What does Psicoactivo #1115 establish about the alleged AFOSI triangle videos?

Filed: 2026-08-08

Primary video: ../raw/transcripts/psicoactivo-1115-grusch-afosi-colorado-triangle-videos-2026-08-08

Underlying report: ../raw/articles/nypost-colorado-triangle-afosi-videos-2026-08-08

NDA directive reporting: ../raw/articles/fox-trump-uap-nda-waiver-2026-07-21

Earlier Grusch interview: ../raw/transcripts/judicial-watch-grusch-2026-05-05

Short answer

The Psicoactivo episode adds no new imagery or direct evidence. Its useful contribution is drawing attention to two specific identifiers that the New York Post attributes to anonymous sources for alleged Air Force Office of Special Investigations records: IRR1669S015524 and IRR1669S005024. Those identifiers create targets for congressional inquiry or records requests, but neither AFOSI nor another public official has authenticated them.

The host makes two further inferences that the sources do not establish. The article does not say David Grusch supplied the identifiers, and an article about unreleased cellphone videos does not fulfill Grusch's earlier hope that substantive empirical holdings, specifically "not videos," would emerge.

What the video contains

The episode has three substantive parts:

1. It replays Grusch's May 2026 Judicial Watch statement that pressure would escalate over the next 60 to 90 days to release substantive empirical holdings.
2. It reads most of a New York Post article reporting two alleged videos and comments from Grusch, Dylan Borland, and Matthew Brown about the administration's UAP nondisclosure-agreement directive.
3. The host speculates that one of those three figures, perhaps Grusch, supplied the AFOSI identifiers and urges Congress and the administration to obtain the files.

The final speculation is clearly presented by the host as a question. It should not harden into an attribution to Grusch.

What the New York Post actually reports

The Post says unnamed sources familiar with the footage described two videos recorded on a service member's personal cellphone on consecutive nights in 2023. The sources allegedly describe a roughly 100-foot black triangle moving over mountains near a Colorado military base and appearing to camouflage itself in clouds. They say AFOSI holds the videos under identifiers IRR1669S015524 and IRR1669S005024.

None of the following is public in the article: the videos, still frames from them, exact dates, the installation, witness identity, acquisition records, metadata, chain of custody, classification markings, the underlying reports, or an Air Force confirmation.

The accompanying image is not a frame or rendering derived from the alleged 2023 videos. It is FBI-UAP-D003, a rendering for a separate February 2022 Colorado Springs witness report released through PURSUE. The corresponding intelligence assessment described the reported object differently and assessed it, with low confidence, as possible sunlight backscattered from snow onto clouds. The Post caption incorrectly labels the pictured event as occurring in 2023. Reusing that image makes the article look more evidentiary than it is.

The article therefore supplies a specific lead, not verification of the reported object or its characteristics. AFOSI is the Air Force's felony-level investigative and counterintelligence service. Custody of a file by AFOSI would be compatible with many types of security or investigative matter and would not itself establish that the recorded object was anomalous.

What the NDA directive does

Fox News reported the directive from unnamed senior administration officials. According to that reporting, former employees and contractors can meet authorized representatives of AARO or PURSUE and have applicable nondisclosure restrictions waived for those government discussions. Another official expressly said it is not a declassification directive. Information still passes through existing review and declassification procedures before public release.

This makes the three quoted reactions less contradictory than Psicoactivo suggests:

• Grusch welcomes a safer route for people to tell Congress or the executive branch what they know.
• Borland says it changes nothing for people who have already used protected channels and now want to speak publicly.
• Brown says it does not free witnesses to speak publicly and objects to AARO or ODNI controlling the process.

All three positions can be true at once. The directive may reduce one reporting barrier without authorizing public disclosure, curing retaliation, granting immunity for underlying conduct, or declassifying evidence.

Did this fulfill Grusch's 60-to-90-day prediction?

Not in the strong sense suggested by the episode title. In the May 5 interview, Grusch first cautioned that he did not want to predict a certain date. He then said he had confidence pressure would escalate in the next 60 to 90 days and hoped substantive empirical holdings, "not videos or anything like that," would emerge.

The Post article appeared 95 days later. It is evidence of continued media and political pressure, which fits the broadest portion of his forecast. It does not release substantive empirical holdings. It reports the alleged existence of two videos that remain unavailable. Calling the article the predicted disclosure turns a qualified hope into a firmer and different prediction than Grusch made.

Source-quality problems

• The article's central video claim and AFOSI identifiers come from unnamed sources. The published Grusch, Borland, and Brown quotations do not identify any of them as the source.
• The lead image comes from a separate 2022 Colorado Springs incident, not either alleged 2023 video. The Post captions it as a 2023 report even though PURSUE identifies FBI-UAP-D003 as a 2022 rendering.
• The Post says Borland testified to Congress in 2024. His public sworn House testimony occurred on September 9, 2025. A caption elsewhere in the same article gives September 2025.
• YouTube's automatic captions garble both AFOSI identifiers, several names, and Grusch's phrase about programs being concealed from lawful oversight. The article, not the transcript, is the correct source for those strings.
• Psicoactivo invokes AFOSI's documented role in the Paul Bennewitz disinformation episode. That history is relevant as a caution about the agency, but it does not establish that these particular files are disinformation or that AFOSI is suppressing them.

Net

The genuinely new and useful information is narrow: a journalist published two purported AFOSI identifiers associated with two alleged Colorado cellphone videos. Everything about what those videos show remains sourced anonymously and unavailable for independent inspection.

The clean next test is institutional rather than interpretive. Congress, the Inspector General, or a properly scoped records request can ask AFOSI whether the identifiers exist, what record series they belong to, their dates and classification status, and whether releasable copies or metadata can be produced.

Followup items

• Seek on-record confirmation from AFOSI or the Department of the Air Force that both identifiers exist.
• Request the reports, videos, classification guides, metadata, and chain-of-custody records associated with both identifiers.
• Ask Shane Galvin whether any quoted named source supplied the identifiers, without assuming Grusch did.
• Correct the Post's 2024 date for Borland's public congressional testimony.