The Vault Index
The FBI has converted many FOIA documents to an electronic format (PDF), and they may be viewed below. In the case of voluminous pages, only summaries or excerpts from the documents are online.
Subjects are sorted alphabetically by first name. You can also use your browser's find feature to locate subjects on the page.
Vault Links
FBI Records: The Vault
Unexplained Phenomenon
Apr 20, 2011
Silas M. Newton
Silas Newton (1887-1972) was a wealthy oil producer and con-man who claimed that he had a gadget that could detect minerals and oil. He was cited as an authority in Frank Scully’s book Behind the Flying Saucers, a work that claimed to report on several UFO crashes in the area of New Mexico. In 1950, Newton said that a flying saucer crashed on land he leased in the Mojave Desert; however, he revised his claim in 1952, saying he never saw a flying saucer but had only repeated comments he heard from others. These files detail the FBI’s investigations into Newton’s fraudulent activities between 1951 and 1970.
Dec 06, 2010
Guy Hottel
Guy Hottel was a Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Washington Field Office. The information concerning Mr. Hottel is in regard to a March 22, 1950, memo he sent to the Director concerning flying saucers.
Dec 06, 2010
Majestic 12
Majestic 12
In 1988, two FBI offices received similar versions of a memo titled “Operation Majestic-12…” claiming to be highly classified government document. The memo appeared to be a briefing for newly-elected President Eisenhower on a secret committee created to exploit a recovery of an extra-terrestrial aircraft and cover-up this work from public examination. An Air Force investigation determined the document to be a fake.
Dec 06, 2010
National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP)
National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP)
The National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, NICAP, was founded in the 1950s to research reports of UFO phenomenon. Between 1957 and 1969, NICAP and its members periodically communicated with the FBI. This release consists of this correspondence.
Dec 06, 2010
Roswell UFO
Roswell UFO
On July 8, 1947, the FBI Dallas Field Office sent a teletype regarding a “flying disc” that resembled a high altitude weather balloon found near Roswell, New Mexico. This single page is a serial from the larger UFO release found at http://vault.fbi.gov/UFO.
Dec 06, 2010
Animal Mutilation
Animal/Cattle Mutilation
In the mid-1970s, reports of scattered animal mutilations in western and mid-western states concerned many people. The FBI was asked to investigate, but was unable to do so because of a lack of jurisdiction (except when such mutilations were found on Indian lands). These files consist mainly of press clippings and correspondence concerning the issues between 1974 and 1978.
Dec 06, 2010
Extra-Sensory Perception
ESP is considered a perception of information about events beyond what may be discerned through the five physical senses or deduced from past experience or knowledge. This release consists of cross references to ESP found in FBI files from 1957 to 1960. Several of the documents concern William Foos, a proponent of ESP. Others concern claims that ESP could be used in espionage investigations. The FBI found no scientific support for this or other claims and did not pursue the matters raised in these references.
Nov 30, 2010
UFO
Unexplained Flying Objects (UFOs)
In 1947, a rash of sightings of unexplained flying objects (UFOs) swept America. Although the newly formed U.S. Air Force was the primary investigator of these sightings, the FBI received many reports and worked for a time with the Air Force to investigate these matters. This release details the FBI’s role in investigating such reports between 1947 and 1954.
Nov 30, 2010
Project Blue Book (UFO)
Project Blue Book
Originally Project Blue Book was the Air Force name for a project that investigated UFO reports between 1947 and 1969. In 1989, an organization calling itself “The New Project Blue Book” contacted the FBI. This file consists of correspondence concerning this organization.
↑Categories( click to retract )
- Administrative Policy Procedures
- Anti-War
- Bureau Personnel
- Civil Rights
- Counterterrorism
- Foreign Counterintelligence
- Fugitives
- Gangs Extremist Groups
- Gangster Era
- Hot Topics
- Miscellaneous
- Organizations
- Organized Crime
- Political Figures Events
- Popular Culture
- Public Corruption
- Supreme Court
- Unexplained Phenomenon
- World War II
- Violent CrimeCheck Status of Your FOI/PA Request
Explanation of FOI/PA Exemptions
This photo provided by the Virginia Department of Corrections shows William Couch. Virginia's prison system did not violate a Muslim inmate's religious rights when it refused to allow him to grow a 1/8-inch beard, which he believes is required by his religion, a federal judge has ruled. Couch, a Sunni Muslim, is a medium-security prisoner serving multiple life sentences for rape and other convictions. He challenged the Virginia Department of Corrections' grooming policy, which bans long hair and beards. (AP Photo/Virginia Department of Corrections)
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Virginia's prison system did not violate a Muslim inmate's religious rights when it refused to allow him to grow a 1/8-inch beard, which he believes is required by his religion, a federal judge has ruled.
William Couch, a 50-year-old Sunni Muslim, is a medium-security prisoner serving multiple life sentences for rape and other convictions. He challenged the Virginia Department of Corrections' grooming policy, which bans long hair and beards.
U.S. District Judge Samuel G. Wilson in Harrisonburg sided with the department in a ruling Thursday. Couch's attorney, Jeffrey Fogel, filed an appeal Monday.
Department spokesman Larry Traylor declined to comment on the case.
Fogel argued a 1/8-inch beard would be too short to allow Couch to easily change his appearance if he escaped or hide weapons or other contraband, which is why the department argues the policy is needed.
"There is no conceivable security issue for a Muslim, with concededly sincere beliefs, to grow a 1/8-inch beard," Fogel said Monday.
It will be difficult for Couch to convince the federal appeals court, however.
The 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the grooming policy after a group of Muslim and Rastafarian inmates challenged it when it went into effect in 1999. Many lived in segregation for more than a decade until the department created a separate living space for the inmates last year. Those inmates are gradually given more privileges in an effort to persuade them to cut their hair or beards.
Of the 26 inmates who had been in isolation but were moved into the program, 10 refused to participate and returned to segregation. The others are required to take classes in exchange for more recreation, personal property and other privileges.
Traylor pointed out that relatively few of the state's more than 31,000 inmates are in noncompliance, even among those who identify as Muslims or Rastafarians. Around 300 inmates say they are Rastafarian but obey the grooming policy, as do nearly 3,800 inmates who attend Muslim services, he said.
Couch wore a beard until the policy went into effect, but he has shaved since then. In court papers, he said he recently became convinced that his Islamic faith required him to wear a beard.
The policy allows for an exemption if inmates have a medical condition that is aggravated by shaving.
Virginia is among only about a dozen states that limit the length of inmates' hair and beards, according to the American Correctional Chaplains Association. A handful of those allow religious accommodations for Rastafarians, Muslims, Sikhs, native Americans and others whose religious beliefs prohibit shaving or cutting their hair.
There is no hair policy for federal prisoners.
The U.S. Supreme Court has said that religious rights do not end at the prison gates. Congress passed a law that said that prisons can restrict religious liberties only for compelling reasons such as security, but that such policies must be the least restrictive possible.
In his ruling, Wilson said he gives "due deference to the experience and expertise of prison jail administrators" in determining that the policy serves a compelling interest. And by segregating inmates who don't follow the rules instead of forcibly shaving them, officials have chosen the least restrictive means possible to maintain security, he added.
"Though it is quite clear that an inmate cannot secret weapons or contraband in a 1/8 inch beard, it is not clear than an inmate cannot change his appearance by shaving it, or identify himself as the member of a gang by growing it," Wilson wrote.
- Court denies Va. inmate's lawsuit over beard
The Associated Press
-
12 hours ago
- Judge denies Muslim inmate's lawsuit over beard
Watertown Daily Times
-
9 hours ago
- Judge Denies Muslim Inmate's Lawsuit over Beard
WTVR
-
5 hours ago
Read more at www.google.com
The great divide: separation of church and state
Florida bill would foolishly allow government to fund religious institutions
Florida is attempting to pass a bill that would destroy the separation of church and state. The bill in question would remove a state constitutional provision that prevents the government from spending money on sectarian religious organizations. Essentially, they want to be able to hand out tax dollars to their favorite churches, First Amendment be damned.
Promoters of the bill claim that preventing the government from funding religious groups is equivalent to discriminating against religious groups. What they mean to say is that it’s discrimination against the specific religious groups that they approve of and wish to endorse, since it’s highly unlikely that Florida officials are eagerly awaiting the chance to hand out money to the local mosque or coven.
The U.S. Constitution clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and while it is often the case that these lines are presented as a shield to protect government from the influence of theology, it is in fact a two-way street.
Religion is protected from government interference. This is good. No one wants bureaucrats telling people what they’re allowed to believe, when they’re allowed to believe it and (and this one is important because this is the danger the Florida bill represents) granting special favor to those who happen to believe the “right thing.” The “right thing” is, of course, whatever those in power believe.
Much argument has been made the last several years over the idea that America is a “Christian nation.” Usually, the proponents of this idea use arguments that are mostly hyperbole and fiction with a bit of truth sprinkled in to make it palatable to the masses.
The Founding Fathers, for example, are often held up as having been devout Christians. Some of them were, yes, but some of them most certainly were not. Also, a few of them had an abiding distrust and dislike for organized religion, believing faith and spirituality to be strictly personal matters.
There were individuals at the Constitutional Convention who wanted the Constitution to sanction a specific religion. There were others who wanted to require government officials to publicly subscribe to that religion. The Constitution does neither of those things, however.
In fact, the only times it makes mention of religion at all make it clear that there is to be no religious interference in government. That, more than anything else, tells me that the Founding Fathers had no desire to mix church and state to create a Christian nation. What they desired was a free nation where there was no pressure to believe a certain way, and a quick look at history shows why.
In Protestant England, Catholics and members of other religions were treated as second-class citizens. The Puritans traveled to the New World to escape such discrimination and promptly set up their own brand of bigotry in which they banished anyone who did not share their beliefs.
All across colonial America, governments were set up that promoted one type of religion over all others, denying certain rights to those not of the “proper” faith. Usually, Catholics and Jews were on the wrong end of things, and they were not allowed to vote or to hold public office.
I like to think that the Founding Fathers looked back at this long history of religious discrimination and decided that they were going to do things differently.
I like to think that they wanted to make all faiths — or no faith — feel welcome and to create a government that would not be influenced by any god, instead standing for humanity itself. I like to think that people can see just how messy things can get if we allow our politicians even more latitude when it comes to mixing religion and government.
Bills like the one being considered in Florida let me know I’m being naive.
The situation in Florida is the most egregious breach of the First Amendment in a very long time, but there have been many similar attempts to evade the laws of the Constitution. Someone wants prayer in a city council meeting, someone wants the Ten Commandments outside the courthouse or someone wants a psalm hung up in the school gym. In all cases, the results are the same. Someone else — someone who understands and respects the Constitution — files a lawsuit. The state loses. The taxpayers pay for it.
So, for those who can’t be convinced that religion and politics should remain separate, at least consider the public money that gets thrown away every time politicians take it upon themselves to push an agenda that favors their religious preferences.
Five myths about church and state in America
Liberals claim that the founding fathers separated church and state, while conservatives argue that the founders made faith a foundation of our government. Both sides argue that America once enjoyed a freedom to worship that they seek to preserve. Yet neither side gets it right. As we mark Passover and Easter, let’s end some misconceptions about religion and politics in America.
1. The Constitution has always protected religious freedom.
Many Americans believe that the First Amendment’s separation of church and state safeguards religious liberty. But when the First Amendment was ratified in 1791, it did not apply to the states and would not until well into the 20th century. As a result, the First Amendment did not prevent states from paying churches out of the public treasury, as Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and South Carolina did when that amendment was written. And those states that did not fund churches still favored Christianity. Blasphemy was forbidden in Delaware in 1826, and officeholders in Pennsylvania had to swear that they believed in “the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments.”
American federalism gave states enormous power to regulate the health, welfare and morals of their citizens. Because many thought religion was the foundation of American society, they used their power to imprint their moral ideals on state constitutions and judicial opinions for much of American history. Even today, these laws linger on the books. I still can’t buy beer on Sundays in Atlanta.
2. The founders’ faith matters.
Christians who consider the founders saintly won’t have much luck backing that up. Thomas Jefferson wrote a version of the New Testament that removed references to Jesus’s divinity. Ben Franklin was a deist. And George Washington may not have taken Communion.
But whatever the founders’ religious beliefs were, the First Amendment merely preserved the church-and-state status quo. There had never been an official religion in the 13 colonies, and the new states favored different faiths. The South was traditionally Anglican but had a growing Methodist and Baptist population. New England was traditionally Congregationalist, but evangelicals moved there nonetheless. The middle colonies mixed Lutherans, Catholics (in Maryland), Presbyterians and Quakers. A small number of Jews lived in early America, as well.
So the framers punted the issue of religion to the states, promising only that the power of the federal government would not be used to advance, say, Congregationalist beliefs over Presbyterian ones. This was a pluralistic vision of sorts but one that still allowed states to declare official religions and grant privileges to specific denominations.
3. Christian conservatives
have only recently taken over politics.
Christian partisans mobilized early in U.S. history, seeking to impose an interdenominational — but still Christian and, more specifically, Protestant — moral order on the new nation.
Initially, Christians were more successful in exercising political and legal control at the state level. They passed blasphemy laws. They required Sabbath rest on Sundays. In Massachusetts, they mandated devotional exercises in public schools, a practice that spread to every state with public education.
In time, however, the faithful found a federal audience for moral reform with the passage of the 18th Amendment in 1919, a national experiment in prohibition. These moral campaigns anticipated many of the political disputes over religion that have emerged in recent decades, and they weren’t any less divisive than debates about the death penalty, abortion or gay marriage.
4. America is more secular
than it used to be.
The American Revolution was actually a low point in American religious adherence. Sociologists have shown that no more than 20 percent of the population in 1776 belonged to a church. Then, under the influence of evangelical expansion during the Second Great Awakening in the early 19th century, church membership grew rapidly until, by 1850, more than one-third of Americans belonged to a church. In 1890, after another round of Protestant evangelization and Catholic immigration from Ireland, Italy and elsewhere, the proportion rose to 45 percent. And in 1906, church members became a majority — 51 percent of the population.
The trend continues. In 2000, 62 percent of the populace belonged to religious institutions, if not specifically Christian churches. Evangelical Christians still lead this expansion, and their influence has become more pronounced, not less, over the past two centuries. The presidency of George W. Bush — the most evangelical commander in chief — testifies that Americans are becoming more religious, not less.
5. Liberals are anti-religious.
In 1947’s Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court demanded a more thorough separation of church and state. States could no longer endorse specific religions, and prayer and Bible reading in schools and blasphemy laws went on the chopping block. This led religious conservatives to accuse the high court — as well as liberals in general — of, well, irreligion.
But liberals such as Justices Robert H. Jackson and William Brennan argued that they sought to honor the multiple religious traditions that had been repressed in the United States. They pointed out that Catholics had been made to recite the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in public schools; that observant Jews labored at an economic disadvantage because they had to close their shop on the Sabbath; that Buddhists, who could not swear that they believed in God, were banned from office in several states; that Jehovah’s Witnesses were made to say the pledge of allegiance in violation of their religious beliefs; and that secular humanists could be drafted without regard to their conscientious objection.
Liberals on the court sought to do away with this heritage of official discrimination, but they did not seek to do away with religion. As Jackson wrote in 1952: “My evangelistic brethren confuse an objection to compulsion with an objection to religion. It is possible to hold a faith with enough confidence to believe that what should be rendered to God does not need to be decided and collected by Caesar.”
Amen to that.
David Sehat is an assistant professor of history at Georgia State University and the author of “The Myth of American Religious Freedom.” He will be online on Monday, April 25, at 11 a.m. ET to chat. Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.
