Roswell Nurse Photographs the Bodies - I Don't Think So

 

By happenstance, I came across a YouTube video that claimed an interview with a woman who had been a surgical nurse in Roswell in 1947. The claim was that Margaret Ellen Dodd had been tasked with taking pictures of the alien bodies recovered. She said that she had been told to do this because, as a surgical nurse, she wouldn’t be upset by the circumstances. It was in 1985 that she told the story to an Albuquerque UFO researcher. It was the only time she talked about those events. You can watch the video here, though I do hesitate to provide the url… this really shouldn’t be rewarded, given the circumstances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veF9PaZ10wg

Well, naturally, this caught my attention because in my decades of research, I had never come across this nurse. I seemed to remember that Tom Carey might have mentioned a nurse with that or a similar name, so I sent him an email. While I waited for a response, I made what are the normal checks. She doesn’t appear in the Yearbook created during the summer of 1947 by Walter Haut. She doesn’t appear on the morning reports for that year. Anytime there is activity about a soldier, joining the unit, leaving it, going on leave or returning from leave or being unavailable for duty, that sort of thing, that soldier’s name, or in this case, that nurse’s name would appear in the record. Hers did not.

Tom Carey at the Roswell UFO Museum.

She was reported to be a lieutenant. This meant that she wasn’t a civilian that somehow found herself with that strange assignment… not to mention wondering why they would want a nurse to take the photographs. There was a complete photo lab assigned to the base and if they needed a photographer, one of the men assigned there would have been a better selection. Some of them had even photographed the graphic remains of aircraft accidents.

I hadn’t expected a return to my query quite as quickly as it came. Tom wrote back reporting:

I just spent an entire morning researching the names cited in your email below and basically came up empty because: they're all most likely dead; their ages are/were unknown at any point in time, which would have been a big help in any search; and the alleged nurse's last name ["Dodd"] I assumed was her maiden name but could have been her married name? I don't know. 

Anyway, here's what I did find out, which didn't lead me to a touchdown in the end. In the '47 RAAF yearbook, there is a "Pfc. Willy Dodd" pictured in "Squadron S," which is composed of all black airmen. Since the alleged nurse Margaret Ellen Dodd was an officer, I assumed a relationship as being unlikely. 

More interesting, however, was a listing in my photocopy of the '47 Roswell City Directory for a "Harry Dodd" whose occupation was given as an "orderly at Saint Mary's Hospital" in Roswell. Even though I had no idea of his age, this was interesting enough to spur me to see if I could find this fellow with my search engine using various age groupings. I also limited my search engine to search just the states of NM and AZ for this fellow. To cut to the chase, I could not find a connection of any of the names that resulted with any combination of the nurse's possible names.

Finally, I located an "M.E. Heid" in my copy of the 1993/1994 Roswell White Pages, but according to you[r] email she passed away in 1991 in Tucson, AZ.

That was basically what I had learned as well. No independent corroboration for this tale. We are told in the video that the nurse only spoke with the Albuquerque researcher once and never said anything else about it. According to the video, she had died in 1991 at the age of 67.

However, in video, it is claimed that the researcher produced a report but that was eventually confiscated by the government when he died in 1993, also at 67. He did make eleven copies of it and sent it out to various UFO researchers. I wondered why Stan Friedman hadn’t been one of them. Had he had that report, then his book, written with Don Berliner, would have carried the tale. It did not.

In fact, I wondered why none of those researchers ever stepped forward with their copy. A document like that, created in 1985 before the case blew up in the 1990s would have been very valuable.

There were other red flags, things that only those of us who had been researching the case for decades would know. The hospital at the base, in 1947, wasn’t the fancy brick structure that was created in the 1950s. It was a series of buildings that housed the various specialties and functions. A nurse who had been assigned there would have known that.

The last of the original base hospital buildings. The others are long gone.

Tom did one other thing. He sent a copy of my email to Tony Bragalia to see what he could learn. He provided the following information from the content creator, Contact Redacted, with the important points highlighted by Tony:

I've always been fascinated by aliens, UFOs, classified reports, and the mysteries surrounding them, including alleged abduction and contact accounts. On this channel, we'll examine the evidence and explore what may have been lost, erased, or kept hidden. Disclaimer: This channel features exploratory interpretations and speculation about unexplained phenomena, presented through investigative-style storytelling rather than established fact. The perspectives and visual representations are dramatized or creatively constructed for storytelling purposes. Some visuals may be generated, enhanced, altered, or reconstructed using automated or generative artificial intelligence tools to create a more immersive viewing experience. The content presented here should not be considered factual and is intended solely for commentary and entertainment.

This then, should end any acceptance of the tale as real. The content creator tells us that the content should not be considered factual. Apparently, those who have posted comments to the video didn’t bother to check out his bio and see he had created three other videos (as of this writing) in a similar vein.

This should be the end of this. A story told for entertainment but not as a part of the history of the Roswell case. But then I looked at the comments and was further appalled by what some of those said. They were treating the story as if real but adding to it. Glenn Dennis was mentioned several times, but Dennis invented his connection to the Roswell crash and the story of a missing nurse. Dennis had said that she had been killed in an aircraft accident that claimed four other nurses.

Glenn Dennis in the mid-1990s.

Back in the early 1990s, both Don Berliner and I searched for evidence of that aircraft accident. I won’t go into the details because I have reported on them several times in books, articles and on this blog. There was no evidence of such a crash.

The point is that there seem to be many out there who still accept the Dennis tale as accurate, though the truth has been available for decades. There are those who tell us who Dennis’s nurse might be, mentioning real nurses who were in Roswell in 1947, but that hasn’t panned out either. And when Vic Golubic confronted Dennis about the name of the nurse Dennis had provided (Naomi Self, or Selff), Dennis then said that wasn’t her real name. Golubic managed to obtain a roster of some 125,000 nurses who had served in the Army but Naomi Self didn’t appear on that massive roster.

Back when Dennis first began telling the tale, told me that he had warned us that he wasn’t going to give us the real name. But he never said that to me, nor did he tell those others such as Karl Pflock and Philip Klass. Had Klass had the information back in the early 1990s, he would have spread the information far and wide. Now, confronted by the fact that we had actually proved a negative, that no one by the name Naomi Self had been stationed at Roswell, he changed the name.  For me, the lie about her name was the straw that broke the camel’s back. In 1997, in The Roswell Report, I outlined all this, meaning that information has been available for three decades. The Glenn Dennis lies just will not die.

I’m stuck in an endless loop of trying to publish accurate information about the Roswell case, but the false things we have been told and the witnesses who were less than candid keep popping up. Dennis made up the tale. Now we have Contact Redacted inventing a new one that is being immediately accepted as real.

Before I sign off here, just let me say that anyone could have attempted to follow up on this through sources available on the Internet. Anyone looking at it should have seen the red flags… witnesses that are dead so they can’t be questioned, names of people who weren’t in Roswell in 1947, a failure to understand military protocol, and a failure to produce an alleged taped interview with one of the witnesses or a copy of that original report that has eleven copies out there, somewhere.

Sadly, the easiest way to check this out was to click on the content creator’s name that would have taken you to his website, where he tells you this is a story that he invented. That should be the final line in this but Tom and I wanted to drive a stake through the heart of the tale. I just can’t wait for the next time someone cites this as important new information when all it does is obscure the truth.

Gilles Fernandez, Project Mogul and More Roswell Minutia

 

For those tired of the Roswell minutia, you can blame Gilles Fernandez for this trip down memory lane. In my post about the material photographed in General Ramey’s office, I wrote, in response to a question by another commentator, “Marcel told reporter Johnny Mann of WWL-TV in New Orleans that stuff in that photograph was NOT the stuff he had brought from Roswell. Thomas DuBose, the Eighth Air Force Chief of Staff (a very high-level position) that the stuff in the photographs (and he's in two of them) was switched. It wasn't the real debris.”

Thomas DuBose with Don Schmitt after one of the interviews

in Florida during our investigation of the events in 1947.

Gilles, in response to that quote, asked, “Concerning the so-called "Johnny Mann's interview: You can provide us such an interview and record? A link, PLEASE? And then the audio source, we can or not?”

A fair question that was somewhat hostile, though I would point out that the skeptical community accepts all that Charles Moore said about Project Mogul without critical comment, but I digress.

The short answer is that there is not an audio source. I did not record the conversation because, at the time, it didn’t seem to be all that important. Mann was just one more voice confirming that Marcel had said those pictures were not of the material he had found. All this had arisen, back in the mid-1990s, as we all began to question the source of the material that had been photographed in Ramey’s office. Skeptics were pointing out that the photographs published in The Roswell Incident, were cropped versions of larger photographs that clearly did show a rawin radar target, badly degraded and the neoprene envelop of a weather balloon. Those of us who saw the whole picture back in the early 1990s knew what they showed even before the skeptics began to beat their drum.

Bill Moore, according to The Roswell Incident, wrote, “Actually,’ said Major Jesse Marcel, shown kneeling here amid what he described as some of the less spectacular pieces of wreckage,’ this material may have looked like tinfoil and balsa wood, but the resemblance ends there.” That quote attributed to Marcel, and found as captions to the pictures in The Roswell Incident, is confusing.

Major Jesse Marcel in General Ramey's office with

the remains of the rawin radar target.

If that statement is accurate, then the discussion and the investigation end right there. The full, uncropped version proved that because it shows a weather balloon and rawin radar target. But, because nothing is ever simple in UFO investigations, that’s not the end of it.

I knew that Johnny Mann had interviewed Marcel in the early 1980s and had even taken him back to Roswell so that they could film a segment for Mann’s television station, WWL-TV in New Orleans. Mann said he also traveled to Pascagoula to interview Hickson and Parker about their abduction. At the time, Mann thought the abduction was the bigger story, so, after the segments aired, they reused the tapes, so the raw footage was no longer available… except they kept the raw footage of Hickson and Parker interview (which, I probably should mention to Philip Mantle and Irene Scott).

Mann had a copy of The Roswell Incident with him and he showed the pictures to Jesse Marcel, saying, “Jess, I gotta tell you, that looks like the remains of a weather balloon.”

Marcel said that it wasn’t the stuff that he had brought from Roswell. It was something else. The implication was that it had been switched. As far as I know, Bill Moore never produced a tape of Marcel saying it was the real stuff as quoted in his book. And I have no tape of what Mann said to me because I didn’t tape the conversation.

Why not, you might ask?

Because there was other evidence, some of which had been taped. Colonel Thomas DuBose, the 8^th Air Force Chief of Staff, and who appears in two of the pictures taken of the material in Ramey’s office, confirmed that the material had been switched. In an interview, conducted in 1991 and is on tape, said that “the switch was made to get the reporters off the general’s back.”

General Roger Ramey and Colonel Thomas Dubose
with the substituted wreckage in Ramey's office.

So, while I don’t have a tape of what Mann said to me, we do have a taped interview from another source telling us that the material in the pictures is not the stuff that Marcel had brought to Fort Worth.

During the filming of UFOs Are Real, Marcel, at one point, said that if he was in the pictures, then it was the real stuff, but then, shown the pictures taken in Ramey’s office said, “There’s a picture in the same room [meaning Ramey’s office]. It’s not the material I brought there [meaning to Fort Worth].

(For those interested, this came from the shot script for UFOs Are Real, Tape One, Page Two).

Then it gets worse if possible. Marcel is quoted in the transcript, apparently paraphrasing Ramey, “You can go ahead and scatter some of those pieces on the floor for the photographers and press but make sure they don’t get any details about anything.”

There was a question asked at that point in the interview. “Was that the actual material you had found?”

“I prepared that for the press. (That big piece was not part of it). [parens in the original document.]

(This came from the shot script for UFOs Are Real, Tape Two, Page One).

Marcel then adds, “Let me show you something. There’s a picture of the same room. It’s not the material I brought there.” That, of course, are the six pictures shot by J. Bond Johnson, a reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and sent out over the news wires. Given the available documentation, we know those photographs were taken on July 8, 1947.

On tape three the interviewer said, “I talk about the book I’m showing him [which must be something with the pictures from Ramey’s office.] Book in Jesse’s lap showing warrant officer [Irving Newton]. The interviewer asked, “This is not the material you found?”

This means that Newton, seen in the seventh of the pictures kneeling with the balloon, is not what Marcel had brought to Fort Worth.

Marcel responded that question, saying, “Definitely not.”

This came from the shot script for UFOs Are Real, Tape Three).

Confusing enough?

Now we get to Linda Corley who interviewed Marcel in his home in Houma, Louisiana, in 1981 as part of her graduate studies. Gilles is quick to warn me not to bring up Corley because of Stan Friedman. Gilles wrote, “Maybe, you will next point to me Linday Corley 1981 tapes. Please, dont (sic) do this, I know how Stanton Friedman "recorded" this again.”

I’m not sure, but I believe the accusation is that Friedman altered the tapes that Corley had loaned him. He makes this allegation without evidence; however, it is an attempt to eliminate Marcel’s claim that the material in the pictures was not the debris he had recovered on the Brazel ranch. A point that Marcel made repeatedly to others.

Remember, all this started because I had mentioned the Mann interview, which I hadn’t recorded. Gilles has disposed of this by suggesting the interview can be rejected because there is no way to verify it. I did, provide the information in the mid-1990s when it would be possible to corroborate the statements with Mann himself.

Corley’s critical information was published in her book, For the Sake of My Country, when she asked Marcel about the pictures in Ramey’s office. He said, “What you see in there is nothing but a piece of brown paper that I put over so that the news media couldn’t get a picture of what I had.”

Corley asked, Oh, you were covering the stuff?

Marcel replied, “I was covering it. But nobody knew that. I was told by my commanding general, ‘Just don’t say anything. Don’t show anything…’”

Later he said, “You see this picture right here? That’s a fake. After I left there… He claimed it was fragments of a weather balloon… This is part of a weather balloon.”

There is another aspect to this that seems to be important. Marcel told Corley that he had never met either Bill Moore or Stan Freidman in person. They had only talked on the telephone. That made we wonder if Marcel made his statements about the real material without seeing the pictures. Knowing Stan Friedman, I can’t believe that he hadn’t sent Marcel copies of those pictures, but if he hadn’t, then Marcel might have been confused on the issue. That suggests that other pictures had been taken with the real debris at some other time in a different location but we have never found those, if they exist.

The problem here is that this is my speculation but it is based on extrapolations from the situation at the time and the fact that when Marcel saw the pictures from the book, said that is wasn’t the stuff that he had taken to Fort Worth.

There is another aspect that Gilles keeps harping on, which is related to but not essential to this conversation. He wrote, more than once, “You are wrong and somehow "betraying" your readers: Technical report 1 PROOVES it flaw.”

This is a reference to Flight #4, which becomes clear in the rest of Gilles’s comment. I believe he is suggesting that because it was not recorded and absent in the tables, it didn’t exist. He wrote:

If this flight is not reported and/or recorded in the tables, it is for what I wrote, than in my blog or in my book:*** is not present in the table summary that it was canceled or never existed, but because:

Or no attempt or no materials to control/record the altitude were made.
Or because special gear or technic tested.

Or due to different failures on ground or during the flight.

You wrote: "that are missing HERE" (the caps lock are mines) in this interview. You well know the original question (it was concerning the tables and the absence or missing flights in the tables); therefore why some flights are missing in the tables."you don't have it there": "there" = in the tables.”

While I admire anyone who can communicate in a foreign language, I do not speak or read French. I do have a limited knowledge of Spanish and have communicated with Spanish speakers in their language but I imagine they have some difficultly in understanding me. But, as they say, “I digress.”

I believe the claim here is that I created the idea of Flight #4 as a way of eliminating the debris displayed in Ramey’s office from the conversation. But I’m not the one to introduce that concept into the discussion. In a “white paper” created by Charles Moore, an engineer working with the balloons in Alamogordo, we learn the following:

According to C.S. Schneider’s progress report for May 1947, NYU Flight #3 from Bethlehem, PA on May 8 was the last attempt to carry instruments aloft before June 4, whereas they accent on June 5 was identified as NYU Flight #5. On this basis, I [Charles Moore] think the June 4^th balloons carried NYU Flight #4, although there is no mention of this flight in the NYU summary because no altitude data were obtained.

Charles Moore reviewing the winds aloft data that I suppled for the
analysis of the track Flight #4 might have followed. Yes, I have
published this before but it shows that I followed all paths
searching for the truth. I did work with Moore.

The Skeptical Inquirer provided us with 70 facts about the Roswell Incident. Kendrick Fraizer wrote:

The reporter should have told readers what we now know (almost certainly) the debris to have been: remnants of a long vertical “train” of research balloons and equipment launched by New York University atmospheric researchers and not recovered—specifically, Flight No. 4. The research team launched NYU Flight #4 on June 4, 1947, from Alamogordo Army Air Field and tracked it flying east-northeast toward Corona. It was within seventeen miles of the Brazel ranch when the tracking batteries failed and contact was lost.

And this comes from Smithsonian Magazine, written by Pat Trenner and published on July 7, 2010:

Mogul Flight 4 was launched from Alamogordo on June 4, 1947, and is likely the source of the debris Brazel brought to Sheriff Wilcox. 

According to Charles Moore, there was a Flight #4 but no data was recovered so there was no entry in that Technical Report 1. But Charles Moore provided comment in various places including his: March 16, 1995 paper, “The New York University Balloon Flights During Early June, 1947, and additional information from the Air Force report that includes Technical Report 1 that are relevant to the discussion.

According to the written record Mogul Flight No. 4 was cancelled. There is no equivocation about it. The flight was cancelled, which should be the end of the story… but no, Albert Crary’s diary, one of those records, and part of the source material, mentions that a cluster of balloons was flown on the date in question. This was allegedly Flight No. 4.

The documentation from the New York University balloon project shows that the first successful flight in New Mexico was Flight No. 5. But Moore claimed that Flight No. 4 was just as successful; they just didn’t record it (see page 11 of his white paper). If it was as successful, then why not record it and tout it as the first successful flight in New Mexico? Why not report the data collected rather than leave it out of the record altogether. Why would Crary say the flight had been cancelled if it had actually flown and was successful?

This, I believe, negates the claim that there was no Flight #4 to be cancelled and certainly refutes the idea that this was somehow my creation. Even Charles Moore referred to Flight #4 suggesting that it had performed as well as Flight #5.

But now we come back to Johnny Mann and what he said to me. Gilles Fernandez would like something more concrete than my reported conversations with Mann. At that time, I had called Mann to ask him about his interview with Marcel, it just wasn’t that important to record it. I didn’t record it because I was verifying the facts as laid out in other, recorded interviews and published information from other researchers. I asked about the pictures and Mann told me that Marcel told him that the material was not what he had found in the field. We have Marcel on film and on tape saying the same thing in other interviews.

That same afternoon, I called Jesse Marcel, Jr. and basically asked the same question and got the same answer. Since there was documentation that Marcel, Sr. had made the statements to others about the debris being switched, it seemed to be unnecessary to record the information. Even if you reject what Mann told me, or more importantly, you reject Mann’s statements without a tape or recording to consult, all these other sources confirm that Marcel said, repeatedly, that the pictures taken in Ramey’s office was not the material he had found in the field.

I don’t mind Gilles asking the question, but given all this other, documented testimony, it seems to be irrelevant. Eliminate the Mann interviews that I conducted, there are all these other statements made by Marcel about the pictures, many of them on tape.

We’re back to the point about what we want to believe about those events. We do have Colonel DuBose telling us that the material in Ramey’s office was switched. When we, and I mean Don Schmitt, Tom Carey and I, investigated this, we had statements from two of the men in the office that day, DuBose and Marcel. We can prove what they said because of the recorded interviews. My discussion with Mann added the same thing. Marcel denying what was seen in the pictures was the material Brazel had found and Marcel recovered.

This then, is my long response to the question as by Gilles Fernandez. No, I have no recording of my interview with Johnny Mann, but then I can point you to other recordings and documentation that verifies the information as I reported it.

Now, it’s up to you, as the reader, to decide where the truth lies in all this. Clearly Marcel seemed to contradict himself on the matter and we can speculate about why that is. But the point here, is that I have additional evidence that verifies the information that Mann supplied to me. I didn’t invent the quotes as has been alleged.

I hope the answer to Gilles Fernandez’s question is adequate. He doesn’t have to believe me, but there is confirmation about the accuracy of the statement. And, in addition, I hope this is my last word on this very narrow aspect of the Roswell case.

(PS) For those of you playing along at home, let me point out another item that is consistently misstated. While the ultimate purpose of Mogul was to spy on the Soviets was top secret, the activities in Alamogordo were unclassified. This is the reason that a Mogul array was photographed and article about the balloon project was published in newspapers around the country on July 10.

The front page of the Alamogordo News on July 10, showing off the balloon arrays
in the attempt to prove that the project was responsible for the Roswell debris.

Get it? They made no Herculean effort to recover the remains of other flights because there was nothing in them that would reveal the purpose of the flights and it wouldn’t lead to Mogul. Photographs and newspaper article were not violating national security. As a former Air Force intelligence officer, I understand these things. I could talk all day about the activities in Alamogordo and it was no violation or compromise of project. If I mentioned the purpose, then I would be in trouble because that was what was classified. Can we retire this nonsense now?)

Age of Disclosure: A Personal Review

 Yes, I have seen Dan Farah’s Age of Disclosure, and this will be one of those mixed reviews. There are some good things in it and some clunkers in it. The documentary began with the introductions of some high-level people, or I suppose I should say, some formerly high-level people. This segment is important because it suggests inside information and the possible disclosure of important photographs and video footage. It suggests there is evidence of alien visitation that we haven’t seen and each of these men hint they have seen the truth with their own eyes… well, some of them can only tell us what they derived from second-hand sources, though Jay Stratton makes the claim he has seen the craft and the bodies with his own eyes. Impressive stuff.

As we move on, we are told by those sources that:

“Humans are not the only intelligence in the universe.”

“They’re real, they’re here, and they’re not human.”

“Non-human intelligences are here and have been interacting with humanity for a long time.”

“We are not the only intelligent life form on the planet. There’s something else here.”

“This is the biggest discovery in human history.” 

On that last point, Don Schmitt, Tom Carey and I have been saying for decades this story is the biggest in the last thousand years. There is nothing to compare to it but then, I’m not sure it is the biggest discovery in human history, though if pressed, I could only think of one thing and that takes us into the realm of religion and frankly I don’t want to go there in this review.

I have heard for months about this film changing the landscape of UFO, well, UAP research, and that opening sequence gave me hope. To me, it promised to provide some of that evidence that has been kept from us for decades.

Hal Puthoff tells us, “The classified data that we had access to when we joined the program was indisputable.” That’s good for him, but we must know what those classified data are because we haven’t seen them. We have been promised that data and disclosure for decades but somehow it never happens.

Eric Davis then tells us, “There is 80 years of data that the public isn’t even aware of.”

But I find Eric Davis somewhat problematic. He had said on a few occasions that the Del Rio crash is real. I have spent a great deal of time and effort in my research on this alleged crash and discovered the original tale was told by former Air Force colonel, Robert Willingham. Len Stringfield, whose research changed most of our opinions on stories of crash/retrievals, a term he invented, provided some early analysis of that crash. I even found in Skylook, the original magazine published by MUFON, Willingham’s original story. It is remarkedly different from that he told to others. But let’s ignore all that. Willingham was never an Air Force fighter pilot as he claimed, was not an Air Force colonel as he suggested, had never even served in the Air Force but had been a member of the Civil Air Patrol (CAP). He wore ribbons he had never earned, claimed he had been wounded in the Korean War, but his military record showed only thirteen months of military service from December 1945 to January 1947. He is not a reliable source.

I mention all this because, if Eric Davis had inside information, he would have known that the Del Rio crash was the invention of Robert Willingham. It never happened, but it excited many in the UFO community including me until I saw his military record and pictures of him in a CAP uniform attempting to convince us he had been a high-ranking Air Force officer.

Robert Willingham in his CAP uniform. You can see the
 "CAP" insignia on the collar and the metal plate
showing it is the CAP.

We are treated to Jay Stratton, who tells us, “The things that I’ve seen, the clearest videos, the best evidence we have that these are non-human intelligence, remains classified. I have seen with my own eyes non-human craft and non-human beings.”

He had been featured in some of the trailers about the documentary and I reported on Coast-to-Coast AM his statement about seeing the evidence with his own eyes. I was cautiously optimistic about Stratton’s testimony, but wanted to wait until I saw the documentary. I had expected greater things from Stratton. Do we get any sort of evidence from him in the form of documents and photographs? No. Just his serious claim that he had seen it with his own eyes but we don’t get to see it with ours.

I think here of the officers and enlisted men in Roswell in July 1947. I talked to many of them, as did Don and Tom. They told us what they had seen with their own eyes. Thomas Gonzales, a sergeant with the 509^th made carvings of the alien creatures he had seen. Does that prove he saw aliens? Frankly, no. But at least we had something more than a claim to have seen these things. Gonzales surfaced, literally decades ago, just as the Roswell crash was entering the public consciousness.

Thomas Gonzales cravings of the little men.

Christopher Mellon is featured throughout the film. He talked about his experiences, but I worry about him as well. He released an email, heavily redacted, earlier this year. It mentioned the Kingman UFO crash of 1953, suggesting it was real. But like Del Rio, there is but a single eyewitness to that crash retrieval, Arthur Stansel. The trouble is Stansel told Ray Fowler, who interviewed him in 1973, that when he drank, he tended to embellish his stories. When he told Jeff Young and Paul Chetham, the first to interview him about the crash, he’d had four martinis. I have published a long analysis of the Kingman crash that can be found here:

https://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2025/06/chasing-footnotes-sort-of-kingman.html

And like Eric Davis, if Mellon was on the inside, he should have been aware of the trouble with the case. I suppose this is just part of the massive disinformation campaign that we keep hearing about as the excuse for the failure to provide the evidence. Instead, it’s let’s smear these guys so that no one will believe them. But there is a point where that excuse collapses and that point has been reached. I do not find the claims of Kingman to be legitimate, though I do note that Kingman was not mentioned in the documentary.

The email that mentions the Kingman crash.

They also mentioned that the President is kept out of the loop. The President, his cabinet and the top level of bureaucrats serve for short periods. They are replaced by elections but those hired to work under them can serve for decades. This is where the real power lies and there is evidence of this happening.

For decades the FBI office in New York ran Operation Solo. Morris Childs, who had once been a devout communist flipped and became a spy for the FBI. His contributions to our intelligence community were known to the very few who were read into. Even the President was left out unless it became necessary to brief him. John Barron wrote a book about Operation Solo and Morris Childs after Childs had retired from his spy work. It does prove that sometimes there are intelligence programs that as so sensitive that even the President is left out.

I did cover how this could work with the UFO programs, such as the claimed Legacy Program. The President is not briefed on it because there is no reason to do so. If he asks questions, the answers simply are not provided in a timely manner. I did examine this in UFOs and the Deep State, providing sources for that information.

This is becoming longer than I expected, so I’ll just tackle one other aspect of all this. A question that has been asked repeatedly is “If these aliens are as advanced as you claim, why do they keep crashing?” I have written two books on that topic, the latest being Crash: When UFOs Fall from the Sky. The first part of that answer is that they don’t keep crashing. Of the more than one hundred crashes listed in the book, there are fewer than five that can be considered real and two of those are problematic. Roswell is, of course, the top of the crash/retrieval list.

However, many years ago, I suggested that aliens had crashed the UFO on purpose. I said it was a benign way of introducing themselves in a non-threatening way. We recover the craft and the bodies and see the aliens as fallible. They aren’t the threat that we see in the science fiction movies where their technology is so far superior to ours that as Arthur C. Clark has said, it looks like magic.

I didn’t suggest that they actually killed members of the crew but provided us with biological samples that looked humanoid that hadn’t survived the crash. It would give us a chance to get use to the idea that there are creatures from another world. It was just a wild idea that I thought was interesting but I certainly didn’t believe it. Here they seem to have recycled that idea claiming it was a way to share some of their technology with us, if we were smart enough to figure it out.

I suppose my overall point is that there was nothing new in the documentary, some of the information was inaccurate, and part of it seemed to be derived from the work that Don, Tom and I have done. Other parts were derived from the work of Stan Friedman and Len Stringfield. We’re told that there were four bodies recovered in the Roswell crash, but we’ve heard that for decades from multiple sources. We’re told there were two crash sites but already we knew that and we’ve been to both.  Lue Elizondo mentioned all this as if it was some sort of new revelation. The information is at least thirty years old and has been published multiple times. It would have been impressive if he could have told us something new or even added a few new details.

 Don (on right) and me on the impact site where the
main part of the craft and bodies were found.

He did mention that the craft and bodies had been flown to Wright Field, later Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, but we already knew that. In fact, Brigadier General Arthur Exon told us, in the 1990s, that one of the bodies had been sent on to Denver where the Army had a mortuary service. The goal was to find a way to preserve the unique biological samples. Exon had been at Wright Field when the craft and bodies arrived, which put him in the middle of that episode.

Brigadier General Arthur Exon.

End the end, there were no great revelations by the insiders. There was no evidence, other than the testimony of those claiming to be on the inside. There were no pictures, no videos that we haven’t seen, and nothing of substance on which to hang a logical conclusion. Yes, the tales told by the fighter pilots were interesting but the videos were nothing new. We had seen them years ago. The Navy told us the videos were real, meaning they were shot from the Navy fighters, but they weren’t telling us that the videos showed alien craft.

We knew some of it was accurate because we, on the outside had found it. We knew some of the witnesses were telling us what they believed to be the truth, but we couldn’t get to the last step which was the release of the classified information. We knew that some information had been classified because we had samples of the documents marked with classification stamps and we were told that there were hidden files and testimony that we could not access.

The Age of Disclosure didn’t take us anywhere that we, on the outside, hadn’t already been. It was a lot of talk and extraordinary claims but no evidence to back it up other than the testimony of those supposedly on the inside. Given the statements of some of these witnesses, made in the past, I worried about their insider status and what they claimed to know. Frankly, the documentary was a disappointment because it didn’t have the evidence to back up the hyperbole. Watch it if you must, but remember, there wasn’t much new in it and no real proof was offered to bolster the claims. Lots of smoke but no fire.

Committee on Oversight and Accountability Meeting November 13

Yes, I sat through the two hours and fifteen minutes (there about) of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability meeting about what is going on in the world of UAP. In the opening remarks by Nancy Mace, we are told that UAP demand attention (with which I think we all agree). Quoting a Colonel Carl, she said that there were non-humans interacting with us and that high-ranking people knew it. That is a somewhat provocative statement with which to open the hearing. You can watch the hearing here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT2iWKZr0qA

Robert Garcia told us that the Main Stream Media is taking the matter seriously, or more seriously than in the past. He also noted that the hearings were about getting at the truth.

There were those on the committee who told us other things that we all knew. We were told that the allegations by David Grusch have not been verified. Although Garcia didn’t elaborate, he was referring to the claim that there had been twelve crash retrievals. We are told that some of the committee members, maybe all of them, want more legislation for the study of UAP and we all know how well congressional legislation has been in helping us get at the truth in the past.

I noticed that we get some history, or rather a mention of history when Jared Moskowitz said that investigations went back to 1945, which is probably a reference to the Foo Fighters of the Second World War.

Once all the members had a chance to make statements, the emphasis switched to the witnesses that were retired Rear Admiral Timothy Gallaudet, Lue Elizondo, Michael Shellenberger and Michael Gold. They were asked, in turn they thought of the UAP situation and all suggested something outside of our technological abilities existed, but not that it was necessarily from alien visitation.

Swearing in of the witnesses. From left to right Rear Admiral Timothy Gallaudet,
Lue Elizondo, Michael Shellenberger and Michael Gold.

Gallaudet said that while serving in the Navy, in a large-scale exercise, he received an email about the intrusion of unknown craft that seemed to be a danger to that exercise, specifically, the aviation assets that were being employed. The email, from a higher authority, wondered if there was some secret project, to which he knew nothing that might account for these intrusions and if they continued, they would cancel the exercise. Gallaudet said that the next day, the email was gone and in the after-action briefings, that concern was never mentioned… And, now, as far as I know, based on the testimony, there are no copies of the email offered in evidence.

I hadn’t expected much in this hearing, but Lue Elizondo did make several comments that were interesting. He said that UAP were real and that the US was in possession of UAP material, though he didn’t specify what that material might be, and that some foreign nations also had access to some form of alien material.

Once they got beyond the opening statements which seemed to include most of the free world, each member in attendance was given five minutes to ask questions or to pontificate. Here is where I thought we might get into the nuts and bolts of the situation but that somehow evaded us.

In the questions address to Gallaudet, especially those about the intrusions during the exercise, we learned nothing new. His answers to some of those questions was that he was prohibited from talking about specifics in a public forum. He would answer them in a closed session.

We had a similar experience with Elizondo. He mentioned that those answers he could give were in his book, which had been in review by officials in the Pentagon for more than year before it was published. He said there were crash retrievals, but he would only talk about them in a closed session.

Later in the hearings, Elizondo would mention bodies. He said bodies were collected before he was born. I believe this is a vague reference to the Roswell case, which is from July 1947. But he would also say that he couldn’t talk about retrievals in an open session.

Shellenberger, who was the source of the information about Immaculate Constellation, said that he trusted his sources on that information, but he wouldn’t reveal them. He said that were either still in he government or had been in the government, but not in which agencies they have worked. He also said that his sources had told him that the government was sitting on piles of information about UAP, including high resolution photographs and other material. But he wouldn’t say who these sources were, only that they were credible, based on his knowledge of who they were and his checking out their backgrounds.

Gold provided a good answer on why some of this information has been hidden. It could expose weaknesses in our capability to respond to the threats. That would be information that our adversaries in the world would want to have.

Update: Shellenberger had provided a document about Immaculate Constellation to the committee members prior to the beginning of the session. Thanks to Nancy Mace, you can read that document here:

https://mace.house.gov/immaculateconstellation 

There is one point that I should make and here is probably the best place. There was a discussion that military personnel had been injured by UFOs and that those people were being compensated for those injuries. Once again, no names were offered, but I thought immediately of John Burroughs who had been injured during the Rendlesham Forest events of December 1980.

I also know of others who claimed they were injured by UFOs, including Betty Cash and Vickie Landrum, coincidentally during their sighting of a glowing, diamond-shaped object also in December 1980. Neither of the women were compensated by the government.

This provides a short rundown on what went on in those two hours and fifteen minutes of hearing. When one committee member said that those on the committee who wanted additional information and didn’t know where to begin to look for it (and I sympathize with them on that point), he was told that the information could be discussed in a closed session.

My problem was that we learned nothing new, there were no sources named or documents presented, other than one that was so heavily redacted that it was useless*, and all the information was second hand at best. I have said before and I’ll say it again, Don Schmitt, Tom Carey and I have talked to the men and women who had first-hand knowledge. We can name names and have taped, both audio and video, of these witnesses.

There were some positives that came out of the hearing. I mean, here was a hearing about UAP with suggestions of an off-world presence, observed technology that was beyond our means to create, an interest in the topic by the Main Stream Media that was not wrapped in ridicule, and a suggestion that an unbiased, scientific investigation was needed.  

The members of the committee seemed to be interested in the topic and were searching for answers rather than attempting to misrepresent the situation and taking the discussion into areas that have nothing to do with the problem. All the witnesses, who were under oath, when asked, answered that they believed, based on their person experiences that the answer was alien visitation or that they didn’t know what the answer might be. There didn’t seem to be anyone who ridiculed the idea that we have been visited alien creatures.

There was a suggestion that the stigma be removed from reporting of UAP because, to solve the problem, the information must be received by those who can use it. If people are afraid to report what they have seen or experienced, then no research can be conducted and we solve no problems.

In reality, this hearing was what I expected, long on suggestion but short on evidence. Too many times, the answer to a specific question was that the witness couldn’t talk about it in an open hearing, or that his sources would not be revealed. There was nothing that we, on the outside, could do to learn more, no real cases that we could study because we don’t have the necessary information, and a little too much speculation. I can’t say that I was disappointed in the hearing because I didn’t expect it to reveal very much.

Or, as my good friend from Operation Iraqi Freedom would say after many staff meetings, “There is two hours and fifteen minutes that I won’t get back.”

*Stan Friedman used to show a heavily redacted report that contained only one or two words per page. When the whole document was eventually released, we learned it had little to do with UFO research and a great deal to do with intelligence collections methods. 

Immaculate Constellation - My Analysis

 

Last night, on my normal UFO segment on Coast-to-Coast AM, I mentioned something called Immaculate Constellation, which, according to a whistleblower, who is never identified, is a top-secret archive of UFO, well, UAP images. According to the whistleblower, the military and intelligence community are operating a database of videos and images taken from "infrared (IR), forward-looking infrared (FLIR), full motion video (FMV), and still photography of UAPs.

The whistleblower alleged that the Department of Defense created Immaculate Constellation under what's known as an Unacknowledged Special Access Program (USAP) in 2017 after The New York Times reported on an informal Pentagon UAP program known as AATIP.

Reporter Michael Shellenberger of Public said on "Joe Rogan Experience" that in the whistleblower's report, the Pentagon is "illegally" hiding information about this program from Congress.

The whistleblower said that simply printing the name "Immaculate Constellation" could trigger government surveillance of whoever publishes the name using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as probable cause. They won't comment on it, but talking about it will put you in the danger zone. I guess that means I am now in the “Danger Zone,” which sounds like a good name for a podcast or a rock band. BTW: Agents, if you come for me, please don’t crash through the door. I’ll happily open it for you.

DoD spokeswoman Sue Gough, who has been called on many times as UFO and UAP questions are asked, denied on Wednesday, any knowledge of a special access program known as Immaculate Constellation. I’m not sure that this is relevant because if it was a special access program which would also suggest a need to know and she might not have been in the loop. Would a spokeswoman, or spokesman for that matter, be read into every highly classified program? If they are not then they have plausible deniability, meaning that she can say such things as having no knowledge of a program and be telling the truth. Doesn’t mean the program doesn’t exist, only that she doesn’t know about it.

I am reminded that when the Moon Dust was inadvertently revealed in 1986, the Air Force denied that such a program existed. When shown official documents with the name Moon Dust on them, a higher-ranking Air Force officer said Moon Dust did exist but had not been used. Other documents refuted that claim as well. For more precise information on this see:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2024/03/aaro-and-beginning-of-moon-dust.html

The point is that the first officer, Lieutenant Colonel John E. Madison, of the Congressional Inquiry Division, Office of Liaison, wrote, “There is no agency, nor has there ever been, at Fort Belvoir, Viriginia, which would deal with UFOs or have any information about the incident in Roswell. In addition, there is no Project Moon Dust or Operation Blue Fly. Those missions have never existed.”

Most of what Madison wrote was the truth. There may well not have been any agency at Fort Belvoir that dealt with UFOs or Roswell, which, course, doesn’t mean that such agencies might not exist at other installations. And he is accurate in saying there is no Project Moon Dust because Moon Dust was the code words dealing with UFO material.

So, Madison wasn’t lying, he just didn’t have access to all the information he needed to properly answer the questions put to him. However, when the documents were presented and properly vetted, meaning the source of the documents was legitimate, Colonel George M. Mattingley, Jr., wrote, “…Upon further review of the case (which was aided by the several attachments to Mr. Stone’s letter), we wish to amend the statements contained in the previous response…”

Cliff Stone

The point is that even people at the highest levels aren’t read into all programs and a denial by Gough that she had no knowledge of such a program doesn’t mean there is no such program.

The real problem here is that Shellenberger has not identified his source. Years ago, decades really, we were presented with documents suggesting a cover up of the Roswell UFO crash. These papers, known as MJ-12, appeared at the home of a UFO researcher. Well, photographic film arrived and when developed, revealed the existence of a special group known as MJ-12 to exploit and direct the recovery of the Roswell UFO.

The trouble with these documents was that we didn’t know who had sent them. We didn’t know where they originated. Finally, we didn’t have the originals which could have been tested. What good would it do to test the paper on which they were printed? We all know that it was photographic paper.

Investigation into the information provided by the MJ-12 documents suggested they had been created in 1984 rather than 1952 as alleged on the documents. In 1984, there was a believe that the Del Rio UFO crash, which in the MJ-12 documents, is mentioned as El Indio-Guerrero crash. But there is no evidence and the lone witness changed so much about it over the years, that it is clear that it was invented. You can read one analysis of the case here:

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

The point is that originally the MJ-12 documents caused a stir not only in the UFO community but among the news media and those interested in UFOs. Investigation revealed the flaws and the major flaw was we didn’t know the original source. Without that, we were left with an interesting aside into the possibility of a cover up. Eventually, nearly everyone agreed that the documents were a hoax and that was underscored by the lack of the original source.

That’s where we are with Immaculate Constellation. We have no source and we don’t even have copies of documents suggesting there is something to the claims. At least, MJ-12 had documents, which led to the revelation that it was a hoax. For an in depth analysis see Case MJ-12: Updated.

I’ll note here that for years Stan Friedman held up several documents that related to UFOs that were nearly all redacted. There were only one or two words on a page that could be read. This was proof of the cover up. However, we now have the unredacted versions of those documents and realize that the missing information had nothing to do with UFOs but with intelligence collection methods in certain parts of the world. That information would have been of value to our competitors in the world and was rightly redacted. This merely shows that sometimes, we over react to government secrecy.

We can look to whistleblower David Grusch. He talked of high-level, important people who told him about UFO crashes, but he supplied no names. I can deduce some of those names and while they had once held important posts in the government or were respected scientists, that didn’t say anything about Grusch’s sources other than we have the names. Didn’t prove what they had told Grush, or that Grush overheard, was accurate information, only that they might have said it.

I point all this out because we now have more information about an important government program hidden from the public which, supposedly hides information about UFOs or rather UAP. But we have no way of vetting the information. We have no way of finding corroboration. We just must believe the stories told by this unidentified source. And I ask, “Why?”

Here's something else that hasn’t been considered and that is that this collection of UFO images might not have a thing to do with alien visitation, but is, instead, images of terrestrial craft that have been flying around various locations in the US. It might be that the images are held in secrecy because revelation of them might provide information of intelligence value to our competitors. In other word, national security might have raised its ugly head.

I could go on about other great stories circulating or circulated in the UFO field that intrigued and excited people inside and outside the UFO community that blew up when we finally were able to get to the sources.

Right now, I can’t verify that Immaculate Constellation exists, but then I can’t reject the tale either because the evidence to do that doesn’t yet exist. I can only caution against drawing any concrete conclusions now because we simply don’t have enough information to just either way to justify any conclusion.

The Kingman UFO Crash Connumdrum

 

Two years before Jesse Marcel, Sr. told Stan Friedman and Len Stringfield about the UFO crash in the Roswell region, Ray Fowler published the article, What about Crashed UFOs? in Official UFO magazine. Although he touched on a couple of stories, the thrust of the article was told by “Fritz Weaver,” a pseudonym for a man later identified as Arthur Stansel.

Stansel told of a crash of a large, disc-shaped object near Kingman, Arizona. He was part of a large team of specialists brought in to examine the wreck and the body of one alien creature. Although his specific task was to determine speed and trajectory of the object, he did have the opportunity to glimpse the alien pilot and the interior of the craft. This was on May 21, 1953, according to his calendar and for more than twenty years, he kept the secret.

In February 1973, Stansel told two teenagers who were interested in UFOs about his adventure in Arizona. It wasn’t long before Ray Fowler, a respected UFO researcher, learned about this sighting and went to interview Stansel, who not only added a few new details, but produced his calendar from 1953 and signed a statement attesting to the validity of his tale. Of course, that statement was not witnessed by a notary, only by Fowler, and had no legal status as an affidavit.

I had investigated the Kingman crash long ago and was unimpressed with it for several reasons. Originally, there was only Arthur Stansel as the witness, no real documentation for the crash, and a suggestion that Stansel, after he had been drinking, told wild stories. There was a point when a second witness was discovered, but her credibility was not very good and her daughter said that her mother was a liar. You can read about some of that here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2010/05/kingman-ufo-crash.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2021/03/kingman-rises-from-dead.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2011/05/kingman-ufo-crash-really.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2010/06/kingman-ufo-crash-revisited.html

This latest flap began when Christopher Mellon, who had been a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence released a redacted email exchange he had with a person Mellon called a senior U.S. government member. We were not provided with a name. That meant, of course, that we could not verify that this source existed or if he had any inside knowledge about the Kingman UFO crash. That email, with the critical information redacted and with little in the way of useful information is seen here:

 

The Mellon email that tells us nothing of value but
does mention the recovered UAP from Kingman.

Over the course of the years, we have been treated to many accounts of the case, that began with Fowler’s article filled with direct quotes from Stansel. I do have a copy of the complete report that Fowler filed with NICAP about his rather comprehensive investigation. That includes a transcript of Jeff Young’s initial interview with Stansel that ignited Fowler’s interview and report.

I’m not going to recapitulate that story because it has been told several times. I used it in Crash: When UFOs Fall From the Sky, though my assessment of the case was critical of the data. But this latest flap (which, BTW, I think will impact on David Grusch’s UFO testimony, but that’s something for another time), inspired me to revisit Kingman. I found information from Fowler, in which he verified Stansel’s rather impressive credentials and resume. There were some problems, which centered around his claim that he had been a consultant for Project Blue Book. He originally suggested a rather long-term association, but later told Fowler that it was short-lived. Stansel suggested it lasted only a few days and was based on his examination of the crashed off-world craft.

There is one important interview that seems to have been left out of this whole tale. In a section of Fowler’s report entitled A Man Who Made Contact, we learn some disturbing things about Arthur Stansel. Fowler wrote, “On the next following pages I will explain the fascinating tales of Mr. Arthur Stansel’s flying saucer contacts.”

That part of the interview, conducted by Jeff Young and witnessed by Paul Chetham, began with the question, “Did you say that you had contacted beings from other planets?”

His astonishing answer was, “Yes, but now we’re getting into things where you’ll just have to take my word for it because I can’t produce it or prove it.”

After a short discussion about a group who met regularly met to explore the contacts with other worlds, and who Stansel said, “We were involved in the usage of seances, we weren’t out to contact relatives, but we were out to contact other things,” the questioning continued:

Q: Do you think that it’s possible for a person to convey himself to any place on or of Earth by just using his brain power?

A: Yes. I’m convinced that’s true. I know that can happen because I’ve done it…

Q: Did you gradually or all of a sudden receive contact with these extraterrestrials?

A: We did this on many, many occasions after about a year meeting once a week. We would contact beings, but we never really knew what we were going to contact that particular Sunday night. On many, many occasions we contacted beings from planets other than Earth.

Q: Were these the same beings or were these different beings each meeting.

A: Sometimes they were the same, but generally they were different.

Q: Could you see them or visualize them?

A: Onetime we had an experiment, which took place for about three weeks, in which we learned astral projection, in which you project yourself to the point where the contact is…

 

Q: That’s using your mind to convey yourself?

A: Right, using your mind.

Q: You actually conveyed yourself to some beings?

A: Yes, I did. As a matter I was the only one who was able to go to that particular space craft which was many light years away.

Q: You were on the craft?

A: I was actually on it.

The questioning then turned to what he could see and how he interacted with the beings on that craft, saying that it was some sort of prison ship. The beings had been on it for a thousand years and had no control over it.

Q: Did you [Stansel] have a physical feeling of being on the ship?

A: Yes, very much so. It’s just like I was sitting here.

Q: Would you describe the inside of the ship?

A: Well, the furniture was different than ours in the fact that it had no legs. It was as if it were suspended in the air, but I remember checking for wires holding them up…

 

Q: What were the colors in the room?

A: It was basically red and it seemed to be generated by everything in the room. I saw no light bulbs, but the room was dimly illuminated….

Q: Were they short beings?

A: They were various heights. They were short and tall, but I don’t remember seeing any fat beings.

Q: Were they uniformed or did they wear different types of clothes?

A: They were uniformed in a way, but they were in different colors.

Q: Do you think that could have signified a rank?

A: That could be and another interesting thing is that the dress of the people was no different between a man and a woman and there were males and females.

Q: Were the males in short hair and the females in long hair?

A: No, you couldn’t tell by that. You could just tell by a woman’s bodily characteristics and facial features.

They discuss some emblems that were attached where we would have put shirt pockets. Stansel said that one was in the shape of a leaf and was red against a sort of blue glistening jerkin. There was another which was just a round shape, probably three inches in diameter and it too was glistening.

With that line of questioning finished, the discussion went in another direction. Young wondered if the prisoners had met people from other planets:

A: Yes, they had talked with many, but I was the first one actually projected. They got pretty excited over my arrival, for they felt I was the savoir who could get them back to their home planet or make communication with home base.

Q: Could you have projected yourself back to their home world”

A: I tried but I couldn’t. I think they were beyond range.

They moved the discussion to the nature of the ship, meaning that it was some sort of prison. Stansel mentioned these alien beings were complaining about their incarceration. He then said:

They were complaining about being prisoners because they had so much to offer their own civilization, but they had no way to get back to their civilization except through some intermediary and they thought I could be that intermediary. They had been conducting experiments, but they had been about a thousand years on the ship, so that there had been many generations of these people…

Other things that came out of this interview. He was told that there were thousands of worlds “of intelligent occupation.” That line of questioning ended at that point.

There was more of this sort of thing but then Stansel mentioned that of all these alien worlds, there were none that were interested in Earth. Earth is too overcrowded. Stansel said that they had contact many ships but the beings weren’t interested in Earth.

Then, falling into what would become the David Jacobs theory or hybrid humans, Stansel said, “In fact, there’s more than one extraterrestrial planet that have implanted people here, but generally people don’t know it… they just become part of our civilization.”

There was more of this sort of thing that reads like poor science fiction. At one-point Stansel talked of switches and buttons on the ship but I think of our touch screens that eliminate buttons and switches.

There were other disturbing things in the interview. Stansel, at one point seemed to suggest that he had been a consultant to Project Blue Book for a long time, but there is no record of it. He claimed to have seen a UFO during one of the Atomic Tests, but later claimed he had only heard about it from others.

Stansel did say that when he was interviewed by Young and Chetham, he had been drinking. He’d had four martinis but when Fowler asked the boys about that, they said Stansel had not been drinking. So, was Stansel drinking too much and offered it as an excuse for the discrepancies between the interviews conducted by Young and Fowler. Was the alleged drinking an excuse for telling conflicting tales? Was the drinking the motivation in creating a tale of extraterrestrial contact?

Here’s where we are on this. Stansel is the only man who was involved with the crash in Kingman that had forty or more expert consultants to speak about this. He suggested those on the bus were not allowed to talk during the four-hour trip from Phoenix to the Kingman area, but when they arrived, they were called by name as they were assigned specific jobs. Everything was carefully orchestrated but Stansel managed to see the dead alien pilot and caught a glimpse into the ship. Again, poor security.

There are many reasons that I simply don’t buy this tale and the later interview with astral projection, visits to alien spaceships in flight and all that other nonsense argues that Stansel was adept at spinning tales even he had only had a beer or two and not several martinis.

What this means today, is that the leaked email from Christopher Mellon is irrelevant. There may well have been an email exchange but it is, essentially worthless. Mellon and his unidentified correspondent may well have exchanged the emails about Kingman but that doesn’t prove there is any substance to the report.

There is another element to this and that’s David Grush’s claim of twelve craft in government hands. He may well have talked with Mellon, or someone else who believes the Kingman tale, but without evidence, it is just, dare I say it, a conspiracy theory. And that also suggests that some of Grush’s claims are false, if this is one of the stories. Doesn’t mean that Grusch invented any of the tales, but he has heard them from people he believes are telling him the truth.

Finally, Len Stringfield added some commentary to the Kingman case in his 1978 MUFON Symposium paper on crash/retrievals, and later in his status reports. He suggests the possibility of additional witnesses, but he failed to supply names of any of those witnesses. I am following up on this and will report on it later.

For those interested, I have reached out to a couple of other people who might be able to shed some light on this, including some in the Kingman area. To this point I have not heard back, but will update my analysis as it is warranted by additional information.