A Tale of Two FOIAs
Expanding Frontiers Research recently received a response to its FOIA appeal on FBI handling of records pertaining to dubious UFO contactee Daniel Fry. The DOJ Office of Information Policy (OIP) affirmed the Bureau action in processing the records provided, which include a rather lengthy and heavily redacted 1963 FBI memo. When the same memo was received in response to a FOIA request submitted on another Cold War era UFO figure, Lois Jessop, and reviewed by the National Archives, the document was provided nearly in full.
This blogpost will explore the mechanics of the FOIA process in this specific case. The chain of events shows discrepancies in a FOIA system widely considered to be in severe need of reform. The case also provides examples of aspects of Cold War counterintelligence operations agencies tend to omit from public discourse (The thing is, though, desiring to omit circumstances from a constructed public narrative does not equate to qualifying the information as exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act). Most importantly, dissecting the case helps us understand nuance of the FOIA, how to more effectively submit requests for records, and what we might learn from the circumstances.
FBI FOIA Process
The FOIA process EFR typically experiences with the FBI begins with submitting a request via the FBI online portal. An acknowledgment of the request is then electronically issued by FBI, eventually followed by a final response. The final response might include information such as the number of responsive pages identified, what FOIA Exemptions were cited for withholding responsive material, and how many pages were provided.
The final response might also include advising EFR of the existence of FBI file numbers potentially responsive to the request in the custody of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). That happens fairly regularly when seeking mid-20th century records. In such circumstances a FOIA request is then submitted to NARA for the corresponding FBI file numbers. Requests are filled in different time frames, depending on various conditions. So, after submitting a request to FBI, we often eventually receive an FBI final response with an explanation of records provided and/or file numbers of additional material at NARA.
If a requester is not satisfied with the processing of a request, they may submit an appeal to a designated authority. In the case of the FBI, the appeal authority is the Department of Justice Office of Information Policy. FOIA researchers, including this writer, have pretty widely come to consider the appeal to often be a standard part of the process. “Always appeal,” as the saying goes. If a requester is not satisfied with the outcome of an appeal, the next option would be to take legal action by filing a lawsuit.
Daniel Fry and Lois Jessop FOIA Requests
EFR submitted a request to FBI for records on Daniel Fry in July 2025. Rather heavily redacted material was provided in November. As shown in the FBI response below, several exemptions related to privacy and law enforcement investigations were cited and 41 pages were reviewed. One page was fully withheld.
EFR filed an appeal in December 2025 on the use of the FOIA Exemptions cited for the many redactions and omitted page. From the Sep. 30, 2026, response letter from OIP, explaining its ruling and defining the exemptions used by FBI to withhold records:
Shortly after the Fry request was first submitted, a different request was filed to FBI in August 2025 on another mid-20th century UFO figure, Lois Jessop. FBI quickly advised of potentially responsive file numbers located at NARA and the records were promptly requested. It was not until after records were received from FBI on Fry and the appeal on the case was already submitted in December 2025 that EFR received FBI records responsive to Jessop from NARA in January 2026. Minimal redactions were applied to the Jessop records and no pages were withheld.
An examination of the Jessop material revealed the inclusion of the same 1963 FBI memo as located in the Fry file. The document was almost fully released in response to Jessop, while in the Fry response it was heavily redacted with one page withheld in full.
The Fry and Jessop requests arose out of examining FBI memos previously obtained by EFR through FOIA requests. The individuals were referenced in FBI records when a variety of UFO personalities were identified as informants or people of potential interest during the course of an FBI espionage investigation.
The recent Fry appeal response and its affirmation of FBI action makes the FOIA case all the more interesting. The ruling indicates the FBI continued to apply redactions to a 60+ year old memo almost fully released in a different FOIA request. What's more, the DOJ Office of Information Policy supported the action.
Obvious questions arise. What was withheld in the Fry request? How were exemptions specifically used? How did the OIP legal team interpret the redactions applied to the same FBI document we know NARA processed significantly differently? What was on the page withheld in full by FBI?
Comparisons
It should be noted that not only did OIP interpret FBI redactions to be properly applied, but that the memo was not even remanded for potential further release. Apparently, none of it was deemed to be even possibly excessively redacted or subject to reconsideration.
So what kind of material was ruled properly withheld? A comparison of page one of the 1963 FBI memo, with the Fry response on the left and the Jessop response on the right:
The FBI decision to withhold the name of Robert Stark and reference to an espionage investigation (in the case of the Fry request) necessitated significant continuing redactions. Stark and circumstances of the investigation are of course repeatedly referenced throughout the memo. The withholding of Stark and related documentation also made it difficult for EFR to discern the specific purposes of references made to Fry and the New York Saucer Information Bureau. Much of the material is virtually indecipherable.
The response to the FOIA request on Jessop made the situation much clearer, which also emphasizes the importance of mining documents received in FOIA responses for subjects of follow-up requests. It was the persistence in requesting records on people referenced that led to obtaining a more discernable copy of the 1963 memo.
Another comparison of pages shows the mail of Rose Foster, a contact of Stark, was monitored, as indicated below. The copy of the document released under the Jessop request, pictured beneath the Fry version, contains a redaction under FOIA Exemption b7d, which likely indicates withholding the identity of a confidential informant.
Moreover, it is apparent the informant could surveil and access Stark's residence, as the memo references envelopes and stationery "observed" in Stark's rented room. This could be interpreted to reflect FBI tactics of the era that were later deemed excessive.
An argument could be made the use of FOIA Exemptions pertaining to protections of privacy and law enforcement investigations (as were cited) may become applicable if criminal charges were never filed against Stark. It could be similarly argued that contacts of Stark might be properly protected from disclosure if doing so might call their reputations into question while they may have been guilty of no more than, for instance, having been an employer or acquaintance of Stark, and subsequently cooperating with FBI as instructed. The arguments become much less compelling, however, in light of the fact NARA did not interpret the material that way.
The next comparison, below, brings FBI concern more into focus of Stark's potential involvement with a New York UFO group. FBI obtained the names of specific individuals connected to the organization's PO Box by consulting with the superintendent of a post office station.
More indication a confidential informant was accessing Stark's room and reporting to FBI agents in the images below. Records redacted by FBI and affirmed by OIP during appeal, top, and the same passage processed by NARA, bottom:
It is quite unclear why the condition of a room or the existence of a brown briefcase would be redacted under the exemptions cited. Such examples are many. The main thing trying to be expressed here are the questions that arise from the processing of the records, not the content of the specific records, implications of which have been previously shared and considered (see links at the end of this post). It was the recent OIP ruling on the Fry appeal that brought the FOIA processing issues to the forefront.
Bureau aversion to further declassifying the material might be more about revealing how information was compiled than the content. The page that follows the above paragraph about contacts with an informant is the page deleted from the Fry response. The page fully withheld by FBI and affirmed on appeal by OIP yet obtained from the Jessop file with no redactions at all applied by NARA:
One might reasonably question whether the Bureau was as concerned about properly protecting the privacy and reputations of Gunny Larsson and George Adamski as withholding the arguable violations of privacy taking place while compiling information about them.
More intel gathered from Stark's room includes correspondence conducted with Daniel Fry and a list of articles attributed to Stark, per memo comparisons pictured below:
Again, it is difficult to envision how OIP interpreted the exemptions could apply to the names of pseudoscience articles, even if suspected of having subversive agendas behind them. The seeming current overclassification may suggest that once upon a time a decision was made to redact the subject and nature of the investigation, Stark and espionage. Reasons for the withholding may have included the public disclosure of Stark would lead to topics better left undiscussed for a variety of reasons. If that was the case, the more recent challenges with transparency may be a matter of preferring if sleeping dogs keep snoring.
Ultimately, however, the fact FBI historically has challenges with overreach does not in itself mean the premises of its investigations were always wrong. The Bureau may have failed to respect the rights of Robert Stark and his associates and Stark may have been exploiting the UFO genre for a variety of reasons that possibly included interests of a foreign adversary. The primary relevance may be what we learn from such cases and what the circumstances tell us about a bigger picture that continues to influence the public today.
---------------------
Links:
Browse results of record requests, videos, exclusive collections and more at the EFR Patreon.
Follow EFR on Bluesky.
Comments