David Grusch's DOPSR Cleared Statement and IG Complaint

[Der Ungrund]

The Black Vault just got Grusch's DOSPR Request. Apparently none of it is classified, but parts are redacted to protect the privacy of individuals involved, which is a bit odd. The upshot being that Grusch could just release the whole thing if he really wanted:

The released documents beg a more significant question: If the DOD has provided a portion of the material, albeit redacted, why hasn’t Grusch shown his requests in full? Such transparency would only bolster his credibility. But by the email exchange above within DOPSR, it seemed like nothing was of detailed note that caused any concern whatsoever, except for “vague” references to facilities which were no problem to them. What else was in the request?

To date, although Grusch’s DOPSR material was referenced in each of his news interviews, and at the UAP hearing, it has yet to be released by Grusch despite being fully cleared for “Open Publication” by DOPSR. Why he has not released it to date remains a mystery. Past attempts by The Black Vault in June of this year to contact Mr. Grusch’s attorney, Charles McCullough, specifically asking about the DOPSR material have remain unanswered.

https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...ufo-whistleblower-david-gruschs-dopsr-review/

 

[Mendel]

The Black Vault just got Grusch's DOSPR Request. Apparently none of it is classified, but parts are redacted to protect the privacy of individuals involved, which is a bit odd. The upshot being that Grusch could just release the whole thing if he really wanted:



https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...ufo-whistleblower-david-gruschs-dopsr-review/

Hmmm, John Greenewald didn't include the request, so I'm not 100% sure if the DOPSR rejected some requests, but this seems to be everything they approved. The dates match those mentioned originally.

It's now also clear that there aren't any huge revelations missing from the text @Mick West transcribed in the OP, the "Speaker/Author summary". Compare:

NewsNation:


FOIA result:


The "Interview Question Submission" had all answers censored, and some numbers are either missing or censored.

CLEARED For Open Publication Apr 06, 2023
Department of Defense
OFFICE OF PREPUBLICATION AND SECURITY REVIEW

Interview Question Submission 20230406

UAP=Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena

1) Q: Can you expand "a publicly unknown Cold War for recovered and exploited physical material that has been waged under the noise floor for decades"

2) Q: What recovered physical material are you referring to? What is the nature/source of the material? When was it retrieved?

3) Q: How many programs did you uncover? Are they still active today? Were you able to determine the specific individuals involved?

4) Q: You may remember that Senator Harry Reid strongly suggested that they were at Lockheed Martin. He said in the The New Yorker: "I was told for decades that Lockheed had some of these retrieved materials. And I tried to get, as I recall, a classified approval by the Pentagon to have me go look at the stuff. They would not approve that."

5) Why were you so severely harassed? This must have something to do with the implications and explosive nature of what you uncovered... it was a threat because of what it revealed...?

8) Q: What was the "unfathomable and constitutional dilemma" that you refer to?

10) Why are you doing this? In other words, why is it important to you that this information come out? Do you believe that humanity has a right to the knowledge that we are not alone? It is a paradigm shift... is this something that the planet should have, rather than this very basic truth be kept secret?

Content from External Source

Spoiler: Question screenshots

 

[Duke]

The Black Vault just got Grusch's DOSPR Request. Apparently none of it is classified, but parts are redacted to protect the privacy of individuals involved, which is a bit odd. The upshot being that Grusch could just release the whole thing if he really wanted:



https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...ufo-whistleblower-david-gruschs-dopsr-review/

The IG reports would be the same way. The USG won't release them to protect those involved in filing the complaints, but the individual(s) who filed the complaints are free to release the findings and report.

 

[jarlrmai]

So just to be crystal clear, the person answering those questions was Grusch and the answers are only redacted to protect him and he could, if he wanted, reveal those answers?

 

[Mendel]

So just to be crystal clear, the person answering those questions was Grusch and the answers are only redacted to protect him and he could, if he wanted, reveal those answers?

Grusch submitted this Q&A. It is cleared for open publication in its unredacted form. I believe the person protected by these redactions is David Grusch, though there may be others. I expect that Grusch could make the unredacted version of this document publicly available with no legal repercussions.

 

[knobby]

Grusch submitted this Q&A. It is cleared for open publication in its unredacted form. I believe the person protected by these redactions is David Grusch, though there may be others. I expect that Grusch could make the unredacted version of this document publicly available with no legal repercussions.

Isn't it odd that UFOlogy fans are demanding disclosure from the government while their star witness, Dave Grusch, is withholding a government approved disclosure.

 

[Stryer]

Isn't it odd that UFOlogy fans are demanding disclosure from the government while their star witness, Dave Grusch, is withholding a government approved disclosure.

It would be more odd if we make conclusions based on conjecture such as this. We need more evidence that such a conclusion is warranted. Grusch's lawyer is quite capable and there may have been reasons for this that we're unaware of.

 

[Mendel]

Grusch's lawyer is quite capable and there may have been reasons for this that we're unaware of.

As there are reasons for the DoD to not disclose all of their files.
Shouldn't the same standard apply for both?

In Grusch's case, he submitted statements for DOPSR review that he intended to publish. If he now has reasons not to publish them, that reversal is interesting, is it not?

For me, seeing Grusch's DOPSR statement reveals how much of his claims are based on older, well-known narratives that the public already knows about.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Interestingly, the document lists UAP and what that means at the top, but nowhere in the rest of what we have is UAP, UFO, Non-Earthly Origins, Non-Human Biologicals or any other alien euphemisms used. The questions could just as easily apply to domestic and foreign crash retrieval programs which are known to exists (bold by me).

CLEARED For Open Publication Apr 06, 2023
Department of Defense
OFFICE OF PREPUBLICATION AND SECURITY REVIEW

Interview Question Submission 20230406

UAP=Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena

1) Q: Can you expand "a publicly unknown Cold War for recovered and exploited physical material that has been waged under the noise floor for decades"

2) Q: What recovered physical material are you referring to? What is the nature/source of the material? When was it retrieved?

3) Q: How many programs did you uncover? Are they still active today? Were you able to determine the specific individuals involved?

4) Q: You may remember that Senator Harry Reid strongly suggested that they were at Lockheed Martin. He said in the The New Yorker: "I was told for decades that Lockheed had some of these retrieved materials. And I tried to get, as I recall, a classified approval by the Pentagon to have me go look at the stuff. They would not approve that."

5) Why were you so severely harassed? This must have something to do with the implications and explosive nature of what you uncovered... it was a threat because of what it revealed...?

8) Q: What was the "unfathomable and constitutional dilemma" that you refer to?

10) Why are In other words, why is it important to you that this information come out? Do you believe that humanity has a right to the knowledge that we are not alone? It is a paradigm shift... is this something that the planet should have, rather than this very basic truth be kept secret?

Content from External Source

 

[Mendel]

Interestingly, the document lists UAP and what that means at the top,

The author statement has "UFO (UAP)".

Some part of the ufo community really hates that some unidentified things might not be "anomalous" or not UFOs.

but nowhere in the rest of what we have is UAP, UFO, Non-Earthly Origins, Non-Human Biologicals or any other alien euphemisms used.

It does look like at least 3 questions were cut, and we don't know what these referred to. He also could've been using these terms in his answers.

 

[Stryer]

As there are reasons for the DoD to not disclose all of their files.
Shouldn't the same standard apply for both?

In Grusch's case, he submitted statements for DOPSR review that he intended to publish. If he now has reasons not to publish them, that reversal is interesting, is it not?

For me, seeing Grusch's DOPSR statement reveals how much of his claims are based on older, well-known narratives that the public already knows about.

Sure. Speculation for both sides is fine but drawing conclusions is a little premature.

 

[Mendel]

Sure. Speculation for both sides is fine but drawing conclusions is a little premature.

I haven't seen any conclusions drawn?

I did conclude from the fact that Grush published his IC IG complaint, but not Monheim's response, that the latter may contain parts not favorable to Grusch.

 

[Duke]

Grusch submitted this Q&A. It is cleared for open publication in its unredacted form. I believe the person protected by these redactions is David Grusch, though there may be others. I expect that Grusch could make the unredacted version of this document publicly available with no legal repercussions.

I had two personal experiences while employed by DoD that might be of interest, one involving a FOIA request I made, the second was an IG complaint I filed.

One year, after OPM (Office of Personnel Management) messed up changing my health insurance as requested, I filed a FOIA request with them for everything they had on the incident, from them receiving my original change form to the final resolution 3-4 months later. I specifically asked for all internal correspondence regarding the incident. Much to my surprise, my name had been redacted from all the emails they provided me that went between OPM employees who worked the problem.

I was involved in an auto accident on a USAF base. The base law enforcement officers who responded to the call were young airmen who were clearly clueless how to investigate an accident. Long story short, I filed an IG complaint after I received a baseless ticket a few weeks or so later and reviewed the police report.

The IG report concluded the police had acted unprofessionally and made multiple errors in both their investigation and accident report. After conferring with both the IG and on the advice of my attorney, I provided a copy of the report to my insurance company. In turn, they used it to overturn the original adjudication of the insurance settlement with the other guy's insurance. This resulted in me getting my deductible returned to me.

 

[Stryer]

I haven't seen any conclusions drawn?

I did conclude from the fact that Grush published his IC IG complaint, but not Monheim's response, that the latter may contain parts not favorable to Grusch.

But you can't conclude that. I assume you mean you have a suspicion that some parts may be unfavorable.