A
couple of years ago, I heard Dr. Eric Davis mention, briefly, that the UFO
crash near Del Rio, Texas, was real. It was something of a “throw away” line on
Coast-to-Coast AM, and there was no follow up. Having investigated the Del Rio
crash for more than two decades, I was surprised by such a bold statement and
attempted to reach out to Dr. Davis to learn why he thought the case was solid.
I
never received a reply… until now.
Apparently,
André Skondras reached out to Dr. Davis to ask him about my assessment of the
Del Rio case. According to Andre the response was, “Davis maintains that
Randle’s conclusions about crash-retrieval history are incorrect and based on
flawed research. He stresses that he, David Grusch, and other cleared personnel
were briefed on classified evidence firsthand—information that remains inaccessible
to the public due to long-standing national-security restrictions. According to
Davis, critics often misunderstand how these secrecy protocols work, and the
absence of public proof does not invalidate what is known inside classified
programs.”
Yes,
we have the old dodge that he is privy to information from classified sources
and that he, among others, were briefed on classified evidence and that we, on
the outside, misunderstand secrecy protocols. Except, of course, I served as an
intelligence officer in both the Air Force and later the Army. I get all that,
but the problem is his belief that the Del Rio crash is real.
As
I have noted in the past, when the story first popped up, in 1968, the
architect of the tale was Robert Willingham, identified as a lieutenant colonel
in the Civil Air Patrol. You can read the entry from Skylook, the
original publication of MUFON here:
![]() |
The Willingham story is the 3rd paragraph down. This provides not only the article but identifies the source. |
https://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2018/09/dr-davis-confirms-del-rio-ufo-crash.html
The
point is that in over two decades of research into the Del Rio crash, I have
not found another witness to the Del Rio retrieval. The date has changed three
times and Willingham told me that he wasn’t sure if it was 1954 or 1955. Please
note here that I did interview the prime source and so far, as I know, the only
witness to the crash.
While
Dr. Davis may well have been exposed to first-hand witnesses to other
crash/retrievals, he heard nothing first-hand about Del Rio. That crash was
invented by Robert Willingham. Other than him, there is no evidence that the
crash took place.
I’ll
close this by saying that unless there is something about Del Rio that I
haven’t discovered, and I freely admit that possibility, my conclusion, based
on my research to date is that it is a hoax.


7 comments:
Well, we all know that the so-called Roswell UFO crash was a fake...fake...fake. However, the credible ones were The Kingman crash of May 1953, this was REAL folks! The second credible one was the Aztec UFO crash months after the Rosell fake crash. Of course, the BE WITNESS fake was all hustle and a scam, no money was refunded to those deceived by the organizers of this charade.
All -
Should have mentioned that David Grusch told us about the 1933 UFO in Italy. That has been researched in depth by Italian UFO researchers, concluding it was a hoax. Seems to me that someone on the inside would know that.
So, if Dr. Davis has any evidence that the Del Rio crash is real, other than his claim he was briefed on it in secret meetings, I stand by the claim it is a hoax. Those on the inside should know this, and, of course, it we could prove that it was real, it would make Roswell easier to accept as authentic.
“Davis maintains that Randle’s conclusions about crash-retrieval history are incorrect and based on flawed research. He stresses that he, David Grusch, and other cleared personnel were briefed on classified evidence firsthand—information that remains inaccessible to the public due to long-standing national-security restrictions."
The more time goes by, the more convinced I am that this so-called “classified evidence” is just the MJ-12 documents, both the original set that surfaced in the early 1980s and the later ones from the 1990s. It’s the only way to make sense of all the things these people are claiming to be true.
If that’s the case, then there’s nothing of real value to learn from either Davis or Grusch. They’re either intentionally lying by trying to pass off MJ-12-related material as authentic without mentioning it directly, despite knowing those documents are forgeries, or they were lied to by third parties who convinced them the documents are genuine.
David Grusch collected and believed multiple hoax stories, Eric Davis being one of his main sources. (Perhaps Grusch also collected valid information from reliable insiders, but if so, none of those have yet emerged into daylight to allow independent critical scrutiny.) Davis insists on the authenticity of an ostensible 1961 "Special National Intelligence Estimate" by "MJ Twelve Operations," based on claimed insider information, yet it is one of the shoddiest MJ-12 documents--laughable, really. Davis defended the Trinity UFO-crash tale, a very shoddy hoax by two not-very-clever hoaxers (and he has never repudiated that defense), although of course he did not engage on any details--that is not his modus operandi. There are other examples. In my opinion, Davis is fabulist who bears substantial responsibility for fostering many of the UFO-related urban legends of our day.
Douglas Dean Johnson
Douglas Dean Johnson
I agree with your assessment of David Grusch and Eric Davis.
Given your track record as an investigator, especially your work on the Trinity crash story and the Harold Malmgren case, I think you’d be well positioned to write a detailed article focusing specifically on the provably false claims coming from Grusch and Davis. Since many people in the UFO community treat them almost like messianic figures, an article like that would be very useful in helping to demystify them.
Just a suggestion.
That would be a time-consuming project, and I doubt it would have much effect on those who regard Grusch as a hero and Davis as an oracle. Nor do the leaders of "disclosure" groups, including the most sincere, seem to learn much from being repeatedly sucked in by hoaxers and the deluded, which makes me question whether such investments of time and energy (and no small monetary cost) are justified.
More than a year ago, I spent many weeks digging into the origins of the Kingman crash tale (which Grusch and Jay Stratton had endorsed, sort of). I have lengthy recorded interviews with three people who were there at the inception of the Kingman tale. Kingman was just another invention by another fabulist, semi-cleaned up later by a well-meaning UFO investigator. I've just never gotten motivated to spend a week or more writing it all up, although I may yet get around to it. But, does anybody care?
For example, on the Trinity case, everything checkable proved to be pure invention, cooked up by two not-very-clever liars. The icon Jacques Vallee responded to my findings first with gross misstatements, evasions, and revised claims, but then moved on to flat-out lying (and I do not use this word lightly)-- yet all without any visible consequence among leaders of "disclosure" groups. You will notice that none of those groups make time at their conferences for panels on such topics as, "Why do we keep getting snookered and what can we do to make it happen less often?"
Douglas Dean Johnson
Might be too late to comment here and now, but I want to share a URL to this document released on The Black Vault's website that might be relevant here.
https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/dod-ig-releases-final-uap-whistleblower-reprisal-report/
Post a Comment