Friday, April 30, 2021

Coast to Coast AM - The Moon Dust Controversy


There was an interesting question, or thought, or claim, raised on the NICAP Research site, that suggested there was never any Project Moon Dust. What was said, “And there was never any ‘Project’ Moon Dust! There was an attempt by the AF to set up one by that name (Moon Dust) but I don’t recall any documents proving that it was set up with that name and operational… There was a category of activity called ‘moon dust’ for recovery of satellite and space reentries and decays. Anyone in any agency having a report of that would slap a ‘Moon Dust” label on it without any project necessarily with that name.”

This struck me as especially odd. I mean, there were documents out there that related to Moon Dust and I had found four cases in Project Blue Book files that were stamped with the name, “Moon Dust.” True, they weren’t very good sightings, but the point is, these sightings were found in Blue Book.

I had also found a document in the Blue Book files that came from Headquarters, U.S. Air Force Message #54322 and dated December 23, 1957, which said the mission was “to collect and analyze raw intelligence reports from the field of fallen space debris and objects of unknown origin.”

I also mentioned that there were other documents, with a known provenance, that proved there was a Project Moon Dust. I figured that would be the last word, unless someone asked for some of those documents. That wouldn’t be a problem because there were, literally hundreds of them.

Brad Sparks had something to say about that. He wrote:

Sorry, but with all due respect, none of those documents say any ‘Project’ had a ‘PROJECT’ named ‘Moon Dust’ except the proposal in 1961 where I don’t see any succeeding documents showing a ‘Project Moon Dust’ was in fact set up – quote me some post-1961, correct me if I’m wrong.”

‘Moon Dust’ was a category of intelligence physical materiel set up in 1957 post-Sputnik long before any special project was even attempted to be set up as a ‘Project Moon Dust’-- in 1961. What were they doing in 1960, 1959, 1958?

‘Moon Dust’ was like a term like ‘HazMat,’ to use an analogy, which was used everywhere without any special project being set up called ‘Project HazMat’ -- and no rule that prohibited such a project with that name either.

Paul Dean wrote back to say, “I've got a 1980 era 20th missile warning squadron document that mentions "Project Moon Dust", not just ‘moon dust’”. 

And since Brad had asked about this, and although I believed he had some of these documents and understood them as well as I did, I wrote:

Interesting point here. We agree there was something called Moon Dust but it might not have been a "project."

And it is true that the references I found in the Blue Book files are merely stamped "Moon Dust," rather than "Project Moon Dust," at least, confirms the UFO component to it.

However, I have a copy of a letter sent to Robert Todd dated July 1, 1987 which said, "The nickname 'Project Moondust' no longer exists officially."

I suppose you could argue, with some justification, that this is in response to Todd's request for information on Project Moon Dust, so that answer, in referring to Moon Dust is just Colonel Thompson's (the officer who responded) way of identifying the request but doesn't prove there was a Project Moon Dust.

I have a copy of a letter to Senator Jeff Bingaman in which Colonel George Mattingley, Jr., wrote, "These teams were eventually disbanded because of a lack of activity; Project MOON DUST and Operation BLUE FLY missions were similarly discontinued." 

This seems to be stronger evidence that something known as Project Moon Dust did exist as a project. We often refer to Project Blue Book simply as Blue Book. True, I have a copy of a heavily redacted "Airgram" from the State Department that says, "The designator "MOONDUST" is used in cases involving the examination of non-US space objects or objects of unknown origin."

I wonder if we're not splitting a fine hair here. There is documentation about Project Moon Dust and there is guidance that Moon Dust will be used as an identifier on communications among various agencies and organizations. What is important here is that there was something called Moon Dust and it referred to UFO related material (and let me add here that in the case UFO means "unidentified" as opposed to "alien spacecraft.") It suggests another reporting channel and one that often-avoided Blue Book.

Paul Dean scanned the document he had mentioned and Brad Sparks had requested. Dean put it up for those who wished to see it. In response, Brad Sparks wrote:

Thanks Paul.

The 1982 20th MWS History mentions "Project Moondust procedures" without identifying them, or it, or where it is located.  Are they just remembering old procedures without looking them up (no Numbered Directives are cited)?  

Lots of people in the US Govt over the years including within the AF assumed there was a "Project" called "Moon Dust" -- just like anyone dealing with Hazardous Materials or HazMat assume there is a HazMat Dept they deal with, but no overarching "HazMat Project" but multiple HazMat units or depts everywhere. 

What we need to know, as this applies to all "Project" Moon Dust references is at least a few of the following questions answered:

1.  HQ:  Where is the "Project" headquartered? 

2.  Command:  Under what agency or command is the "Project"?

3.  Charter:  What is the charter directive or order setting up the "Project"?  Date? 

4.  CO:  Who is the Commander or Director of the "Project"?

5.  Letterhead:  Any "Project Moon Dust" letterhead available to show some of the above, where located, under whose command, etc.?

6.  Multiple "Project Moon Dust"s:  Were there and if so, why?  Was "Moon Dust" just like "HazMat" or "SAR" (Search and Rescue), every command or major agency has them, etc.?

Brad wasn’t through with his analysis and added some important information that should have been included in the first go-around. He wrote:

Quick correction:  Email got away from me before I could add that the copy of the ICGL 4 of 1961 was obtained by Jim Klotz in 2003, with thanks to Mike Ravnitzky and Dale Goudie.  

Further, I wanted to bold-italic highlight the Col Betz memo of Nov 1961, in para. 5g:

"g. Moon Dust:  As a specialized aspect of its over-all [intelligence] materiel exploitation program, Headquarters USAF has established Project Moon Dust to locate, recover and deliver descended foreign space vehicles.  ICGL #4, 25 April 1961, delineates collection responsibilities." 

Thus Moon Dust is an "aspect" of a larger "over-all" intelligence materiel exploitation program of AF Intelligence.  The IGCL 4 in line with that, when read together with the Betz memo, refers to Moon Dust reporting of satellite reentries and space decays, especially intelligence-sensitive "retrieval and examination" (exploitation) of "descended Soviet space vehicles" (and such) -- which are part of just such an "overall materiel exploitation program" (Col. Betz) or "overall project" (ICGL-4) as densely stated in ICGL-4 para. 6:

"Because of the intelligence connotations of MOON DUST regarding retrieval and examination by ATIC of a descended Soviet space vehicle, the overall project is classified Confidential, and MOON DUST Alerts are normally on a Confidential basis because of the intelligence association with [satellite] decay estimates.  The basic decay estimates (identification of the object and estimated date and hour of decay) are in themselves normally unclassified.  Thus, decay estimates, as such, can be released to observers or observatories...

Frank Warren jumped into the conversation. He wrote, “Haven't read all the minutia via this thread, so apologies if this has already been offered up. The attached partial file cites "Project" Moon Dust 3 times by my count, including the line that reads: "Project Moon Dust was suspended on 4 August 1960.”

Those documents were contained information from the Air Force that used the term Project Moon Dust. They follow here (note – they are not sequential):


Once again, Brad Sparks took a look at the material offered and then wrote:

Thanks Frank. 

The count of how many times "Project" is used with "Moon Dust" does not "count" too much, so to speak. :)  

What counts is whether there is any direct evidence (so far there is none) of a central national or global AF office called "Project Moon Dust," with a HQ address, a named Commander or Project Officer or both, a chain of command identified, a charter directive that set it up, an org chart, maybe some letterhead with "Project Moon Dust" at the top with HQ address, telephone, teletype address, etc., maybe 2 or 3 of the foregoing would be good.  Even better would be a Unit History of a national or worldwide Project Moon Dust for a recurring period, one for each year going back to its founding.  But we have nothing like that. 

Your 39th Air Division History (USAF in Japan) excerpt actually re-emphasizes the impression that "Project Moon Dust" was just an activity alert designation -- just like "Base UFO Officer" at each AF Base under Blue Book, where those Base UFO Officers were NOT Blue Book or part of BB nor were they their own "Project."  Just an assigned duty episodically carried out

This 39th AD History July-Dec 1960 states that "Project Moon Dust" was an AF-wide "intelligence alert" -- not an AF-wide office or military unit

"On 28 June 1960, we were alerted to look for signs of a Soviet missile shot to the mid-Pacific. The Navy was surveilling Soviet telemetry vessels which had moved into the usual Soviet test range in the Pacific; a test shot was expected to follow quickly. 

"Captain George L. Griffith, A0565506, was appointed project officer for Project "Moon Dust," a USAF-wide intelligence alert intended to sight and report Soviet missiles in flight or downed."

This "Project Moon Dust" in Japan could hardly be in Texas, too, etc.  

After barely a month this "Project Moon Dust was suspended on 4 August 1960" -- meaning the Moon Dust alert had been ended, until the next time.  It could hardly be a functioning military unit if it got activated and deactivated every few months or so. 

I suspect, but as yet cannot prove with a shred of documentation, that the AF Intelligence 1127th Field Activities Group at Ft Belvoir, VA, and predecessor units, might have served as a national or global "Project Moon Dust" as merely another hat for the Commander of the 1127th -- just like UFO field investigations were one of several assigned duties for the 1127th -- but unlike with UFOs where the 1127th was just backing up Project Blue Book, maybe (and this is speculative) someone tried to semi-formalize the 1127th organizationally as a "Project Moon Dust" dual entity.  Or maybe "Project Moon Dust" was a Division of the 1127th (which had several Divisions like the Air Attache Division). 

There is some countervailing evidence against this dual-hat, AF-wide central national HQ Project Moon Dust = 1127th theory, though.  ATIC also ran Moon Dust field team(s) seemingly apart from the 1127th, it is unclear.  That would mean TWO AF-wide "Project Moon Dusts"!!  But maybe the ATIC Moon Dust was subordinate to the 1127th's "Project Moon Dust."  Just don't know. 

Another bad piece of evidence against any AF-wide "Project Moon Dust" in, or as, the 1127th is the 1967 AF Intelligence History that includes the 1127th's History.  There is a "MOON DUST" subsection under "OVERT/SENSITIVE COLLECTION AND SUPPORT" but there is no mention of any 1127th acting as a HQ "Project Moon Dust" or any Project Moon Dust Division of the 1127th.  

It states that Moon Dust was an activity whereby NORAD SPADATS notified the 1127th's higher level supervisory staff in AF Intelligence at the Pentagon (Operations Plans Branch AFNIAAB of AF Intell AFNIN) of the deorbitings of 49 Soviet space objects and 17 US space objects (presumably spy satellites) in last half 1967, which must have been passed on to the 1127th as part of their procedure. 

The 1967 AF Intell / 1127th History is not shy about naming names and even HQs of, for example, 1127th's Dallas Resident Agency subordinated to the CIA Domestic Collection Service office in Houston, similarly in Chicago and LA.  This is on the same page as the MOON DUST subsection!  But no "Project Moon Dust" office specified anywhere.

Brad Sparks makes some very interesting observations about Moon Dust. It is clear from other documentation, specifically from the Department of State, that they were responding to directives or procedures issued by some authority. The question becomes is if that authority is the office that Sparks suggests, or if it is a series of rules and regulations initiated by another organization. Under those conditions, it is possible that Moon Dust was just an identifier as Sparks suggested.

However, there is another part of this that hasn’t been explored. Robert Todd learned that the name, Moon Dust, had been compromised. Todd requested the new name, what new code word was, but he was told that it was properly classified. It was not releasable.

That would also, seem to suggest, that there was no “Project” Moon Dust, but that Moon Dust was a code word needed for access to the information gathered under the umbrella of Moon Dust. It seems that the Department of State had been a little less than diligent in their protection of classified information.

The problem that arises is that there were teams that investigated Moon Dust incidents. As Sparks noted, there is a draft document that was leaked into the UFO community that referred to Project Moon Dust. It provided for its mission, its manning, and other aspects of its organization. But this was a draft document and we have seen no evidence that it was implemented, meaning, we have no further documentation for it.

I will note that as I looked through the Project Blue Book files, I did find reference to something designated as Project Horse Fly. This was a proposal to develop teams of junior officers who would deploy to UFO sighting locations to conduct investigations of those sightings. There is no evidence that the project moved beyond the planning stage. You can read about it here:

Given what Brad Sparks has provided, and the direction of the conversation, I have to wonder if he isn’t right about this. There was something called Moon Dust but was it a project or a code word for some other project? That means that the collection of the intelligence under the Moon Dust code was for another project, something hidden deeper.

We do have documents that mention the recovery of space debris, but in nearly all those cases, the debris was identified as terrestrial. Had they found something truly extraordinary it might have been sent forward for analysis under another name or project designation. Moon Dust was the cover for the important aspect of the research just as Blue Book turned out to be the cover for another UFO investigation that was hinted about by Allen Hynek and General Bolender.

Moon Dust might not be the proper name of the project that controlled the Moon Dust activities. We have seen hints about this and how various Air Force organizations have been tasked with UFO research in the past. It does seem, however, that Moon Dust, as an independent project might not have existed…

Or for the conspiracy mined, it was the cover for the real investigation. When the Air Force told Senator Bingaman that there was no Project Moon Dust and that the project had never existed, maybe that was the truth. Moon Dust was the code word for the real project and we just haven’t found it… Yet.

Friday, April 23, 2021

Coast-to-Coast AM: The Latest Navy Videos


Last week I discussed the latest Navy video showing pyramid-shaped objects near a number of US military vessels. This week, I received information from a listener who noted that the objects on that video looked like those produced in by a civilian. He provided a link to a YouTube video in which someone had attached a cell phone camera to a night vision device and hit record. The video shows an object that resembles that found on the Navy videos also captured using night vision devices. Here’s the link to that video:

Talking with John Greenewald, he wondered if this latest might not be Condon 2.0. The Condon Committee was created in the 1960s to review the Air Force investigation. It was organized after years of discussion about ways to remove the UFO investigation from the Air Force. That, and a way of belittling UFO sightings, was the mission. We know this because the conclusions of the investigation were written prior to the beginning of the investigation. The Condon Committee was to say some positive things about the Air Force investigations, that there was no threat to national security and that nothing of scientific value could be learned by further research. Here’s the link to that letter:

In other words, these were the recommendations made by the CIA sponsored Robertson Panel in 1953. Like the Condon Committee that followed, the purpose of the Robertson Panel was not to investigate, but to provide a “scientific” label to the investigations so that it seemed something important had been accomplished. They spent five days looking at the evidence and decided that there was nothing to UFO sightings. They suggested finding a mysterious sighting that was later revealed to be something ordinary. Take the mystery out of UFOs, and the problem would go away.

Dr. Edward U. Condon.

They suggested that teachers not allow students to research UFOs. They wanted to end the interest in the topic by claiming there was nothing to it. The suggested that the whole phenomena be “debunked.

At that point the Air Force began a debunking campaign, which failed. The officers in charge of Project Blue Book were selected because of there anti-UFO bias. They appended labels to sightings that had no real relation to the sightings. Once a case was labeled as anything other than “unidentified,” they were happy about it.

As noted, this all culminated in the Condon Committee, which ended the public end of the Air Force investigation. Documentation suggests that sightings were still investigated, but there was no longer a requirement for the results to be made public. They could just say that they no longer investigated UFO sightings and let it go at that.

Now we have a situation with the Navy providing a mysterious video that we now find to be duplicated by digital cameras and night vision devices. Could it be that the Navy, and by extension the Deep State, is attempting to implement the plans suggested by Robertson and reaffirmed by Condon to end public interest in UFOs?

This is what I now fear. The Navy will investigate these sightings that have had so much public scrutiny. They had already acknowledged that the videos released at Navy video were authentic, meaning they were videos made by Naval personnel. They offered no explanation for them. But, as I noted, there are similar videos that do not required an extraterrestrial explanation. If the Navy determines that the videos are a result of the interface of digital cameras and night vision devices and not alien visitation, won’t that go a long way to convince many that there is no case of alien visitation, regardless of what other evidence is presented.

Rather than move toward Disclosure, we now move back to the darkest days of UFO research when nearly everyone was making fun to the topic. The investigations can again be hidden behind a curtain of ridicule that intimidates witnesses, prevents solid academic research, and an attempt to learn the truth. We enter a new dark age in the search for answers about UFOs.

Saturday, April 17, 2021

The Latest NAVY UAP Video

One frame from the latest Navy video of a UAP.

As I have mentioned, John Greenewald and I had discussed the Navy release of videos that seemed to show a triangular-shaped object near their ships. In one case, it was said that the object was a mere 700 feet over the USS Russell. The Navy verified that the videos were authentic, meaning only that they were videos taken by Navy personnel and had come from Navy sources. It didn’t mean that the Navy was saying that the videos showed alien spacecraft, though, at the moment, there is no terrestrial solution for the sightings. You can see the video here:

During our off-line discussions, John suggested that this might be Condon 2.0. Here he was referring to the 1969 study of UFOs made at the University of Colorado and chaired by Dr. Edward Condon. Although it was wrapped in the trappings of science, it was clear, from both documents released years later and comments by Condon at the time, that this was not a serious scientific study. The conclusions were drawn before the research began, and those conclusions were the ones reached at the end. Illustrative of this point was a letter written by Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert Hippler to Dr. Robert Low, of the Condon committee. I have written about all that at this blog and you can read these postings here:

What all this means is that the real purpose of the Condon Committee was to end the Air Force investigation into UFOs and convince the public, and science, that there was nothing to the sightings. All could be explained in the terrestrial.

Condon was actually the second attempt at this. The first took place in 1953 in a panel chaired by Dr. H. P. Robertson. Their conclusion was that there was nothing to UFOs other than a great deal of misinformation, misidentification and a misunderstanding of science. The panel suggested that sightings be debunked and when sightings that had once seemed mysterious were explained, the public fascination with UFOs would disappear.

They also saw a national security aspect. The military communication channels might be flooded with UFO reports at a time of national emergency. The panel wanted to alert the government to this possibility. You can read about the Robertson Panel in many sources including The UFO Encyclopedia by Jerome Clark, UFOs and Government by Dr. Michael Swords and Robert Powell (and many others) and several of my books, including The Conspiracy of Silence.

So, how does that get us to the latest Navy release?

John was suggesting that we have been presented with some intriguing information that seems inexplicable. He thought that there might be some classified drone project that was responsible for the sightings. He thought the plan might be to allow these seeming unidentified objects gain some national exposure and then they would be revealed as a drone project. People would hear these explanations and believe, as they had in the past, that once again, the UFOs, or in this case, the UAPs, had been identified. Nothing to see here.

And while that is an interesting theory, there might be another reason for this. A fellow calling himself JoeWhip provided another solution for the Navy sightings. He wrote, “This seems like the explanation for the triangle UAP. Color me totally unimpressed with these leaks. None show anything interesting, other than the tic tacs.” He then provided a link to a YouTube video:

Before you go look at that, let me add a little history here. Back in the 20th century, when video tape and video cameras were all the rage, I was often shown or given copies of UFO sightings that had been taped. In one case the object hovered in the distance for a long time until it slowly faded away. It was described as the “Bat Signal,” meaning that it had a couple of semicircles as the top and one at the bottom that vaguely resembled the Bat Signal. But this was the result of attempting to video tape a point of light in the distance. The camera, unable to resolve the image compensated so that it looked like a circular object with those markings on it. The point is that this was a camera artifact created when someone attempted to tape Venus early in the morning. Venus, of course, faded away as the sun rose and overpowered Venus as a light source.

Take a look at the video JoeWhip linked, and then look at the Navy videos. It seems that here is a good explanation for the videos that we have. I find it hard to believe that someone in the Navy didn’t know exactly what the videos showed. The similarity is difficult to reject.

I will note that this doesn’t explain all the sightings by the Naval personnel, and it doesn’t explain why there are reports of the object following one of the ships for 90 minutes, or how they determined that the UAP was 700 feet over the ship. It does seem to suggest that the video released by the Navy is an artifact created by the night optics in use and the video equipment in play.

This is why the John suggested we are at Condon 2.0. We have a mystery. It has received play in the mainstream media, and then, suddenly, we be given an explanation. Once again, UFOs, or in his case, a UAP, is explained in the mundane. This doesn’t negate all the great UFO information that has been collected but it does seem to explain this latest video. People tend to remember the explanation rather than the mystery and then reject all the other relevant information.

No, I’m not 100 percent convinced that these latest videos are explained, but I have to say, it does look that way. What we need now is more information about the visual sightings by those who weren’t using night vision equipment, and if the objects were tracked by radar. We need more information before we can mark explained to the whole body of sightings, but all that is lost in the videos the Navy released.


Friday, April 16, 2021

Coast to Coast - Pentagon Video and Other Sightings


On Wednesday, John Greenewald and I were talking about some official information, photographs and video that had just leaked. John mentioned that some of that wasn’t all that interesting but he was intrigued by the video which shows pyramid-shaped objects near the USS Russell in July 2019. At one point the objects about 700 feet above the ship.

In one video, the UFO is reported to have shadowed a destroyer for 90 minutes, maneuvering near it. That was one of three incidents when UFOs were seen near various Navy ships.

John Greenewald

John wanted more information about this and communicated with his contacts at the Pentagon and in Washington for an official comment. He didn’t expect much other than the normal, noncommittal response. Instead, the Navy confirmed to him, as they did to other news sources, that the videos were authentic. This video is alleged to be part of the UAP Task Force which is supposed to report to Congress in June.

There has been discussion about this required report. Some in the UFO community have thought that it would take us closer to Disclosure. However, there seems to be avenues for suppressing parts of the report under the umbrella of national security. This means, quite simply, that all the report and its evidence, might not be reveaedl publicly as wanted by those outside the government. There has even been talk that there could be a delay in the completion of the report.

Although the objects in the video are unidentified, that only means that they’re unidentified. More research is needed but what is important here is that the Navy authenticated the video and said that it was unclassified. In fact, John suggested that some sort of drone program might be causing these sightings and this is just another step in the run up to that sort of revelation. You can listen to John and me discuss this here (that discussion begins at 45:30):

From the discussion of the UAP Task Force, I wanted to talk about some of the latest sightings that didn’t leak from the government. I will note that when looking at these reports, I want some evidence they are valid. Length of sighting is one. None of the following reports are shorter than a minute which gives the witness a good chance to identify the object. I also look at for multiple witnesses and if they are independent of one another, so much the better. In other words, there are ways to determine if the sighting is more than just an unidentified apparition.

Here are a couple of good examples of this, courtesy to the National UFO Reporting Center. The witness in Gouverneur, New York, said that he and his partner were in their living room when they heard a strange noise on January 21 of this year. He went to the window and saw the UFO with a red steady light, a blinking green light and a blinking yellowish light that seemed to form a triangle. The witness reported that within an hour, the witness heard the same noise again. He saw, within two hundred yards, a similar object with the same lights blinking in the same pattern.

Just over an hour later, in the same New York location another witness reported nearly the same thing was observed. The witness said he was working on a puzzle with his girlfriend when they heard an odd sound. They both got up to look out the window and across the street, above the neighbor’s house, they saw an odd red light and both blinking yellow and green lights in a triangular shape. The movements of the object were not like those of an airplane or helicopter and he ruled out a drone because of the size.

Like the first report, the witness said that about an hour later, or about 3 a.m. they heard the sound again. This time they ran outside with a camera, but it could not pick up the light. Like the first witnesses, he said it was a very clear night with plenty of stars visible and a very low level of ambient light. He said that the sound was terrifying.  

As I said, all these sightings lasted for a minute or more. There were two witnesses at each location, and all the sightings were of a triangular shape with the same-colored lights. The sightings happened in a short time frame and were relatively close to one another. Given all that, these are interesting sightings that deserved additional investigation.

From the Fran Ridge and the MADAR network comes another New York report, this one from Utica on January 29 about eight days after the first reports. The witness was driving north when he saw bright lights to the left, in a field. At first, he thought it was the lights of a truck but then saw a large craft bank over the treetops and then hover in front of him. He stopped his car in the middle of the highway and stared at the bright object for about thirty seconds. He said that he was frightened as the craft leveled out and without a sound flew about twenty feet overhead. As it flew over, he saw that the craft was cigar shaped and that it had tiny wings that were swept back. He then saw another car coming and he started up again, returning home.

All of this, from the Navy’s release of videos to the witnesses watching the objects near them, provide additional evidence. We need to evaluate that evidence so that we might learn what is going on, though, given the nature of the cases, that seems quite clear.

X-Zone Broadcast Network - John Greenewald vs Tony Bragalia


This week we had a special edition of A Different Perspective with guests Tony Bragalia and John Greenewald. The idea to discuss Tony’s claim that the Pentagon had confirmed they were in possession of alien debris and that they were conducting reverse engineering on it. We began with Tony describing what he had discovered through his FOIA campaign directed at various government agencies. You can listen to the first part of the program here.

John did present his side of this conversation as well, explaining, again how the FOIA worked and that sometimes the material sent was not necessarily what had been requested. He was of the opinion that what was addressed in the email didn’t necessarily relate to the specific request. The FOIA officers attempted to fulfill the request in compliance with the law.

John Greenewald
Tony mentioned a connection between his investigation into Nitinol metal and Titanium. He mentioned that General Exon had talked about the ultra-high purity of Titanium. I said that I didn’t remember General Exon saying anything about Titanium in my interviews with him and I asked for the citation. Tony didn’t have it at his figure tips but promised to send it to me later.

You can listen to the exchange on the first part of the program. It begins at 24:32 minutes in the show. Tony said, “…he told you, on tape, that he understood that some of the [Roswell] wreckage being tested was comprised in part by special processed Titanium, so we begin to examine specially processed Titanium in these documents…”

I said, “I do not remember Exon saying anything about the Titanium.”

Tony said, “It’s in your book and I will cite and send it to you…It’s in your books… you certainly did talk about Titanium and Arthur Exon and his mention of specially processed Titanium.”

Tony did send a citation. The reference came from my book Roswell UFO Crash Update and Tom Carey and Don Schmitt’s Witness to Roswell. The information originated in Don’s interview with Exon in June 1990. It said:

I don’t know, at that time, if it was Titanium or some other metal… or if it was something they knew about and the processing was something different.

Tony has taken that single, rather unimportant reference to Titanium as the possible metal recovered and turned it into a positive identification of the metal from Roswell being Titanium. So, in one way, Tony was right. Exon did mention Titanium but in the long haul, it is not as important as Tony has made it out to be. It wasn’t a positive identification of Titanium, and there was no mention of any sort of processing related to the Titanium. Exon did talk about special handling of the debris but it wasn’t necessarily related to Titanium as Tony suggested.

Arthur Exon. Photo by
Tom Carey.

Lewis Rickett, who had been the NCOIC of the Counterintelligence Corps (CIC) office in Roswell, handled some of the debris and said it reminded him of Cold Rolled Steel. He also pointed out that it was very light weight and very strong. I mention this only to point out that those who actually handed the metal had different opinions of it. General Exon never handled the debris, a point that Tony has overlooked. This sort of thing will become important in the second hour of the show.

It was in the second hour that things became somewhat acrimonious. You can listen to that portion of the show here:

I brought up the problem with Tony’s analysis of the Dr. Herbert Dick interviews that dealt with the situation on the Plains of San Agustin in July 1947. You can read about that in detail in the following posting. I believed it had some relevance in the way Tony had described the situation and as the one who actually interviewed Dr. Dick, I believed that I had a better handle on it. The discussion related to Tony’s misunderstanding of what Dr. Dick had said and his, Tony’s, somewhat over the top description of what he believed had happened.

It was here, as I was attempting to explain the significance of Tony’s analysis of Dr. Dick’s statements that Tony kept interrupting me. I told him he would understand if he would just let me finish. Finally, annoyed with his constant interruptions, I told him to “Shut up.” Not exactly the most professional way to handle this, but I had sent him what I thought of as the rules for this discussion. One of them those rules was not to interrupt because I would provide an opportunity to respond later. He just hung up.

In our email exchange that followed, I provided additional information about Dr. Dick and my interview with him. Dr. Dick told me that he arrived on the Plains in July 1947. He didn’t think it was in the first week, which was the critical time. Later, Art Campbell found documents that put him on the Plains on July 1. Tony had written that Dr. Dick had categorically denied he had been there in July and Campbell’s discovery proved that he had. Of course, Dick never denied he had been there, only that he wasn’t there at the very beginning of the month.

Tony later wrote in an email that he had been right about Dr. Dick and that I knew it. I was the one who talked to Dr. Dick, I knew what he had said, and there was never any question about him being on the Plains in July 1947. The question was about when he arrived. Putting him there on July 1, was a blow to those who accepted the Plains San Agustin crash.

Don Schmitt on the Plains of San Agustin. Photo by Kevin Randle.

With Tony gone, John and I completed the show. In the last segment of the show, I mentioned that John had just written about a Pentagon release of more video. We discussed the implications there, along with what it meant to the UFO report due to Congress in July, and the possibility that some of these sightings were drones.

We also, briefly, touched on the Roswell Slides. Tony had been a vocal advocate of the validity of the slides. Once the slides were available to the public, the image on the slides was quickly identified. It is just another example of Tony’s advocacy for a position that isn’t as solid as it could be.

Next week is the second part of the show, which is available now through the embedded audio player or by using the links above.

Wednesday, April 14, 2021

Did Herbert Dick Lie about Being on the Plains of San Agustin?


A fellow identifying himself as Lemurian is often commenting here but most of those comments don’t see the light of day. That’s because they’re just nasty and often appended to the wrong posting. It’s as if he just clicks on one and then writes whatever moves him regardless of the topic. I delete them because they are nasty and inappropriate. Recently, however, he did provide a comment that wasn’t nasty, only inappropriate. He suggested that we all access a website that contained information about the Barney Barnett aspect of the Roswell case. You can access that story here:

While the story is interesting, it is also somewhat misleading, and it is filled with misinformation. Please note here that I said “Misinformation,” rather than “Disinformation.” There is a difference.

Rather than go through this one segment at a time, I’ll just make a few general comments. First, there are no other first-hand witnesses to the Barnett tale. The archaeologists have never been found and the Gerald Anderson story, sometimes used to bolster the case, is a hoax. Anderson is little more than a footnote in the overall picture. He destroyed his own credibility by lying about his Naval career and forging a number of documents. For those interested you can read about it here (You’ll need to scroll down a bit to find the relevant segment:

I spoke with Fleck Danley, who was instrumental in providing a date for the Plains of San Agustin crash that Barnett had discussed. It was clear to me, that Danley had no real idea of when the alleged discussion with Barnett took place. Danley was pushed into agreeing with the July 1947 date by Bill Moore so that there would be a tale of alien bodies for his book, The Roswell Incident. Without Barnett, they had only stories of strange metal and the Army’s efforts to recover the debris and change the narrative.

Barnett’s wife, Ruth, kept a diary for 1947. It was, apparently, the only year in which she did that. I was able to obtain the diary from Alice Knight, Barnett’s niece, so that we might copy it. There is no mention of any event on the Plains that suggest Barnett was involved in anything unusual or strange. In fact, the only date in the diary that works, meaning that Barnett was out of his office and over in the area of the Plains to see the crashed saucer is on July 2, 1947. If we follow the conventional wisdom, that is a day too early because the Roswell crash took place later.

Although the counterargument is that Barnett wouldn’t have shared this startling information with his wife so we wouldn’t read about in the diary, there are no indications of anything unusual happening at the time. Barney didn’t come home upset, didn’t suggest anything out of the ordinary. Just that he’d been out of the office that day. Later, however, we see that Barnett told many people the story of crash including friends and family. You can read about this aspect of the case in Roswell in the 21st Century. I will note here that no one has ever found a document in which any of that was discussed. You would think that someone would have written something that would provide a little corroboration in the proper time frame. Instead, all we have are memories that were decades old when they were finally discussed and Barnett had been dead for those decades.

There is one interesting point here. Although nearly everyone who discusses the story places it on the Plains of San Agustin, in reality, according to Jean Maltais, Barnett’s description was somewhat vague about the location. She only mentioned “the flats,” which could mean any number of places in New Mexico. Most ignore this minor glitch in the tale to focus on the Plains.

But let’s get to the meat of this claim. Tony Bragalia wrote about Dr. Herbert Dick, “While considering various archaeologists, researchers uncovered Harvard-trained Dr Herbert Dick. Dick was a noted archaeologist who passed away in 1992. Some years before his death however, he was located and questioned. Dick categorically denied that he had ever worked around the Plains of San Augustin region in July of 1947 (highlight added). Dick had told researchers he had not been there, telling one of them, "If I knew anything I would have told you." One of his dig party, Jeff Morris, also denied it. These denials were reported in early 1990's issues of the publication IUR – International UFO Reporter and elsewhere.”

Much of this is inaccurate. I did talk to Herbert Dick about this and rather than “categorically [denying] that he had ever worked about the Plains of San Augustin (sic),” the truth is that he wasn’t sure exactly when he arrived there in July 1947. What he denied was that he had seen any sort of a UFO crash retrieval operation on the Plains. This was not reported in the IUR as claimed.

Dick told me (not one of them) that if he knew anything about this, he’d tell me. What is important here that another member of his team denied that “it,” meaning, here, I suppose, that they had seen nothing suggesting a flying saucer crash. This was not reported in the IUR.

Although Bragalia wrote, “It turns out though that Dick had lied [highlight added] to these researchers when he was interviewed by them. In 2006 a revealing letter was uncovered by researcher Art Campbell. Campbell has been active in the UFO field for decades, including with NICAP. He is the author of "UFO Crash at San Augustin" and maintains the UFO Crash Book website. The documents that he discovered confirm that Dick had not told the truth. Dick was in fact at the Plains at the very time that he said that he was not.” As we have seen, Dick had told me he was on the Plains in July 1947, he just wasn’t sure exactly when he arrived.

Bragalia went even further, when he wrote, “A thorough search of records finds that no other group of archaeologists were working on the Plains in early July of 1947 except Herbert Dick and party – and Dick lied that [highlight added] he was even there. Lies are used [highlight added] to cover up the truth by those who wish to evade it. To have ever spoken of the event, Dick may have felt that he could have risked a security breach, his own professional advancement, future professional credibility, award of grant monies or – later in life – damage to his impressive professional legacy.”

But Dick didn’t lie. In an interview I conducted on June 23, 1991, Dick told me that he had worked in the area called Bat Cave on the southeastern edge of the Plains in 1947. He just wasn’t sure exactly when he arrived. The letters and notes found by Art Campbell, showed that he had arrived in time to have seen the crash, had it taken place on July 2, and would have been in a position to see the recovery operation in the days that followed, had there been one.

Don Schmitt at one of the alleged Plains of San Agustin crash sites. The Bat Cave
is across the Plains in the mountains seen behind Don.

I provided this information to Stan Friedman, telling him that Dick had been at the Bat Cave on July 1. Friedman’s response? He said we didn’t know how far back in the cave they were working and we didn’t know which way the cave faced. I told him that it faced to the west and that they wouldn’t be very deep because they were researching human habitation. Humans would have been very close to the mouth of the cave because to move in deeper would have put them in darkness. Besides, according to the information, the only level spot for camping was about a hundred yards from the mouth of the cave. They had a panoramic view of the whole of the Plains and the alleged crash site in the days prior to that alleged crash and of the recovery operation had there been one.

The point is that Bragalia’s speculations about Dick are not borne out in the interview I conducted with the man. According to Bragalia himself, he was using information provided by Campbell and the source mentioned, the International UFO Reporter, does not contain this information. Instead, it comes from Art Campbell’s analysis of the situation which is highly speculative. Campbell mentioned a paper found in The Magdalena Fact Book. This was a document that I created for the single meeting in Chicago to discuss the problems with the Plains of San Agustin tale. The book was created for the meeting, there were only five copies and I have one of them. I’m surprised that Campbell had seen a copy of it and can only guess that it was Friedman who showed it to him.

The real point here is that the information about Dick’s involvement, that he lied repeatedly about what he was doing and where he was, is inaccurate. Dick wasn’t confused. He had forgotten the exact date he arrived. He was quite candid in his conversation with me about where he was and what he was doing. What Dick’s statements do, corroborated by the documentation from by Campbell, is destroy the remaining threads of the Gerald Anderson claims of what he had seen on the Plains, and calls into question that Barnett saw anything there in the summer of 1947.

Dick denied the involvement because there was no involvement. I can say this with confidence because I talked to the man. I don’t have to rely on what others have said or written. I have the first-hand source, that trumps all the second and third-hand reports and all the speculation that permeates Bragalia’s article.

Bragalia’s analysis here is more of the same sort of over-the-top rhetoric we’ve seen before. He has taken some poorly researched information and created a scenario in his mind that fits into his theory. He writes in a fashion that suggests he knows what is going on, but a careful reading and an examination of all the facts, including my interview with Dick, show the flaws in his theory. He even cites a source that doesn’t exist.

One more thing for those of you of a conspiratorial mindset. According to Dick, he knew Winfred Buskirk (Anderson’s archaeologist on the Plains) in the 1940s. Since both were working on their PhDs at the time, and both were in New Mexico (well, Buskirk was working in Arizona in the summer of 1947, he lived in Albuquerque), it is not surprising. I just thought I’d mention it to stir the pot and before someone creates another whole scenario about government secrecy and lying anthropologists.

Thursday, April 08, 2021

Coast-to-Coast AM: Travis Walton and Mike Rogers

A few days ago, I stumbled across a number of blog postings about the Travis Walton abduction, suggesting that there was now a problem between Walton and Mike Rogers. The suggestion, or the interpretation of some of those remarks, suggested that Rogers was repudiating the abduction and had stopped just short of calling it a hoax.

Travis Walton.

Now, those who know me and have read my work in the UFO field know that I’m not a fan of abduction tales. I understand the logistical problems with interstellar flight and that the vast distances, not to mention the current thinking that the speed of light is the limiting factor, suggest that travel among the stars is something that would take years, if not decades and centuries. I get that our current knowledge is subject to revision as our understanding of the universe increases, but that doesn’t change the fact that interstellar flight is, basically, impossible for us under today’s laws of physics.

That doesn’t mean that a civilization that is a hundred years, two years or a thousand years more advanced than our own hasn’t figured out a way to do it. That means, to my way of thinking that alien visitation, and by extension, alien abduction is possible. I believe that many cases of alien abduction have terrestrial explanations.

There are two distinct factors are work here. One is sleep paralysis, which is a period just prior to going to sleep or just after waking when the individual cannot move. It is a frightening experience for those who have never suffered an episode of sleep paralysis. In about 80% of the cases, there is also the feeling that there is something, some entity or creature in the room as well.

There are several cases in which sleep paralysis, when fully explored offers an explanation for the abduction case. You can read about this, at length, in The Abduction Enigma.

The second problem, often related to sleep paralysis, is the use of hypnosis to gather the data. By reading the transcripts of some of the sessions, you can see where the operator, that is the hypnotist, is unconsciously leading the subject into the arena of alien abduction. Again, The Abduction Enigma covers that. You can also read more about it here:

I believe that the most likely scenarios are those of what I think of as targets of opportunity such as the Barney and Betty Hill, the Charles Hickson and Calvin Parker, the Terry Lovelace case, and, of course, the Walton abduction. I believe these are more likely alien abduction than many of the other cases. You can listen to my interviews with Calvin Parker and with Terry Lovelace here (or just scroll through the listings on the embedded audio player on the left to find those interviews):

Having read about the fallout between Travis Walton and Mike Rogers that seemed to suggest something new was coming. As I said, it seemed that Rogers was close to repudiating Walton.

I know each man having met each of them on several occasions. I reached out to Mike Rogers asking about all this. It seemed to me that he was suggesting that the fallout was a personal matter that seemed to relate to the abduction only tangentially. He wasn’t repudiating it by saying he was done with Travis Walton, only that his association with Walton was terminated. That seemed to clarify the matter.

But then he sent an email that reminded me that no one had actually seen Walton being abducted. When the men in the pick-up truck spotted the UFO near where they had been working, rogers, who was driving, stopped. They were all in a state of shock by the brightly glowing UFO that was not all that far from them. Travis, fascinated by the craft, got out of the truck and begin walking toward it. As he got near, a bright beam of light shot out, striking him. He was thrown back, landing on the ground some distance away.

The others, still in the truck and in an even more agitated state, didn’t check on their friend. They screamed at Rogers to get them out of there. Rogers turned around and sped away. I actually mentioned to Rogers once that I found that a little bit chicken… but, of course they did return. This is the reason, that in the beginning, law enforcement thought they might have murdered Walton.

We know, of course, that wasn’t true. Walton reappeared some five days later, calling friends to come and get him. According to what Rogers told me some time ago Walton only remembered about fifteen minutes of his time on the ship. Rogers worked out the details based on what he was told.

What I learned in my communications with both men, was that all this had to do with personal matters. It had nothing to do with the UFO sighting and those events. Rogers wasn’t about to claim the whole thing was a hoax. He was annoyed with Travis and it seemed that Travis was annoyed with him.

I told both that I was going to report on this and that, having my questions answered, I was going to bow out of the conversation. This really was none of my business and it was not the business of those in the UFO community. The suggestion of some sort of repudiation of the abduction and by extension, the UFO sighting was not on the table.

On Monday I learned that they have, apparently, worked out their differences. For those interested, I have more information on my blog about the sighting and even an interview with one of the other men in the truck, Steve Pierce. It should supply a complete picture and wrap up this latest episode. 

X-Zone Broadcast Network - Bill Konkolesky

This week I changed things slightly and invited Bill Konkolesky on the program to talk about his abduction experiences. About the first thing I learned was that he doesn’t like the term abduction because it implies he was a victim. Instead, he prefers the term “experiencer,” because these were, well, experiences. You can listen here (or use the embedded audio player at the left):

We did discuss some of the terrestrial explanations for alien abduction. Sleep paralysis was one of those topics, of course. Those who experience sleep paralysis

Bill Konkolesky with Budd Hopkins

often describe an event that is remarkably similar to alien abduction. I did mention that protocols to separate sleep paralysis from alien abduction had been talked about but that no such protocols have been established.

We did talk about the vast distances between stars and that the speed of light, as we understand physics today, is the limiting factor. While it is certainly possible that in the future, we might discover a way of defeating that problem, as of today, we simply can’t do it. This did lead into a discussion of ancient astronauts and ancient aliens, but that conversation didn’t reveal very much.

One of the things that interested me was some sort of corroboration. Bill gave three examples of that. He told of a childhood friend who had witnessed part of an interaction when a fog crept into the backyard where they were playing. The friend, however, didn’t see the gray alien wrapped in the fog.

In the second event, Bill and friends witnessed a display of lights but again, while that would provide corroboration for the sighting, it does nothing for the claim of abduction.

In the third event, he was on a date when they were approached by what might have been an alien. Unfortunately, he is no longer in contact with the woman and frankly, I have no desire to bother her, given her strong reaction to the event.

This led to the question of attempting to record any of these events, but he hadn’t done anything like that. I thought if the abductions were happening periodically, there might be a chance for a recording. Bill did mention that when MUFON has attempted something like that it has always failed for some reason. I find that somewhat suspicious, but that’s an argument for another time.

I asked why he thought he had been singled out and he suggested that it was a family thing. He said that others in the family had reported some strange activity. He was reluctant to supply names and I didn’t push him on the subject.

Next week will begin a two-part show with both Tony Bragalia and John Greenewald to discuss Tony’s claim that the Pentagon had admitted to possession of alien materials. If you have questions about this, put them in the comments section and I’ll try to get them asked.