David Grusch and the Canadian Letter

 

For all those who had asked, yes, I have seen the Canadian letter that George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell talked about. Yes, it is interesting, but not necessarily for the reasons some have suggested. And while it is interesting, it doesn’t, exactly, validate the information shared by David Grusch but does suggest an interest in the topic of UFO crashes by a Canadian government official.

George Knapp

Oh, and while some have questioned the authenticity of the letter, it is real.

In the last several weeks, we have been bombarded by UFO stories, NASA committee meetings and Senate hearings. Although nothing of real substance came from the meetings, hearings and now this letter, it does suggest a change in attitude. The letter does not confirm what David Crush was saying, but it does demonstrate a new interest in the topic at the higher levels of various governments. No longer are we subjected to the tongue-in-the-cheek snide comments by educated people who are too sophisticated to believe that UFOs might represent an alien technology. Now, we see those educated people wondering if the information leaking might not have an undercurrent of legitimacy. Just maybe this is something that should be watched.

I see from the various Internet discussions I have with colleagues around the world, that all this demands a cautious approach. We don’t want to be overly enthusiastic about the information without having the opportunity to vet that information. We need sources and documents to do that.

There is one point in the Canadian Letter that I haven’t seen addressed anywhere and that refers to a 1950 interest in the topic. A Manitoba member of Parliament, Larry Maguire, wrote to the Canadian Minister of Defence, concerning the new or renewed interest in what is now called UAPs. The sentence that caught my eye said, “As Minister of National Defence, you may not be aware Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) has participated in efforts to analyze UAP [UFO], which is publicly traceable to circa 1950.”

Larry Maguire

It was the 1950 date that drew my attention because that seems to relate to what has become known as the Sarbacher episode. According to William Steinman, he received a copy of an interview between Robert I. Sarbacher and Wilbert B. Smith that was conducted on September 15, 1950. The interview notes apparently were made by Lieutenant Colonel Bremer:

Smith: I am doing some work on the collapse of the earth’s magnetic field as a source of energy, and I think our work may have a bearing on the flying saucers.

Sarbacher: What do you want to know?

Smith: I have read Scully’s book [Behind the Flying Saucers] on the saucers and I would like to know how much of it is true.

Sarbacher: The facts reported in the book are substantially true.

Smith: Then the saucers exist?

Sarbacher: Yes, they exist.

Smith: Do they operate as Scully suggests on magnetic principles?

Sarbacher: We have not been able to duplicate their performance.

Smith: Do they come from some other planet?

Sarbacher: All we know is, we didn’t make them, and it’s pretty certain they didn’t originate on earth.

Smith: I understand the whole subject of saucers is classified.

Sarbacher: Yes, it is classified two points higher than the H-bomb. In fact it is the most highly classified subject in the U.S. Government at the present time.

Smith: May I ask the reason for the classification?

Sarbacher: You may ask, but I can’t tell you.

There was a final note that said the interview was written from memory but he, and I don’t know which he it was, though I suspect it was Lieutenant Colonel Bremer who “tried to keep it as nearly verbatum [sic] as possible.”

Steinman contacted Sarbacher about the conversation. Sarbacher confirmed that the interview had taken place. Steinman followed up with additional questions, which Sarbacher answered. On November 29, 1983, Sarbacher sent a letter to Steinman. The pertinent parts of that letter follow:

Relating to my own experiences regarding recovered flying saucers, I had no association with any of the people involved in the recovery [Steinman had supplied a list of names who were alleged members of MJ-12] and have no knowledge regarding the dates of recovery.

I did receive some official reports when I was in my office at the Pentagon but all those were left there as at the time, we were never supposed to take them out of the office.

About the only thing I remember at this time is that certain material reported to have come from flying saucer crashes were extremely light and tough.

I will note here that this exchange took place in 1983, after the publication of The Roswell Incident, but the idea of UFO crashes was not wide spread in the general public and I have no way of knowing if Sarbacher was familiar with the story. It was only after 1990 that the Roswell information exploded.

However, and relevant to the discussion is information reported by others. According to Dr. Bruce Maccabee and Jerry Clark, Sarbacher was “ignorant of UFO history.” They reported that he didn’t even know what Project Blue Book was, which suggests that Sarbacher had not been contaminated by all the reporting about the Roswell crash.

Sarbacher, in that same letter, wrote, “I remember in talking with some of the people at the office that I got the impression these ‘aliens’ were constructed like certain insects we have observed on earth, wherein because of the low mass the inertial forces involved in operation of these instruments would be quite low.”

This story received widespread coverage in the UFO community. Both Stan Friedman and Jerry Clark contacted Sarbacher and he confirmed the accuracy of what Steinman had reported, meaning that the notes and conclusions were accurate, but the information might be considered speculative. It was also noted that Sarbacher’s information was all second hand. He had read reports, he had talked with people involved but he had seen nothing himself.

There is one other important point. Sarbacher had been a member of the Research and Development Board, where some of the UFO information had been discussed. T. Scott Crain interviewed Fred A. Darwin who had served as the executive director of the board. Darwin told Crain:

Bob Sarbacher… had virtually no connection with the activities of the Research and Development Board… I got Bob appointed to membership on the Guidance and Control Panel. After a couple of months, the Chairman requested his replacement; he never came to the meetings.

This does not, of course, negate what Sarbacher had written to Steinman and told others. It only suggests that his information about the flying saucer crashes falls into the category of hearsay rather than observation.

I believe that the reference in Maguire’s letter was to this information, the Canadian connection to it and a desire to ensure that proper authorities in Canada were aware of some of the UFO history.

What this letter tells me is that Maguire was concerned about Canadian involvement in the renewed interest in UFOs, and that he wanted to alert the Defence Minister about it, in case he wasn’t current on UFO history.

While the letter does mention the renewed interest in UFOs, and the US Congress interest in the topic, it says nothing about the reliability of David Grusch’s information. And, if he was referring to the 1950 information, I suspect he was, then this does little to validate that data. We are left right where we began, which is without public corroboration of Grusch’s claims. It is just another instant of second-hand stories that seem to provide important clues about UFOs and it does suggest where some of the information that Grusch talks about originated. It just is not the smoking gun that we need.

Update on Grusch on June 25

 

On June 25, there was another video put up on YouTube about David Grush and his claims of captured or retrieved alien craft, and the bodies of the alien pilots. It is a long interview and you can watch it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVjzYwQDzeg&t=1144s

Here’s one of the things I found interesting. They made it clear that Grush had not been before a senate committee and he apparently had not talked to any of the senators. He did meet with senators’ staffs and answered their questions. It also seems that he met with, and was questioned by members of the House. I don’t know how long that session, or those sessions, lasted. I will not speculate about his being under oath or if those sessions were somewhat less formal.

I will also note that in the above commentary, there was discussion of the body language analyses that have been done. I did watch one and it seemed the conclusion was a more or less, “I don’t know.” There were no significant indications of lying, but there were hints that he might not have been comfortable with what he was saying. Well, if he’s spilling secrets, I can imagine that some of the questions might have made him nervous.

Here's the thing about this that I simply do not understand. He is not the first person with interesting credentials to make these claims. I too, have talked with military officers who have some knowledge of UFOs, crash retrievals, and the recovery of the alien flight crews.

Brigadier Arthur Exon told me about the material from the Roswell crash being taken to Wright Field, later Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. He said that he talked with those involved in the analysis of the material. He said, “We heard the material was coming to Wright Field.”

Brigadier General Arthur Exon

I asked about bodies and General Exon said, “There was another location… where they did say there were bodies… they were all found outside the craft but were in fairly good condition.”

And he said that one of the bodies had been taken to Lowry Army Air Field near Denver because the Army had a mortuary service there. They would know the best way to preserve what might be a unique biological sample. Exon said all this on audio tape.

I asked him, specifically and he told me, “Roswell was the recovery of a craft from space.” I have a letter from him in which he acknowledges that all the quotes in the book, UFO Crash at Roswell were accurate and this is one of those quotes.

The point is that here is an Air Force general acknowledging that the military had recovered a craft not built on Earth and piloted by beings who were not human. Yet this information was of no interest to the main stream media and our attempts to share that information with the Air Force during their investigation was not acknowledged.

Chester Lytle had a distinguished career. He was involved in creating the trigger for the first atomic bombs, helped develop hydrofoil technology and was a colleague of William Blanchard who was the commanding officer in Roswell in July 1947. Don Schmitt and I interviewed Lytle several times and he shared with us several UFO stories in which he was one of the primary witnesses. The most important thing he said, however, he told to Robert Hastings, who reported it in his book UFOs and Nukes.

According to Hastings, Lytle told him as he, Lytle, was making an emergency trip to Chicago on an Air Force transport, Blanchard, traveling with him, told him a little more about the strange craft that had been found in Roswell in 1947. Blanchard, who was the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force in the 1960s, told Lytle that a spacecraft had crashed near his base and that there had been four bodies recovered.

Hastings wrote, “Startled by Lytle’s unexpected admission, I [Hastings] asked, ‘Blanchard actually told you that the Roswell object was an alien spacecraft?’ Lytle replied emphatically, ‘Oh, absolutely!’”

Patrick Saunders, who was the adjutant at the Roswell Army Air Field in 1947, bought copies of both UFO Crash at Roswell and The Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell. He wrote on the flyleaf of one of those books, “Here’s the truth and I still haven’t told anybody anything!” He signed with “Pat.”

On that page, with a heading of “Damage Control, was a description of some of the activities at the RAAF. It said:

Files were altered. So were personal records, along with assignments and various codings and code words… After the impact site was cleaned, the soldiers were debriefed, and the bodies and the craft removed, silence fell. It would not be broken for almost forty-five years.

Patrick Saunders statement about the accuracy
of the information included in the book.

And not to drag this out much longer, Edwin Easley, who was the Provost Marshal in Roswell, told me that he had been sworn to secrecy, that Mack Brazel (the man who reported the wreckage to the base) had been held in the base guest house for a number of days, confirming that end of the story, and mentioned “the creatures,” to family members just prior to his death in the 1990s.

The real point here is that in the last few weeks we have been bombarded by reports from David Grusch about what he heard from sources he refuses to identify, and that the US Government has, in its possession both craft and bodies from an alien source. But this is exactly what Don and I reported in the early 1990s complete with the names of sources and documentation confirming the credentials of those sources. Yet the main street media is acting as if this is something new.

I might add here, that I served as both an Army and an Air Force intelligence officer. I served in Iraq and was decorated with the Bronze Star Medal and the Combat Action Badge. In other words, I have some of the same credentials as does Grusch, and when Don and I published our books on Roswell, the response from the media was underwhelming.

My research, and Don’s research didn’t end there. I have since published Roswell in the 21^st Century and Understanding Roswell, which I believe bring the whole of that case into sharper focus. And before someone mentions the nonsensical Mogul explanation for the debris recovered, I might suggest you consult both the books which demonstrate that Mogul is not a viable answer.

If you are starved for names, dates, sources and documentation, these books provide it and as my old nemesis used to say, “It only takes one case to prove that UFOs are extraterrestrial.” Roswell is that case and the evidence overlooked for decades is out there for those interested in reading about it.

David Grusch and the 1933 Italian UFO Crash

 

One of the problems we face after David Grusch began his whistle blowing campaign is that he provided almost no information about his sources, about the UFO crash retrievals he alleged were real and provided no documents to support his claims. All that was coming but given the rules, regulations and laws, he was unable to produce any of the required information that would allow us to vet anything he said and validate his tale.

However, we can deduce some of this by comments he has made, especially during the interview that was broadcast on one of the fledgling all-news cable channels. I’m going to ignore his comment about “The Program,” which might or might not be the real name of a clandestine program because there just isn’t enough information about it to make any analysis meaningful. I will say, however, that we know about Project Moon Dust that had a UFO component, and that after the name was compromised in the mid-1980s, the name was changed and we were told that even the name was classified. Not that the project had been cancelled, only that the name had been changed and was still gathering UFO related material under umbrella of national security.

David Grusch and his military resume.

Grusch did name two UFO crashes. He mentioned both a crash in Italy in 1933 and, of course, Roswell. There was no danger in mentioning Roswell because of the controversy wrapped around the story. While the government explanation was Project Mogul, the available documentation eliminates that answer. I have written about that explanation of Roswell for, literally, decades, and believe there is no viable, terrestrial explanation for what was recovered. For those who wish to pursue my reasons for that, I suggest typing Mogul into the search engine here, or read either Roswell in the 21^st Century or Understanding Roswell.

The real trouble comes from the reference to the 1933 crash in Italy. I had not heard about this and I have spent decades researching claims of UFO crashes. The Italian story comes from documents, received anonymously in the mail by Italian researchers. This smacks of the tales of MJ-12, documents that were received anonymously in the mail by American researchers. Those documents are considered to hoaxes by the majority of UFO researchers today.

Briefly, Grusch said that the UFO was retrieved in northern Italy in 1933, and was recovered by Mussolini’s fascist government. The Pope learned about it and told the US government. The material was recovered by the US after the end of the Second World War.

The story of the 1933 crash, as told by Roberto Pinotti, an Italian journalist and UFO researcher, was that the object fell in Magenta, Lambardy, Italy, on April 11, 1933. The object was described as “saucer-like” and the event resulted in an investigation by an Italian intelligence unit called RS/33 Cabinet. The UFO was stored in the hangars of SIAI Marchetti in Vergiate. Mussolini believed the craft was a secret weapon of either the Nazis or the Allies.

Pope Pius XII learned of the craft and may have been told about it by Mussolini himself. When Mussolini signed a treaty with Hitler, the Pope worried about the craft and told the US about the object. It was after the war that the craft made its way to the United States.

Lue Elizondo, who was involved in UFO investigations, said that he had seen documents from Mussolini’s office that he found, “compelling.” He seemed to suggest that the craft might not have been alien but was some sort of advanced craft using jet engines that had been developed by the Nazis. The timing, however, doesn’t seem to fit. April 1933 is too early for the development of the jet engines and the design might have been something created by the Horten brothers attempts to build a “tailless” aircraft.

There were tales of bodies that made their way, and I say allegedly here, to Wright Field. They were badly mangled, looking as if they had been in a car wreck, but whose heads were fairly intact. They were seven feet tall, had long blonde hair, clear blue eyes, small noses, small mouths, thin lips and no signs facial hair.  The conclusion, based on the examination of those bodies was that they were not human.

One of the gates to Wright-Patterson AFB. Photo by Kevin Randle.

Now here is a connection that will raise a few eyebrows. There is an account from another source to corroborate some of these details. William Brophy, said that his father, who was a lieutenant colonel, had seen the bodies at some point and told him, the son, about them. Yes, this is the same Lieutenant Colonel Brophy who supposedly flew over, or landed near, or was somehow a witness to the 1945 UFO crash described by Jacques Vallee in this book about the San Antonio (Trinity) crash. The younger Brophy’s entry into this case taints it, just as it has the San Antonio crash.

At any rate, this is the tale of the 1933 crash, not cluttered up with any sort of corroboration except for those documents that have been floating around for decades. The trouble there, according to an Italian researcher, Giuseppe Stilo, writing in UFO Rivista di Informazione Ufoligica, those documents are faked. The documents arrived anonymously and were reported to have originated in “archival sources that no one has been able to identify and verify.”

Another problem is that those holding what has been termed “The Fascist Files,” is that disinterested third parties, in this case the CISU (Centro Italiano Studi Ufogici, an Italian research group) requested an opportunity to examine the documents but that has not happened in more than twenty years.

Also disturbing, is the lack of citation of the sources. We have dealt here, on this blog, with anonymous sources in various public arenas and more often than not, when the original source is identified the information attributed to that source has been distorted, or worse, the source denied the information.

A second article, “Fascist files” Under Scrutiny, by Massimiliano Grandi, published in UFO Rivista di Informazione Ufoligica (number 29) provided more information on these documents. Published with the article are photos of the documents which demonstrates there are documents, but that doesn’t mean they are authentic because the originals have not been subjected to independent forensic examination. This is the same problem we had with the MJ-12 documents. The originals were not available for disinterested third party examination.

Grandi provides additional arguments about the authenticity of the documents and the failure to corroborate any of the sources or other information. He concludes, however:

…we would like to firmly reiterate that despite the critical tones – the intent of those who want to study such an affair cannot be to try to prove the ‘falsity’ of those papers. This would be illogical. This falsity is not proven now, but it was intended to point out that there are numerous serious weaknesses in the reasons made to support the importance of the documents.

On the basis of the evidence so far produced, we believe that an Abrahamic faith is indeed required to condition the conclusions drawn by Pinotti and Lissoni about the contents of these documents.

Or, in other words, they found nothing to indicate that the documents were authentic and without additional information, the case for the 1933 crash and retrieval is not proven. It is up to the supporters to provide that proof and for more than twenty years they have failed to do so.

If this revelation about the 1933 Italian UFO crash is accurate, then it casts a shadow over the whistle blower who suggested that he learned it from his inside sources. It means that he accepted the original publication of the material without critical thought or even making a basic Internet search because he assumed that the information was accurate. It would seem that an insider, with access to what must be highly classified information, would have been aware of the controversy surrounding this case. He wouldn’t have mentioned it as one of two that he believed to be authentic.

Since he didn’t mention the names of any of his sources, we are unable to vet them and their reliability. We now enter an area of speculation. I have run into information that Grusch had spent time at the Skinwalker Ranch. Jerry Clark had mentioned to me that linking Grusch to Skinwalker as a way of questioning his credibility was unfair. Many have traveled to Skinwalker. But my point wasn’t about the paranormal research going on there, but who conducted the research and who had visited there. That put Grusch in touch with some formerly high-ranking government and military officials, not to mention Bigelow Aerospace. Remember, Grusch had talked about some of the evidence of the crashes and the recovery of material from those crashes had been provided to corporate America. One of those specifically named by sources other than Grusch was Bigelow Aerospace.

Given that connection, then it follows that we can deduce some of the names of those involved, and we can deduce some of the other crashes that might have been mentioned. Given where some of the information has recently surfaced that included the names of Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal, I believe that one of those crashes is the 1945 claim of the recovery of a craft near San Antonio, New Mexico. The story was told by two men, who had been boys in 1945, who saw the craft crash, saw the wrecked craft on the ground, the alien creatures that flew it, and the Army recovery operation.

Although the story has been accepted by some very smart people, some of them who have been around the UFO field for decades, Douglas Dean Johnson, in a comprehensive investigation that does cite sources and does provide documentation, has thoroughly debunked the tale. The shifting nature of the important features of the story suggest it is untrue. Tom Carey recorded an interview with Reme Baca, one of those witnesses, before the story received any wide spread treatment and the recording is of an event that doesn’t match much of the later story. You can read Johnson’s research and listen to Carey’s interview and analysis by other, disinterested third parties here:

https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/crash-story-file-the-reme-baca-smoking-gun-interview/

https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/crash-story-the-trinity-ufo-crash-hoax/

https://www.davidhalperin.net/

Given the direction of all this, I wonder if the Del Rio UFO crash in northern Mexico, just across the border from Texas, isn’t on the list. This tale appears in the MJ-12 Eisenhower Briefing Document as one of the authentic crashes, though they have moved it from Del Rio to the south, in the area of El Indio/Guerrero. There are those who believe the story because a retired Air Force colonel was the one who told it and he signed an affidavit attesting to the authenticity of his information. However, it turned out the witness, Robert Willingham, was not an Air Force colonel and his story had more changes than that of Reme Baca. You can read about how it unraveled here and that will also provide links to other Willingham and MJ-12 analysis:

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

I would guess that another of the crashes that Grusch might promote is the Kecksburg, Pennsylvania, event of December 9, 1965. Stan Gordon has spent decades in research of this case and is convinced that it was an alien spacecraft that crashed. Leslie Kean, along with Gordon attempted to recover records of the crash from NASA. Gordon has found many people who saw part of the final flight of what he thinks of as alien spacecraft. I too, thought that this was one of the best UFO crash stories, and Gordon has produced some compelling evidence. However, in the world today, the answer for that event might be a meteor. A bolide, which is a very bright meteor, fell about that time, with remnants found in southern Canada.

Stan Gordon of Kecksburg UFO Crash fame.

I wonder if Shag Harbour might not be on the list. This case had many witnesses who saw something fall into Shag Harbour in 1967. There was both a law enforcement response as well as a military one. The object was not recovered, and the evidence seems to suggest that it eventually managed to leave the harbour for deeper waters. Not so much of a crash as an emergency landing. There are many witnesses, as I noted, and there are many official documents about it. Chris Styles and Don Ledger are responsible for finding the documentation and the other information that suggests that this was an anomalous event.

These are some of the obvious tales of UFO crashes that had received mention in various books, magazine articles and TV documentaries. These are the prominent ones that many accept as authentic crashes. There are some lesser known crashes that might make the list such as the one over Las Vegas in April, 1962.

There was a report of a “brilliant red explosion” over Las Vegas that was witnessed by dozens, if not hundreds. Couple this to events in Utah of an oval-shaped craft landing and then taking off, and there is a hint of a “forced landing,” if not an actual crash. Sheriff’s deputies told me of a search for the downed craft that was never located. At this point, my investigation suggests that the Las Vega end of it was a bolide that exploded in the upper atmosphere.

I suppose I could go on with this speculation, but without Grusch telling us what specific events he had encountered, what he had heard from those highly-placed sources, and what is on those documents that he has seen but hasn’t produced, all we can do is speculate.

What I do know at this point is that Grusch’s mention of the Italian crash calls part of his story and one or more of his sources into question. Insiders would know the truth about this case, if they had heard about it. That casts something of a shadow over his whistle blowing.

However, those of us who have been around the UFO field long enough have been fooled by sources that seem to have inside information, only to learn that their sources were no better than ours. The UFO field is littered with the tall tales that, originally looked good but have fallen when better research was presented. Four of the most recent examples are the MJ-12 documents, the Alien Autopsy, the Project Mogul explanation for Roswell, and what I have called the Roswell Slides. The truth about all these has been published and you can read about it on this blog by typing in the keywords, or read about in my latest books about Roswell mentioned earlier.

At this point, I’m hopeful that Grusch will be able to provide the information we need to vet his tales, but as we said in the military, “Hope is not an option.” All I can really say is there are a few red flags but these simply are not enough to reject the information that Grusch has provided. As Jerry Clark said to me, we do need to wait to see how this plays out and where the truth finally is found.

 

David Grusch, UFO Crashes and Analysis (Updated June 12, 2023) (Updated June 13, 2023)

While Canada burns down and it seems that the leaders and former leaders of this country are accused, and in some cases indited, for breaking various federal laws, there are those more interested in crashed UFOs, or as is becoming the more correct term, UAPs. David Charles Grusch, whose credentials have been cited by many as impressive, claimed that the US Government has, in its possession, recovered alien spacecraft and the bodies of the alien crew. Overlooked here is the fact that he also said that he could produce no documents or pictures because of national security. I’ll concede that if he had pictures of aliens or alien spacecraft, that would be a national security issue.

Even without naming names and without the documentation, Grusch had been greeted with enthusiasm rather than skepticism by most of the mainstream media. Few worried about the lack of verifiable sources and fewer still mentioned it. Now, Michael Shellenberger issued his own statement saying that he knew of, at least, a dozen downed alien craft and that every five years we get one or two recovered for one reason and another. An unnamed source supposedly shared this information with AARO but AARO’s response suggests they don’t have access to that information.

Sean Kirpatrick at the Senate Hearing. He would say that he has seen no evidence
of alien material .

Of course, the Pentagon released a statement. Susan Gough told Fox News, “To date, AARO has not discovered any verifiable information to substantiate claims that any programs regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past or exist currently.”

That is similar to the statements made after the NASA meeting held on June 7. Several of the participants, when addressing this particular claim, said that they had no knowledge or had seen nothing to suggest that the government or the military had any sort of alien material or recovered craft.

After the meeting, Scott Kelly said, "I want to emphasize this loud and proud.
There is absolutely no convincing evidence for extraterrestrial life
associated with unidentified objects."

And, of course, comes the part that I love. More than one reporter trotted out the stale line about the Roswell UFO crash, claiming it was a “test balloon from Project Mogul.” It doesn’t seem to have occurred to those reporters that the Mogul explanation is just another in a long line of lies about the Roswell UFO case. According to the documentation, published by the Air Force, but overlooked by the media, is that the culprit in this, Mogul Flight No. 4, was cancelled. It did not fly and neither does this explanation.

But that does take us to Roswell, where a great deal of this all started. Don Schmitt and I have interviewed many high-ranking individuals about crashed UFOs and some of them have gone on the record. One of the first was Brigadier General Thomas DuBose, who, in 1947, was the Chief of Staff of the Eighth Air Force with headquarters at Fort Worth Army Air Field, later Carswell Air Force Base.

Interviewed in 1991, on tape, DuBose mentioned that the debris displayed in General Ramey’s office was not the material recovered outside of Roswell. Skeptics have pointed at the pictures of that debris as evidence for the Mogul explanation. In one of the pictures, we see Thomas DuBose proving that he was there, in the office, when the debris was displayed and identified as the material found outside of Roswell. He explained that there had been a switch, and that this was not the material that had been brought from Roswell. He said, “…actually it was a cover story, the balloon part of it for the remnants were taken from this location and Al Clark took it to Washington… That part of it was a cover story that we were to give to the public and the news and that was it.”

Since the material displayed in Ramey’s office is clearly the remains of a weather balloon and a rawin radar reflector, and since General DuBose said, on video tape, that it was not the debris brought from Roswell, it seems that Mogul is removed as an answer.

General Roger Ramey (left) and Colonel Thomas
DuBose (right) with the alleged Roswell debris.
DuBose would say that this is not the material
brought from Roswell.

Also, in the Army Air Forces in July 1947, was Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Exon, later a brigadier general. He was stationed at Wright Field which would eventually evolve into the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base where he would later serve as the base commander. Exon acknowledged, more than once, that unusual material had arrived at Wright-Patterson. He told Don and me, on audio tape, “We heard the material was coming to Wright Field… It was brought into our material evaluation labs. I don’t know how it arrived but the boys who tested it said it was very unusual… [Some of it] could be easily ripped or changed… there were parts of it that were very thin and awfully strong and couldn’t be dented with very heavy hammers… It was flexible to a degree and some of it was flimsy and was tougher than hell and almost like foil but strong. It had them pretty puzzled.”

Exon also said, on tape, “The metal and material was unknown to anyone I talked to. Whatever they found, I never heard what the results were. A couple of guys thought it might be Russian, but the overall consensus was that the pieces were from space.”

And to quote just one more officer who was stationed at Roswell in 1947, Major (later colonel) Edwin Easley told me that it was something from space. Oh, not in so many words. During one of the interviews, I had asked him if we were following the right path.

He asked, “What do you mean?”

I said, “We think it was extraterrestrial.”

He said, “Let me put it this way, it’s not the wrong path.”

So, the officer in charge of the base security and who served as the Provost Marshal, and later retired as a colonel, said, basically, what was found was from outer space. He was in charge of security at the crash site and for the material, and the bodies, when they were brought to the base.

Here are three officers, two generals and one colonel who were suggesting that Roswell was a cover up and that we had something from space. Project Mogul doesn’t figure into it and offers no real counter to the statements of these men, or a few dozen others who were involved. And even though we used their names and provided copies of the tapes to other interested parties, the story didn’t get all that much traction at the time. Instead, we were attacked as charlatans who believed everything we were told and who cherry-picked the data to make our case.

As an interesting aside, Don and I met with a reporter at the Chicago Tribune in the early 1990s. We met her in a hallway for the interview. She was an intern who told us that her editors didn’t believe in UFOs and therefore weren’t overly interested in the testimony that we had recovered, even though we could name names, provide contact information, and even had limited documentation. The sophisticated reporters and editors were uninterested unless it was to prove they were all too sophisticated to believe in UFOs.

Here today, we are bombarded with stories about crashed UFOs and alien pilots, and the mainstream media seems to be bending over backwards to tell these tales without critical comment. What’s the difference? We could name names and they do not.

David Charles Grusch has said that he talked to several people, respectable people, highly placed people who would be in the jobs to know, that there had been several UFO crashes and that dead alien pilots had been found. He provided no names and said that he wasn’t allowed to provide any documentation. He just could tell us what he had heard.

We are told about his credentials which are impressive, but that doesn’t translate into evidence. It is second-hand testimony without any specifics. Did anyone notice that. He said there were multiple UFO crashes but didn’t tell us anything about them. Isn’t that interesting. The mainstream media has provided Grusch with a platform but hasn’t managed to get any of those specifics.

However, there is another player. Michael Shellenberger is on stage now. He claims that he knew there were twelve alien craft in the possession of the US government. He dodged the questions about the recovery of an alien flight crew. He mentioned that he had talked to multiple sources. He said they were high-ranking military officials, intelligence officers and civilian contractors who verified what Grusch had said. But here, again, he provided no names, no documents but only said that these unidentified people were reliable.

One of the reporters actually said that it was intriguing that there were things that he had left out of the story. I suppose that this means that Don and I should have left things out of the information that we published three decades ago. Maybe they would have listened to us then and followed up on the Roswell case while the witnesses, the dozens of witnesses, were still alive to tell their stories.

Shellenberger did mention a crash around the testing site for the atomic weapons. This might be a reference to Roswell, though it is more likely a reference to the 1945 San Antonio, New Mexico, crash referred to by Jacques Vallee. If it is the Trinity tale, that undercuts the reliability of what Shellenberger has to say because the Trinity story is a hoax.

That we have no information about any specific crashes and given that we have no idea who all these reliable sources are, I worry about the validity of the information. There is another point to be made here.

Several years ago, I communicated with a former Air Force Officer who said that in the early 1950s, he had been assigned to an Air Force communications center. He told me that he had seen classified documents pass through the center that mentioned a UFO crash in Scandinavia. He told me he had seen the documents personally and knew that it was true. He didn’t have copies of the messages because they were, at the time, classified, so he wasn’t allowed to keep them.

The Spitzbergen message sent through the Air Force communications
channels. It shows the officer was accurate in claiming he had
seen a classified message, but it was not the whole story.

I believe him, and if the documents referred to a real incident, that would be even more impressive. However, I do have copies of those documents, and they were released at the same time the Project Blue Book files were declassified. The document outlined the information about the Spitzbergen UFO crash in 1952. The best information currently available is that the story is a hoax, and the original newspaper cited as the source does not exist. It is just another of those stories that dot the UFO landscape.

What this demonstrates is that there are sources out there who can say, without lying, that they had seen official documents about crashed UFOs. The problem is those documents are often among the first to cite the information and it is in later documents that the truth is learned. That officer I communicated with told the truth. He just didn’t know the outcome. I’m not sure that once the hoax was uncovered, that another message, or group of messages would have passed through that communications center. If they did, the officer hadn’t seen them.

There is one other fact that I have just learned about. On Monday, June 12, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Grusch is going to give the last presentation. This is something that is hosted by Dr. Steven Greer, whose CSETI organization once had a list of over 300 UFO crashes. I have been unable to find that list today, though it was once easily available on the Internet.

UPDATE (June 12, 2023) : Here is something that I just learned that has some relevance to the story: STATEMENT FROM DAVID GRUSCH - “I took my job very seriously, and early on, I allowed various individuals that alleged they had information to speak their truth as part of my evaluation process. I have not been mentored by anyone, and my public disclosure has been done independently under my own free will. I emphatically request that Steven Greer cease using my name to promote his personal agenda”

Update 2: (June 13, 2023): David Charles Grusch did not make a presentation at the Greer Press Conference on June 12. Douglas Dean Johnson tells me that he, Johnson, spoke with Grusch colleagues who confirmed that Grusch will not have an association with Greer. This should end the speculation that Grusch will appear on any venue that is associated with Greer. I will note, however, that the information published here about Greer is relevant to the discussion because of the talk of alien spacecraft crashes. And yes, I liked that last little bit of alliteration.)

Back on May 9, 2001, Greer held another event at the National Press Club. Interestingly, he excluded members of the Fund for UFO Research, though I don’t know what the rational for that might have been. However, Greer had made many startling claims then such as, “We have learned from three separate, corroborating sources that since the early 1990s, at least two extraterrestrial spacecraft have been targeted and destroyed by experimental space-based weapon systems.”

Dr. Steven Greer at the National Press
Club in 2013.

One of the claims that caught my attention was, “Multiple new independently corroborating witnesses told us of the crash and retrieval of ET spacecraft in 1947 in New Mexico and in 1948 in Kingman, Arizona.”

Clearly, the first reference is to Roswell but I’m unsure about the second. There has been a report, circulated for years, of a crash near Kingman, but that was in 1953, not 1948, and it is a hoax.

Here’s the point of this brief interlude. Greer is holding another such press conference, and as I say, it will feature Grusch, telling his stories. I had wondered about Grusch’s sudden appearance on the UFO scene with tales of UFO crashes and hidden information. This is, of course, the same drumbeat that Greer has been making for decades. Any association with Greer would raise red flags but in this case it seems to be a false flag. As noted, Grusch will have no association with Greer. (Added June 13, 2023)

Don’t get me wrong, I believe Grusch is telling the truth as he knows it, but without additional information, which we never seem to get, you have to wonder about the validity of it. Without sources, or with others who have been running in these same Ufological circles for years providing some sort of validation for Grusch, you must be skeptical. Had Grusch added just a bit more information, such as location of the crash sites, or the names of some of the witnesses, his revelations would, at least to my way of thinking, have been more plausible. But without that information we are at the same place we were thirty years ago.

Here’s where we are on this. We have no new information, just new faces. We have no documentation, photographs or names of the sources. We are just supposed to believe these anonymous sources but if the last few years have taught us anything, anonymous sources are nearly useless. There is no way to vet them or their information, and often times they are speaking of rumor rather than fact.

The few names we do have are those who have worked with and have known Grusch for years. They validate his character but not necessarily his information, which is a subtle but important point. And one of the names offered, Jonathan Grey, we are told is a pseudonym, which, again, allows for no vetting and does nothing to validate the information.

To my way of thinking, if just one of these new claims could be validated, it would be a great boost to my reporting, and the reporting of Don Schmitt and Tom Carey, and so many others. But while we named names and sources for those who wished to check our work, that hasn’t happened here. So, until we get some better information, I’ll be without a final opinion. I fear this will end up just like so many other attempts to bring this all to a conclusion. We’ll be left with questions but with no one to supply the proper and verifiable answers. 

David Grusch and the Latest Crash Retrieval Story

 

By now nearly everyone interested in UFOs, or rather UAPs, has heard about the latest revelations that the US Government has recovered not only alien artifacts, but apparently intact craft and the bodies of the pilots killed in UFO crashes. There are those who say this is the first time that anything like this has received positive public scrutiny, and all is backed up with endorsements by high-ranking military and government officials who are the same ones who have been making claims for years or who are not all that high ranking.

David Charles Grusch, who has some interesting credentials, has been interviewed by several journalists, who also have some interesting credentials, saying that there is evidence suggesting a secret program to recover the UFO material. We do know of a program called Moon Dust, that was originally hidden behind a curtain of classification, that had the mission of recovering unknown objects that have fallen to Earth that are of either foreign manufacture or unknown origin. This project, however, was not highly classified and operated in various government agencies including the Department of State. My book, cleverly called Project Moon Dust covers a great deal of that material, including reporting on the retrieval of many of these objects.

David Grusch and his visible resume.

In fact, Air Force Brigadier General C. H. Bolander made a statement in 1969 that said, “Reports of unidentified flying objects which could affect national security… are not part of the Blue Book system... [and] should continue to be handled through the standard Air Force procedure designed for this purpose.” He meant that some sightings were not reported to Project Blue Book, the official and publicly identified entity responsible for UFO investigation. This then, could be interpretated as evidence of a secret investigation that was not known to the public, which is indirect confirmation of what Grusch has claimed.

Grusch was adamant that there are several craft, intact, and that the bodies of the pilots were recovered. Unfortunately, and one thing that we need to remember, is that he said he had not seen these himself but was telling what others he respected told him. He said there were documents, but those were not available at the moment. This is the same problem that has plagued such claims for decades.

I did talk to Daniel Sheehan, a lawyer who consulted for a time with the Carter Administration, who said that he too, had seen photographs of downed craft with American military personnel on the site and related, highly classified documents. That interview was reported in UFOs and the Deep State.

I mention those two books because, my research tends to validate some of what Grusch said. But we’re in the same place without the documents or photographs of the debris that we have always found ourselves. I have talked with people who claimed insider status, but who are reluctant to go on the record but talked of secret studies and investigations and recovered artifacts.

This is not the first time that someone has suggested evidence of a secret government program to gain some attention by the main stream media. However, in the past, those claims have never been proven and some of the documentation has been discredited by members of the UFO community.

In the mid-1980s, the media, the UFO community, and most of the United States were fascinated to learn of something called Majestic Twelve or MJ-12. The proponents, who had received several documents anonymously through the mail, alleged that the MJ-12 was a highly placed group of scientists, military officers and government officials who were responsible for the investigation of a UFO recovered outside of Roswell, New Mexico and other alleged crashes.

Those proponents were seen on various TV shows including Nightline, were the subject of a two-hour nationally broadcast documentary that described the whole MJ-12 operation, and were interviewed by countless newspaper reporters. There was very little initial skepticism because they had the documents to show, including a letter or memo written by and signed by then president Harry Truman. Although the coverage was initially positive, it was later shown that MJ-12 and all the subsequent documents were faked. I outlined all this in the book, Case MJ-12, which was updated not all that long ago. You can read more about it here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2007/09/mj-12-is-dead.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2006/08/mj-12-revisited.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2011/08/absense-of-evidence.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2010/10/end-of-mj-12.html

And, of course, you can read more information about it in Roswell in the 21^st Century and in Understanding Roswell. There is also a section on the Majestic War Plan, a real document that was code named Majestic but that has nothing to do with the MJ-12 or alien spacecraft but does suggest a real problem. There wouldn’t be two separate programs using the same classified code word because of the obvious confusion that would create. The Majestic war plan has a known provenance but the MJ-12 documents have none.

And another worldwide sensation that received positive media coverage was the announcement that several cans of black and white movie footage had been found that showed the autopsy of an alien being. There were claims that some of the footage showed President Truman on the UFO crash site. This was going to blow the lid off the whole UFO question.

One of the creators of the Alien Autopsy video with the crash victim.

Documentaries were prepared about the footage. Most of those documentaries provided little in the way of critical content. In a press conference held in London, attended by reporters and other interested parties from around the world, some of that footage was shown. Naturally, there were critics, but they were mostly ignored because there was actual film footage shown and a promise that more would becoming.

It was later revealed to be a hoax, with those who had created the alien creature providing photographs that showed the creation of the creatures. But the real point is that, in the beginning, those making the claims had something besides the second-hand statements of a man with good credentials. You can read more about the alien autopsy here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2018/03/why-im-beginning-to-dislike-ufology.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2012/05/aiien-autopsy-and-philip-mantle.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2016/05/alien-autopsy-and-h-beam.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2006/04/end-of-alien-autopsy.html

The definitive book on this is Philip Mantle’s Roswell Alien Autopsy. Given his sources, it pretty well ends the discussion.

Or the latest of the worldwide UFO phenomena with a promise of absolute proof including photographs of the alien bodies was announced just a few years ago. This was big news on the world stage for several months with the promise that all would be revealed. The story was that two people, from Midland, Texas, had been friends with President Eisenhower and he had allowed them to not only see the bodies of the beings killed in the Roswell crash, but allowed them to photograph them.

In the beginning, a very poor photo was released online, as sort of a teaser to the big presentation to be held in Mexico City. It was to be streamed live throughout the world, and interest was high for weeks prior to the presentation.

In the end, it was all hype and little else. When we finally saw a high-quality photograph, it took only hours to identify it as an unfortunate child who had died several hundred years ago. You can learn more about it here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2019/08/x-zone-broadcast-network-tom-carey.html

Although this post has a long list of other articles about the Roswell Slides, this one post might provide the best evidence against that whole sad saga. Just type Roswell Slides into the search engine for a more comprehensive list. And, of course, Roswell in the 21^st Century has a long analysis of the situation.

In other words, I’m cautious about all this latest interest from the whistleblower and would like to see some evidence other than second-hand statements before I climb out on a limb. As shown, we have been down this road before, and in many of those cases, there was some form of physical evidence attached to the claims being made. It might be in the form of documents, or it might be film of an alien being undergoing a rather cavalier autopsy, but it was something more than one man with good credentials making claims that can’t be backed up at this point.

Here's the thing. Too many of us want to believe, so we are sometimes blinded to the flaws in the story. I have talked to a general, who wished to remain anonymous, who said that the Roswell story was true. He had seen the evidence. Now, why would he risk his career to make a statement like that? I don’t know, but I heard him say it.

While two reputable journalists have reported on the story and the Grasch has been vetted, the point is that he has offered nothing in the way of corroborative evidence. He has promised it is out there but this is not the time to reveal it. So, I report on what has been said, I note that this is not the first time this has happened, and I wait patiently for the evidence to be presented. Until then, this tale joins all the others we have been fed over the years. Without the corroborative evidence, all we really have is an interesting story told by a man who has offered no evidence and that many of us want to believe.