Dr. Davis Confirms Del Rio UFO Crash?

A couple of weeks ago we were all told, alerted to the fact really, that the Del Rio UFO crash of the mid-1950s had been validated. New information had been mentioned to George Knapp during his hosting duties on Coast-to-Coast. Dr. Eric Davis had made the comment.

But what did he actually say?

Knapp, during their discussion, said, “That makes it sound like there is something to analyze or reverse engineer.”

Then, according to the radio program, and a brief transcript offered at a number of UFO related websites, Davis said, “Yeah, they’ve got…I would say…you know…If you’re going to throw your bets on Roswell, your bet’s really good. Del Rio, Texas, that was a 1950s case, that was another one, and the other ones I won’t bring up because those are still classified.”

That was the extent of what he said about the Del Rio crash. He added, “But um… and they have not been investigated to my knowledge, I’m sorry, they have not been REVEALED or PUBLISHED to my knowledge. So without knowing that that’s the case I won’t talk about it any further, but we have crash retrievals and they’ve been analyzed and

Dr. Eric Davis Photo copyright
by EarthTech Int'l

unfortunately our laboratory diagnostic technologies and our materials sciences and the understanding of physics that we had were not advanced enough to be able to make heads or tails of what it is, of what they had their hands on.”

And that is it.

If he knew more about the case, or had communicated more about to anyone, I wanted to know because I had come to believe that the Del Rio crash never happened. Too much of the information had radically changed over the years in a way that suggested the tale was untrue. But, in UFO research, you are required to take a look at anything that seems to be new and that provides, well, a different perspective.

The first question is: What do we know about Dr. Davis?

According to his biography published around the Internet, we learn that he has a Ph.D. and “is the Chief Science Officer of EarthTech Int’l, Inc. and the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin. Dr. Davis’ research specializations include breakthrough propulsion physics for interstellar flight, interstellar flight science, beamed energy propulsion, advanced space nuclear power and propulsion, directed energy weapons, future and transformational technology, general relativity theory, quantum field theory, quantum gravity theories, experimental quantum optics, and SETI-xenoarchaeology.”

So, the next step is to take a look at this EarthTech Int’l website.  There we learn more about his background. According to the website he is also described as:

Dr. Davis’ research activities include megawatt-class laser propulsion physics, systems design and performance metrics, and mission applications for the U.S. Air Force laser Lightcraft program; quantum optics tomography experiments to measure negative vacuum energy; studies on the multilayered quantum vacuum structure and its applications; general relativistic time machines and causality, superluminal photons in curved spacetime, gravastars and black holes, and quantum entanglement/teleportation and nonlocality; studies on traversable wormhole and warp drive spacetimes for faster-than-light propulsion; and feasibility studies on laser inertial confinement, inertial electrostatic confinement, Z-pinch, and dense plasma focus fusion concepts for space propulsion.

Dr. Davis serves as an Adjunct Professor in the Early Universe, Cosmology and Strings Group at the Center for Astrophysics, Space Physics & Engineering Research at Baylor University in Waco, TX. He earned his Ph.D. in Astrophysics from the University of Arizona in 1991.

Dr. Davis is a Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society, Associate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, Directed Energy Professional Society, SPIE, American Astronomical Society, and Association of Former Intelligence Officers.

That sounds pretty impressive. He has also written a number of peer reviewed papers and published a long list of other articles. So, the next thing to do is look at the organization for which he works. There we learn:

The Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin was founded in 1985 by Harold Puthoff, PhD, and later incorporated under EarthTech International, Inc., in 1991 as an innovative research facility with a high‐powered creative staff dedicated to exploring the forefront reaches of science and engineering. Our research interests include theories of spacetime, gravity and cosmology; studies of the quantum vacuum; modifications of standard theories of electrodynamics; interstellar flight science; and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, specifically as these topics may apply to developing innovative space propulsion and sources of energy. We strive to translate these ideas into laboratory experiments.

I guess the point here is that he doesn’t sound like your typical UFO guy. His credentials seem to be solid and his work seems to be advanced. That just brings us back to his comment about Del Rio. Is there more to that?

Everything that I can find suggests he just made the one comment on Coast-to-Coast. George Knapp couldn’t tell me anything more but did mention that Davis had said he was getting a lot of emails after his appearance on the show. That was not much help.

Ruben Uriarte, who was delighted with the endorsement of the Del Rio crash, didn’t know anything more about it either. He thought it would be great to obtain additional documents from the Mexican government or the US military about the crash. That, of

CAP Major Robert
Willingham

course, presupposes that there are documents from either of those sources, which Davis seemed to imply but I have no information that this is accurate.

I did attempt to learn more from Davis, but my emails to him went unanswered. I, as did so many others, wanted to know what additional information he could supply. Without anything, we are left with only the original source of the tale, Robert Willingham, who claimed to have been an Air Force officer, a fighter pilot, and the one who had seen the crashed craft in Del Rio. The problem is, Willingham was none of those things, and rather than repeat all the information here, I’ll just suggest you take a look on what I found several years ago. You can read it here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2010/07/del-rio-ufo-crash-and-mj-12.html

Or, if you are interested, I published a list of the various articles about Willingham which also covers some of the other problems with his tales here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2018/06/mj-12-and-cognitive-dissonance.html

That first article will let you sort through quite a bit of information about the Del Rio crash in all its various incarnations and the ever-shifting date as supplied by Willingham. For those of us who actually served in a combat environment, who were actually military pilots, the whole Willingham tale is an insult.

The problem for me is if Dr. Davis has no additional information and was relying on the statements made by Willingham, then that calls some of his other comments into question. The Del Rio crash can be traced only to Willingham and there is no corroboration for it. That’s why I was surprised that Davis had mentioned it specifically.

I have emailed Davis again, asking for any sort of corroboration of this crash tale. I suspect I won’t learn much more because there isn’t any more to learn. Willingham invented the tale in 1968, claimed it happened in 1948, later claimed it happened in 1950 and finally said it happened in the mid-1950s. He wasn’t a colonel and he wasn’t a fighter pilot. With that, Willingham inadvertently takes some of Davis’s credibility with him.

And that is what so frequently happens in UFO research.

Art Bell Retires from Midnight in the Desert

For those interested in such things, or for the fans of Art Bell, he announced, abruptly, that he was retiring from his latest radio show, Midnight in the Desert. He cited concerns for his family and that someone was stalking him, even taking shots at him and at his house. To read his statement see:

http://artbell.com/art-hangs-it-up-for-the-last-time/

I will say that I always found his show entertaining and his enthusiasm for many subjects interesting. He seems to have had a strange radio career, especially since he gave up regularly hosting his old show Coast to Coast in the late 1990s. This retirement, however, seems to be permanent.

The Roswell Slides After the Big Reveal

Well, the great reveal has happened and it was… not great. In fact, opinion seems to be running against the idea that this was an alien creature and with many inside the UFO community saying that they were underwhelmed. Even those who are solidly inside the extraterrestrial camp have expressed disappointment in the program and the slides with some suggesting this was all promotion for another Don Schmitt and Tom Carey Roswell book.

Tony Bragalia, who has worked with Schmitt and Carey for months if not years on this, is still convinced that it is nothing earthly and there are scientists who back up his claim. In an article that he has circulated this morning (May 6, 2015), he provided this statement from two of those scientists:

It's nothing like us, we can see that his feet and legs appear to be like that of a reptile and could have evolved from something like a gecko or some similar animal that became larger and developed a large brain and binocular vision. His nose is small, his mouth different from ours. There are parts that could have been removed during autopsy. I[t] seems to have no teeth.

Joint Statement, Luis Antonio de Alba, Anatomist and Physiologist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and Richard Doble, Canadian Physical Anthropologist.

Bragalia also wrote, quoting  Professor Rod Slemmons, Former Director of the Chicago Museum of Contemporary Photography and 1950s Kodak Executive, “It would be really, really hard to fake these slides or to duplicate them if that is what you want to do [.]”

And while all that is somewhat interesting, it doesn’t actually prove anything other than these fellows have expressed an opinion about the slides that don’t actually say anything about it being obviously alien. In fact, the name of the Rochester, NY Photo-scientist who supposedly rendered a positive opinion on the slides dating was not revealed. Bragalia wrote:

The truth is that the name of the photo-scientist is known to researchers and others. It was not publicly revealed for a simple reason: the man was repeatedly harassed at home by strangers. It is known that skeptic Lance Moody and reporter Billy Cox both separately -and within a day of each other- found the leaked name of the scientist and saw fit to call him at home at night out-of-the-blue to question him. Bear in mind that this was before the scientists name had been properly revealed and well before his image analysis report was even released. Understandably, the man was angry and has indicated that he simply does not need this kind of thing in his life.

And while it is understandable that the man would have been annoyed at the telephone calls, it is also understandable that others would want to corroborate the information that was being circulated by those who allege the slides show an alien creature. The real problem here is that they leaked the name, unintentionally, and then are appalled that others wish to verify the information. Lance Moody has written that the Rochester scientist’s verdict wasn’t nearly positive as others have suggested and that he was not named in the great reveal suggests that there are problems with the claims about his testimony.

Or, in other words, the point is moot because the witness was not there to be asked a few questions to clarify the situation.

John Greenewald was as unimpressed as were so many others. To his Black Vault site at:

http://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/the-roswell-slide-alien-kodachrome-slide-released-but-just-one/#

he posted some rather negative words. “When I woke up the morning of May 6, 2015, I expected to at least see 10, maybe 20, maybe even 50 headlines about this.  What did I see? At 8 am in the morning, well after the first news cycle… there were about 3. And those articles ripped apart this story, and profiled it as the joke it was.”

Greenewald quoted from the UK’s Daily Mirror which had said:

Two photographs of a “dead alien” were unveiled at a big money event last night – and immediately dismissed as fake.

A series of ‘UFOlogists’ appeared at the Be Witness meeting last night to reveal images of an extraterrestrial who supposedly crashed to Earth during the infamous Roswell incident in 1947.

The images were found by former journalist Adam Dew, who reportedly turned down interviews with magazines that wanted to cover the story because “they were not offering any compensation” [Which, of course, shows that they weren’t interested as alleged, they just weren’t interested in handing over some cash].

He claimed to have taken steps to verify the pair of alien snaps and said Kodak experts had dated the film to 1947.

But the rest of the world has not had the chance to test the rigour of his methods, because high resolution images of the alien are not yet available.

They are likely to be sold through his production company Dew Media alongside a documentary about the discovery of the slides.

The photos were supposedly found in Arizona, hidden in a collection of snaps owned by oil geologist Bernard Ray and his wife Hilda Ray, who have both died.

Nick Pope, a researcher who headed up a UFO investigation wing at the UK Ministry of Defence, told Mirror Online he was “underwhelmed”.

“It could be a model, or it could simply be a fake image, dressed up to look like a Forties slide,” he said.

Greenewald concluded, “Others took to social networks, and quickly were able to find nearly identical looking ‘bodies’ right here from human civilizations. This, even further, supports the theory this is nothing more than a museum artifact.”

Bragalia, however, wrote, “An overnight poll conducted by Coast-to-Coast radio has thus far tallied over 800 respondents to a survey asking what the nature of the creature:

42% say it is not an alien image.

58% believe it to either be that of an alien, or that they are simply not
certain what it is.

The figures, however, aren’t quite that supportive when broken down. It is true that 42.1% voted that it is not an alien, only 28.55% voted that it was, leaving 29.35 % voting that they were unsure. It could be said, that over 71% voted no or unsure, which is nearly three-quarters of those who expressed an opinion. I asked Bragalia and he agreed that what he had written about this was misleading, suggesting that I could correct that.

Here’s what I think, if anyone actually cares at this point. We haven’t had a good look at the high resolution slides and have been offered excuses for why that hasn’t happened. The slides seem to depict a creature, cadaver, corpse, in a museum setting rather than the expected situation if it was truly alien. The array of expert opinion we were told would be offered has not materialized and the statements that have been made seem to be weak. Already there have been pictures of mummies in various museums that seem to resemble to a high degree the body in the slide. There is nothing to tie this to Roswell and I will point out that both Carey and Schmitt did say that these weren’t “Roswell” slides, but their commentary seemed to suggest they believed otherwise.

They provided some witness testimony but it did little to validate the slides. Carlene Green, whose father, Homer Rowlette, said that he had seen the bodies. There are those who worry about the color of them she mentioned, but that isn’t the problem here. She is a nice woman I interviewed a number of years ago, but she didn’t see anything herself. She is a second-hand witness who can only report what her father told her so long ago.

We still have nothing for the provenance; we still don’t know who took the slides, when they were taken, or who even owns them now. It could be Adam Dew who has said that his company owns them, or it could be the brother of the woman who found them. That point has not been clarified.

Today, May 6, we really don’t know anything more than we did on May 4. Nothing was clarified at the big reveal. We have the names of some of the scientists, but certainly not in the numbers we expected. We have a better resolution of the slides, but rather than clarify, they have not done that. They seem to be of a creature in a museum setting given what is seen in the background, but we don’t know. At the end of the presentation we are as confused as we were before it started.

Can anyone say Alien Autopsy?