like, an Iron Man suit, although not exactly like that, but like a silvery red color. It was pretty weird”.

###

Document Archive

FOIA Case 2023-03232 Release Package [5 Pages, 0.5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [650.98 KB]

The post “Looked Like Iron Man”: Tucson Pilot’s “Drone” Report and Audio Recording Revealed in FAA Records first appeared on The Black Vault.

The FBI has released a detailed set of investigative files on the so-called “Jetpack Man” sightings near Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The release on October 1, 2025, followed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by The Black Vault first filed August 3, 2021 and resubmitted November 27, 2021 after an initial denial. The Bureau originally withheld all the records under FOIA exemption (b)(7)(A) for ongoing investigations but reversed its position with the second request after nearly four years.

When the sightings first made headlines in 2020 and 2021, they were widely portrayed as encounters with a person flying a jetpack near commercial aircraft. Yet the FBI’s files show that at least one pilot later walked back that description. In one case, the China Airlines captain who initially thought he saw a “jetpack” told investigators on reflection that “he did not believe it resembled the shape and size of a human” and noted that “there were no propellers or jet propulsion devices attached to the object.”

The records released mark the first “interim” disclosure for this case which remains open, indicating that additional material may still be forthcoming. For this release, 250 pages were reviewed, bit only 130 were released. It is unclear what is in the 120 pages completely withheld.

How the Investigation Began

The FBI’s first reference to the case appears in an internal summary of the August 30, 2020 incident, when pilots on American Airlines flight 1997 reported seeing “a person with a jet pack flying approximately 300 yards to the left of them” as they descended to land at LAX at about 3,000 feet. According to the records, “approximately one minute later, JetBlue flight 23 was approaching LAX and a pilot possibly saw the same person flying with the jet pack”.

The Bureau’s records show the FBI’s Los Angeles Resident Agency opened a file (164B-LA-3313857) on September 1, 2020 to investigate the sightings.

October 2020: Pilot Describes Object in Detail

A year later, on October 14, 2020, a China Airlines captain flying from Taipei to Los Angeles told FBI agents he saw an object at 6,000–6,500 feet over Culver City during descent. The pilot described it as moving horizontally and only visible for two seconds:

“He called out the sighting to the co-pilots… The object was approximately 100-200 meters away from the left wing tip when it went past the plane”.

At first, the October 14, 2020, sighting was linked to the idea of a jetpack or “fly suit.” But after an FBI interview, the China Airlines captain made a crucial clarification. He told investigators that, on reflection, “he did not believe it resembled the shape and size of a human.” He added that there were “no propellers or jet propulsion devices attached to the object.”

This reversal is noteworthy. The incident was widely described in headlines as another “jetpack man” encounter, yet the pilot himself cast doubt on that very interpretation. If the object did not look like a human, and carried no visible propulsion system, it leaves open the possibility that it was not a balloon, not a drone, and not a man in flight gear. The FBI documents stop short of offering an alternative explanation, but the pilot’s testimony underscores the unresolved nature of what was seen that night.

Social Media Tips and Public Leads

The files show that tips poured in through the FBI’s National Threat Operations Center (NTOC). One December 2020 e-tip accused a Los Angeles graffiti “tagger” of being the jetpack flyer, alleging he had “posted about this on social media — knowing the FBI was looking into this” and that he “clearly has no remorse… and finds it funny that he has got away with it so far”.

The tipster urged the FBI to “find out his real name, his cell phone, IG use location… and charge him appropriately” because “he is scaring people by being able to operate a jetpack”. No evidence in the released files confirms that lead produced results.

May 2021: Cessna Pilot Reports Jetpack-Like Figure Near Van Nuys

On May 9, 2021, a student pilot in a Cessna 172 with an instructor at Van Nuys Airport reported seeing “what appeared to be a person on a jetpack” for about six seconds at 2,400 feet, 400–500 feet from the plane:

“The person was going the opposite direction from the plane… standing up straight… wearing black and red clothing”.

The pilot compared the sighting to a prior photo and video and said it was “exactly the same” in shape and build, but with different colors.

July 2021: Cargo Pilot Describes “Reddish” Object

The July 28, 2021 incident involved a Kalitta Air cargo flight on final approach to LAX. The captain told the FBI he saw an “unidentified object” at 5,000 feet, initially thinking it was “a guy with a jet pack” but later noting it was “larger than a balloon and smaller than a helicopter or small airplane”.

He described the object as “reddish in color and 5 to 7 feet tall, similar to the height of a person” and said he observed it for seven to eight seconds, first trying to determine if it posed a collision risk before attempting to identify it. He was later sent a photo and video of a similar object but said “the color was wrong” — the comparison image showed black and white, not red.

(See other documents at: Jetpack Man Sighting over Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), July 28, 2021)

August 2021: Drone Sighting Tip

In November 2021, an individual reported seeing a man at San Pedro’s Lookout Point Park flying “a fast, advanced looking drone that landed on his arm like a hawk” and speculated it could be connected to the jetpack sightings.

No Definitive Conclusion in FBI Files

The released records contain no definitive identification of the object or person. Instead, they show a mix of pilot testimony, public tips, and FBI investigative activity, including interviews with flight instructors, pilots, and possible industry contacts.

One record shows agents retrieved at least one CD containing “video recording” evidence in December 2020 but the contents were not included in the FOIA release.

The FBI’s decision to initially withhold the records for years under exemption (b)(7)(A) signals how seriously the Bureau took the reports and their investigation. Yet the eventual release leaves the mystery unresolved. Pilots repeatedly described objects that appeared humanoid at altitudes and distances difficult for current consumer jetpacks, and the files reveal the Bureau explored but did not prove links to drones or social media personalities.

What the files do show, for the first time in an official release, is how pilots, airline crews, and tipsters perceived the incidents, and how the FBI documented them in its case file. The records also confirm that federal authorities obtained at least some video evidence but have not released it publicly.

Future releases will be highlighted on The Black Vault, and linked below, when available.

###

Document Archive

FBI Release Package #1 – October 1, 2025 – [147 Pages, 4MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [3.98 MB]

FBI Release Package #2 – December 23, 2025

This second release had the below video. As indicated by the FOIA release letter above, additional media was withheld in full.

The post FBI Releases LAX “Jetpack” Case Files; Pilot Interview Contradicts Jetpack Description first appeared on The Black Vault.

The request, filed May 19, 2025, sought internal communications, review logs, classification guidance, legal opinions, and technical documentation tied to the public posting of the video titled “Middle East 2024.” The video, showing more than six minutes of infrared footage from a U.S. military platform, was released in May 2025 and remains unresolved by AARO.

The DoD confirmed that responsive documents exist, but a September 19, 2025, final response stated that all records are being withheld in full.

The denial cited multiple FOIA exemptions, including:

• Exemption (b)(5): covering deliberative inter- and intra-agency material.
• Exemptions (b)(7)(A), (B), (C), and (E): law enforcement provisions shielding records that could interfere with enforcement proceedings, risk an unfair trial, invade personal privacy, or reveal law enforcement techniques.

AARO described the video as depicting “an apparent thermal contrast within the sensor’s field of view” that may be consistent with a physical object, but noted that without corroborating data, “the available data does not support a conclusive analytic evaluation.”

The Pentagon’s decision continues a recurring pattern in UAP transparency efforts: footage may be released for public viewing, but records explaining the deliberations and analysis behind such releases remain withheld.

As The Black Vault has previously reported, the DoD has increasingly invoked FOIA’s law enforcement exemption, commonly used to protect criminal investigations, in connection with AARO and UAP-related records. This practice has drawn criticism for applying investigative secrecy provisions to matters that are presented to the public as unresolved anomalies.

The Black Vault has appealed the decision, and the result will be posted, when available.

###

Document Archive

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [283.28 KB]

The post All Analysis and Records Withheld on DoD’s Own Released UAP Footage first appeared on The Black Vault.

The release was supposed to show the internal decision-making behind this new practice. Instead, nearly all substance was withheld, and more than 95%+ of the content is either blacked out or withheld in full. The result is another chapter in a growing saga of secrecy surrounding AARO, FOIA, and UAP records.

This issue has now persisted for more than two years. The Pentagon’s Public Affairs office, through spokesperson Susan Gough, continues to refuse to answer The Black Vault’s roughly four dozen inquiries and follow-ups over the course of 27 months sent to her about how this exemption can be legally justified.

The September 18, 2025, release (case 24-F-0154) consisted of 23 pages. Three pages were withheld in their entirety under Exemption (b)(5), while the rest were redacted under (b)(5) and (b)(6).

The unredacted fragments show only hints of the internal process:

• Coordination Calls: One email references a call scheduled “with AARO … at 1300 today to discuss a way ahead on Greenewald’s FOIA’s concerning the interviews”.
• Media Coordination: Another chain references “OSD/JS; 23-F-0529 & 23-F-0658 for Media Release,” noting “This relates to the AARO request”. Both of these cases were filed by The Black Vault.
• Drafting Discussions: Several short exchanges note updates to “language and organization” or “feedback is attached from our interviewers,” but nearly all surrounding context is redacted.

These snippets confirm that AARO and FOIA staff were in active coordination, but they shed no light on the legal reasoning for invoking a law enforcement exemption.

This FOIA request specifically sought to answer how (b)(7) could be applied in the UAP context. Yet, the very records that could explain that decision are almost entirely withheld. The lost appeal on the Mosul Orb request (23-F-0389) shows that DoD had already invoked (b)(7)(A) and (b)(7)(E) to justify withholdings in UAP cases, a tactic starting in early June 2023. The appeal, based on the fact that (b)(7) was not legally justified, was denied.

There have now been numerous other cases, all filed by The Black Vault, that were also denied specifically fighting the (b)(7) exemption. Most have been appealed, all of which have received denials. In some of those cases, however, the DoD went a step further. After appeals challenged the validity of using a law enforcement exemption, the Department added entirely new exemptions to its original denials. These included (b)(1) for classified national security information and (b)(3) for material protected under other disclosure statutes.

This tactic significantly raises the barrier for judicial review. While the original (b)(7) arguments could be scrutinized in court, the addition of broader, harder-to-challenge exemptions after the fact makes any legal fight far less winnable. The strategy not only preserves the secrecy around AARO-related records but also ensures that even if one exemption is successfully contested, others remain to block disclosure. It demonstrates an institutional approach to reinforce denials rather than defend the specific use of (b)(7) on its own merits.

If the rationale for (b)(7) is as clear-cut as the DoD suggests through their FOIA appeal denials, then two things should logically follow:

1. Public Affairs should be able to provide a straightforward explanation of why (b)(7) applies to AARO. Yet, despite years of follow-ups, no statement has ever been given.
2. The FOIA release should have contained the legal analysis that supports the use of the exemption, and such justification should not itself be withheld by exemption. Instead, the responsive documents justifying the use of (b)(7) denials were hidden behind (b)(5) redactions. (b)(5) is an exemption meant to protect internal deliberations or draft processes, even though the very purpose of the request was to understand how the policy was justified. Once a strategy has been implemented and applied to real-world cases, it is no longer merely predecisional or deliberative. If the government maintains that the use of (b)(7) is legally valid, then the underlying justification should be subject to disclosure and released, at least in part, to the public.

The newly released documents demonstrate that the DoD and AARO are in direct coordination on FOIA matters, and that senior officials in both legal and intelligence roles are involved in the decision-making when it comes to the release of information. The public remains in the dark about the legal foundation for invoking a law enforcement exemption on AARO/UAP records, and has so for more than two years, despite AARO not being a law enforcement agency and no legal justification being given.

The Black Vault has filed an appeal on the over-use of redactions, and those results will be posted, when available.

###

Document Archive

FOIA Case 24-F-0154 Release Package [25 Pages, 1.7MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [1.84 MB]

The post DoD Redacts Nearly All Records Explaining AARO’s Use of Law Enforcement Exemption for UAP Files first appeared on The Black Vault.

In September 2025, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) issued a final response to FOIA case 25-F-3514, denying the existence of records related to the alleged 2023 directive. The request specifically sought “a copy of the memorandum issued by the Office of the Secretary of Defense in spring 2023 ordering the immediate cessation of practices associated with the so-called ‘Yankee Blue’ program.” The response stated that after “thorough searches of the electronic records and files of CMD, no records of the kind you described could be identified”.

The denial directly contradicts the WSJ’s claim that “the defense secretary’s office sent a memo out across the service in the spring of 2023 ordering the practice to stop immediately.” If such a memo existed, it would be retained by OSD correspondence management systems and would be subject to FOIA. Given that the topic allegedly involved halting a hazing ritual, rather than revealing classified operations, the record would not be expected to carry high-level classification. Courts have repeatedly held that embarrassment or institutional sensitivity does not constitute grounds for classification.

This is not the first “no records” finding tied to the WSJ reporting. In FOIA case 25-F-3515, the DoD also reported that it could not locate “briefing materials, talking points, slide decks, notes, or summaries prepared for or presented to Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines in connection with briefings on ‘Yankee Blue.’” The WSJ reported that Haines was briefed on the discovery, describing her as “stunned” upon hearing about the scale of the deception. That request is currently under appeal.

The Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) says it found no records tied to “Yankee Blue” hazing rituals which convinced “hundreds and hundreds of people” they were working on a “reverse engineering” program for alien technology, despite detailed Wall Street… pic.twitter.com/KQY50ET08i

— John Greenewald, Jr. (@blackvaultcom) June 26, 2025

Separately, in case 2025-06002-F, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) said it found “no records” of investigative reports, summaries, or closure memos tied to “Yankee Blue.” While it remains possible that another entity, such as an Inspector General’s office, handled such inquiries, the consistent pattern of FOIA denials leaves significant doubt as to whether the WSJ’s central claims can be substantiated.

The WSJ story has been frequently cited by skeptics as a definitive account explaining long-standing rumors of U.S. programs tied to recovered non-human technology. But with the Pentagon’s FOIA responses turning up empty, the reliability of that reporting is now under scrutiny. Either the FOIA system is omitting responsive material through error or concealment, or the memo and briefings described in the article never existed, or at the very least, never existed in the way they were reported. Appeals are pending, but for now, the official record does not align with the narrative that has been widely circulated in media coverage as first reported by the WSJ.

###

Document Archive

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [644.40 KB]

The post Pentagon Denies Existence of “Yankee Blue” Memo Reported by Wall Street Journal first appeared on The Black Vault.

The language was clear. Not only did the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) meet with aerospace company officials, but those executives gave formal, on-the-record denials that their firms were involved in alleged crash retrieval or reverse-engineering programs involving “extraterrestrial craft”.

Following this admission, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was filed by The Black Vault seeking the release of those very statements. The request asked for both classified and/or unclassified versions of the records, with the understanding that the government itself had already acknowledged their existence in its public report.

However, despite its own published acknowledgement, the Department of Defense denied the request in full. In a final response letter dated September 5, 2025, the Office of the Secretary of Defense invoked a “Glomar” response — refusing to confirm or deny whether any records exist at all. The denial cited FOIA exemptions (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), and (b)(7)(D) as justification for withholding.

The reasoning presented a paradox: the DoD’s public report had already confirmed the existence of such records, yet when pressed under FOIA, the agency reversed course, claiming it could neither confirm nor deny them.

An appeal was quickly filed on September 6, 2025, challenging the denial. The appeal argues that the cited exemptions do not apply to the requested material and highlights the inconsistency of the government’s position.

Among the key points:

• Exemption (b)(5), typically covering deliberative and predecisional agency memoranda, cannot apply to finalized company statements already acknowledged in a public report.
• Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), meant to protect personal privacy, are not relevant to official statements made by corporate executives speaking in their professional capacity.
• Exemptions (b)(7)(A) and (b)(7)(D), intended for law enforcement records, have no rational nexus to AARO’s historical review of UAP matters.

Most importantly, once the government has officially acknowledged the existence of specific records, FOIA case law holds that it cannot later refuse to confirm or deny them.

The appeal calls on the DoD to reverse its denial, release the responsive statements, or at minimum produce a detailed Vaughn index explaining any continued withholding.

This case centers around not the disclosure of classified crash retrieval programs, which the public knows officials already denied to exist, but the release of the denials themselves. In effect, the Pentagon is refusing to release the very statements it cited as proof that such programs are not taking place.

The outcome of the appeal will determine whether those “on-the-record” statements remain hidden, or whether the government will be compelled to reconcile its public reporting with its obligations under FOIA. The results will be posted, when available.

###

Document Archive

FOIA Final Response Letter – September 5, 2025

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [662.61 KB]

The post DoD Says Aerospace Firms Went “On the Record” About UAP — Then Refuses to Acknowledge Records Exist first appeared on The Black Vault.

The request yielded 14 pages of emails, many redacted, that offer a rare glimpse into how the Pentagon handled the rollout of AARO’s congressionally mandated Historical Record Report and managed both internal and external messaging.

Controlled Media Access

The emails reveal that access to AARO’s acting director, Tim Phillips, was tightly restricted. In February and March 2024, multiple journalists, including representatives from Scientific American, the Washington Examiner, and Finland’s national broadcaster YLE, requested inclusion in press briefings or sought interviews with Phillips.

Those requests were declined. “At this time, we are looking to keep any media engagement with AARO’s acting director to a small group,” Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough wrote in response to one inquiry. Another journalist expressed disappointment at the exclusion, saying it “seems to be a bit of Pentagon narrative setting versus genuine media outreach”.

A small, invite-only briefing was held on March 8, 2024, with only about seven journalists present. During the session, reporters asked pointed questions that reflected the broader public interest. One journalist pressed Phillips directly about whether high-profile whistleblowers Luis Elizondo or David Grusch had been interviewed for AARO’s review. Phillips declined to confirm, stating: “As a practice, we do not disclose who came in and spoke to us. The individuals are free to share that with you, but I’m not going to talk about who we interviewed. But anybody with knowledge of UAPs or the government covert attempt to reverse engineer or to exploit these materials, we would love to talk to them”.

Phillips also sought to portray the work as unprecedented in scope: “I don’t think there’s ever been a government organization with the authorities and with the amount of funding that we receive from Congress… I don’t believe any previous government attempt to research UFOs, UAPs has ever had that type of top cover”.

While the answers themselves added to the record, the manner in which the information was released raised broader concerns. By holding a private, invitation-only engagement, the Pentagon limited access to a select group of reporters. For others seeking answers, including those who had submitted formal FOIA requests, the arrangement stood in stark contrast to the principles of openness and transparency that Congress intended when it mandated AARO’s historical review.

ODNI’s Role Minimized

Another exchange shows discussion about whether to acknowledge the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in press materials. Although AARO operates within the Department of Defense, its statutory reporting structure, which was established under the FY2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), requires it to report to both the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence (PDDNI).

Despite this, internal correspondence about the March 2024 rollout of AARO’s Historical Record Report shows officials deliberately choosing to downplay ODNI’s role. In an email chain on March 5, 2024, while discussing the draft press release, Gough asked whether ODNI should be referenced since “the legislation calls for AARO producing the report — but Dir, AARO reports to PDDNI, too, so wanted to check.” The reply was clear: “Confirming that we’re good without any ODNI mention.” Who that was from was redacted and withheld.

Legally, ODNI sits atop AARO’s chain of accountability, yet in this instance the Department of Defense opted to present the rollout as a DoD-driven initiative.

Congressional Briefings and “KONA BLUE”

During March 6, 2024, classified briefings on the Historical Record Report, congressional staff pressed AARO leadership on the individuals interviewed, the scope of documentation reviewed, and “noteworthy programs,” including one labeled KONA BLUE.

According to a declassified release from the Department of Defense, KONA BLUE originated as a prospective Special Access Program (PSAP) proposed within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2011. The program was described in interviews as a sensitive compartment established to protect the retrieval and exploitation of “non-human biologics.” However, further investigation by AARO determined that KONA BLUE was never formally established. It received neither funding nor materials, and no data was ever transferred to DHS under its name.

The roots of KONA BLUE trace back to the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Application Program (AAWSAP)/Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), run by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) from 2009 to 2012. Those programs, funded by congressional earmarks, were executed primarily through Bigelow Aerospace in Nevada. DIA ultimately terminated the contract, citing “lack of merit and lack of utility” in the products provided. Following its cancellation, individuals associated with AAWSAP/AATIP advocated for DHS to adopt and fund a successor program under the code name KONA BLUE.

In 2011, DHS’s Under Secretary for Science and Technology approved KONA BLUE as a PSAP, justifying the move on claims that sensitive information and materials required this level of protection. Six months later, the DHS Deputy Secretary disapproved the initiative, citing insufficient justification and lack of credible supporting information. The program was terminated immediately thereafter.

Despite speculation surrounding the name, the official record confirms that KONA BLUE never advanced beyond proposal stage. The Department of Defense has since declassified related documents in coordination with DHS, reaffirming that “no data or material of any kind was ever transferred to or collected by DHS under the auspices of KONA BLUE”.

Gillibrand Presses for Expanded AARO Role

The records also capture friction between Congress and the Pentagon over AARO’s responsibilities. During a Senate briefing on drone incursions, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand pressed officials on why the Department lacked a central database for unmanned aerial system (UAS) incursions, arguing that AARO should serve that function.

Internal Pentagon correspondence shows immediate pushback. “We do not want to see sUAS added to AARO’s portfolio!” Pentagon spokesperson Gough wrote in an email to David A. Kozik, Director Congressional Activities, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Intelligence. Kozik repliesd that AARO should serve in a coordinating capacity on counter-UAS issues, but not as the lead office. The discussions underscored a disconnect between congressional expectations and the Department’s vision for AARO’s scope.

What makes this exchange notable is the role of the official raising the concern. Under Department of Defense policy, Public Affairs personnel are tasked with communicating information and providing counsel to commanders, but not with determining mission assignments. Joint Publication 3-61 emphasizes that public affairs officers are the commander’s “principal spokesperson” and serve to advise and align communication, but their role is not directive in setting operational responsibilities. Similarly, DoDD 5122.05 and DoDI 5400.13 define the public affairs function as supporting transparency, releasing information, and coordinating messaging, not deciding organizational missions.

For that reason, Gough’s strong stance appears to move beyond the traditional remit of a spokesperson. While she is entitled to offer her views, it is unusual to see a Public Affairs official weighing in directly on whether a congressional request, which was raised by a sitting Senator, should alter AARO’s mission portfolio.

In short, while the emails show a clear disagreement between congressional intent and Pentagon preference, they also highlight the unusual position of a public affairs spokesperson inserting herself into a debate that doctrine indicates should rest with mission leadership and policymakers, not communications staff.

The newly released emails offer a glimpse into how the Pentagon manages both its internal deliberations and public-facing messaging about UAPs. The records confirm congressional pressure to expand AARO’s mandate, references to sensitive programs like KONA BLUE, and a deliberate effort by DoD and ODNI officials to shape the rollout of AARO’s Historical Record Report.

While heavily redacted, the correspondence highlights an ongoing tension between secrecy, congressional oversight, and public transparency in the government’s handling of unidentified anomalous phenomena.

###

Document Archive

FOIA 24-F-0894 Release Package [16 Pages, 2.2MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [2.37 MB]

The post FOIA Emails Reveal Pentagon’s Tight Control Over AARO “Historical Record Report” Rollout and Messaging first appeared on The Black Vault.

The records show the manuscript, originally submitted in March 2020, was routed to multiple agencies including the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), U.S. Air Force, and Department of Homeland Security. All three cleared the manuscript, though DIA required some amendments before public release. On May 11, 2021, DOPSR issued its final determination: CLEARED AS AMENDED. The changes were largely to address privacy concerns involving personally identifiable information and protected health information, as well as the names of certain government employees.

For Lacatski, who served as a key figure in the Pentagon’s Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP), the delays were a source of growing frustration. Email exchanges show repeated inquiries about the status of the review, with him noting at one point that the process had reached “the fourteen month point” and suggesting that holding up publication “may very well be one person” delaying the work. In another message, he urged DOPSR to give the lagging office “a firm deadline” or assume no further comments would be provided.

Kelly McHale, the DOPSR security review specialist assigned to the case, repeatedly cited slow responses from reviewing components, pandemic-related telework restrictions, and the complexity of coordinating input from multiple agencies as factors in the delay. “We never intend for reviews to take this long,” McHale wrote, assuring Lacatski that she was “keeping the pressure on”.

The delays not only impacted the authors’ timeline but also forced consideration of alternative publication strategies. In one April 2021 email, Lacatski proposed adding a statement to the book’s copyright page indicating that the manuscript was under DOPSR review, so the work could be sent to the editor without waiting for final clearance.

In a post-release interview on Coast to Coast AM, co-author Colm Kelleher outlined what DOPSR required before publication: “they made us take out some fairly specific references to various offices and also some of the security-related verbiage,” and they insisted that “any active military people or people who are still working in the government service had their names changed.” He said “all of the names that are in the book are actually pseudonyms for all active-duty service people,” noting that “one of the four Tic Tac pilots from the famous Tic Tac incident back in 2004” was discovered to still be active duty and was therefore given a pseudonym. Kelleher added that DOPSR “sent the book out to four separate agencies for review,” and the process “did take… about 14 months,” which he believed was “because of the COVID.” When asked if the review was fair, he said officials “left in a lot of the details,” including Appendix One’s “full summary of over 100 separate reports… delivered to the Defense Intelligence Agency,” adding, “we expected to have some of that removed but none of it was removed.”

The DOPSR process, designed to protect classified and sensitive information, often draws criticism from current and former government employees. The Skinwalkers at the Pentagon case highlights how these reviews can extend well beyond initial projections, even for manuscripts that ultimately face minimal redactions.

While the FOIA release contains no revelations about the classified and/or sensitive content removed from the book, it provides a detailed view of the bureaucratic hurdles faced by authors with government ties. The prolonged review, combined with the authors’ public comments about omitted material, underscores the tension between national security vetting and timely public disclosure.

###

Document Archive

FOIA Case 22-F-0035 Release Package [108 Pages, 3.6MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [3.71 MB]

The post New Documents Detail Slow, Multi-Agency Vetting of “Skinwalkers at the Pentagon” first appeared on The Black Vault.

SKYWATCH is an FAA operations security platform used to collect and disseminate reports of suspicious or unauthorized aerial activity, often relayed through Air Traffic Control Towers, FAA regional offices, and the Domestic Events Network. It serves as a central alert system for potential security risks, with reports often shared with law enforcement and military security forces.

Here is a breakdown summary of the events just released as a result of this case, and drawing from the SKYWATCH system. The documents themselves (located at the bottom of this article) go into greater detail.

Event #1 – December 14, 2024 (03:55Z)
Air traffic controllers observed a drone over multiple sensitive locations on base, including the Hot Cargo Ramp, the south side of Runway 5L, the military ramp, and the east side of the airfield. Base security reported the drones were turning their lights off and flying past them in close proximity. The incident triggered NOTAMs (M1132/24 and M1133/24) for an airfield closure, with the information broadcast on the ATIS. The closure remained in effect until base leadership met later that morning.

Event #2 – December 17, 2024 (04:41Z)
Multiple radar targets, presumed to be drones, were observed on tower radar. No visual confirmation was made, but the Riverside Police Department was notified.

Event #3 – December 17, 2024 (04:58Z)
The situation escalated when ZID Center radar detected between seven and seventeen targets within 40 miles of the airport. Wright-Patterson Security Forces on the ground confirmed the objects were drones. Riverside Police were again contacted. The report categorized the incident as a “swarm” involving multiple unmanned aircraft.

Event #4 – December 17, 2024 (18:08Z)
An aircraft on approach reported seeing a silver drone approximately five nautical miles southeast of Wright-Patterson at 3,200 feet. The pilot took no evasive action. FAA quality assurance later logged coordinates placing the object within the Dayton area, consistent with the Wright-Patterson region.

Event #5 – December 19, 2024 (18:45Z)
The most unusual report came from an aircraft westbound at 16,000 feet near Appleton VOR, roughly 70–80 miles east-northeast of Wright-Patterson. The crew reported a drone “passing beneath them by about 500 feet” and described it as a “black cube.” FAA quality assurance assigned coordinates to the sighting, placing it well east of the base, but it occurred within the same week as the other incursions and was documented in the same SKYWATCH dataset.

Located within the “Drone Sightings Near Airports” reports located at the FAA’s website, the sighting above described as a “black cube” is listed, however, the description of it being a “black cube” was removed, or intentionally not included.

The earlier Air Force records documented numerous sightings by Security Forces personnel of multiple drones over Areas A and B of the base, some flying in formations and performing rapid altitude changes. Many were described as turning lights off, maneuvering in ways consistent with evasion, and in some cases appearing over sensitive areas like the flightline and base gates. However, the “black cube” sighting did not appear in the Air Force release. The FAA records now confirm that during the same operational window, pilots and controllers were also logging high-altitude, unusually shaped drone activity, broadening the scope of what was occurring in the region’s airspace.

The FAA data mirrors many of the Air Force incident points but adds radar “swarm” data, aircraft pilot reports, and precise coordinates where available. The coordinates from the December 17 silver drone sighting place it within the Wright-Patterson airspace vicinity, while the December 19 “black cube” coordinates are farther east but along a flight corridor that could connect to the operational area around the base during that week’s security incidents.

While most of the December 2024 events involved drones at altitudes that could be considered typical of hobbyist or small commercial systems, the “black cube” report at 16,000 feet raises questions about capabilities far beyond those of standard small UAS operations. Whether connected to the Wright-Patterson incursions directly or it is a separate high-altitude event all together, its inclusion in FAA’s SKYWATCH reporting during the same security surge is notable.

Together, the Air Force and FAA FOIA releases now establish that multiple confirmed incursions occurred over and around Wright-Patterson in December 2024, including “swarms”; that a base closure and NOTAM airfield closure were directly tied to drone activity; that FAA radar detected up to seventeen simultaneous targets within 40 miles; and that a rare, pilot-reported sighting of a “black cube” drone at high altitude was documented during the same period. These details expand the public record and offer new leads in understanding the scale and sophistication of the aerial activity that prompted Wright-Patterson’s partial shutdown.

Note: Imagery used in this article are artist renditions based on descriptions of the event.

###

Document Archive

2025-04622 Released Records [8 Pages, 0.5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [540.15 KB]

The post FAA Records Add ‘Black Cube’ Sighting to Wright-Patterson AFB Drone Mystery first appeared on The Black Vault.

The Department of Defense (DOD) has released, in full, the exact text of the “Verbal Legal Advisement” presented to UFO whistleblower David Grusch and likely other witnesses during All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) interviews. The release, under FOIA case 24-F-1138 filed by The Black Vault in April 2024, answers questions raised in previous disclosures and sheds new light on how AARO sought to address concerns about security, legal liability, and nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) for witnesses providing classified UAP-related testimony.

In 2023 and 2024, AARO made numerous documented attempts to interview David Grusch regarding his claims of government involvement with and knowledge about extraterrestrial materials and reverse engineering programs. As detailed in prior FOIA releases (24-F-0266), Grusch repeatedly raised questions about whether AARO was legally authorized to receive highly classified information, including materials covered by NDAs and Special Access Programs (SAPs).

AARO staff responded by providing memorandums from both the Department of Defense and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, explicitly affirming AARO’s legal authority to receive all levels of UAP-related information “notwithstanding any nondisclosure agreement you may have signed”.

Despite this, Grusch continued to seek written and verbal assurances and requested further documentation about policies and procedures for handling such information, specifically questioning the limits of AARO’s authority and the protections for those disclosing sensitive material.

FOIA case 24-F-1138, filed in April 2024 by The Black Vault, specifically sought the wording of the “Verbal Legal Advisement” referenced in previous correspondence with Grusch. The DOD’s full release now makes this critical document available to the public for the first time.

The advisement, read aloud to witnesses prior to interviews, sets forth the following key points:

• Voluntary Participation: Witnesses are asked to confirm their participation is voluntary and that they may end the interview or decline to answer questions at any time.

• Privacy Act and Ownership: The interview is conducted primarily to collect historical information, with the understanding that transcripts and materials belong to the U.S. Government, may be shared with Congress, and are subject to the Privacy Act.

• Legal Status of Disclosures: Critically, the advisement states:

  “Do you understand that for the limited purpose of this oral history, and only during the course of our discussion in this Secure Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), that the information you disclose is not subject to any Nondisclosure Agreement you have signed?”
  
  Witnesses are then advised:
  
  “Upon completion of this interview today all non-disclosure agreements remain in full force.”

• Potential Consequences for False Statements: The advisement also warns witnesses that knowingly providing false information can result in criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and that withholding or falsifying information may negatively affect their security clearance and federal employment.

The entire “verbal legal advisement” is below:

The advisement is grounded in explicit statutory language. Section 1673 of the FY23 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provides that AARO is “authorized to receive any information related to UAP regardless of classification, and notwithstanding any nondisclosure agreement you may have signed.” This statutory authority is reaffirmed in memorandums from both the DOD Special Access Program Central Office and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, released to Grusch and now public through FOIA:

• “Individuals with current or previous access to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)-related information which is subject to a USG Nondisclosure Agreement are authorized to provide this otherwise protected information to AARO representatives.”

• “The provision of UAP-related information which is subject to a Nondisclosure Agreement to AARO personnel constitutes an authorized disclosure if the information is provided and received for the limited purpose of conducting AARO’s assigned mission…”

Despite these written and verbal assurances, Grusch continued to seek additional documentation, expressing concern that simply citing the law and a DOD memo might not be sufficient protection, particularly given the complex patchwork of security policies and compartmented access involved. In emails, Grusch pressed for further clarification and asked for memos from additional agencies, including the CIA and Department of Energy, to address SAPs and other access restrictions.

AARO’s position, as reflected in both the advisement and supporting memoranda, is that the law provides broad statutory protection for such disclosures, so long as they occur within the scope of an official AARO interview and in an appropriate secure environment (like a SCIF). The advisement makes clear that any protections are limited to the duration and context of the interview itself. After the interview, all NDAs resume full effect.

As indicated by the released official documents and legal advisement, witnesses disclosing information to AARO in accordance with the advisement and in a secure setting are protected by federal law from NDA enforcement for those specific disclosures. Section 1673 of the FY23 NDAA is explicit, and violation of this provision by DOD officials, such as pursuing retaliation or NDA enforcement for authorized disclosures, would be a violation of federal law. Federal employees who act in bad faith or retaliate against whistleblowers may be subject to administrative or legal sanctions, though specific criminal penalties would depend on the circumstances and intent.

Could the DoD be lying to Grusch in order to pursue legal action after his disclosures during the interview? That is highly unlikely, as knowingly misrepresenting the legal status of NDAs or misleading witnesses about their protections could result in administrative or even criminal consequences under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements), or for violation of whistleblower protection laws.

The release of the “Verbal Legal Advisement” resolves a longstanding question about what witnesses like David Grusch were told before being asked to testify to AARO. The advisement confirms that, at least for the duration of the official interview, NDAs do not bar disclosure of UAP-related information to AARO. The law provides specific statutory protection for such disclosures, and the DOD has now placed these assurances on the public record.

But, what if the interview needed to extend beyond UAP-related information?

“The key issue here is that many of these activities have conventional classified and compartmented Security Classification Guides that also cover non-UAP activities as well,” Grusch said in a November 13th, 2023, email to the staff of AARO. “To discuss the UAP-related activities would also expose these conventional SAP mission areas. An oral history interview subject must also be absolved of this obligation to protect this information as well, some of it may be bigoted or WAIVED (lAW DODI 5205.11 and 10 USC Sec 119).”  This was a concern and issue that Grusch never felt was properly addressed, hence why he did not show for a schedule meeting with them that was originally set that next day on November 14th.

The statutory protections granted by the DoD and the AARO apply specifically to “UAP-related information,” as defined by Section 1673 of the FY23 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Verbal Legal Advisement and supporting policy memoranda make clear that witnesses can disclose any information directly related to unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) during official interviews, and that such disclosures are not subject to any nondisclosure agreements for the duration of the interview. Both DOD and ODNI memoranda affirm that these protections apply when disclosures are made in a secure setting and in the context of AARO’s authorized mission.

While these protections do not explicitly extend to information that lies outside the defined bounds of UAP-related topics, the legal advisement provided to witnesses specifically states that participation is voluntary, witnesses may choose not to answer any question, and the interview can be ended at any time. This means that even if there are classified or compartmented matters unrelated to UAPs that a witness feels cannot be shared, all UAP-related information can be disclosed without violating NDAs. If questioning were to extend into areas outside the UAP mandate, the advisement already protects the witness’s right to withhold responses and to withdraw from the interview if necessary.

Given these protections, witnesses are fully authorized to provide testimony and be interviewed on all UAP-related information, without fear of breaching nondisclosure agreements. Any information outside the statutory definition could be omitted, but the law and the DOD’s own procedures make clear that witnesses like Grusch could have participated, disclosed all UAP-related knowledge, and simply declined to answer or end the interview if questions moved beyond those bounds. There is no ambiguity about the legal cover provided for UAP-related disclosures within the formal process.

###

Note: This article focuses on the 2023 correspondence and scheduled meeting between David Grusch and AARO. According to reporting by Matt Laslo on July 18, 2025, Representative Eric Burlison stated that “[David Grusch] and I met with AARO. And separately he and AARO had a long conversation.” However, the specific context, content, and details of those meetings have not been independently confirmed. The Black Vault has submitted additional FOIA requests seeking further information.

Document Archive

OSD/JS FOIA Case 24-F-1138 [3 pages, 0.8MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [712.63 KB]

The post DOD Releases “Verbal Legal Advisement” Given to UFO Whistleblower David Grusch first appeared on The Black Vault.

Majestic 12 is the purported code name of a secret committee of scientists, military leaders, and government officials, supposedly formed in 1947 by an executive order of U.S. President Harry S. Truman. The purpose of the committee was to investigate UFO activity in the aftermath of the Roswell incident – the purported crash of an alien spaceship near Roswell, New Mexico, in July 1947. This alleged committee is an important part of the UFO conspiracy theory of an ongoing government cover up of UFO information.

Document Archive

The following FBI files were requested, which are the alleged members of MJ-12 and even the FBI’s file on MJ-12 itself.

Although some of these files may have nothing to do with UFOs or MJ-12, these are the alleged members and are archived here.

Original Alleged MJ-12 Members

Majestic-12 FBI File – [24 Pages] Subject concerns an FBI inquiry into a possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information when a document marked “Top Secret” was made public. According to the FBI, the investigation was closed after it was learned that the document was completely “bogus.”

Berkner, Lloyd – [135 Pages, 10.43 MB]  Berkner, Lloyd, Release #2 – [12 Pages, 2.4 MB] – Lloyd Viel Berkner (February 1, 1905, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin – June 4, 1967, in Washington, D.C.) was an American physicist and engineer. He was one of the inventors of the measuring device that since has become standard at ionospheric stations because it measures the height and electron density of the ionosphere. The data obtained in the worldwide net of such instruments  were important for the developing theory of short wave radio propagation to which Berkner himself gave important contributions.Additional information was found at the FBI, that originated at the CIA.  The FBI forwarded these records to the CIA for review, and declassification, and the CIA information me that all material on Berkner is classified.  Berkner, Lloyd CIA Documents Denial Letter – [ 2 Pages, 0.5 MB ]

Bronk, Detlev – [ 248 Pages, 7.18 MB ] – Detlev Wulf Bronk (August 13, 1897 – November 17, 1975) was a prominent American scientist, educator, and administrator. He is credited with establishing biophysics as a recognized discipline. Bronk served as President of Johns Hopkins University from 1949 to 1953 and as President of the The Rockefeller University from 1953 to 1968. Bronk also held the presidency of the National Academy of Sciences between 1950 and 1962. Please note: According to the FBI, more pages exist on Bronk and are being sent to another government agency for release. Will post when available.

Bush, Vannevar – [ 241 Pages, 78.1 MB ] – Vannevar Bush (March 11, 1890 – June 28, 1974) was an American engineer, inventor and science administrator, whose most important contribution was as head of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) during World War II, through which almost all wartime military R&D was carried out, including initiation and early administration of the Manhattan Project. He is also known in engineering for his work on analog computers, for founding Raytheon, and for the memex, an adjustable microfilm viewer with a structure analogous to that of the World Wide Web.  Bush was also an alleged member of the Majestic-12 (MJ-12) group.  Please note: As admitted by the FBI, an entire file on Bush was destroyed. According to the FBI: “One record (161-BS-1452) which may be responsive to your FOIA request was destroyed in April of 1998.”

Forrestal, James – [290 Pages, 32.66MB] – James Vincent Forrestal (February 15, 1892 – May 22, 1949) was the last Cabinet-level United States Secretary of the Navy and the first United States Secretary of Defense. Forrestal was a supporter of naval battle groups centered on aircraft carriers. In 1954, the world’s first supercarrier was named USS Forrestal in his honor, as is the headquarters of the United States Department of Energy. He is also the namesake of the Forrestal Lecture Series at the United States Naval Academy, which brings prominent military and civilian leaders to speak to the Brigade of Midshipmen, and of the James Forrestal Campus of Princeton University in Plainsboro Township, New Jersey.

Gray, Gordon – FBI Release #1 – [349 Pages, 88.8MB]  Gray, Gordon – FBI Release #2 – [23 Pages, 2.5MB]  Gray, Gordon – FBI Release #3 – [44 Pages, 4.2MB]  Gray, Gordon (State Department Release) – [3 Pages, 1.1MB] Gordon Gray (May 30, 1909 – November 26, 1982) was an official in the government of the United States during the administrations of Harry Truman (1945–53) and Dwight Eisenhower (1953–61) associated with defense and national security.

Hillenkoetter, Adm Roscoe Henry – [ 32 Pages, 20.70MB ] – Roscoe Henry Hillenkoetter (May 8, 1897 – June 18, 1982) was the third director of the post-World War II United States Central Intelligence Group (CIG), the third Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), and the first director of the Central Intelligence Agency created by the National Security Act of 1947. He served as DCI and director of the CIG and the CIA from May 1, 1947 to October 7, 1950 and after his retirement from the United States Navy was a member of the board of governors of National Investigations Committee On Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) from 1957 to 1962.

Hunsaker, Jerome – [ 3 Pages, 0.9MB ] – Jerome Clarke Hunsaker (August 26, 1886 – September 10, 1984) was an American airman born in Creston, Iowa, and educated at the Naval Academy and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.According to the FBI, Hunsaker’s file was destroyed September 24, 2004

Menzel, Donald – [ 209 Pages, 24.10MB ] – Donald Howard Menzel (April 11, 1901 – December 14, 1976) was one of the first theoretical astronomers and astrophysicists in the US. He discovered the physical properties of the solar chromosphere, the chemistry of stars, the atmosphere of Mars, and the nature of gaseous nebulae.

Montague, Robert M. – [ 2 Pages, 0.3MB ] – Robert Miller Montague (August 7, 1899 – February 20, 1958) was a Lieutenant General in the United States Army. He achieved prominence as the deputy commander of Fort Bliss, Texas and commander of the Sandia Missile Base in New Mexico during the start of modern ufology and head of the U.S. Caribbean Command.  The FBI claims that they could not find a file on Montague.

Souers, Sidney Adm. – [ 691 Pages, 47.53MB ] – Sidney William Souers (March 30, 1892 – January 14, 1973) was an American admiral and intelligence expert. ear Admiral Souers was appointed as the first Director of Central Intelligence on January 23, 1946 by President Harry S. Truman. Prior to this, as Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence, Souers had been one of the architects of the system that came into being with the President’s directive. He had written the intelligence chapter of the Eberstadt Report, which advocated a unified intelligence system. Toward the end of 1945, when the competing plans for a national intelligence system were deadlocked, Souers’ views had come to the attention of the President, and he seems to have played a role in breaking the impasse.

Twining, General Nathan – [ 23 Pages, 15.43MB ] – Nathan Farragut Twining, (October 11, 1897 – March 29, 1982) was a United States Air Force General, born in Monroe, Wisconsin. He was Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force from 1953 until 1957. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1957 to 1960 he was the first member of the Air Force to serve in that role.

Vandenberg, Hoyt – [ 98 Pages, 6.12MB ] – Hoyt Sanford Vandenberg (January 24, 1899 – April 2, 1954) was a U.S. Air Force general, its second Chief of Staff, and second Director of Central Intelligence. During World War II, Vandenberg was the commanding general of the Ninth Air Force, a tactical air force in England and in France, supporting the Army, from August 1944 until V-E Day. Vandenberg Air Force Base on the central coast of California is named for General Vandenberg. In 1946, he was briefly the U.S. Chief of Military Intelligence. He was the nephew of Arthur H. Vandenberg, a former U.S. Senator from Michigan.

Other Alleged MJ-12 Members

The post FBI File: Majestic-12 first appeared on The Black Vault.

Many of the files are broken into different parts, for easier downloading.  Simply click on the “File #1” links to download each file segment.

Document Archive

Adamski, George – [286 Pages, 193.5MB] – George Adamski (17 April 1891 – 23 April 1965) was a Polish American citizen who became widely known in ufology circles, and to some degree in popular culture, after he claimed to have photographed spaceships from other planets, met with friendly Nordic alien Space Brothers, and to have taken flights with them to the Moon and other planets. He was the first, and most famous, of the so-called contactees of the 1950s. Adamski called himself a “philosopher, teacher, student and saucer researcher”, although most investigators concluded his claims were an elaborate hoax, and that Adamski himself was a con artist. Adamski authored three books describing his meetings with Nordic aliens and his travels with them aboard their spaceships: Flying Saucers Have Landed (co-written with Desmond Leslie) in 1953, Inside the Space Ships in 1955, and Flying Saucers Farewell in 1961. The first two books were both bestsellers; by 1960 they had sold a combined 200,000 copies.

The Aetherius Society – [48 Pages, 44MB] – The Aetherius Society is a new religious movement founded by George King in the mid-1950s as the result of what King claimed were contacts with extraterrestrial intelligences, to whom he referred as “Cosmic Masters”. The main goal of the believer is to cooperate with these Cosmic Masters to help humanity solve its current Earthly problems and advance into the New Age.

Aho, Wayne – [114 Pages, 80MB] – Wayne Sulo Aho (24 August 1916 – 16 January 2006) was an American contactee who claimed contact with extraterrestrial beings. He was one of the more obscure members of the 1950s wave of contactees who followed George Adamski. Aho and fellow 1957 contactee Reinhold O. Schmidt went on the lecture circuit together in California, and their double-header lectures continued until Schmidt was arrested for and convicted of grand theft. Aho’s presentations tended to emphasize his military service in World War II, and spent very little time on “spiritual revelations” he had received from the Space Brothers, either directly or through later sessions with a spirit medium. Aho tended to refer to himself as “Major W. S. Aho,” inviting confusion with Major Donald E. Keyhoe, a UFO researcher and writer who thought UFOs were real, but held contactees in low regard. Aho soon fell under the spell of another one-time Adamski follower, Otis T. Carr. Carr claimed to have built a full-size flying saucer operating on authentic Adamskian or Teslarian “magnetic” principles, and after a suitable amount of money had been collected from gullible elderly attendees at the lectures of Aho and Carr, they announced the Carr saucer, piloted by Carr and Aho, would take off from a fairground in front of thousands of witnesses and fly to the moon, returning with incontrovertible proof of the trip. Criminal charges against both Aho and Carr resulted from the inevitable public fiasco, but Aho was judged to be an innocent dupe.

Angelucci, Orfeo – [2 Pages, 1MB] – Records Destroyed in 2009 – Orfeo Matthew Angelucci (Orville Angelucci) (June 25, 1912 – July 24, 1993) was one of the most unusual of the mid-1950s so-called “contactees” who claimed to be in contact with extraterrestrials. Beginning in summer 1952, according to Angelucci in his book The Secret of the Saucers (1955), he began to encounter flying saucers and their friendly human-appearing pilots during his drives home from the aircraft plant. These superhuman space people were handsome, often transparent and highly spiritual. Eventually Angelucci was taken in an unmanned saucer to earth orbit, where he saw a giant “mother ship” drift past a porthole. He also described having experienced a “missing time” episode and eventually remembered living for a week in the body of “space brother” Neptune, in a more evolved society on “the largest asteroid”, the remains of a destroyed planet, while his usual body wandered around the aircraft plant in a daze. In his later book, The Son of the Sun, Angelucci related an account that he claimed had been told to him by a medical doctor calling himself Adam, whose experiences were similar to his own. He also published several pamphlets on space-brotherly themes, such as “Million Year Prophecy” (1959), “Concrete Evidence” (1959) and “Again We Exist” (1960).

Animal & Cattle Mutilations – This is a direct link to FBI files related to animal and cattle mutilations.

Ballard, Edna – [769 Pages, 50MB] – Edna Anne Wheeler Ballard, also known as Lotus Ray King (June 25, 1886 – February 10, 1971), was an American occultist who co-founded the Saint Germain Foundation and served a co-leader of the I AM Movement with her husband, Guy Ballard. In 1944, Ballard and her son, Donald Ballard, were charged with mail fraud and their court case would eventually be ruled by the US Supreme Court as United States v. Ballard. Ballard’s work with the I AM Movement is considered a predecessor to the current new age movement.

Ballard, Guy – Release #1 – [768 Pages, 400MB]  Ballard, Guy – Release #2 – [251 Pages, 9MB] – Guy Warren Ballard (July 28, 1878 – December 29, 1939) was an American mining engineer who became, with his wife, Edna Anne Wheeler Ballard, the founder of the “I AM” Activity. Ballard was born in Newton, Kansas and married his wife in Chicago in 1916. Ballard served in the U.S. Army in World War I, and then became a mining engineer. Both Edna and Guy studied Theosophy and the occult extensively.

Bell, Art (Arthur) – Arthur William Bell III (June 17, 1945 – April 13, 2018) was an American broadcaster and author. He was the founder and the original host of the paranormal-themed radio program Coast to Coast AM, which is syndicated on hundreds of radio stations in the United States and Canada. He also created and hosted its companion show Dreamland. Coast to Coast still airs nightly.

Bethurum, Truman – [17 Pages, 10MB] – Truman Bethurum (August 21, 1898 – May 21, 1969) was one of the well known 1950s UFO or alien “contactees”- individuals who claimed to have spoken with people from other inhabited planets and entered or ridden in their spacecraft. Bethurum was born in Gavilin, California, and in the early 1950s worked as a truck driver and a mechanic on a desert road-building crew. He later became a self-proclaimed spiritual advisor. In 1953, Bethurum first published magazine and newspaper (Redondo Beach Daily Breeze, September 25, 1953) accounts of being contacted on eleven separate occasions beginning in July, 1952 by the humanoid crew of a landed space ship in the Mojave Desert, and repeatedly conversing with its beautiful and voluptuous female captain, Aura Rhanes. The saucer and its crew, who spoke colloquial English, came from the unknown planet Clarion, which was allegedly on the other side of our Sun and thus could not be seen from the Earth. Bethurum’s 1954 book, Aboard a Flying Saucer, gave many details of his suffering at the hands of skeptics and a great deal of information about Captain Rhanes, Clarion and its people.

The Borderland Sciences Research Associates aka Borderland Sciences Research Foundation – [35 Pages, 22.3MB] – According to their website, which is still around today: “Borderland Sciences Research Foundation is a California non-profit (C0254263) research and education organization, founded in 1951 by Meade Layne for the purpose of studying parapsychology and extended consciousness. It has since expanded in scope to traverse as broad a path of the grand terrain of the borderland as may be uncovered by human perceptions (and perhaps even further).”

Browne. Sylvia – [ 52 Pages, 32MB ] This FBI File consists of the investigation into Browne for embezzlement and bank fraud. It was determined that Brown falsified financial records to obtain more than $1,000,000 in loans, and according to the FBI, lived an “extravagent lifestyle.”  FBI file #29A-SF-9888 – [ 139 Pages, 116.8MB ] – While reading the above file, I noticed a reference to FBI File #29A-SF-9888 which is the investigation involving Sylvia Browne and her loan partner. This is the first (of multiple) releases of the declassified files.  FBI file #29A-SF-9888 – Release #2 – [102 Pages, 68.6MB] – Here is the second release of the above FBI file.  FBI file #29A-SF-9888 – Release #3 – [10 Pages, 1.8MB] – Here is the third release of the above FBI file.

Bushman, Boyd – (FOIA Response Letter) [ 37 Pages, 19.9MB ]  Bushman, Boyd FBI Release #2 [ 14 Pages, 2.2MB ] In 2014, a video surfaced with Boyd Bushman, a retired Lockheed Martin Senior Scientist, with alleged photos of aliens. The video had a description that stated, “Shortly before Boyd Bushman passed away on August 7, 2014, he was video recorded candidly speaking about his personal experiences with Area 51, UFOs, aliens and anti-gravity ideas. Boyd was a retired Senior Scientist for Lockheed Martin. His career spanned over forty years, was awarded many patents, and included work with defense contractors Hughes Aircraft, General Dynamics, Texas Instruments, and Lockheed Martin.” Although the video is highly disputed, and the “alien” appears to be an exact prop that can be purchased at Walmart, I went after the FBI file of Mr. Bushman. This is what I found.

Carr, Otis T. – [64 Pages, 5.3MB] – Otis T. Carr (December 7, 1904 – September 20, 1982) first emerged into the 1950s flying saucer scene in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1955 when he founded OTC Enterprises, a company that was supposed to advance and apply technology originally suggested by Nikola Tesla. Carr patented a flying saucer, and asserted he was working on a full-size version that could fly to the Moon and return in less than a day, using two counter-rotating metal plates, spinning electromagnets and large capacitors, which when spinning charged and powered by a battery, which became “activated by the energy of space.” Carr’s scheme resembles slightly earlier proposals by John R. R. Searl and Thomas Townsend Brown. Carr also claimed to have invented “The Gravity Electric Generator”, “The Utron Electric battery”, “The Carrotto Gravity Motor”, and “The Photon Gun”.

Condon, Edward Uhler [ File #1 (312MB) | File #2 (0.1MB) | File #3 (0.1MB) | File #4 (177MB) ]- [ 1,777 Pages ] – Edward Uhler Condon (March 2, 1902 – March 26, 1974) was a distinguished American nuclear physicist, a pioneer in quantum mechanics, and a participant in the development of radar and nuclear weapons during World War II as part of the Manhattan Project. The Franck–Condon principle and the Slater–Condon rules are named after him.  Condon became widely known in 1968 as principal author of the Condon Report, an official review funded by the United States Air Force that concluded that unidentified flying objects (UFOs) have prosaic explanations. The lunar crater Condon is named for him.  Please note: The FBI stated there MAY be additional records pertaining to Condon. I requested the remaining material, and if any exists, will post it when available. Press the “subscribe” button for this page to be notified when it’s updated.

Cooper, Milton William “Bill” FBI Release #1  [333 Pages, 164MB]  Cooper, Milton William “Bill” FBI Release #2  [21 Pages, 13.4MB] Cooper, Milton William “Bill” FBI Release #3 – Night Vision Goggle Investigation [101 Pages, 13.4MB]  Cooper, Milton William “Bill” FBI Release #4  – Despite being a different release from the above, it appears to be duplicate to “Release #3”, but it is archived here for reference 0 [101 Pages, 13.5MB] – Milton William “Bill” Cooper (May 6, 1943 – November 6, 2001) was an American conspiracy theorist, radio broadcaster, and author best known for his 1991 book Behold a Pale Horse, in which he warned of multiple global conspiracies, some involving extraterrestrial aliens. Cooper also described HIV/AIDS as a man-made disease used to target blacks, Hispanics, and homosexuals, and that a cure was made before it was implemented. He has been described as a “militia theoretician”.  As Cooper moved away from the UFOlogy community and toward the militia and anti-government subculture in the late 1990s, he became convinced that he was being personally targeted by President Bill Clinton and the Internal Revenue Service. In July 1998 he was charged with tax evasion; an arrest warrant was issued, but Cooper eluded repeated attempts to serve it. In 2000, he was named a “major fugitive” by the United States Marshals Service.  On November 5, 2001, Apache County sheriff’s deputies attempted to arrest Cooper at his Eagar, Arizona home on charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and endangerment stemming from disputes with local residents. After an exchange of gunfire during which Cooper shot one of the deputies in the head, Cooper was fatally shot. Federal authorities reported that Cooper had spent years evading execution of the 1998 arrest warrant, and according to a spokesman for the Marshals Service, he vowed that “he would not be taken alive”.

Edwards, Frank – FBI Release #1 –  [21 Pages, 4MB] Edwards, Frank – NARA Release #1 –  [21 Pages, 23.7MB] – Sadly, the electronic files sent to me from NARA are fairly low resolution, which may cause some issues with reading.  I am trying to get more readable copies… but until then… these are the only available.Frank Allyn Edwards (August 4, 1908 – June 23, 1967) was an American writer and broadcaster, and one of the pioneers in radio. He hosted a radio show broadcast across the United States in the 1940s and 1950s. Late in his life, he became additionally well known for a series of popular books about UFOs and other paranormal phenomena.

Extra-Sensory Perception – [40 Pages, 10MB] – ESP is considered a perception of information about events beyond what may be discerned through the five physical senses or deduced from past experience or knowledge. This release consists of cross references to ESP found in FBI files from 1957 to 1960. Several of the documents concern William Foos, a proponent of ESP. Others concern claims that ESP could be used in espionage investigations. The FBI found no scientific support for this or other claims and did not pursue the matters raised in these references.

Finders Cult – FBI Release #1 – [373 Pages, 196MB]  Finders Cult – FBI Release #2 – [280 Pages, 120MB] – A bizarre and rarely heard about cult that allegedly deals with white slave traffic, sexual exploitation of children, and satanic rituals. It also found its way into many “Pizzagate” conspiracy theories. Not much is known, but here is a pile of hundreds of documents released on the “cult.”

Fortean Society – [169 Pages, 152.5MB] – The Fortean Society was started in the United States in 1931 during a meeting held in the New York flat of Charles Hoy Fort in order to promote the ideas of American writer Charles Fort. The Fortean Society was primarily based in New York City. Its first president was Theodore Dreiser, an old friend of Charles Fort, who had helped to get his work published. Founding members of The Fortean Society included Tiffany Thayer (see file below), Booth Tarkington, Ben Hecht, Alexander Woollcott (and many of NYC’s literati such as Dorothy Parker), and Baltimore writer H. L. Mencken. Other members included Vincent Gaddis, Ivan T. Sanderson, A. Merritt, Frank Lloyd Wright and Buckminster Fuller. The first 6 issues of the Fortean Society’s newsletter “Doubt” were each edited by a different member, starting with Theodore Dreiser. Tiffany Thayer thereafter took over editorship of subsequent issues. Thayer began to assert extreme control over the society, largely filling the newsletter with articles written by himself, and excommunicating the entire San Francisco chapter, reportedly their most active, after disagreements over the society’s direction, and forbidding them to use the name Fortean. During World War II, for example, Thayer used every issue of “Doubt” to espouse his politics. Particularly, he frequently expressed opposition to Civil Defense, going to such lengths as encouraging readers to turn on their lights in defiance to air raid sirens. In contrast to the spirit of Charles Fort, he not only dismissed flying saucers as nonsense, but also dismissed the atomic bomb as a hoax.

Friedman, Stanton – FBI Release #1 – [63 Pages, 34.3MB]  Friedman, Stanton – FBI Release #2 – [9 Pages, 1MB] – Stanton Terry Friedman (July 29, 1934 – May 13, 2019) was a nuclear physicist and professional ufologist who resided in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada. He was an early civilian investigator of the Roswell UFO incident. He worked on research and development projects for several large companies.

Friend, Robert – [4 Pages, 2.5MB] – Lieutenant Colonel Robert Jones Friend (1920–2019) was a Tuskegee airman in WW2 and led the USAF’s Project Blue Book from 1958 to 1963. He also served during the Korean War and the Vietnam War. He had a 28 year military career. Note: All files on Friend were either lost or destroyed.

The Galileo Project – [9 Pages, 8MB] – The Galileo Project at Harvard University represents a pioneering scientific initiative aimed at systematically studying unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and interstellar objects visiting our solar system. Launched in July 2021 by Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb, the project is named after the renowned astronomer Galileo Galilei and seeks to bring the rigor of empirical science to understanding these mysterious phenomena. Utilizing a network of telescopes, cameras, and computer algorithms, the project intends to capture high-resolution images and data of UAPs to analyze their properties and origins scientifically. Distinct from speculative theories or anecdotal reports, the Galileo Project aspires to answer questions about these phenomena through a transparent and verifiable scientific process, contributing potentially groundbreaking insights into astrophysics and extraterrestrial technologies.

Heaven’s Gate Cult – [382 Pages, 283MB] Heaven’s Gate was an American UFO religious Millenarian group based in San Diego, California, founded in the early 1970s and led by Marshall Applewhite (1931–1997) and Bonnie Nettles (1927–1985). On March 26, 1997, police discovered the bodies of 39 members of the group who had committed mass suicide in order to reach what they believed was an alien space craft following Comet Hale–Bopp.

Hottel, Guy – [2 Pages] Guy Hottel was a special agent in charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office. The information concerning Mr. Hottel is in regard to a March 22, 1950 memo he sent to the FBI Director concerning flying saucers.  This has been one of the FBI’s most downloaded document from their website, once they finally added it to the archive.

Hynek, J. Allen – [24 Pages, 1.42MB] – Dr. Josef Allen Hynek (May 1, 1910 – April 27, 1986) was a United States astronomer, professor, and ufologist. He is perhaps best remembered for his UFO research. Hynek acted as scientific adviser to UFO studies undertaken by the U.S. Air Force under three consecutive names: Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book. For decades afterwards, he conducted his own independent UFO research, developing the Close Encounter classification system, and is widely considered the father of the concept of scientific analysis of both reports and, especially, trace evidence purportedly left by UFOs.

Keyhoe, Donald – [13 Pages, 6MB] – Donald Edward Keyhoe (June 20, 1897 – November 29, 1988) was an American Marine Corps naval aviator, writer of many aviation articles and stories in a variety of leading publications, and manager of the promotional tours of aviation pioneers, especially of Charles Lindbergh. In the 1950s he became well known as a UFO researcher, arguing that the U.S. government should conduct research in UFO matters, and should release all its UFO files. Jerome Clark writes that “Keyhoe was widely regarded as the leader in the field” of ufology in the 1950s and early to mid-1960s.

Klass, Phil (FBI Release) – [187 Pages, 99.7MB]  Klass, Phil (FBI Release #2 October, 2015) – [10 Pages, 0.9MB]  Klass, Phil (NCIS Release) – [14 Pages, 1MB]  Klass, Phil (AFOSI Release) – [14 Pages, 1MB]  Klass, Phil (CIA Release by way of FBI) – [5 Pages, 0.8MB]Philip Julian Klass (November 8, 1919 – August 9, 2005) was an American engineer, journalist, and UFO researcher, known for his skepticism regarding UFOs. In the ufological and skeptical communities, Klass tends to inspire strongly polarized appraisals. He has been called the “Sherlock Holmes of UFOlogy”. Klass demonstrated “the crusader’s zeal for what seems ‘right,’ regardless of whether it brings popular acclaim,” a trait he claimed his father instilled in him. “I’ve found,” said Klass, “that roughly 97, 98 percent of the people who report seeing UFOs are fundamentally intelligent, honest people who have seen something – usually at night, in darkness – that is unfamiliar, that they cannot explain.” The rest, he said, were frauds.With his work as Editor of Aviation Week magazine, Klass found himself in the middle of an investigation for publishing classified information. As chronicled in Wikipedia: For ten years, Klass worked for General Electric as an engineer in aviation electronics. Dissatisfied with his job, in 1952 he moved to Washington, DC, and joined Aviation Week, which later became Aviation Week & Space Technology.[7] He was a senior editor of Aviation Week & Space Technology for thirty-four years. Always striving to stay on the cutting edge, Klass published an “Exclusive Report on Counter Measures” in the November 18th and 25th, 1957, editions of Aviation Week. This report was referred to the FBI for the “unauthorized disclosure of information classified ‘Secret'”. An investigation into the disclosure was dropped when the US Air Force told the FBI that the disclosed information could not be declassified for purposes of prosecution.

Kurtz, Paul – [7 Pages, 0.6MB] – Paul Kurtz (December 21, 1925 – October 20, 2012) was a prominent American scientific skeptic and secular humanist. He has been called “the father of secular humanism”. He was Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, having previously also taught at Vassar, Trinity, and Union colleges, and the New School for Social Research. Kurtz founded the publishing house Prometheus Books in 1969. He was also the founder and past chairman of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI, formerly the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, CSICOP), the Council for Secular Humanism, and the Center for Inquiry. He was editor in chief of Free Inquiry magazine, a publication of the Council for Secular Humanism. Kurtz published over 800 articles or reviews and authored and edited over 50 books. Many of his books have been translated into over 60 languages.

LaPaz, Dr. Lincoln – [  File #1 |  File #2 ] [  NSA Request Response for Records ] [  FBI Release – May 19, 2017 ] – Lincoln LaPaz was an American astronomer from the University of New Mexico and a pioneer in the study of meteors.  In ufology, LaPaz’s name is often associated with UFO investigations on behalf of the military during the late 1940s and early 1950s. These include the so-called Roswell UFO incident of 1947, the N.M. green fireballs, that began in late 1948 and continued through the 1950s, and the search for near-Earth orbiting satellites in 1954 along with fellow N.M. astronomer Clyde Tombaugh. However, only LaPaz’s association with the green fireball investigations for the Air Force is thoroughly documented and an undeniable historical fact. (Note: Additional pages of material on Dr. Lincoln LaPaz were released by the FBI, and a DESTROYED file number was referenced that may have contained additional pages on the man – but no one will ever know what those pages contained.)

Long John Nebel aka John Zimmerman – [8 Pages, 1.9 MB] – Long John Nebel (born John Zimmerman; June 11, 1911 – April 10, 1978) was an influential New York City talk radio show host. From the mid-1950s until his death in 1978, Nebel was a hugely popular all-night radio host, with millions of regular listeners and what Donald Bain described as “a fanatically loyal following” to his syndicated program, which dealt mainly with anomalous phenomena, UFOs, and other offbeat topics.

Mack, Dr. John E. – FBI Release #1 – [49 Pages, 12.9MB]  Mack, Dr. John E.  [4 Pages, 0.8MB] – I went after additional records other than the above release, and they said the potential records pertaining to Dr. Mack were destroyed on June 18, 2014.John Edward Mack M.D. (October 4, 1929 – September 27, 2004) was an American psychiatrist, parapsychologist, writer, and professor at Harvard Medical School. He was a Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer, a leading researcher and writer on alien abduction experiences, and a campaigner for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

McDonald, Dr. James E. – [113 Pages, 64.81 MB] – James Edward McDonald (May 7, 1920 – June 13, 1971) was an American physicist. He is best known for his research regarding UFOs. McDonald was senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology, University of Arizona, Tucson. McDonald campaigned in support of expanding UFO studies during the mid and late 1960s, arguing that UFOs represented an important unsolved mystery which had not been adequately studied by science. He was one of the more prominent figures of his time who argued in favor of the extraterrestrial hypothesis as a plausible, but not completely proved, model of UFO phenomena. McDonald interviewed over 500 UFO witnesses, uncovered many important government UFO documents, and gave important presentations of UFO evidence. He testified before Congress during the UFO hearings of 1968. McDonald also gave a famous talk called “Science in Default” to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). It was a summary of the current UFO evidence and a critique of the 1969 Condon Report UFO study. See Also: Hemogeneous Nucleation of Vapor Condensation, 1962, Dr. James McDonald Reports

Merchant, Madeline Gwynn – FBI Release #1 – [14 Pages, 1.4MB] Merchant, Madeline Gwynn – FBI Release #2 – [14 Pages, 1.1MB] Merchant, Madeline Gwynn – NARA Release #1 – [16 Pages, 1.1MB] – Madeline Gwynne Merchant was a resident from New Mexico who wrote numerous letters regarding UFOs and her theories to multiple agencies.  The FBI did have a file on her… and what is interesting to note that in one memo to the Director of the FBI (written in 1949), it states, “This matter is considered top secret by Intelligence Officers of both the Army and the Air Forces.”

National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena – [ File #1 | File #2 | File #3 ] The National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) The National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, NICAP, was founded in the 1950s to research reports of UFO phenomenon. Between 1957 and 1969, NICAP and its members periodically communicated with the FBI. This release consists of this correspondence.

Newton, Silas – [78 Pages, 2.5MB]  Silas Newton (1887-1972) was a wealthy oil producer and con-man who claimed that he had a gadget that could detect minerals and oil. He was cited as an authority in Frank Scully’s book Behind the Flying Saucers, a work that claimed to report on several UFO crashes in the area of New Mexico. In 1950, Newton said that a flying saucer crashed on land he leased in the Mojave Desert; however, he revised his claim in 1952, saying he never saw a flying saucer but had only repeated comments he heard from others. These files detail the FBI’s investigations into Newton’s fraudulent activities between 1951 and 1970.

Page, Dr. Thornton Leigh – [4 Pages, 1.2MB] – Thornton Leigh Page was an American professor of astronomy at the University of Chicago and at Wesleyan University. He became embroiled in the controversy over unidentified flying objects (UFOs) after serving briefly on the Robertson Panel, a Central Intelligence Agency–sponsored committee of scientists assembled in Washington, D.C. from 14–18 January 1953 to study the available evidence on UFOs. According to the FBI, records relating to Dr. Page were destroyed.

Palmer, Raymond – FBI Release – [35 Pages, 29.5MB] Palmer, Raymond – NARA Release (FOIA Case 57555) – [33 Pages, 1.5MB] – Raymond Arthur Palmer (August 1, 1910 – August 15, 1977) was an American editor of Amazing Stories from 1938 through 1949, when he left publisher Ziff-Davis to publish and edit Fate Magazine, and eventually many other magazines and books through his own publishing houses, including Amherst Press and Palmer Publications. In addition to magazines such as Mystic, Search, and ‘Flying Saucers,” he published numerous spirtualist books, including Oahspe: A New Bible, as well as several books related to flying saucers, including “The Coming of the Saucers,” co-written by Palmer with Kenneth Arnold. Palmer was also a prolific author of science fiction and fantasy stories, many of which were published under pseudonyms.  (Note: I have requested the files possibly at the National Archives, as noted in the FBI’s letter. I will post those when/if they are released.)

Project Blue Book – [ File #1 ] – Project Blue Book Originally Project Blue Book was the Air Force name for a project that investigated UFO reports between 1947 and 1969. In 1989, an organization calling itself “The New Project Blue Book” contacted the FBI. This file consists of correspondence concerning this organization.

PSI TECH – [4 Pages, 2MB] – PSI TECH was founded in 1989 by a 4 star General and an DIA intelligence officer who ushered a top secret information collection technology currently known as TRV (Technical Remote Viewing) out of the Pentagon and into the private sector. Our first client was the Defense Department, gathering intelligence for the Gulf War. The original data acquisition protocols were developed by researchers at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) under Pentagon contract and deployed by a special Intelligence unit stationed at Fort Meade. At one time most of these officers in the military unit worked for PSI TECH as employees or contractors. Fast forward to present time – PSI TECH now operates a research and consulting firm specializing in intelligence collection for individual, corporate, and government clients who are looking to solve problems outside of what conventional information can provide. We spent over a decade refining the protocols for the financial markets and focusing on how to determine optimum outcomes of event based targets. PSI TECH employs skilled analysts who corroborate the data and compile it into actionable strategies for a variety of client problem solving and information needs.

Roswell – On July 8, 1947, the FBI Dallas Field Office sent a teletype regarding a “flying disc” that resembled a high altitude weather balloon found near Roswell, New Mexico.

Schmidt, Reinhold – [4 Pages, 1MB] – Reinhold Schmidt (1897–1974) was a 1957 UFO “contactee” in an era that began with George Adamski in 1953. He was born and grew up in Nebraska, where he worked for most of his adult life as a reputable grain buyer and dealer. He became a contactee after telling of his experience on November 5, 1957 detailed in his book Edge of Tomorrow, when while driving through a rural area near Kearney, Nebraska, he noticed a large, cigar-shaped object resting in a field. He was soon escorted inside the space ship, which turned out to be crewed by completely human-looking space aliens, four male and two female, who apparently spoke perfect German and claimed to be from the planet Saturn. “The Saturnians” also claimed to be interested in the recently launched Russian sputniks, and the satellite-launching plans of the US.

Stringfield, Leonard – [23 Pages, 12MB] – Leonard Stringfield (1920–1994) was an American ufologist who took particular interest in crashed flying saucer stories. He died in 1994. Stringfield was director of Civilian Research, Interplanetary Flying Objects (CRIFO), and published a monthly newsletter, ORBIT. In 1957 he became public relations adviser for the civilian UFO group, National Investigations Committee On Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), under the direction of Donald Keyhoe, a friend since 1953. From 1967 to 1969, Stringfield served as an “Early Warning Coordinator” for the Condon Committee. During the 1970s, he wrote a number of books about alleged recoveries of alien spaceships and alien bodies.

Spontaneous Human Combustion – [114 Pages, 66.3MB] – Spontaneous human combustion (SHC) is a term encompassing reported cases of the combustion of a living (or very recently deceased) human body without an apparent external source of ignition. In addition to reported cases, examples of SHC appear in literature, and both types have been observed to share common characteristics regarding circumstances and remains of the victim.

Thayer, Tiffany Ellsworth – [166 Pages, 152.5MB] – Tiffany Ellsworth Thayer (March 1, 1902 – August 23, 1959) was an American actor, author and founder of the Fortean Society.

UFO Document FBI Collection [1,600 Pages] – Unexplained Flying Objects (UFOs) In 1947, a rash of sightings of unexplained flying objects (UFOs) swept America. Although the newly formed U.S. Air Force was the primary investigator of these sightings, the FBI received many reports and worked for a time with the Air Force to investigate these matters. This release details the FBI’s role in investigating such reports between 1947 and 1954.

Williamson, George Hunt – [706 Pages, 60MB] – George Hunt Williamson (December 9, 1926 – January 1986), aka Michael d’Obrenovic and Brother Philip, was an American flying saucer contactee, channel, and metaphysical author who came to prominence in the 1950s.

Majestic-12 / MJ-12

The following FBI files were requested, which are the alleged members of MJ-12 and even the FBI’s file on MJ-12 itself.

Although some of these files may have nothing to do with UFOs or MJ-12, these are the alleged members and are archived here.

Majestic 12 –  In 1988, two FBI offices received similar versions of a memo titled “Operation Majestic-12…” claiming to be highly classified government document. The memo appeared to be a briefing for newly-elected President Eisenhower on a secret committee created to exploit a recovery of an extra-terrestrial aircraft and cover-up this work from public examination. An Air Force investigation determined the document to be a fake.

Berkner, Lloyd – [ 135 Pages, 10.43 MB ]  Berkner, Lloyd, Release #2 – [ 12 Pages, 2.4 MB ] – Lloyd Viel Berkner (February 1, 1905, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin – June 4, 1967, in Washington, D.C.) was an American physicist and engineer. He was one of the inventors of the measuring device that since has become standard at ionospheric stations because it measures the height and electron density of the ionosphere. The data obtained in the worldwide net of such instruments  were important for the developing theory of short wave radio propagation to which Berkner himself gave important contributions.Additional information was found at the FBI, that originated at the CIA.  The FBI forwarded these records to the CIA for review, and declassification, and the CIA information me that all material on Berkner is classified.  Berkner, Lloyd CIA Documents Denial Letter – [ 2 Pages, 0.5 MB ]

Bronk, Detlev – [ 248 Pages, 7.18 MB ] – Detlev Wulf Bronk (August 13, 1897 – November 17, 1975) was a prominent American scientist, educator, and administrator. He is credited with establishing biophysics as a recognized discipline. Bronk served as President of Johns Hopkins University from 1949 to 1953 and as President of the The Rockefeller University from 1953 to 1968. Bronk also held the presidency of the National Academy of Sciences between 1950 and 1962. Please note: According to the FBI, more pages exist on Bronk and are being sent to another government agency for release. Will post when available.

Bush, Vannevar – [ 241 Pages, 78.1 MB ] – Vannevar Bush (March 11, 1890 – June 28, 1974) was an American engineer, inventor and science administrator, whose most important contribution was as head of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) during World War II, through which almost all wartime military R&D was carried out, including initiation and early administration of the Manhattan Project. He is also known in engineering for his work on analog computers, for founding Raytheon, and for the memex, an adjustable microfilm viewer with a structure analogous to that of the World Wide Web.  Bush was also an alleged member of the Majestic-12 (MJ-12) group.  Please note: As admitted by the FBI, an entire file on Bush was destroyed. According to the FBI: “One record (161-BS-1452) which may be responsive to your FOIA request was destroyed in April of 1998.”

Forrestal, James – [290 Pages, 32.66MB] – James Vincent Forrestal (February 15, 1892 – May 22, 1949) was the last Cabinet-level United States Secretary of the Navy and the first United States Secretary of Defense. Forrestal was a supporter of naval battle groups centered on aircraft carriers. In 1954, the world’s first supercarrier was named USS Forrestal in his honor, as is the headquarters of the United States Department of Energy. He is also the namesake of the Forrestal Lecture Series at the United States Naval Academy, which brings prominent military and civilian leaders to speak to the Brigade of Midshipmen, and of the James Forrestal Campus of Princeton University in Plainsboro Township, New Jersey.

Gray, Gordon – FBI Release #1 – [349 Pages, 88.8MB]  Gray, Gordon – FBI Release #2 – [23 Pages, 2.5MB]  Gray, Gordon – FBI Release #3 – [44 Pages, 4.2MB]  Gray, Gordon (State Department Release) – [3 Pages, 1.1MB] Gordon Gray (May 30, 1909 – November 26, 1982) was an official in the government of the United States during the administrations of Harry Truman (1945–53) and Dwight Eisenhower (1953–61) associated with defense and national security.

Hillenkoetter, Adm Roscoe Henry – [ 32 Pages, 20.70MB ] – Roscoe Henry Hillenkoetter (May 8, 1897 – June 18, 1982) was the third director of the post-World War II United States Central Intelligence Group (CIG), the third Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), and the first director of the Central Intelligence Agency created by the National Security Act of 1947. He served as DCI and director of the CIG and the CIA from May 1, 1947 to October 7, 1950 and after his retirement from the United States Navy was a member of the board of governors of National Investigations Committee On Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) from 1957 to 1962.

Hunsaker, Jerome – [ 3 Pages, 0.9MB ] – Jerome Clarke Hunsaker (August 26, 1886 – September 10, 1984) was an American airman born in Creston, Iowa, and educated at the Naval Academy and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.According to the FBI, Hunsaker’s file was destroyed September 24, 2004

Menzel, Donald – [ 209 Pages, 24.10MB ] – Donald Howard Menzel (April 11, 1901 – December 14, 1976) was one of the first theoretical astronomers and astrophysicists in the US. He discovered the physical properties of the solar chromosphere, the chemistry of stars, the atmosphere of Mars, and the nature of gaseous nebulae.

Montague, Robert M. – [ 2 Pages, 0.3MB ] – Robert Miller Montague (August 7, 1899 – February 20, 1958) was a Lieutenant General in the United States Army. He achieved prominence as the deputy commander of Fort Bliss, Texas and commander of the Sandia Missile Base in New Mexico during the start of modern ufology and head of the U.S. Caribbean Command.  The FBI claims that they could not find a file on Montague.

Souers, Sidney Adm. – [ 691 Pages, 47.53MB ] – Sidney William Souers (March 30, 1892 – January 14, 1973) was an American admiral and intelligence expert. ear Admiral Souers was appointed as the first Director of Central Intelligence on January 23, 1946 by President Harry S. Truman. Prior to this, as Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence, Souers had been one of the architects of the system that came into being with the President’s directive. He had written the intelligence chapter of the Eberstadt Report, which advocated a unified intelligence system. Toward the end of 1945, when the competing plans for a national intelligence system were deadlocked, Souers’ views had come to the attention of the President, and he seems to have played a role in breaking the impasse.

Twining, General Nathan – [23 Pages, 15.43MB] – Nathan Farragut Twining, (October 11, 1897 – March 29, 1982) was a United States Air Force General, born in Monroe, Wisconsin. He was Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force from 1953 until 1957. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1957 to 1960 he was the first member of the Air Force to serve in that role.

Vandenberg, Hoyt – [ 98 Pages, 6.12MB ] – Hoyt Sanford Vandenberg (January 24, 1899 – April 2, 1954) was a U.S. Air Force general, its second Chief of Staff, and second Director of Central Intelligence. During World War II, Vandenberg was the commanding general of the Ninth Air Force, a tactical air force in England and in France, supporting the Army, from August 1944 until V-E Day. Vandenberg Air Force Base on the central coast of California is named for General Vandenberg. In 1946, he was briefly the U.S. Chief of Military Intelligence. He was the nephew of Arthur H. Vandenberg, a former U.S. Senator from Michigan.

Other Alleged MJ-12 Members

 The Aviary

No Records Exist

The following FBI Files were requested, but according to the FBI, they found no records.

Marjorie Fish

Budd Hopkins

W.C. Levengood

Dr. Jesse Marcel, Jr.

Donald Keyhoe

Zecharia Sitchin

Leonard Stringfield

The post FBI Files: The Paranormal Collection first appeared on The Black Vault.