Ep. #133 – FOIA Documents Reveal AARO’s Authorized and Repeated Attempts to Engage with David Grusch

said? When did they say it? And who else got involved? rejoin me, John Greenwald, Jr. as I take a deep dive into these new records, and put it all into a chronological display of how it all went down. Why weren't these handled before they set up? The meeting? 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, founder and

creator of the black vault. And tonight, we're doing another deep dive. Now I know these videos aren't for everybody. They can get long. And my guess is this one will be long. And the reason is, is we have to dive into some documents I just posted last week, that of course caused quite a bit of

controversy. Now if you're not aware of what I'm referring to, I received a batch of documents through the Freedom of Information Act that we're about arrow the Pentagon's UFO office about their invitations to invite the UFO whistleblower into their office and essentially spill the beans. What do you got to know what can we verify? Now of course, that's a nutshell version. Clearly they have a lot of safeguards with

security classes of classified details, stuff like that. So not necessarily in their office, they'd be in a skiff or secure area. But regardless, it was there, again, effort to get him

in there. Now, here's the controversy. When David grush testified before Congress, he claimed that aro never reached out to him when Dr. Shawn Kirkpatrick later did an interview in October, and he stated that David grush ignored four or five or, or refused attempts, these multiple attempts, David grush, then countered back in October and said that was all a lie. Well, I am to find out the truth. So I filed some foils. And here we are. So we're going to dive into

all of these documents. Now normally, I go through the documents in the order that I received that why that way, you guys can go through and follow along with me. But during this presentation, I did something a little bit different. I rearranged them all to essentially be in chronological order makes a little bit more easier for a presentation like this also makes it easier for you guys to understand. So I put all of the documents together, we're gonna go through all of

them. They consist of emails, they consist of signal tests, text messages. Wow. What's up with that? under FOIA? Yes, under FOIA, and we'll get into that, and of course, a breakdown by the US government of their attempts. Now, the biggest question here, oh, did David grush lie? Well, I'm not here to say yay or nay on that. I'm here to show you guys the evidence. Anybody can verify it. And you decide the answer to that. I'm not here to say either way. I will say though, things are not

always what they seem. And in this case, it very much seems to be the case. So let me go ahead and pull up some visuals here for you guys. Excuse my eyeline. But I'll be looking at my monitor here kind of reading some stuff to you, and going over these particular records now. First, what I want to do is get over some housekeeping stuff. Once I posted these documents if you're a user of social media, specifically X but Reddit was was always also rampant, with some conspiracy

theories about this. There was I would say the most transparency that I can give to this process during During me seeking out these documents, and the conspiracy theories that have kind of flown is that I'm working with the Pentagon, that they're essentially feeding me these documents, so I can put them online, they strategically do it. So I can go ahead and be

used as a pawn for them. I have all sorts of accusations. The bottom line is, however, for those who paid attention from day one I actually posted when I was requesting them why I was requesting them. And I sat and wait, a lot of people thought I got them very quickly. Well, from October to to early November to April of 2020. For your you're talking about five, six full months of waiting, that's still a long time. So I'm not really sure where a lot of these conspiracy theories came

from. So let me do some housekeeping in the beginning, here is the exact wording of what I requested in my request. Now I have some boilerplate language that is the same on every single request. So I'll spare you guys the legal jargon on that. But let me get to the meat of what I was requesting. And it was the following. This is what I said directly from the

FOIA request. Dr. Shawn Kirkpatrick, head of the arrow office has gone on the record in a recent media roundtable stating he and or his office has tried to contact UFO whistleblower David grush, numerous times, but those

invitations were declined. I respectfully request a copy of records, electronic or otherwise of the following all forms of documentation that showed the above attempts to invite David grush to speak with arrow, I understand part of this request may overlap FOIA 24 F 0265. Again, just a legal reference, because there was probably some overlap there. So I didn't want

them to cancel one and I'd wait longer. But feel this may extend beyond just emails hence, the request seeking out documentation relating to the above statement given to the media by Dr. Kirkpatrick, I agree to limit the scope of search to all records dated July 2020 22, through to the date of processing this request through to the data processing this request is key. Now this is a trick that I've learned. So you FOIA people out there, I would pay attention to this one. When

you file a request, you have to give a date range. This is important because it plays specifically into the conspiracy theories about me, but also why this particular document came up when it came after I filed the request. When you say through to the date of processing this request, most agencies if you don't say that will cut it off at the moment you submit your request. So it may take them two years to process it. But they'll cut the date off on the day that you requested the information.

However, if you word it this way, admittedly, it is a crapshoot, it is a gamble, there is no guarantee that they will do this. But I have learned that in some cases. And this one specifically, they will then put the cutoff date when they begin to process your request. So in this case, it was well after the original submission date of early November. So that is key because you'll see the responsive document was dated

January of 2024. That also played into the to the conspiracy theories about me. But you can see by the actual request, what I did, I also didn't specifically request signal messages. There was a lot of people that accused me of getting some kind of tip or lead know, the reason why I worded the request that I did any and all information and that I feel that it may extend beyond emails, that is a way to

separate it from the case 24 F 0265. So I believe that all of this is, albeit sometimes gruesome, and boring, because it's just the nitty gritty, nitty gritty, you have to deal with it. Because those people that are that are spouting those those conspiracy theories about this and how the Pentagon is, is working with me on this. Nothing could be farther from the truth. So there's the evidence that I wanted to go over with you guys. And the very specific legal wording of what spawned this

particular FOIA request. Now when I say that I couldn't have been more transparent. I actually on the same day that I filed, announced it to everybody. So there was no secret there was no sleight of hand here or something that someone fed me and I'm making it all up. All you got to do is look at these particular screenshots here as proof Oops, excuse me as proof that I was filing it on November second

2023. What I said was in a recent media roundtable discussion, Dr. Shawn Kirkpatrick, the head of Arrow stated the arrow has sent an invitation to David grush, quote at least four or five times but over the last eight months, those invites were declined. Then David grush told new news nation that was a lie. So this morning I filed a FOIA requests case. Seeking evidence to the above claim by Dr. Kirkpatrick.

I'm guessing somewhere those invitations are documented, they'd have to be unlikely reside in unclassified files, given the nature of contact and will be hard to exempt given the open admission by Dr. Kirkpatrick that they were sent. Let's find out who's telling the truth. And I put a screenshot of the interview that Dr. Kirkpatrick did put a screenshot of the news nation interview that David gross responded saying I have zero emails or calls from them. That is a lie.

That was October 31, I believe was the interview. So in essence, it was a he said, he said story. It was one person had one stance, the other had the other stance, one was saying one was lying. It was like, Okay, well, let's just try and settle this. What I said down here proved to be absolutely true. They were all unclassified invitations. They were documented, and you're about to see all of them. One last things

of housekeeping here is the actual FOIA response. This way, anybody who's taking notes or wants to challenge me on how I got this, documents and proves everything that I have stated November 2 2023, was when I filed I'll spare you all the legal jargon here on this letter, but I invite you to pause the video and read it. Here's the four year case number that anybody can go ahead and request information on, again,

can't be more transparent on this. Now let's talk about the responsive documents and start breaking this down. Again rearranged them a little bit from the FOIA case. So when you download the PDF, I always leave them in the same order that I got. But in this particular presentation is jumbled a little bit. To give you a chronological breakdown, I'm going to read to you what was called a memorandum for

record. This was dated January 8 2024. Again already addressed why this is post dated after my FOIA requests all stemmed from the wording of how I requested the information, subject line all domain anomaly resolution office invitations to interview Mr. David grush. I don't want the all domain anomaly resolution office or arrow extended multiple invitations to

Mr. David grush. For the purpose of conducting an oral history interview in support of the congressionally directed historical record report, invitations both direct and through intermediaries to interview Mr. grush regarding his claim knowledge of US government, possession of extraterrestrial material, and reverse engineering programs

were met with negative results. I item two, the following attempts were made by director, arrow and staff to encourage Mr. grush to provide information to arrow on the record and in an appropriately secure environment. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 authorizes arrow to receive reporting about US government activities and events related to UAP regardless of classification level or

carpet compartmentalization of the information. Here's the breakdown, timeline wise per their memo, and then we'll break it down even further. But this is from the memo breaking down the chronology of their timeline between June 8 and 20, excuse me between June 8 2023 And June 13 2023, Director arrow engaged in a dialogue with person redacted regarding arrows authorities and encourage that person to have Mr. grush contact arrow. Note that this person is a known close associate of Mr.

grush. And the dialogue made it clear that this person was in contact with Mr. grush. On June 12, and 13th 2023 Director arrow discussed with a professional staff member or PSM. You'll you'll see that a few times in this presentation of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. grush, his refusal to speak with arrow. The PSM stated that he would contact Mr. grush and request Mr. Gresh his email address. The PSM made the offer after the director made it clear that Arrow did not

have Mr. Gresh his contact information. It's a little bothersome that they couldn't find his email address or contact information but regardless, on June 26 2023, Arrow staff contacted interviewee redacted and asked for Mr. grush his current telephone number so that an invitation can be extended to Mr. grush interviewee contacted Mr. grush on Arrow's behalf, and an invitation was rebuffed by

Mr. grush. On June 28 2023, Director arrow contacted a PSM with the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence after Mr. Gratias appearance before Congress and asked for any information reported to Congress by Mr. grush that arrow may be able to identify. The director also reminded the PSM of the agreement that if a witness expressed apprehension about coming to arrow, that arrow would send a staff member to congressional spaces to record the information into the US

government record in support of that historical report. On July 27 2023, Arrow staff conducted an interview of interviewee redacted who revealed that he wouldn't It who revealed that he would be having dinner with Mr. grush. The following day arrow staff to include the director asked this person to invite Mr.

grush to contact arrow for an interview. Arrow staff made it clear that the interview would be conducted in a secure facility in accordance with the law, and the tone of the interview would be friendly and non confrontational, as are all

arrow interviews. On October 6 2023, Arrow staff conducted a secure call an interview with interviewee redacted, and as that he also encouraged Mr. grush to agree to a secure interview, so that Mr. Gratias claims might be introduced into the US government record in support of their historical report. Interviewee is known to be a close associate of Mr.

Gresh. During the previous several months director arrow as to PSM with the US Senate Committee on armed services to encourage Mr. grush to provide information to arrow during an official interview. On November 10 2023, Mr. grush contacted arrow at the urging of congressional staff members and agreed to be interviewed in Arlington, Virginia on November

14 2024. Arrow provided Mr. grush with a memorandum from the Director of Special Access Programs, Department of Defense that made it clear arrow is authorized to receive Compartmented Information. Mr. Gresh was also told that arrow would obtain a similar memorandum from the director controlled access Program Office, Office of the Director of National Intelligence. On November 14 2023, Mr. grush, failed to show at the agreed upon location and time for an

interview with arrow. Upon contacting Mr. grush, you stated that he is not convinced that arrow is authorized to receive varying levels of classified and sensitive information. So this right here told you that they had a meeting set up if you didn't catch it. grush didn't even show. So you'll see here why. And this is the argument and controversy from these documents. The controversy as he didn't show because he felt aro didn't answer his questions. However aro felt that they did

and they had ample evidence to show it. Congress was also urging based on what they knew for him to go in. It's kind of a mess. It really is. And you see here that there's a lot more to the story than we what we heard on news interviews and congressional testimony. And so that, to me, was kind of like a head scratcher. He didn't even show to a scheduled meeting. You'll see more as we go through the information here exactly why he didn't show and exactly why or exactly how that played out.

On November 19 2023, arrow again contacted Mr. grush via email, and stated We invite you to speak to arrow regarding any US government programs or activities related to UAP dating

back to 1945. In accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 aro is authorized to receive any information related to UAP regardless of classification, and notwithstanding any nondisclosure agreement you may have signed, we would be glad to meet with you in a skiff so that you could share information with

us. This specific invitation was coordinated with the Office of General Counsel, Department of Defense, Mr. grush, again, declined the invitation despite previously agreeing to an interview. And again, Mr. Gresh cited various security concerns that arrow is authorized to receive information of any

classification level regarding UAP. On January 8 2024, Arrow provided Mr. Grosh with a memorandum from the director controlled access Programs Office, Office of the Director of National Intelligence that states arrow was authorized to receive information which is subject to US government non disclosure agreement. Arrow also informed Mr. grush that there is a standing invitation to be interviewed by Arrow regarding his claims of UAP and US government activity and events.

During interactions between arrow and Mr. grush from November 2023 to January 2024, it became evident that Mr. grush had no intention of providing arrow with information regarding his claims. This assessment stands despite the NDAA for fiscal year 2023 And the enclosed memorandums from the Department of Defense and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, making it clear that arrow is authorized to receive all levels of information related to UAP. That

was a heck of a memo to go over. But you can see that clearly the DoD according to them, was reaching out to grush through various means. Each and every time it was declined. And clearly, there was issue with David grush, who did not want to come into arrow. If he didn't set up the meeting and didn't show, I can understand His concern was really the root cause of that. But how is it that he could go all that way set up the meeting the time and just not show? So so what

happened was it was an under advice of counsel, maybe. But why wouldn't he have that advice prior we know who is his attorney is with Charles McCullough, the former IC IG. So clearly, he's got an incredibly intelligent attorney behind him. So if it was based on legal counsel, why didn't he get that counsel prior? Because he was he was clearly proactively after declining a bunch of invitations, it seems proactively now reaching out to arrow and saying, Hey, let's

let's chat. And from that memo between November 10, and November 14, there obviously was a telephone conversation, at least one that said over everything up. So being proactive, why would you not consult your attorney like, hey, what do I have to have in writing here? That's a very interesting piece of this puzzle that you'll see even more play out here as we go through the documents. So the next batch of records I'm going to go through is essentially the supporting

evidence to this memorandum. So per my request, seeking out all of these attempts, part of those attempts were text messages to Christopher Mellon. Now, it's not every day you get signal text messages through the Freedom of Information Act, but in this case, you do. It's not common, but not not unheard of. So this happens for multiple reasons. We'll get into it after we go over the text messages. But it was a little bit of a surprise because I was expecting

more emails, maybe some letters or memos. I wasn't expecting text messages. They start on June 11 2023. And they start with thanks. So clearly, there was dialogue between Sean Kirkpatrick and Christopher Mellon, prior to this. Yes, I filed for those text messages now as well. Now that I know they exist, but in this particular document dump, it starts at June 11. You can see Christopher Mellon saying thanks, we don't know for what. And then on June 12, this is

what Shawn Kirkpatrick says. Now, as we go through this, all the blue boxes are Shawn Kirkpatrick, and the gray boxes are Christopher Mellon. Enter Kirkpatrick grush has made claims that he's contacted us and we've never responded. That's just not true. He's also made claims that we don't have access to investigate his claims. That is also not true. If I recall correctly, you indicated he refused to come talk to us. And you're quoted as suggesting as such, I'd suggest

you emphasize the need to come speak with us. You have the contact email. Enter Christopher Mellon. Hi, Sean, do you have a specific example of Dave Dave claiming he's contacted arrow and your office refused to respond? That sounds strange as during a conversation yesterday, he told me arrow was not a lawfully designated recipient of his whistleblower info, hence his reason for not contacting arrow. I also do not recall

saying Dave refused to come talk to arrow. I certainly did not do so in the debrief article or my article in Politico, and I've done no interviews yet about Dave. Shawn Kirkpatrick. It was on the interview Sunday, Pentagon is preparing a response. His assertion that we aren't lawfully empowered is clearly incongruent with the law. Christopher Mellon, I'll be happy to check on that. Contrary to press reports, Dave still retains his attorney who is a former NSA and IC IG Chuck

should know if anyone does. Kirkpatrick there is a significant misconception between the authorities in question the title 50 authorities we we do have are for CI purposes not taking in information. The law is very clear about that and if he has a concern he should have as attorney discuss with OGC we we've had we've had many people come share appropriately the information that okay, so you'll

see here I'm going to stop real quick. You'll see here that there's grammatical errors reading Kirkpatrick I don't know if that's just rage tweeting. Or if he's like, you know, just Cerise not not liking him. I don't know. So forgive my stumble reading. I'm trying to make it as clear as possible and forgot to note his grammatical errors because there is one part of that that actually may be a typo that a lot of people are making a big deal of and I'm not sure if it should be a big deal

yet. We'll see. We'll get to that. In a minute, but let me see here the law is very clear about that. And if he has a concern he should have as attorney discuss with OGC. That's the Office of General Counsel within the DOD. We've had many people come share appropriately the information they have from various places. Chuck is wrong. If that's his advice, melon, I'll be happy to raise with Dave and get back to

you. Kirkpatrick if nothing else he needs to contact us. And we'll introduce his attorney to the Office of General Counsel. I'll reach out to him today says Christopher Mellon. Also Mellon I spoke with Dave and his first question was Why hadn't aro gotten all the info from the IC IG? It is all there and fully documented to include confirmation that program is real from active cleared insiders. Mellon, I spoke with Dave and his first Oh, excuse me, I'm sorry, that's just

repeated from the screenshot. Kirkpatrick comes in after that Department of Justice has to release it since it's part of a criminal investigation. Now DOJ is Department of Justice. However, the question that was asked by David grush through Mellon was about the IC IG. A lot of people are making a big deal out of this line that the Department of Justice is

involved. Maybe the IC IG figured out a criminal aspect that was essentially confirmed or confirmed enough to then forward over to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation. That is absolutely a possibility. However, those that are touting this in the media and new op eds

and so on, have not confirmed it. Now why I pointed out Kirkpatrick is kind of again, I'm not trying to sound rude here, but kind of his rage texting, where he's clearly he's got a lot of grammatical fumbles here and there, misspelling you'll see some more here, as I read through it. Was his response maybe that that in his head, he's thinking criminal, slash investigation slash law enforcement, and he says it by

mistake, or Is this legit? Now some of you may think that I'm, I'm stretching their look, I'm just I'm a stickler for confirming these things because of a text message from somebody who's having those spelling or grammatical errors, or both, can probably easily mistaken, do typing in DOJ versus IC IG. While he's, you know, typing in haste, the texting in haste. So that's a possibility. I have yet to see confirmation of it. I

don't necessarily doubt it. I think it's interesting no matter what, but I don't think we should just start screaming that the DOJ is involved, like some people are doing as I record this, we just don't know yet. So back to Kirkpatrick, DOJ has to release it since it's part of a criminal investigation. They haven't yet he needs to come tell us separate from his criminal complaint. So Mellon, he obviously doesn't have to do so. And he even said, quote, how do I know Sean is not a target

of the ongoing criminal investigation. In parentheses, he's got an exclamation point. However, that being said, I explained your request regarding his attorney contact office government counsel and suggested he do so to show full cooperation. He said that if you can provide OTCs contact info,

he'll pass it to his attorney. By the way. He also said his claim about contacting you dates to a conversation the two of you had many months ago on a quote, Tandberg, t a n d, b e r g and parentheses he has SP question mark that spelling even he doesn't really know what he's talking about, but trying to convey that to Kirkpatrick. So conversation many months ago on a Tandberg system, and that you didn't follow up after that call. I'm not trying to adjudicate that issue, just

telling you what he said. Apparently, that is what his statement was referring to. So if you can provide an OGC email or phone number, I'll get that to Dave right away. And hopefully his attorney will promptly contact OGC. Back to Kirkpatrick. All of that is both absurd and false. I have had a conversation I have. Here's another fumble. I believe he meant I haven't had a conversation with him for years. That coincides with multiple interview quotes and so on.

Anybody can fact that have checked that that he hadn't talked to him for quite a few years, even David grush had said it was 2022. So obviously, at least one or two years. So I think that was yet another typo, but I haven't had a conversation with him for years. If he wants this brought out and investigated, then yes, he obviously does have to his continued refusal to speak with us only hurts his case. I've contacted congressional OGC to reach out to him so they can

explain the law. Haven't had a conversation for years. See, so that now he goes back and he corrects himself. Our statement will simply be that he's refused to speak with arrow. Melon comes back. Okay, so Sounds good happy to help when I can don't hesitate to kick my tires off based on something. By the way, there isn't a congressional OGC as such. Kirkpatrick there are congressional lawyers that get law. Mellon to be clear whom shade, whom should Dave expect to hear from, if you cannot

provide a point of contact at DOD. Current Patrick's then corrects himself again. So again, I'm just stressing this about that DOJ thing because I think it's key, he corrects the get law into vet law. So that's what he's correcting there. Hill OGC generally advised members only that's what Kirkpatrick said they advise their employers, not members of the public. So essentially what he's saying here, if you're kind

of lost, because I had read it a couple times as well. Obviously, the DOD has an office of government counselor, excuse me, Office of General Counsel of lawyers, attorneys. I know for a fact that a few of my FOIA cases, quite a few actually go through that particular office, when some of these documents are released, they are involved, they're going through the law, they understand how it works. So especially when you tie in FOIA releases, they're right there to essentially make sure nobody's

crossing any legal line. Obviously, they are involved in processes like this as well. So they're the attorneys for the DOD, where that kind of back and forth got a little mumbled was that it was brought up that the hill, Congress has essentially an equivalent to an OGC. That's where melon says, No, they don't. And then Kirkpatrick was like, they have attorneys that advise their members, not for the public, but members of Congress. So a lot of these fine details are very important when

you see these things play out. Because you know, even these two guys who are obviously very knowledgeable about how the government works, they're still not jiving when they're conversing with each other, because it's an incredibly convoluted process with a lot of nooks and crannies. And it really kind of goes to the root of that whole, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, primarily because the

left hand doesn't even know the right hand exists. So you kind of see it play out here with two powerhouse minds that came that come from the government or came from the government. And they don't even match up with, with, again, their knowledge of how it all works. And that's not an insult, but rather that's how this is playing out that they're just not on the same, not on the

same page. So let me see back to back to Kirkpatrick. It's either a lawyer at the hill or a lawyer in DOD, who am I sending them to? Either the law is law or we can scrub having anyone else come see arrow. So obviously Kirkpatrick is getting a little miffed at this point. Mellon says you can't tell chuck to go to various committees on the Hill, it needs to be someone who represents arrow in the executive branch. I'll support

Mellon on that from the little that I do know about this? That yes, that would essentially be who they have to talk to, for safety as well, that if the DoD attorneys are going to promise something, then obviously, when he goes into the DOD, he's got something to fall back on. mellem continues, there are a dozen Hill committees on majority and minority counsel who may not even agree. Kirkpatrick depends on how badly people want this sorted out, send me Chuck's contact info.

Then Mellon says not without his permission, obviously. How about I relay your contact info here to chuck, what's interesting is Chuck McAuliffe information is public on the website. I'm not going to display it here to prove what I just said. But the last time I checked, it was on the website. And then it's how I contacted him. Sadly, I was ignored the few times that I did. But regardless, the the information is there, the law firm is public. It's got a phone number. So why this like, Hey,

give me his phone number. Hey, can you get me a hey, can you it's like, what can you not just put in a.com or use Google? You guys are investigating UAP for the Department of Defense. Can you really not just use Google for finding somebody's contact information? So that kind of stuff just drives me nuts when you see this back and forth. But it kind of shed some light of you know, how all this is playing out behind the scenes and it's it's silly in a lot of ways. Kirkpatrick Oh, I'm sorry.

The last thing that after not without his permission, obviously, again, this is Mr. Melon. How about I relay your contact information to chuck, this will get sorted out of that. I have no doubt. It is only a matter of how quickly and by whom? Kirkpatrick I'm not giving my contact info out. Given the harassment and threats. That's why we have a secure mechanism. I don't even know if you want me to comment,

and that's just so silly at this point. I mean, there's obviously government public numbers that they could give out especially to a former IC IG. I mean, come on. Kirkpatrick continues and yes, you are defending and adjudicating and you're undermining the very organization you're purported to help establish for this person. So now that miffed Dr. Kirkpatrick just kind of went up a little bit. So you can clearly see now he's telling Mellon upset, essentially, that he's

kind of obstructing this process. It's like you, you, by your own admission help set this up. Now you're really just not letting this play out, like, you know, and these guys are not coming together here trying to connect David grush to arrow and it was it was very telling to read through this for the first time. Mr. Melon comes in really odd I try to bring everyone to arrow I can. I'm trying to help put Dave in touch with your GC

or general counsel, if you can provide simple contact info. I'm not judging the claims between you and Dave, and and have not claimed his claims are accurate. I'm going to stop right there. I'm going to repeat it again. I have not claimed his claims are accurate. That's a very telling admission by Christopher Mellon. I'm not trying to read into that too much. I'm just trying to show you what Christopher melons mindset is that he's not

vouching for the story itself. He's vouching for David Gratias credibility, which I would do the same with his background. It's very impressive. But to the accuracy of his claims, even Christopher Mellon, who knows more than all of us, I'm sure about David Gratias story and who the 40 people are that he talked to, and all of that if he's still ready to not go on not ready to go on the record and say, Yeah, I believe his claims. To me, that's very telling. So definitely take note

of that part. To continue on with Mr. melons, words, I've said he is sincere and credible, and his and other claims, which I expressly called allegations, warrant investigation, all of which is, you know, very admirable to say. So kudos to him, because I agree with it. I have no idea what you or Dave discussed or when, and, or when, and I'm not taking a position on that, or even the underlying claim of recovered materials. So he doesn't even have a stance on the recovered materials. Also a

very, very interesting tell here. Because, you know, do some do some thinking about who Christopher Mellon circle is. And he's not ready to make any claims. Again, very telling. That's not to be, again, overly reading into something critical or negative, but rather, pointing this out, because a lot of people can miss that. So it's very telling about where Christopher melanism, this. And you'll see here, let me pull up the laser pointer. So I'm kind.dot.if anybody uses signal,

you know that there's more here. That's why there's a Read More link. And when you when you tap on that on your phone, it extends the message. So signal will only show you a certain amount of characters. And then you have to do read more. Sadly, when these screenshots were taken, they didn't do that. Now I have filed a request for the extended text. Will I get that no idea. But and in fact, that was in my appeal. But I want the

whole text to see you know what exactly. Mr. Mellon had gone on to say, because to me, that was one of the more interesting text messages that he sent. It was very, I guess, personal in the sense that it was direct to what he believes or what he's not ready to believe. But he wants investigated. Very, very important, kind of crucial to see that. And we didn't. So

we'll see if that screenshot comes. However, the next message that Mr. Mellon sent, Dave can now say, quote, Shawn has refused to provide me or my attorney the contact information that would allow us to picking up right here, sorry, this, these are the screenshots, I just have to match it up. Dave can now say, Shawn has refused to provide me or my attorney the contact information that will allow us to discuss legal concerns we have with providing testimony to arrow, I'm not your

enemy. And I'm not saying this to provoke or irritate you. Moreover, having once been in similar jobs, I recognize you have a big pile of work and responsibility on your plate. I only mentioned this because it seems you must have some legal representation, and assuming they are competent. It seems to me a discussion. It would help to get Dave's testimony into your system. That it seems to me should be a win for all. Kirkpatrick I've asked the Office of General Counsel for

contact information. Melon Great. Kirkpatrick waiting to hear back. Melon. I will be happy to provide that to Dave and Chuck if you'd like. I think you have a fascinating and important job. And I want nothing more than to see the process work. Please don't think I am out to make your job harder. Kirkpatrick actually, Dave can't say any such thing. He hasn't asked me for it. Anything only you? Again, they're just not jiving in this conversation. So it's it's it's

just I can't say it enough. It's fascinating to see this play out that this was the effort, one of the efforts to get grush in there. And how much of a mess it really was. Mellon comes back actually, he probably can and might, but that doesn't matter. I have no specific reason to believe he will. And I am not proposing that to him. Just trying to close the loop and move things toward a good outcome. Thanks. Let me see here. Okay, so that was June 12, and June 13, all those text messages

that I went over, okay. Then it jumps to in the screenshot yesterday. Now, we don't know when Kirkpatrick took the screenshots or assuming it was Kirkpatrick. So we have no idea what date this is, but whomever took the screenshot, and whatever date it was, Kirkpatrick had sent Mellon and I'll quote here, this is the official position of the

Pentagon released to media Tuesday approved by OGC. And the Secretary, by law arrow may receive all UAP related information, including any classified national security information involving military intelligence and intelligence related activities at all levels of classification, regardless of any restrictive access controls, Special Access Programs, or

compartmented. Access Programs. Moreover, there is no restriction to arrow receiving any past or present UAP related in and then you have that read, more frustrating link that they didn't read more. Now, if you Google just any part of that string, you will come up with that language that has been used in congressional language in some news, pieces and press statements and stuff, going back to October ish, of 2023. So that may be around this time that it went from June to October ish,

don't really know. Sadly, we can't really confirm it. I filed FOIA cases after the receipt of this to hopefully figure that out. But regardless, that's what we're we're kind of left to wonder, kind of doesn't matter. We know the language was there. Melon responds, I passed that along today for as attorneys review, per your message, above all, seek to avoid further communication, unless it is something that seems extraordinarily urgent, or you initiate well, okay, I'll get

that off to Dave and his attorney this morning. Thanks. That was it. That was all of it. And I want to point out one thing to you guys here. That it was, let me see I have a better slide for it here. You set disappearing message time to one week, that is a message that whomever is using signal in this case, Kirkpatrick in that last right before he sent the this official position of the Pentagon text, he set the

messages on signal to be wiped after seven days. Signal, how's that feature, because it's an encrypted method of communicating. But it's a way to essentially hide what you're communicating. So if you feel that it's sensitive, you can keep it for a week, and then the app will just completely wipe it out after a week. There's a lot of problems there. And a lot of people missed that because nobody was talking about it. And

I tweeted it out or exited out. However you say that now posted it out on x and social media platforms like hey, you guys are mad that signal messages got released through FOIA. That was actually a legit thing to do, not only in the failure, case response, but even to use signal which I'll talk about right now. But you guys aren't talking about the fact that it was switched to then erase everything. So what are we erasing? Did he save it within the timeframe of the week,

because you have to do that. Now again, most people were upset that the signal messages were sent to me in a FOIA request response, privacy concerns were brought up. There were a lot of again, I call them those conspiracy theories, those allegations that I was being fed this information, essentially maliciously, so that I could put it out there to the general public. Obviously, that's all silliness. But on top of all of that, Luis Elizondo had chimed in publicly, he's got a very

large following very, very dedicated fan base. Anybody who follows Him knows that and he's got a lot of popularity in this particular field. Even he went out of his way to essentially spotlight the signal messages being put out, in kind of, in my opinion, fueled the flames a little bit. And the reason I say that is for this, he posts publicly retweets it. Retweets Christopher melons. post about my article and my four year

release, and then responds this way, Chris. I wonder when did DoD authorized Kirkpatrick to use the signal app for official US business and correspondence? You and I would have been crucified for doing that while we were in the government? And when did they allow personal identifiable info of US citizens to be released, contrary to Privacy Act of 1974? I guess it's more of the same regarding rules that apply quote to the

but not to me. Now, look, he's got a big following. And I and I'm a big supporter that if you do have a big following, even if you have a small one, but more importantly to those that have a big one, when you put allegations out there like that, you need to back it up. Now in fairness to Mr. Elizondo, maybe he just wasn't aware. And that's fine. But when I received these

text messages through FOIA Yeah, I was really curious about it. I knew they had come out through past FOIA cases before the the cases that I knew about were actually through litigation. But through US Code, Chapter Five, section 552 Are the FOIA signal

messages and text messages have come out before. So it's, in my opinion, irresponsible to start blasting that to, you know, 150 plus 1000 people to kind of fuel that because then there were people that were saying I should be sued for publishing these documents, regardless of getting them through FOIA. Now, that's a loot anybody with a legal background knows that that's ludicrous. But the digital mob mob doesn't care about that. So they just use that as part of their, you know, lynch mob

strategy to essentially get fueled by a post like this. But they actually don't look at the evidence. Now, I did what I'll call an article, but it was more of an ex post that broke down the DoD instructions on how to use non government apps, messaging apps, non DoD controlled is what they call them, messaging apps for DOD business. Now, to summarize it, I won't read all this to you. But to summarize it, yeah, it is kind of frowned upon, but it's not banned. It's not fully

banned. You can do it as long as you follow a certain set of rules. So you're not sending classified information. That's one of the obvious ones, or more sensitive information that may not be classified, but essentially more of the sensitive government business that you conduct. They do not

want you to use it for that. But when you look at the messages that I went over, what was it doing, it was setting up a meeting, and that's all that it was the only personal identifying information that was spilled was Christopher melons name. He was communicating with a government official and anybody with a FOIA background, let alone a government background will realize that the moment that you communicate with a government official, it becomes FOIA trouble. I've

spoken about that for years. It's why I've gotten bass, you know, private corporation emails through FOIA. It's why I've gotten numerous other corporation corporate emails, through FOIA. It's just how it works. But the DOD, again, has that stance where they can use these apps, you go through that text message, all he was doing was trying to set up a meeting. So it wasn't sensitive at all. There were no phone numbers, social security numbers, bank account numbers, anything

personally identifying information. And again, the only thing that came close to it was, was Mr. Melons name, but given his past, and his very public image, talking about UAP, being involved with getting arrow set up, what privacy violation was there. So not only was the use of signal authorized, and again, I go through the instructions in this ex post online, I'll link it in the show notes below. So

you have it. But there was also no personally identifying information, there was no violation of the Privacy Act of 1974. All those allegations do is fueled the digital mob, Kirkpatrick made reference to harassment and threats, it fuels stuff like that, just simply because people get so fired up thinking that these personal private messages are leaked out, which isn't true, that they're published through FOIA illegally, which isn't true, that there's a violation of the

Privacy Act, which isn't true. It all plays a role in that. So I think that there needs to be that responsibility with people that have large following, to maybe research these things a little bit. And if a mistake is made, we all make them myself included. Just correct it so then that way, your you know, fan base doesn't go nuts, those on people like myself, and saying I should be sued, or worse for themselves worse, go after people in the government that have investigative arms

like the FBI at their disposal. So you know, let's be a little bit more responsive. But when we're making claims like that, but I do want to give credit to Mr. Christopher Mellon, who stated this in a recent article about the documents that I got, he says, quote, the release surprised, but did not offend me as I'm a strong supporter of government transparency. So from what I've seen anyway, he's not out there saying a violation of his privacy was was was done here, that there was no privacy

act violation. So again, I just want to kind of stress that point, because that fuels so much of that conspiracy fire that leads into people harassing others like Kirkpatrick that, you know, that little thing called stigma that so many people want to go away? Well, that kind of fuels that as well that all you've got are a bunch of loud people screaming all these legal allegations and stuff like that, when the bottom

line is there isn't any. So let's be a little bit more responsible when people start forwarding around those those allegations. And again, credit to Mr. Mellon, and I'll say this, I've said it before, I'll say it again, out of that whole bunch, because I know I'm highly critical of a lot of them. Just simply because there's a lot of lack of evidence to a lot of the claims. Mr. Mellon seems like the most genuine, and I was happy to see the signal messages. And yeah, it may have

surprised him. But he says that he wasn't offended, and I'm happy to see that. But for someone like me, it's supported. Why I think that he is actually one of the more genuine in that group, that yes, we all have fumbles, we all have mistakes, we can all be nitpicked to death, to try and be made to look bad. But honestly, I really do think melons, intentions are, are genuine, I think they stem from from something that we we may not have even heard of where they stem from. But I do think

that I'll be at mistakes have been made. I think that he's a genuine person. So kudos to him for not flipping out about those signal messages, and also double kudos to him for supporting transparency over secrecy. Because what seems to me those that scream transparency and demand at the loudest are the ones that are continuing to gate keep information from you as

well. So really keep that in mind. So anyway, moving on from from from that, but that was one thing that I wanted to tackle in this deep dive was were those allegations because they became rampant against me. And again, many were calling for me to be sued and how could I invade privacy and stuff like that ridiculous. So one of the other text messages that came up, again, going back to the chronology here was in June 26. And not too long after the brunt of the conversation between

Kirkpatrick and Christopher Mellon differences here. We don't know who this particular person is. If you match it up with the memo, it's likely a interviewee that they had an arrow on identified person but the dates match up, says Do you have a phone number and or email for David grush. I'd like to invite him in for an interview. Not sure if this is Kirkpatrick

or an arrow representative. Again, for the memo says arrow staff, they would likely say director if it was Kirkpatrick, but regardless, didn't have a name, so I'm going to point that out. I would like to invite him in for an interview. The interviewee says yeah, but let me ask him first he has bad blood was Shawn going back to 2015? I'll tell him that only you want to talk to him. And so yeah, I mean, I'll correct myself there. That's clear that it's not Kirkpatrick doing the

talking here. A lot of text messages to keep straight here. So I apologize for my mistake, but yeah, obviously an arrow staff member, interviewee or, excuse me, the arrow person so it sounds like a plan. Thank you. The interviewee says dang it. Dave will only say that Shawn knows how to contact him. He rolls his eyes. There really is bad blood was Shawn from Dave's perspective, the arrow member says interesting response. Well, thanks for checking, much appreciated, this

reduction here is likely the name much appreciated. So obviously yet another attempt shut down. That was June 26. And June 27. That David grush This is key was made aware and refuses to chat. Now, Shawn Kirkpatrick learned about the the release of these documents, and the release of that text

message and the public dialogue now of this bad blood. So Stephen Green Street from the New York Post who had a connection with Kirkpatrick Rumor has it that he did an interview with him so that's going to be airing on the New York Post's YouTube channel soon. But that being said, Greenstreet reached out to Kirkpatrick asked him about the bad blood. Kirkpatrick responded saying I barely knew grush he

never worked for me. He briefed me once that I can recall when I was deputy director of US Space comm perhaps around 2019 I believe he came in with Jay Stratton to discuss starting their research and The UAP Task Force, I don't recall him prior to that time. I don't know any more now than I did at that time of those messages what he's talking about when he refers to bad blood since 2015. I was on assignment elsewhere at that time, I had many people come to briefed me. I also have a

reputation for not suffering fools. And when briefers come in ill prepared and deliver a poorly thought, through thesis, I will pick out the flaws in the argument. Perhaps he was one of those. No idea. So I had no relationship with grush. He never worked for me, the only thing I recall was him coming with Stratton, I have no idea what he's referring to. So that was Kirk, Patrick's response. Now going back to the text messages, this was another signal back and forth, another

person that is redacted. So we don't know who this is. Blue is going to be Kirkpatrick, this other person is in Greg grush, has made claims that he's contacted us. And we've never responded, that's just not true. He has also made claims that we don't have access to investigate his claims. That's also not true. If I recall correctly, you indicated he refused to come talk with us, I'd suggest you emphasize the need to come speak to us, given his false statements and assertions. I

will, but why don't you call or text him. I don't have contact info. And I can only contact through the secure mechanism. So I'll need an email. Further, Mellon is stating that he spoke with him and grush states that arrow is not a lawfully empowered organization to receive his info. This other person SMH or shakes my head. I'll reach out and try to reach grush this week, as well as requesting an email. Then we've got a bunch of redacted B seven e that's like law enforcement

investigation exemption. This unknown person, it's really a perfect example of why we need arrow. No more redaction headed in Skiff Kirkpatrick well of crushes lawyer successfully makes the case that we aren't lawfully empowered, there will be a lot less appetite to keep arrow a lot of people focused on

this text message. I felt it was snarkiness. That essentially sure the long shot that if he proved that we were not lawfully, meaning arrow was not lawfully able to receive the information, then arrow would go away, essentially a good thing to those that are doubting arrows, legitimacy, so on and so forth. Other people tried to read into that and spin it a different way. That's just how I took it given Kirk Patrick's kind of tone throughout many of the messages that we've already

gone through here. So you decide what exactly he meant by that. But I think it was just essentially more of a challenge, like look, it would be, it would only behoove them to prove that we're either lying or not clear to receive everything or whatever, and we'll just go away, which would be what that group would want. Anyway, if they don't trust arrow, they don't want them around. So there will be a lot less appetite to keep arrow.

Now that conversation was 12 and 13, just like the melon conversation, and while reading it, I kind of realized I won't go back on the slide, but I think that that was pretty much a copy and paste of how he started the conversation with melon the same way and I just didn't realize it until I read it out loud to you guys. So he probably just, you know, copied it from one to the other person here. And then the dialogue spiraled elsewhere. Now jumped to the 28th Kirkpatrick reaches

out to him. Hey, what is Rubio talking about? This kind of just makes me believe that this is maybe a PSM maybe part of, you know, Rubio's crew or one of the committees. So I don't know for sure. I'm sure someone else may want to try and figure it out. Or maybe they have figured it out. But as I record this, I just look at it seems like a congressional staff member, something like that, because obviously Kirkpatrick is now

reaching out to him saying, what is Rubio talking about? This unknown person says he's referring to previous witnesses that provide a testimony regarding the cash crash retrieval program. Those witnesses will not go to arrow they were asked to Kirkpatrick do we have notes from their testimony and their program names, owners anything I can verify? The unknown person I can review and back in office on vacation for a few more days. Definitely a few program names.

Now, we jumped to July 21. Great job on the interview glad they allowed it to happen. So clearly. Now this is that one of the first interviews Kirkpatrick had done, whoever this was reached out congratulated him. Kirkpatrick says thanks, still need those alleged program names. And this person says I'll talk to leadership and get back. Let me see the Kirkpatrick response CNN was sent over yesterday with one of my findings. I don't know what CNN stood for. So you guys might be

able to Google that real fast. I, to be honest with you forgot to look it up, but I don't know what it stood for. Kirkpatrick continuously agreement, as I recall was if someone came to you all, we would be invited to participate. So I can document and investigate. That hasn't happened. Yet, I've had you all over to participate. As it stands, Congress is not enabling us to actually do the job set in law for us to do and is withholding information from the office, Congress sets up raises

a lot of questions. So clearly, Kirkpatrick is now snapping back clearly, this is somebody from a, you know, congressional committee or office, either Rubio or someone else raises a lot of questions, he says, so he just kind of feels like everybody's just not allowing him to do the job that he was asked to do, or mandated to do. This person comes back since you started interviewing, we've had no one we didn't send your way. So that's just not true. So now they're starting to have

disagreements. That is the end of those particular text messages. Now, interesting time light note, we all found out about David Gresham, the debrief on June 5 2023. So I'm sticking with the same it's kind of jumping around chronologically sticking with the same conversations to make it easy to understand. But June 5 2023, is when we all first heard about

David grush. In the public sphere. Putting that into context with these next emails, this begins to start really shaping the picture of what happened with an arrow after the debrief article first put David grush, his name out there. Now, this is the Senate Armed Services Committee staff member, you'll see in a couple emails from now how we can deduce that the name is redacted. The picture here is going to be who

the email is from. You'll see it's fully redacted. But you'll see later on how we can determine it was the staff member. The staff member says Sean grush confirmed to me that he does not intend to avail himself of the arrow Safe Harbor process to tell you what he spent many hours telling the DoD IG, the IC IG and the two Intelligence Committees about

UAP. He's reported through the media in recent days that he was not able to share some of the information he has with the two Intelligence Committees because they lacked the program access he's assuming accurate media reporting. That means that he has either that he has told either or both DoD ici G's about one or more saps that the Intel committees are not access to.

The Armed Services Committee are not allowed by process rules to interview Grosh about any of this because the IC whistleblower process is tightly controlled by the Intel committees. What this means is that the DoD IC IG is no something from grush. The Congress as a whole is not aware of that as a reason for you to go to the IGs and ask for access as they deem appropriate for you to essentially see what Gresh is reporting. If waived programs are involved, there would need

to be a way for you to convey this to our staff directors. But there is also just a basic reason for you to try to get all the information that Gresh has provided to the IGs. Now this gentleman chimes in this is David Kozik. He's the director of congressional activities for the office of the Undersecretary of Defense for intelligence. He says, weighing in, there's no way in heck that DOD and IC IG will give any third party raw

information ever. IG investigations are a blackbox for a reason, the best Shawn will get from them as a filtered report that the IG releases to everyone. Bottom line, best course of action is still for Mr. grush to speak to arrow per their confidential process that one Congress directed in law. If he doesn't, I fear the best assessment you will ever get from ero is a reflection of a reflection. FYI, Shawn won't have an access problem. Ie he has no SAP or cap restrictions.

It's the IG divide. Of course, if he did speak to the Intel committees, they can always provide their transcripts slash notes to Shawn for his review, my two cents. I underline this, that's my emphasis has no SAP or cap restrictions whatsoever. That is not subject dependent. That was the internal line that these guys knew was the case for them, that there was nothing. Now why I say no subject specific is David grush. felt that it may have been that it was only UAP. And if it touched

on a non UAP related sap that connected to it. It didn't matter. And that's what the DoD s position was. I'm not here endorsing it. I'm just telling you internally Everybody was on the same page from the Office of General Counsel to the director of congressional activities, to the arrow office, to ODNI. to DOD, sabko. Everywhere, they were all on the same page that they could receive this information. The only one that seemingly was not and was uncomfortable was David grush.

The only exception was what is referenced here as the IG divide. Essentially, what that means in plain English is all of that law enforcement investigation, all of that research that the IGs do, it is cordoned off from everyone else for a reason that way that they can be independent and not worry about their information going somewhere else. But if Congress had transcripts or whatever, from their interviews, they could legally without any problem whatsoever, take all of

that and give it to arrow. It seemed like from those messages I read prior, that was the full agreement that if somebody went to Congress, Rubio's office, a committee testified and closed behind closed doors, even in a skiff in a classified setting, that whatever was was was taken from that, whatever information they got. And they ended the interview saying, I don't want

to go to arrow, that didn't matter. That information could then be given to arrow, they were cleared to receive it, and they can verify it, they can vet it, that goes to the heart of what Kirkpatrick had texted, saying, okay. Essentially, I'm paraphrasing this, but essentially, I don't care if they're not going to come for me. Come see me. Let's get program names, dates, anything I can verify. That too, was kind of spun in the social media sphere. But I think it was just

the two scientists, they just want the details. They don't care about the personal differences. It's the evidence or the lack thereof. So is there something that he can verify? And that's what he was looking for. So if Congress could share that, then they would the only divide was that invest? The inspector general investigations. That was it. So this email also became key to me. Just showing hey, look, Kirkpatrick had unrestricted access to at all

that unknown staff member comes back really helpful. Dave, thanks, did not know that executive branch folks are in the same boat. We are, will urge grush to come through Shawn's portal. So here we are again in June 7 from another congressional committee staff member to go to the aero portal. Sean Kirkpatrick now chimes in all I did speak with the DoD IG, they went on my behalf to the IC IG to request the classified

transcript. Why? Because grush gave nothing to the DoD IG and claim the same thing he told you that it was icy Compartmented Information and they couldn't have it. The IC IG declined to acquiesce my request reminds me of Jack Sparrow. I am fairly confident I know what compartments he is referring to because I did my job. But I cannot confirm 100%. If he doesn't come see me. As David COVID points out, the SSCI could

give me the transcript. So here he is now reinforcing that he can receive this from Congress. But the more important part here is even the DoD IG was not given anything that according to them to Kirkpatrick, they're saying, yeah, he denied us kind of anything to it would essentially be with the IC IG. And they said no, because they, as they put it, put themselves in a black box for a reason. They don't want anybody touching their investigation. That's the whole point of an inspector general.

They don't want other offices kind of peeking in and hearing what they've what they've heard. So what that information is, who knows. But if Congress heard anything, the Senate heard anything, they could turn it over. That unknown staff member comes in. Sean press reports indicate that he said he could not provide everything he knows to the Intel committees because they were not cleared. So I concluded that he had access to some DoD sap that the Intel committees are not access to and

inferred that the IC IG would not have access either. So now he's kind of hinting that the IC IG may be not again, this is kind of third hand information through this email. But regardless, even the Intel committees were not access to certain information. So maybe he denied them as well. So it seems like grush wants to talk but refuses to talk to everybody.

Yet. Everybody's telling him we're cleared. And I've said this before, but I'll say it again, in this section, here and in this video, that I think that an attorney would at this point, have a field day. You have so much unclassified information that I got through FOIA little old me and I'm a nobody. Any of this would be available through a discovery process or even through a FOIA process for legal counsel for David grush if they went down that route, regardless All of this information that I

got was unclassified. And so you have so much information that internally through the DoD ODNI, again, rattling off all those offices and people that were involved, that stated, they were telling Russia, you have zero reservation here, you should have zero reservation because we're cleared. If they took any action against him whatsoever, a lawyer would have a field day, there's too much here. There's just it's an overwhelming amount of paper trail, that everybody was on the same page, that arrow

could hear it. Was there some legal gray area that somebody could latch on to? I'm sure there always is. But again, an attorney would have a field day, if they put all of these emails in front of a judge and or jury and said, Look, everybody was telling my client that he was free and clear to say things. Now you're telling me he goes in there and says what they asked for, and he has these reprisals. He has this whatever action against him criminal, whatever, whatever he's fearing will

happen. If that happened, there's no way that that that would pass. I'm sorry, I just don't see it. I can see the comments from my haters. Now, John's not an attorney. You're not grush. And he has this to fear. Well, you know what he has fans in Congress in the Senate. He's got people who support him. He's got an incredibly powerful and very intelligent attorney. He's got very powerful people that believe in him and back him all of this information from people that others will claim

don't like grush. Yet they're saying the exact same thing. Internally, there's no way I'm sorry, I just don't see it. If it ever goes to court, I'd be surprised. But regardless, I think any attorney would have a field day, there's absolutely too much evidence. Now back to the June 7, communications back and forth, Kirkpatrick comes in. Let me expand a bit I know everything he meaning grush was briefed to and had access to and have far greater access. So he did not have access to some DoD

SAP and the ice didn't have. And if he did, he could have told you. Similarly, he didn't have access to some ice cap, a cap as a controlled access program versus a special access program. That couldn't be shared. If he found some program, he wouldn't know whose it was unless he had super user access, or someone who did help him look it up. He didn't. Therefore, he can't make

the argument that whatever he found, couldn't be shared. If he or others thought it was an illegal program, then again, he can't make the argument that it couldn't be shared with either the DOD, or the icy committees based on his assertion, they

didn't have clearances. It sounds very much like playing the two halves against the middle to hide something that clearly now shows that if it was illegal, and he was bringing that that illegal aspect forward, I interpret that that he would have no restrictions whatsoever, obviously, safeguarding the classified portions of this, but if there are a legal program, SAP cap or otherwise, that there are no

restrictions. So what Kirkpatrick is drilling home here is like, Hey, he's free to tell us he's free to tell you guys he's free to tell. But he's clearly not unknown staff member comes in tracking. Thanks, Shawn. And then later that day, he cannot tell the Armed Services Committee staff anything once he entered the IG process, were forbidden from even asking. Furthermore, if a wave SAP is involved, he could not talk to the Armed Services Committee staff about it because

we are not accessed. That was June 8. Kirkpatrick that day, he wouldn't know if it was waived if he found it. And as I said, I know what he actually what he was actually briefed to. I've been told by the Inspector General, the UAP related investigation has been closed for a year. He is free to tell us and you're free to ask. There's no excuse for not providing an authorized disclosure. So he's drilling at

home to everybody on this distribution list. That includes the Armed Services Committee, staff member, whomever that was people within the DOD, and it will my give the opportunity that these are people outside the DOD, who knows. But regardless, he's telling everybody he's, he's free at this part. The key from this IG the UAP, excuse me, according to the IG, the UAP related investigation was closed for a year. Now you'll see in the next email, we don't know if that's

the DoD OIG investigation, the IC IG or both? Not really sure, but clearly Kirkpatrick knew the the INS on that into allegation and had been closed since 2022. That staff member comes back, you know how things work, he could have heard that a PGM is waived. Now PGM, I believe would be the program guidance memorandum to something. So that he felt, you know, through that

memo that something was a way of SAP. Again, interesting insight here that the staff member from the Armed Services Committee, and Kirkpatrick now are kind of going back and forth, because they're trying to figure out exactly what's going on. But PGM, I believe, is that program guidance memorandum? And the staff member goes on? What do you mean by you're free to ask? That one I thought was pretty self explanatory, meaning the IG

investigations were closed. And given all the facts that Kirkpatrick had laid out there, the congressional committees could press for answers and ask David grush for the details. The second part, though, was a good question, what UAP related IG investigation, are you referring to the one on grush, or the broader review that was unanswered, at least in the course of this foyer release? I have gone after that string of emails as well. So hopefully, we'll go ahead and get more

insight at a later date. But regardless, I mean, it seemed that key Inspector General, investigation was closed, likely. This is just to guess the IC IG side because it was specific to grush. But we'll we'll see aggression as claims of the programs and so on. So we'll see. But I'm just guessing at that point. Now, July 26 2023, this took place. This was the congressional UAP hearing in which David grush appeared. Now let me go ahead and play this clip for you. So you can hear

exactly what David grush said. Now, keep in mind, this is July 26. A lot of what we went over was in June. So like six weeks prior, all those different people that aro had reached out to trying to get involved with with grush. The Bad Blood comments. Clearly grush was talking to arrow staff members that and he was stating that there was bad blood between him that he did not want to come in. There were a lot of denials.

This is what he said under oath. Okay, Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna: on the 19th of April, Dr. Kirkpatrick, head of Arrow had said that he did not find any evidence of UAPs. You also stated that you had in your interview that you briefed him on information that you are uncovering, but that he did not follow up with you. Were the items that you divulge to him pertinent to national security.

you guys decide on whether or not that was misleading. That was under oath. That was something that he said to Congresswoman Luna when she was asking about him not following up with David grush. So when you look at all those attempts, is that true? Is it false? Is it semantics? Is he ignoring important facts? always interested in your comments posted below behind? So we're gonna fast forward now from that

July 26 Hearing to the October 31 2023. roundtable. And this was a controversial roundtable simply because Kirkpatrick held it invite only and it was off camera and only certain people were asked to attend. Others like Stephen Green Street I know posted about it. There were a couple others as well tried to get access to it. And they were declined that they wanted to essentially keep it small. Why it sounds like you're controlling a narrative. I do have an open case for the

invitations that went out and who they went to. So we'll we'll we'll see who exactly was invited. I don't think that will be exempt. So that being said, in this media roundtable Kirkpatrick was asked specifically about David grush. The question was so David grush. The whistleblower came forward to news nation says he reached out to you to share his this debris and that you didn't follow up. So did you follow up and investigate his claims? He says he still hasn't heard from

you. So ultimately, why haven't you to connect it? Dr. Kirkpatrick says So Mr. grush, since arrow has stood up, and since I've been director has not come to see us and provided any information member Kirkpatrick already said prior to taking over arrow, he met with Jay Stratton and David grush. So that absolutely is true. Since arrow stood up grush has been nowhere to be found the follow up question and so he's always says that he briefed you before you assumed your position and

arrow. Have you had the chance to follow up on any of the inquiries that he made or talked to any of the witnesses? Kirkpatrick says, so the last time I believe I spoke with Mr. grush was when I was with Jay to at US Space Command about five years ago, and it was not on this topic. Now. We have interviewed a whole range of people over 30 people now, I think we've interviewed most of the people that he may have

talked to, but we don't know that. And we've extended an invitation at least four or five times now, for him to come in over the last eight months or so. And and has been declined. That was key. That was that was Kirkpatrick saying we've tried. We keep reaching out. And we've gone over some of those attempts. The documentation is there. This was October 31. As I mentioned, that night news nation who has been following the story, obviously, they did Ross cold hearts interview with

an error that on news nation. They did a follow up story that night, the same night that this roundtable took place, contacted David grush and Gresh stated, I have zero emails or calls from them. That is a lie. Now, people are trying to mince words here. Well, zero emails or calls from them. Technically, that's true, that there was no direct email because arrow, according to the documentation, and albeit incredibly silly, didn't have an

email address for him. No one would share it with them. And he didn't have any phone number to use, hence why aro didn't call David grush directly. So that part is technically true. But is it fair? You see all of the invitations that David grush had

gotten, and it was David grush. His refusal not to give his email address, not to give his phone number because of the bad blood was Shaun Kirkpatrick that he kept denying it through the the congressional staff member and whoever arrow interviewed, obviously redacted names in the documents, but regardless, all

connected to David grush. Now if all of that is a fabricated lie, then I would imagine by the time I've recorded this video that David grush through either Ross Coltart and news nation, or the debrief where he's been before, or you know, find someone else to put out a statement going, Whoa, that like that never happened. I never got in touch. Now, I do know that this story has reached David grush. And I do No, he's not too happy about it. Why didn't he say anything on October 31? Why didn't he

say, look, I wasn't specifically contacted by by Kirkpatrick. But even if I was I've already declined their invitation from their staff members or whomever? There should have been some kind of elaboration here in the interest of transparency, that arrow has tried. But if Kirkpatrick does whatever to upset grudge in the past, and that's still there, say it, this is your opportunity. But instead, this is the statement,

I have zero emails or calls from him. That is a lie. Well, is it again, you guys decide, but it's really weird to see it all laid out on a timeline. Now, that was October 31. Now 10 days later on November 10. Now, David grush reaches out to arrow Good morning. This is for redacted name for coordination purposes. Please give me a call to discuss conditions and admin items. And then in parentheses, or excuse me, in a redacted square, it's

likely his phone number. Now it's on the record. Now he's now arrows got his email address and phone number. The next email was November 13. Clearly from some time in between the 10th and the 13th. What is likely a telephone conversation took place between this staff member and David grush. And this November 13, early in the morning 813 email states Mr. grush. Attached are the two items we spoke about the verbal legal advisement that we review prior to the start of every interview, and the

memorandum for record from sabko. That makes it clear that ero can receive Compartmented Information from interviewees. Our address is and it's redacted. I will meet you in the lobby. See you tomorrow at 10. So, obviously, in the course of their calm versation they spoke about those two items. David Gresh agreed to show up that next morning. So it was t minus 25 and almost 26 hours. And that was it. Everything was all set. Now I don't have the verbal legal advisement, because that

was not provided in the foyer release. I have filed a case for that, because I'm curious, what are they telling every interview so it wasn't specific to Grosh. It was every interview, I want to see whatever that verbal legal advisement that we, that they review. So they may do it verbally, but obviously it's a script of some kind. I'm going after it. However, the MFR from sabko was there that would be this I'll spare you reading the

whole thing. I will read the highlighted passage, which is the most important representatives of the all domain anomaly research or excuse me resolution office, are authorized to speak to persons and or conducting interviews of persons that currently have or previously had access to sensitive US Government Information activities and or

materials. Individuals with current or previous access to unidentified aerial phenomena related information, which is subject to US government non disclosure agreement are authorized to provide this otherwise protected information to ero representatives. So those NDAs that are often fallen back on by not only David grush, but others, security clearances, so on and so forth. This spells it out from Major General David ABA of the DoD Special Access Programs Office, or sabko. You

can't get more clear than that. Again, any attorney would love a memo like that to use. You'll see later though there's actually another one that used from ODNI. To support that arrow was absolutely clear to hear everything. So that was sent to David grush. Now, November 13, same day, this is in the afternoon. Good morning, redacted name. Thank you for sending these items as a former agency level sat mo I think even sabko and cavco. I take security policies very seriously. In the

DoD sabko memo, the term UA P related is not defined. Fiscal Year 2023 NDAA, section 1673. Subsection B defines it as the following quote, any activity or programs by a department or agency of the federal government, or a contractor have such a department or agency relating to UAP, including with respect to material retrieval, material analysis, reverse engineering, research and development, detection and tracking developmental or operational testing, and security protections and enforcement.

The key issue here is that many of these activities have conventional classified or compartmented security classification guides that also cover non UAP activities as well. To discuss the UAP related activities will 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, and

then he cites the DoD Instruction. Furthermore, as discussed Friday, I'm seeking an ODNI cavco determination to absolve an oral history interview subject of any NDAs relating to UAP related and adjacent IC cap information. Additionally, in my particular case, in order to horizontally protect a portion of my oral history, testimony previously provided to IC IG and the intelligence committees, we would need to conduct the interview at the HCS operation o

restricted handling level. Has the CIA Office of Security or Directorate of operations provided a memo in this regard for oral history interview subjects? Has the OS provided a memo to also cover manage need to know projects not directly reported to ODNI cavco? Lastly, what sign policy does arrow have to receive nontidal 10. saps, ie do your NFC as the EOP NFC security director, director, national program management staff Oh USD ins or doe sabko or SAP OG provided a a memo similar

to the DoD sabko memory you provided. What an absolute mouthful to go over, but it just seems like things were addressed with, you know, the sabko memo from from DOD. And then just like all these other things come out later. So we're, we're, we're all these questions, and we don't know we're not privy to the telephone conversation. But where were these questions in that telephone conversation? Where were these questions when he initiated contact? Because, again, we know he's had legal

counsel for quite some time. And I'll say it again, a very powerful and very intelligent one at that. So why weren't these handled before they set up? The meeting and I'm not really sure about that. But the response from the arrow person was Mr. grush. The law is clear and that we can receive information all classification levels we can discuss when you come in. So that's where they have left it. Until we get to the morning of November 14, the day of the meeting 10:34am

meeting was at 10. I've been waiting in the lobby for over been late waiting in the lobby over 30 minutes. Are you showing up? So clearly stands them up doesn't even show up. And arrow was, was clear that they could talk it all over now, in fairness to this, I mean, I want to be fair here. He never made it clear. David Grace never made it clear. He wasn't going to show up. But what would be the harm is if you show up, and then

say, Look, I need answers to these questions. Maybe they'll have somebody from OGC there from the general counsel office, to say, Well, we're here to to Absolutely. address your concerns, or, or something, you could easily just say, forget it, I'm out. Why would you just not even show I mean, you're, you know, they're not going to torture you to, to say anything.

So that part was very confusing to me, to where you you go all the way to set it up, then the night prior, the day prior, you have all these new questions, then just don't even show up. And then you say this arrow staff with due respect, I will need answers to my questions before I will be comfortable meeting, please provide responses so that we can hopefully move forward and schedule the meeting. The law may grant your office need to know but does not establish

policies and procedures with various data owners. I've managed multicompartment activities throughout my career, my entire career and multiple dcsa security professional certifications. I did not ask these questions for mere curiosity. That's all fine. He's got an amazing background. So I would never go head to head on him with national security knowledge. I totally get that. But from an outsider looking in and seeing this, there's absolutely no reason he should

have stood him up. He should have marched in there with his attorney demand answers. Because in the interest of of that, I think Mr. Mellon put it in one of his text messages. He was encouraging him to try and play ball with arrow in the interest of that, go see what you know, what are you going to be met with? And then if you're not comfortable, just say, sorry, I'm out and then get up and go. There's nothing that would stop him. He's not subpoena. He's not in cuffs. So what's going on? It

just didn't make sense to me at all. Their response, Mr. grush, we received your email we get back to you shortly. That was November 14. Thank you. This is from David gross. Thank you. I apologize for the confusion this morning about my whereabouts. I should have been more clear in my email on Monday. You know, credit to him for apologizing. But, again, all my questions still stands. Now, this was sent November 15. This was the next day I put it here. It was part of that string of emails I read

earlier. What Sean Kirkpatrick did at that time that morning after grush stood them up. He forwarded that whole string of emails to someone we don't know who and Kirkpatrick says further records, please save. Note the opening paragraph at the beginning of this email thread from redacted name. What he's doing here, whomever he's sending it to, he's making sure they have record of everything. Now, DOD record retention schedule should stipulate that all Kirkpatrick material is

saved anyway. But who he sent it to? That's kind of key to understanding what he's setting up here. He's obviously doing this for a reason. He obviously has alarm bells going off that grush says, Yeah, I'll come in, and then never shows, and then has all of these security concerns. Something was being set up. Something got triggered on November 15. For Kirkpatrick to say, okay, here, we're going to save everything. And so he sent it to an unknown individual. Fast forward to the

19th arrow got back to David grush. I believe it's a different person, not the one he was talking to that set up the meeting. I believe that it was someone else simply because of the way that it was signed, and you look at the indentation. That's where minutiae matters is because then you can all be it. You can't figure out the name of the person. Now we know it's someone else that got involved. And they stay we invite you to speak to arrow regarding any US government programs or

activities related to UAP dating back to 1945. In accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023. Arrow is authorized to receive any information related to UAP regardless of classification, and notwithstanding any non disclosure agreement you may have signed, we would be glad to meet you in a skiff so that you could share information with us. So whoever that was, was essentially putting it out there. that you have the

standing invite. It's cleared. We're cleared the balls in your court. November 19. Thank you for your email, David gross says I had expressed specific concerns both directly via email and through counsel. And those specific concerns have not yet been addressed in writing. Please reference those emails in this chain key for someone like me. He expressed them through email, we saw that He also expressed them through counsel,

I haven't seen that. Which means that there's probably more to this email chain and more to these communications, you better believe I'm going after it. And the reason is, is because I want to see the dates where did they land on the timeline? You know, what, what happened there. So you always look for little pickups like that to kind of build off of. So he tells arrow to go ahead and reference those questions, Mr. Gresh, during our

conversation on November 1020 23. So notice, it's going back to likely the telephone conversation, no indentation, so

we're probably back to that other person. We discussed your comfort level with relaying sensitive information to arrow and the possibility of Arrow obtaining a memo from Capco that clearly states that arrow can receive cap information similar to the sabko memo I provided you attached is that memo from ODNI Capco note the date here January 8, so we've jumped ahead quite a bit, but arrow is trying to get and appease what David grush had

requested in his list. Again, I want to reiterate that in accordance with the National Defense Authorization as fiscal year 2023, arrow is authorized to receive any information related to UAP regardless of classification, and notwithstanding any nondisclosure agreement, you may have signed our invitation to discuss possible US government programs, events, or activities related to UAP still stands, have a good afternoon, signed, whomever that was David grush

states. Good afternoon. Thank you, we'll review please address my specific concerns that I sent on 19 November 2023. Now that was all January 8. That was the date the memo going back to the original document that I first started this long presentation over when that was written. So after all of this arrow then just decided he's not coming in no matter what we say. It does not look like they tried

to take a stab at those questions. Maybe because they feel that the cap code, the sabko letter, and the NDAA for fiscal year 2023 that they continue to reference over and over and over those three particular things. Take care of all of that. All of these internal records on top of all

of that reinforce it. So that memo was created January 8, to bring all that information together and document their track record of trying to reach out to him contact him through different intermediaries then their contact directly, his no show on the meeting and essentially trying to meet him what I would call meet him halfway and say okay, you asked for this letter, we got ODNI to send it and here it is. This is undated. But you can see it's a Capco there, designator number

23 Dash 003. So it was likely created in 2023. Representatives of all domain anomaly research office are authorized to speak to persons and or conduct interviews of persons that currently have or previously had access to sensitive US Government Information activities and or materials. This one also talks about specifically the non disclosure agreements that was signed by the director of the controlled

access program central office. Again, they were trying to reach out to him and give him every every piece of comfort that they could to say you can come in here. Now what I'm interested not being a lawyer, and but seeing now all of this unfold, and posting it, you know, online for the first time most of this was have has never been seen by the public before as a non attorney, but I love legal stuff. I would love to see an argument by an attorney, let's say Charles McCollum come out

and say this is what they did not meet for us. Not through YouTubers conveying what grush has said not through journalists on news nation or some blog or whatever they get David grush talk to let's hear from the attorney. You know, let's hear that argument. Because to me, it's all there now. And why it matters is it goes to the heart of grush just not showing up and not getting the DOD, the congressionally mandated effort that so many people wanted for so long, getting them that

information. Now, what we have to understand it at this point is that Dr. Kirkpatrick was clearly the guy that David grush had an issue with, nobody can deny that it's all there in black and white. Why it didn't come up in the congressional hearing under oath. That's too bad. It's a shame. That was a perfect opportunity, because of everything that transpired prior to that. And the clear, quote, Bad Blood comment that was said by David grush, as associate all of that was palpable. It's, it's

there, it's clear. So why not bring that up? We don't know. But what we do know now here in April of 2024, is that Dr. Shawn Kirkpatrick is completely gone. He's not there anymore. That the reluctance, per the information per the evidence that I've gone over with you. The reluctance was there because of Dr. Shawn Kirkpatrick. So now he's gone. He's out. He's doing his media tour with other podcasts. And he's doing it as a private citizen, all the more power to him seems like a lot of people

love doing that. That's fine. But he's gone. Now. He has nothing to do with arrow. So what's wrong with the new director has since January 8 2024, to date, anything taken place with David grush? Now, I would imagine grush would make it very known if he did. Why? Well, because he's made those steps known in the past about his IG complaints and and what he has done. So why have we not seen that yet? And has anything taken place? Well, you could imagine I've got cases to try

and figure that out, too. But the bottom line is now, in my opinion, there are no excuses when it comes to Kirkpatrick being involved. And from the legal standpoint, let's hear what the excuses now. Again, not through these third hand, people, I talked to Grosh. And he said this now, let's hear from his attorney, I think the general public has a right to know, I know this was a really long, deep dive. I know they're not for everybody. If you've made it this far, kudos to you

for sticking with me for that long. But it's important not only for myself to go over it verbally, I do a lot of this for myself too, because it helps me understand and absorb the information more speaking out loud. But also for you all to kind of see that timeline to kind of hear it instead of reading it in a pile of, of pages thrown into a PDF file, but rather hear somebody talk about it, and to talk with you

about it. That's what I'm here to do. So with that said here on YouTube, if you're watching live, or if you're watching the replay, put your comments below. I'm always interested in and please keep it kind down there. If you agree with me disagree with me, or whatever you want to say, again, just please keep it clean, but put them down there and, and let me know what you think. The biggest help you can do. If you like these types of videos, I do short ones too. So they're not all always very

long, but liked the video, put a thumbs up there. If you're listening on the audio podcast version, I aim for five stars, please help me by putting a review out there clicking the thumbs up button. It truly truly helps. And of course making sure you're subscribed notifications on that way when I do live streams drop these types of videos, you will be notified when I do so on the note of the audio podcast. If you're not aware, a lot of these presentations do go to the

podcast feed obviously it's audio only. So you missed the visuals. But that's why I read a lot so you guys can just listen while you work or run or jog or whatever you do with your podcast. It's under the black vault radio on nearly every podcast network out there. So just search for black vault radio, subscribe and again, if you can leave a review it's very very helpful to me. quickest way to get get the news from the black vault to the last thing before I say goodbye. Make sure

you're subscribed to social media channels. But I am most active on AIX, the handle is simply black vault c o m like.com. Without the dot black vault comm that's my handle. That's where I'm most active you see things. Even right prior to recording this video dropped an ex post out there of what I consider kind of breaking news in this genre of records being destroyed of the emails of Dr. James McCaskey, the OSS, app

director. And if you follow that whole story and know the name, you'll know that that's kind of a detriment to trying to unravel that whole era of this whole story but that's another video in itself. Thank you so much for listening and or watching truly, truly appreciate you hanging with me on these deep dives. I'm John Greenewald, Jr signing off, and I'll see you next time