David Grusch: My name is David Charles grush. I was an
intelligence officer for 14 years in the US both in the US
Air Force, both active duty Air National Guard and Reserve.
There has
John Greenewald: been a lot of talk about UFO whistleblower
David grush lately, and it all started when he submitted a
complaint to the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector
General back in 2021. We know now about at least one meeting
grush had with them thanks to new documents released via the
Freedom of Information Act. And we have an idea of what was
talked about. To my surprise, not only were there very few
redactions, but there was a bit of a surprise to go along with
it. Stay tuned, you're about to journey inside the black vault.
That's right, everybody. As always, thank you so much for
tuning in and taking this journey. Inside the black vault
with me. I'm your host, John Greenewald, Jr. And today, as
you just heard, we're diving into some new documents that
came to me through the Freedom of Information Act straight from
the Department of Defense's Office of the Inspector General.
Now, for some quick background, if you aren't aware, the UFO
whistleblower David grush, in about July of 2021, has had
submitted a complaint to the DoD IG about some stuff he was
finding when it came to UFOs UAP reverse engineering crash
retrieval biologics as he referred to them non human
intelligence, he was seeing all of this stuff and issued a
complaint to the DoD IG essentially alerting them that
Congress was not made aware a lot of about a lot of these
programs. Now he felt according to him that there was some
reprisal from that, that they started, essentially maybe not
treating him right. We don't know the details of that. He
doesn't like to go into them in the interviews that he has done,
simply because he he I, from what I understand, anyway, feels
that if he were to go into that detail, and may harm an ongoing
investigation, we've we've really kind of very heard very
little about that. So there's there's not many details to
report. So what I did is I filed multiple FOIA requests on
everything that he has said, anything that I could kind of
pick up on, maybe find a paper trail of, and one of those
things, was digging into the Department of Defense inspector
general complaint that he had submitted. And any
communications that went along with it again, the timeframe
from what we were told, was circa July of 2021. So I filed
the request, went after those documents. And to my surprise,
some stuff came up not exactly what I was thinking, not exactly
what I was expecting. But there was some surprises and a little
bit of a twist that came along with it. So if you haven't seen
this article, I published it a couple of weeks ago, it was
January 12, to be exact. And I just sadly, just didn't have my
new office here set up to where I can create a video for you
guys here in the in the video realm versus just the textual
one when I publish these articles. So with that being
said, I will put the link to the article in the show notes below,
it will give some other source links. And we'll give a little
bit more detail from this video as well, along with the links to
the documents that we're about to go over. There's not a whole
lot of them. But I think that it's pretty important to go
ahead and highlight. So one of the let me just go ahead and
scroll down here to the documents themselves. Now when I
got these things, again, I was kind of more expecting some
correspondence from him about his complaint. So see his
complaint, or at least a portion thereof, obviously, they'll
redact some of that, and maybe some correspondence about what
he had submitted. On the contrary, there wasn't really
anything about that, but rather it had tied into the evaluation
that the DoD IG was doing that they started back in May of
2021, shortly before the interview with David grush, and
when he was communicating with this specific office, and if
you're not familiar with that evaluation, I'll link this as
well, but essentially that what they were doing was creating
what they called it a evaluation on the DoD actions regarding
UAP. There wasn't a whole lot of scope or context or mission
objectives on this. So we were kind of left a little bit out to
dry But when it came to why exactly they were doing this,
but we knew that the IG was starting to look into it. Well,
unbeknownst to us, the general public a couple of months after,
that's when David grush submitted what he did, and the
ball started rolling, so to speak, that kind of led to him
coming out into the open a couple years thereafter. And
essentially, really creating a little bit of a storm with his
claims. And, and what he kind of bombshell to the world, very
controversial, obviously, not a whole lot of proof or evidence
that went along with his claims. But it has gotten a lot of
press. So these documents then, were about this evaluation,
which I was pretty surprised at. Let me scroll down here. This is
the the foyer release letter. Anybody can verify these FOIA
cases and so on. Don't worry, that's a public address. So I'm
not flashing where I live or anything. But I always
appreciate those concern comments when I flashed my
address that is public, so no worries there. So let's talk
about what first came up. Now. This was a July 12 2001 meeting.
We don't know the exact date that David Gresh had submitted
what he did to the IG we can only assume since he was on the
radar to be interviewed, it was likely prior to that July 12,
date, purpose of this workpapers to document our interview with
major David grush on July 12 2021. So obviously the IG sat
down with him on that day, we interviewed major graphs to
determine whether he could provide background information
that might be relevant to our evaluation. So obviously, they
were looking at him to provide something that could help them
about the DoD actions. Again, we don't know really what the exact
scope of this evaluation was or is. So that's kind of the gray
area here where we have no idea what they were really looking
for. The overall classification of this meeting was at the top
secret, no foreign or no foreign intelligence level due to the
vulnerabilities subject matter discussed and potential
compilation of information sources. The interview was
conducted on June 12 2021. Here are the attendees. Now these are
one of the few redactions we obviously no major David grush
was there. And then on behalf of the IG, those are redacted for
privacy reasons. That's not uncommon. I wouldn't. Again, if
you're not used to seeing these types of redactions, it's not
really an alarm. I've dealt with a lot of these documents before.
And agencies very much protect their own personnel. So unless
it's their director or assistant director or somebody who's in
the news all the time, generally, they will redact that
under what's called exemption B six, but we at least get to know
where they're from within the IGs office of the DOD, space
missile and nuclear division, research and engineering
division, evaluations, and the intelligence portion of their
evaluations as well. So essentially, all from the IGs
office, all from different, you know, departments if you want to
call them that within their office, and they were all part
of this meeting. Now, here's the scope of the meeting. The stated
objective of the project is to determine what actions the DOD
has taken in regard to UAP reporting and policies. The
scope of this interview is to determine what efforts DARPA has
published, developed, received and implemented, that is
associated with UAP, sightings and events. Now, this started to
now give a little bit of a scope very, very briefly of what the
evaluation was, which led to the scope of this particular
interview. The mention of DARPA and what DARPA had published was
kind of an interesting little tidbit there. But essentially,
we got a little bit of a peek into what exactly they were
looking for. Next section methodology the interview was
accomplished to gain testimonial evidence from a member of the
UAP Task Force to gain a better understanding into what the DOD
has done and should be doing regarding the UAP problem set.
The team prepared a list of questions to guide the
discussion with major grush regarding the DOD has actions
taken in response to unidentified aerial phenomena.
However, the interview was conducted in less in a less
structured manner, allowing major grush to provide any
information he believed was relevant to our evaluation, all
pretty straightforward info summary of the interview on July
12 2021, we met with David grush. To obtain information he
had regarding our evaluation of the DoD is actions taken in
response to unidentified aerial phenomena or UAP. A redacted
name recommended that we speak to major grush regarding the
topic of our evaluation, refer to the quote Source tab of his
of this work paper. For a specific list of the meeting
attendees we've already gone over that the overall
classification of this meeting was at the top secret no foreign
level due to the vulnerabilities, subject matter
discussed and potential compilation of information. The
remainder of this work papers summarizes the discussion that
occurred during the meeting. And the statements that were
attributed to major David grush. Major Gresh provided us with
general background information on the DOD has actions regarding
UAP. To his knowledge. Now here's one of the bigger
redactions and
one that's obviously a much bigger than a name. Major grush
stated that and then if you're listening to this, there's, you
know, in total about two or three lines, full line and then
two half lines or so a little bit more than half. So we don't
know exactly what's under there. But Major gruff stated that and
then a bunch of redaction, he stated that he has been studying
UAPs for 15 years, and that he serves as the NRO liaison to the
UAP Task Force. This became a very controversial line. When I
published the article, I left this alone, simply because I
have tried, but cannot get a response from David grush.
myself. So I to be blatantly honest with you just didn't want
to go ahead and create an accusation that he was lying
about this, because this is a clear contradiction to what he
has said publicly. So when I read that I just kind of like to
myself rolled my eyes a little bit and go, Okay, I know that
I'm not going to be able to get a line to him. The only contact
information I found for him was bunk. And I don't do the
stalker, you know, look him up and find his phone number thing.
So I know some people that that works for them. I don't agree
with that. So it's well known that I've been wanting to talk
to him. I know that for a fact that people have passed on. And
he does not care to reach out, which is fine. That's his right.
He doesn't owe me anything. So I left this part out, I just
didn't want to create, you know, this drama, well, a lot of you
are very smart, and you pay attention. And you noticed it.
And it started popping up on social media, that it stated he
was involved in studying UAPs for 15 years, when essentially
he was telling everybody that he didn't really have an interest,
or think about him until, you know, much more recent days. So
that was a clear contradiction. Now I'm going to stop reading
the document and read something to you. I have tried, since this
appeared online to verify it. And I'm going to be honest with
you and say I haven't, because I don't have a line to David
grush. And I've reached out to Ross Coltart he did not respond.
Sadly, that is not new. I've reached out to him a couple
times about David grush, in hopes that either he can help me
and assist me in getting answers or put a line to him. For me,
and neither has been successful. I have no reason to doubt this
though. So I'm going to read it to you anyway. This was
according to Michelangelo given to him through direct message
from Ross Coltart essentially Mike, who was a Twitter user or
ex user, who has quite a following posts a lot of videos,
a lot of information from from various angles of this
conversation. He had posted this and explained that when he
reached out to Ross Coltart he got this this on the record
comment in return relating to what I published. So this is
what David grush said. The DoD IG foyer released to black vault
today highlights an organization proposal to succeed UAP TF that
myself and my colleagues developed on our own time before
the arrow office was created. Not only did I briefed DoD IG
evaluations team on this proposal, but I also presented
the same chart deck to Senator Harry Reid in April of 2021. in
a personal capacity for his guidance, he was very
enthusiastic on the idea of a National Space Lab to receive
records and UAP material from exact executive branch agencies
who would then federate it out to academia, and other partners
and a whole of government approach. He was going to use
the OSA our proposal as a basis of this next discussion with
President Biden, the interviewer reports that I've been studying
UAP for 15 years, I have not, and may have misconstrued my
total time in uniform service Cadet plus commissioned officer
at the time. And that was from David grush. The first part of
that may not make sense to you. If you haven't seen the document
yet. Don't worry, we'll get to that. I'm just not there yet.
But I wanted to make sure that I put this in there that David
grush has refuted what was in these documents. But I will say
and again, this is something that I would love to ask him
about. If you look at all this stuff, and the summation of what
was talked about, there are very few quotes direct quotes the use
of quotation marks. Interestingly, this was in a
quote. So the document states he stated that he He and then in
quotes, has been studying UAPs for 15 years and that he serves,
unquote. And that he serves as the NRO liaison. So whatever. So
whatever this was, it came from somewhere. I mean, I'm guessing,
you know, these guys, when they do these, these summations and
so on. They're not just pulling it off the top of their head and
making it up as they go. When it comes to exact quotations. What
does that mean? Who knows? Look, if it was a mistake, then it's a
mistake. We'll move on. But I wanted to make sure I got
Gratias words in there. Back to the document, major grush stated
that there was no formal reporting mechanism for
reporting UAP observations and initiating investigations.
However, he stated that there were some forms that should be
emailed to and then the there was a redaction. That's just an
unnamed by the way, in case that wasn't clear, major grush stated
that, in his opinion, the analysis done for the Director
of National Intelligence UAP report was not very in depth,
there's another quote was not very in depth, major grush
stated that we should speak with and then a redacted name, and
Air Force point of contact regarding potential recovered
UAP materials. Now, this was the most interesting part of this
document. Because this was the only thing as you'll see, as we
go through this. That touched on UAP material of some kind, what
we have come to know about David grush, biologics, nonhuman
intelligence retreat, crash retrieval programs. All of that
was absent from this discussion. Why I mean, that I don't
understand. This was his opportunity to really put in the
evaluation by the DOD, hey, there's some stuff going on
here. The DoD has not treated this correctly. They are not
informing Congress about this. This is what they're doing. It's
illegal. He mentions white collar crime in his, in his
interviews, there's all sorts of stuff that he could have put in
here, and he doesn't, but this one line did actually allude
that someone from the Air Force had or knew where to get
potential recovered UAP material that to me was really
interesting. who that is, it would be very, very helpful if I
knew, or if we all knew, sadly, we don't, but at least we got a
little bit of a of a hint there. Now back to the document. Major
growth stated that he recommended the DoD fund and
conduct quote, red and blue assessments, unquote, of UAP, in
addition to establishing a permanent office to investigate
what he called strategic anomalies. Additionally, major
grush provided us with a copy of a briefing regarding a proposed
permanent office to handle such strategic anomalies, including
UAP. Conclusion major grush provided us with general
background information on the DoD actions regarding UAP to his
knowledge, updated by and then again, some redactions there for
names and so on, and so forth. The next part was a little bit
of a surprise. This was obviously like a PowerPoint
presentation or a printout of a presentation, strategic anomaly
resolution. But look at this, look at the seal here, Office of
Strategic anomaly resolution. Something that was never before
revealed. So when I first saw this, I'm thinking, okay, is
this a government proposal? The thing that I noticed right off
the bat, there's no classification markings, which
indicates likely not official. And then if we go back when we
go back to his statement, that ended up being correct. So if
you remember, let me see here. The proposal to succeed UAP TF
that myself and my colleagues developed on our own time. So
when I had kind of asked that question in the article for
those that that did read it originally, that ended up being
confirmed where it was not not official. But you can see here,
as we go through the proposal by David grush, for this office,
which is, you know, pretty, pretty interesting to see. You
can see here with a task force resolution here, right in the
center, we have one side of the spectrum, on the slide for
background where you go from green all are explainable,
whether aeroplane balloons, space debris, but you can kind
of see the spectrum of what he's trying to propose. And we just
have to guess a little bit of exactly what went along with the
presentation if he was there, you know, giving some kind of
idea for the DOD to implement who knows. But you can see here
Task Force right in the center. A task force is temporary, what
should an enduring comprehensive capability look like? So
obviously must have talked about that. objectives key questions?
What is it? How does it work? Those are the primary questions,
operations and Intelligence Research and Development. That's
the focus secondary, what do we know about it? How do we talk
about it? How do we work with others? How
do we protect our equities, enablers, policy, communication,
partnership security. So again, he's obviously got some kind of
proposal slash presentation that goes along with all this written
stuff. So this isn't a document that should be read by its own.
But again, I'll link it in the show notes, I'll stop, you know,
regurgitating and just guessing what the slides fully meant. But
you did get a little bit of an idea here, I'll keep scrolling,
you get a little bit of an idea of where he was going with what
he felt should come after the UAP T F. Here are some of the
more colorful slides strategic anomaly and observation
resolution, or soar, prototype, knowledge management, visible
visual visualization, the goal is create an environment to
capture store and interact with data in an intuitive and rapid
manner. Integrate an analytics package to create both
standardized and customizable outputs for trend analysis and
prediction, and prediction incorporate artificial
intelligence algorithms to continually assess data quality
through association or erroneous data identification, Project
Bluebook used his first test case, so he was really getting
into this and trying to create a system where they can just make
one central source for all of the data that sounds great,
nothing wrong with that this is, uh, you know, very cool, I would
have hoped that the UAP TF would have tried to do something like
this, or at least later the AOA MSG or later arrow, you know, I
mean, the name the acronym, I would have hoped that they would
do that, where they're bringing all that data together, he put a
visualization using Project Bluebook, as as an example,
there were over 10,000 case files. You know, that's, that's
roughly, I mean, it was 12,006 18, I think was the exact
number. But he must have, you know, integrated somehow the
locales of all of those cases, just to kind of show an example
of if they collected all of these particular sightings, how
they could, you know, visually display it, see where those
hotspots are, what's problematic, where are weak,
weak points, and so on. Observations, obviously, you can
zoom in on these particular cases, and then come up with
case details, all of this very, very cool. And oddly, similar to
some of the stuff that we are seeing on the private sector
side. You know, those apps that keep coming around that there's
a lot of controversy about seem to do exactly this, though, I
don't think Russia is involved in that. Or those those
projects. You know, this is very similar to what people are
trying to do in the private sector as well. And in fairness,
there's been a lot of us that have created a database, myself
included with interactive maps and stuff like that. In fact, if
you're not familiar with it, I'll just pull it up so you guys
can see it. There's the MSN news site, so just ignore that for
now. But this is actually a very, I would say under
advertised on my end, I don't talk about it a lot. You see up
here at the menu on the black vault, these FOIA documents, I
have a case files as well. And you can go through all sorts of
different case files. Included on there is a global map, same
type of concept, where you have, in my case, a couple 1000 cases
all around, and then you click on the particular locale of
where the cases are icon stipulate what type of case you
click on it, and then you can go right in and see what it is this
is a scientific analysis on plastic found at Mac Brussels
Ranch, in Roswell, New Mexico, just outside of Roswell. So
there's all sorts of stuff there. My whole point being is
that, you know, this concept really isn't new. But it would
be very fascinating for the US government and military to
implement it. And I think that David grush saw the value of
that from an intelligence standpoint, so good for him.
Data Analytics. So obviously a way to spit out all that data,
federal Labtech exploitation. So again, it just kind of keeps
going to the last slide, but it just kind of keeps going into
what his ideas work. So that's a breakdown of what it is. So
let's go to what what it wasn't where is all the stuff about the
complaint? Right? Where is the stuff where if he submitted the
material to the IG, where is their investigation? Now? Let's
just play some hypothetical here. I think that this meeting
took place post what he says he submitted to the IG. So again,
July 2021, he submitted all that stuff to the IG. My guess is, it
goes to the evaluation team. They go okay, maybe he can add
something and they interview him. But where is all the talk
about biologics crash retrieval, non human intelligence and
really getting into what we know him for meaning that's what his
claims are. That's That's it. This was his opportunity. Now
that hypothetical, let's just say that this came just prior to
him submitting that IG complaint. This was a perfect
opportunity for him to say, hey, look, guys, by the way, because
it was a top secret meeting. So nobody come back at me and say
all that and they weren't cleared to hear it. No, they had
this top secret umbrella, shielding this interview for a
reason. So the fact that David grush just does not say anything
whatsoever, about that kind of stuff. Look, that's, that's a
little bit of a red flag to me, you would think that you would
you would have that you would think that you would make
mentioning it. And it's nowhere to be found. Now, I'm not saying
that there's anything nefarious with that. But what I am saying
is, why not. And that's another one of those really weird things
here. Because if you look at the timeline, if you look at what he
was trying to accomplish, that July 2021 timeframe was getting
the IG IG knowledgeable about what he had discovered through
the 40 eyewitnesses that he talked to, which tie into again,
that nonhuman intelligence or Nhi, the crash retrieval
program, all of that all of that stuff, the biologics, none of
that is in there, the only mention was the Air Force point
of contact, regarding potential recovered UAP material. So
that's just something to keep in mind. I mean, the like he he had
an opportunity here and didn't take it. So none of that is
there. Now, since this request, I have filed a new one. Because
the way that my wording worked, and I always it's kind of a
double edged sword here, right? If you stipulate a tighter
timeframe, which I did on this request that it was circa July
2021. How do they then stop searching? Do they just go to
present day? Or do they only stick around the July 2021
timeframe? So I filed an additional request with a wider
net, and stating you can exclude everything in this particular
case. But give me everything that you have on communication,
essentially the same wording that yielded this, but with a
much broader net? When it comes to the timeframe? What will come
out of that? I really don't know. But it will be interesting
to to see what did the IG do post this interview. If
anything, there are other cases that I have just to give you a
kind of a quick teaser of what that is. They are open on key
individuals within the DOD IG office, one or two of which are
probably one of these. One or two oops, I went too far, one or
two of these redacted names here on on this particular page. So
you'll be able to hopefully see a glimpse into not only who was
there, but what were they talking about outside of the
meeting via email. And those cases strategically target, so
to speak, those individuals that were likely involved in the
meeting, including some of the upper brass within the IGs
office, including the IG himself. But that being said,
hopefully that will yield some even more stuff. So lots of
puzzle pieces that are still missing. We have still lots of
questions that remain unanswered. And if anybody's
watching this, and you have aligned to David grush, let them
know, I am not interested in making anybody look bad. I just
want to try and answer some of those outstanding questions. So
if you know him, let them know about this video, let them know
that we're exploring these documents. And we're kind of
left with a lot of questions. And he can offer some
unclassified, but very helpful context to the conversation. And
that's all I'm interested in.
Hopefully, someone out there, you can help me out HOW DO ME A
SOLID and get aligned to him? I'm pretty easy to find online.
So all my contact information goes right to me, the black
vault is just one single person you're looking at him. So any
contact form he fills out will come right to me. Other than
that, we're just left to kind of explore this on our own. Ask
those questions, throw them out into the cosmos and hope one
day, they get answered. But you know, I keep digging. I'll keep
digging. I'll post those FOIA request responses when they come
in even the denials. But this was a very cool one because
again, no redactions when it came to national security
information, which was kind of a weird thing in itself, but hey,
I'll take it when it happens. We got a little bit of a glimpse.
That said, Thank you so much for listening and watching if you
can, if you're watching on YouTube, clicking that thumbs
up, making sure you're subscribed to the channel is a
huge help. If you find the content worthwhile, please
Spread the word. That's the biggest way that you can help me
get more exposure to this channel and get the message out
all of this information you can find in the show notes below.
Feel free to click if you're listening on a podcast channel,
the black vault radio is the title on most any podcast
platform of your choice. Just search for that. And if you're
listening on one of those, I aim for five stars I won't tell you
what to do. But if you can add a review, I'd really appreciate
it. I do shoot for the five star rating as well. All of that is a
huge help to the channel. It's good to be back. Thanks for
tuning in and watching. This is John Greenewald Jr signing off.
And we'll see you next time.