UFO Contact Cases | Interview with Michael Schratt

By | May 26, 2020

Another great interview with Michael, complete with illustrations that bring these cases to life. This show will become available at 8 p.m., Tuesday May 26, when it also appears on Youtube.  

I have a full second part of this interview for members only. Please give me until tomorrow to have that ready for you. It’s worth waiting for! 


15 thoughts on “UFO Contact Cases | Interview with Michael Schratt

  1. cre8ive74

    Brand new RDM. How do you get to the members chat area For this lecture or is it the comment section in YT?

  2. PressToDigitate

    1. To get to a man-made, human-manned, large Anti-Gravity craft in the 1950s, you’ve got to derive it from one of three possible sources; either A) Its from ‘Paperclip’, and was the result of the U.S. picking up and resuming WWII Nazi flying saucer research; or B) Its from Our Science achieving practical electrogravitation and being built into vehicles that substantial; or C) Its a Crash Retrieval sufficiently intact that it could be repaired, and was made flight-worthy and our people learned to operate it properly. Each of these has problems. On A: The ‘Nazi UFO’ folks talk a lot about “New Shwabenland”, but haven’t detailed – that I’ve seen – who among the Paperclip scientists had the background to reproduce whatever they had been trying to build of this sort. To the best of my knowledge, they’re all accounted for – both in their German war, and American post-war activities and areas of expertise. Moreover, we would have expected at least some inkling of a leak about that work having been done. Nada. On B: We know who the government went to to sort out the possibilities of AG/Electrogravitation in the 1950s, trying to get a handle on Roswell (et al); it was T. Townsend Brown. We know about his research, how far it got, and the government’s bureaucratic ineptness in integrating it back then. (Brown’s daughter is active online; I’ve had extensive conversations with her – she would make a great guest for RDS). On C: We have diverse and repeated testimony regarding attempts by Human pilots to operate intact/repaired Alien craft, all of which describe forms of debilitating radiological neurotoxicity which prevented operational success. It was more than thirty years later before any corroborated, reliable accounts of ARVs emerge; and then they were small, riveted craft of noticeably conventional exterior mechanical construction. Verdict: In explaining that case, “You can’t get there from here”.

    2. I’ve said that the ETUFO presence – which appears to be a Colonization expedition or mission – could be Survivors, Refugees, Pilgrims, even Fugitives – but that it did NOT look like the conquest of a great Alien Empire at the height of its powers. We would have at least *some* authoritative intelligence about their homeworld, their society, their governance, etc., which is conspicuously absent within Ufology. They’re here with whatever they brought with them, encamped on the Moon and perhaps in some locations on (or under) Earth – and its waters. This presupposes the need to replenish supplies – including, in particular, utility vehicles – while “living off the land”. One, this greatly incentivizes their infiltration and exploitation of Magestic, not just to compromise our development of defenses against them, but to acquire incidental industrial capabilities they may have required for primary fabrication. Two, the proliferation of [what may be merely] ‘cosmetic’ variants in Alien craft design may have a very pragmatic motivation. If they’re being built “here” (somewhere within Our space, rather than back on Their homeworld), they could likely have a more individual, “artisanal” (perhaps “cobbled together” as needed) bespoke design aesthetic. Now, Would *WE* (Read, our Pentagon, circa 1950s) be more alarmed – “triggered” as it were – by many sporadic, inconsistent and seemingly conflicting descriptions of sighted craft, or by hundreds of reports of *identical* UFOs all around the world? That’s not hard to answer, nor to envision that as a tactical consideration by the Alien expeditionary leadership.


    At about 25:40 Richards asks about those 3 Adamski balls. These might correspond to the three gravity generators described by Lazar and others (?).

  4. Matthew Palmer

    Interesting as always from Michael. I think what many of these cases demonstrate for me is the tendency, whilst not across the board, for many craft and/or beings to seemingly reflect the perceived public idea of what such craft or beings would look like at that moment in history. When we look back at some (many?) of these descriptions from the fifties and sixties today, the appearance of vehicles and/or occupants often tend to appear hokey, cartoonish perhaps (flaming exhausts, machinery type noises, suits with tubing/chest plates/boxes, large helmets, appendages with claws or other bizarre extremities). Whilst these days, slick, seamless craft and more biological looking entities such as greys are much more common. As stated above, this is far from across the board: there are reports of very advanced looking craft and technology from the mid twentieth century and earlier, and conversely, reports today of UFOs that resemble creations from early science fiction films and literature. What conclusions if any can be drawn from this? In cases of craft alone, or perhaps those that involve ‘human’ looking occupants, it can be suggested that these were indeed of human manufacture, and that their appearance reflected the advanced technology of the day. Alternatively, perhaps “they” are capable of manipulating the appearance both of themselves and/or their transports to resemble what human minds of the time perceived as alien. I know Richard has touched on this idea before. At the end of it all though, the topic is more bizarre and more mysterious than can maybe ever be understood. UFOs do not behave, as Richard says in wrapping this video up.


    I love hearing about the old cases and especially seeing the artist’s conceptions. This is the fun and exciting part of this area of study.

    The less exciting part is figuring out OUR part. Do we want to just be passive observers or active participants in solving the mystery? And once we know more, will we be passive observers or participants in a life beyond our usual local boundaries, interacting with new people, technology and cultures?

    I feel that far too little time has been spent on planning strategies for post contact diplomacy, trade, cultural exchange, etc. These things have been left in the hands of very small groups representing tiny elites… people we have seen to be, shall we say, not our best moral examples. Not our best practical decision makers, either, by the look of things today. These thoughts, researches and decisions are too important to be left in the hands of few bumblers… and as taxpayers paying for their activities, we should know a bit more about what they are doing with our money and WHY.

    Others have pointed me in different directions, to particular people, specific books — and I have been disappointed in all of them. We need some practical templates on how to handle things for our authorities and citizens. We don’t have them. Apparently we may not be ALLOWED to have them– only fun stuff like science-fictiony case reports.

    Fun’s fun, kids, but let’s get down to work.

  6. David LoVecchio

    This is a repost from something I previously posted on the forum that I thought might be of interest regarding possible propulsion technology in the 1966 New Zealand case:

    Here’s an interesting presentation on magnetohydrodynamics(MHDs) by astrophysicist and plasma physicist Jean-Pierre Petit. Worth checking out for analysis of some observed characteristics of UFOs and speculation about modes of interstellar travel. The 25 minute video is in French so you’ll want to turn on closed-captioning if, like me, you don’t speak it:


    I’ve also put together a translated PDF of the presentation along with some of the images from the video if you’d rather just read:



  7. BrianH

    The Smithtown, Long Island, NY sighting at 28:57 lends some weight to Mr. Schratt’s belief that some UFOs are made by “conventional” humans. The “flat iron” craft is described as having a green light on the right side and a red light on the left (judging by what’s supposed to be the posterior end). This is standard arrangement and color for the navigation lights on all Earth aircraft, and it has been for most of the modern aviation era. It would be a great coincidence if ETs used the same arrangement, or they just chose those colors and positions randomly.

    Now, that leads to the implication that the builders meant for the craft’s direction of travel to be identified by other aircraft and ground observers (what the Green & Red nav lights are meant to do). Someone with super technology was concerned about aviation courtesy on a dark night, operating a small, narrow profile craft. Intriguing.

    If I recall correctly, the Apollo Program Lunar Landers were being built at the Grumman facility on Long Island during the time of this sighting. Someone’s nice little “garage project”? Haha.

  8. Craig Champion

    Can’t help but think that, as an ongoing possibility we’re being “played,” whether by a “breakaway civilization” or by a “trickster-type” of phenomenon. Too many divergent-looking craft and beings. Some almost look they’re designed to look like things we might imagine futuristic craft/beings to be like. Somebody/thing is laughing their respective posteriors off! Seriously: Pipes, levers, cockpits, spacesuits and even FIRE emanating from some of these craft! SO many cases over the decades, so many researchers, so many confounding, anomalous sightings. Another possibility is that The Phenomenon is just plain outside of any paradigm that we’re currently familiar with or are even able to conceive. You two certainly deserve the “earnest” award for attempting to fit the proverbial square peg into a round hole. Looking forward to “part two”…

  9. Ed Coffman

    My informed speculation is that the first man-made UFO could have been the George Adamski flying saucer of 1953. On close examination of the photos provided by Adamski, the initials G.E. (General Electric?) were inscribed on the landing gear: http://www.cufos.org/Nexus/1954_08_00_Nexus02.pdf, p. 5

    If this flying saucer was indeed man-made, it would certainly explain the following CIA declassified document about the “Adamski incident.” IT TOOK 50 YEARS FOR THIS DOCUMENT TO BE RELEASED! That should tell us something: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80R01731R000300040016-2.pdf

    And I do believe it’s significant that Jim Moseley is right in the middle of all this. The publication I cited above, NEXUS, was Moseley’s first UFO newsletter. Moseley is also mentioned in the CIA document as being suspected of being an “asset” for the CIA.


    I agree with Schratt’s assessment that there could be an “infrastructure” in place, that has been here for thousands of years. In Hal Puthoff’s last public appearance he alluded to this.


    I’m glad Michael brought up the “case,” that Antonio Huneeus translated from Spanish into English. One of the first journalism jobs Huneeus got when he came to the U.S. in the late 1970’s, was with the Sun Myung Moon newspaper “Tiempos del Mundo.” The English version of that paper, “The News World,” was where Hal McKenzie worked, and thusly the two of them became colleagues. McKenzie was a life-long “Moonie,” even though he was a UFO researcher for about 30 years. The year before McKenzie died in 2010, he completed his 2nd UFO book, which I’m leaving here: http://tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks2/McKenzie/McKenzie-091225.pdf

    And as a footnote, Antonio Huneeus & Jim Moseley were good friends.


    By the way, if you grew up in Brentwood, Long Island, you better have been a Mets fan during that time. If not…well, you better not tell me…

  10. David Coleman

    Truly fascinating, and it answers part of my last AMA question about whether there are cases where beings are seen in suits with breathing apparatus or in some kind of environmetal atmosphere. The only unsatisfying thing about this talk is that it’s not part 1. Thank you both, much food for thought here.

  11. Greg

    Hi Richard,
    Very much enjoyed your interview with M. Schratt. As to where advanced craft could be built:
    Could it be an underground facility with underground access to a body of water, where the land above the facility (and the shoreline) are federally restricted? I wounder if M. Sauder’s research findings are consistent with an underground facility large enough to accommodate advanced craft manufacturing. I’m thinking that since the 1950’s “civil defense” era, the u.g. faclities have grown in sophistication, with their own source of power (perhaps itself advanced, using principles similar to those in designing the craft?), and hence no telltale power lines or stations above ground (or buried near the ground). Also, you may be aware of so-called Reiss water; that is, really deep underground water. That source of water, if necessary, could be used to create an underground canal to connect the craft to an below-shoreline exit. And, I’d think that the U.S. would want to design a craft that would be effective under the water, in the atmosphere, and above the atmosphere.

  12. Ed Klatt

    Hi. The individual that Schratt was implying at the end of the show is Howard Hughes.

  13. Doctor3j

    The shield craft had a red light and a green light just like all plane or objects have . To me it means man made. Green is on the right going forward. Same with ships; hence the seafaring expression: RED, RIGHT,RETURN. Means a sea craft with red on the right is not heading toward you; its going back to return to port

Leave a Reply