DID CHRIS MELLON JUST CONFIRM UAP CRASH RETRIEVALS? | RDS w/Michael Schratt

By | April 23, 2024

 

Hi Everyone,

Very interesting news dropped yesterday from Chris Mellon, who made a heck of a statement on his Substack page. This is what I wrote about all this for the description of tonight’s program.

UFO historian Michael Schratt joins Richard during the second half of this special episode, which was sparked by a powerful statement from Christopher Mellon on April 22. On his substack page, Mellon shared a redacted and annotated screenshot of an exchange he had on Signal with a senior government official from around 2020. This official discussed access to a U.S. alien technology recovery and exploitation program. The official also mentioned that progress was being made in accessing a classified program related to a UAP that landed in Kingman, Arizona, in the 1950s. In addition, he referred to the program’s management, security controls, and the recovery process for landed or crashed UAPs. Finally, he mentioned a classified memo from the 1950s by a Secretary of the USAF as as still being in effect to maintain secrecy this matter. All of this is new information. Most importantly, it is supported by longstanding UFO research into the matter, an abundance of which is provided by Michael Schratt.

I recorded this earlier today. The first half is me alone, discussing Mellon’s statement and providing a bit of background on the Kingman UFO recovery. Then, Michael Schratt joined me for the second half of the program and oh my goodness did he give a great concise presentation on Kingman. You don’t want to miss this. 

Oh, if you haven’t seen Michael Schratt’s YouTube Channel, please consider supporting his work by subscribing to his Channel. Of course, it’s free to do so, but really helps him out. He deserves it! His work is top-notch. 

I think this is very important information. To me, Mellon’s statement seems very strong. Not proof, but definitely needs to be considered. 

Hope you enjoy this one!

Richard 

 

35 thoughts on “DID CHRIS MELLON JUST CONFIRM UAP CRASH RETRIEVALS? | RDS w/Michael Schratt

  1. Wil_5

    Imagine a Smithsonian Museum of UFO’s, complete with all the crafts they have collected, and the aliens. They could erase the US debt with ticket sales, well maybe not. 35T is a lot of tickets after all. Seriously though, we the people, who have been generously funding these programs, deserve to see this stuff. I don’t see the harm in being able to look at the outside of an alien ship. It’s not like you are sharing any of the metallurgy, avionics, or propulsion tech by giving folks a look from well outside the ropes. Besides, Lazar already spilled the beans on a lot of that stuff.

    1
  2. meilert@nckcn.com

    SES-2 probably refers to the civilian government official’s pay level: “Senior Executive Service Level II”.

    1
  3. OC

    Wonder if Mellon is just trying to jump start disclosure since maybe he sees interest waning.
    Just trying to figure a reason he came out with this now??????

    Good info by Michael Schratt on Kingman UFO, heard some before.

    1
      1. D.A.

        Mellon’s comments are simply the latest parry against the USE’s counter move to squash UAP transparency through AARO. He and the rest of the AOA all know a hell of a lot more that what they have let on so far, and are simply holding back what they know until needed. They are very smart people and know that an enemy forewarned is and enemy forearmed. As I previously mentioned, in addition to discussing the Kingman craft and the CR&REP (with Stratton while he was the head of the UAPTF), the memo included talk about the CR&REP’s government gatekeeper, which is the second time Mellon recently brought that individual up—the first time with respect to the gatekeeper being one of Grusch’s whistle blowers. Like I had said, there is a distinct possibility that Mellon might be telegraphing the UAP Transparency Coalition’s (UTC’s) next move. To that end, don’t be surprised if the gatekeeper goes public sometime between now and the next installment of AARO’s UAP report. I guess it all depends on the legal circumstances surrounding Grusch’s IG whistle blower complaint, as well as DOPSR approval of what the gatekeeper plans to disclose. It would be nice if you could get more out of him between now and then.

        D.A.

        PS: FWIW the UTC includes the AOA and UAP Disclosure Caucus (UDC), as well as anyone else in a position of authority, who supports UFO/UAP disclosure and actively promotes it, as apposed to someone in a position of authority who is obligated to acknowledge it after the fact.

  4. SunPower

    Is it implied the type of high energy radar in use then brings down the 1950s UFOs? Did the gov quit this practice after the Washington flyover in 1952? Why would they quit bringing them down if they in fact did quit? Perhaps they didn’t want to anger a species 1000 years more advanced that can hold a grudge.

    1. Richard Dolan Post author

      These are some of the really fundamental questions. I tend to think that we have used some sort of directed energy weapon at these craft, at least from time to time. On my YT channel (and here, actually) are some interviews with Frank Feschino who made a strong case that we were actively trying to “shoot them down” as early as 1952. The Soviets have had their own series of encounters, it seems. Just how this relates to our diplomacy with ‘them,’ if we have any at all, is one of those important unanswered questions.

      1. D.A.

        Richard,

        Do you have a link to your shows with Frank? I would like to take a look at his evidence. Without the luxury of having seen his evidence, or how he interpreted it, I have to say I find the notion that we had ever used DEW systems to take down these craft at best highly questionable.

        With regard’s to DEW systems, themselves, we are still not technologically sophisticated enough, especially with respect to energy management and storage, to have any such systems replace any of the conventional weapon systems in our military stockpile. The best we have been able to do so far is deploy them in a limited capacity in a small number of niche applications. Also keep in mind, the efficacy of any type of DEM is predicated on, and is highly specific to, the types of targets they were designed to disable, incapacitate, or destroy, whether they utilize highly focused, coherent, beams of high-intensity EM, like LASERs, which are physically destructive to the target; or utilize more diffuse forms of EM that are used to disrupt electronic command and control signals or disrupt the onboard electronic systems of such targets, like the weapon systems currently used to take down military UAV. By all accounts, we still don’t understand how alien tech works, or know what their inherent and “exploitable” vulnerabilities are, never mind understanding enough about them 70 years ago to develop DEW systems that are only now in their infancy with respect to real world applications.

        To assume that we were able to develop DEW systems that were capable of taking down UAP at any time over the last 70 years or so based on the assumption that one of our RADAR systems took down one of the craft in 1953 is highly questionable indeed, and then to assume we could simply develop these systems over such a short period of time, and then manufacture and deploy them at the spur of the moment to the exact locations in which a UAP just happened to make an appearance is highly improbable, unless we had thousands, if not tens of thousands, of these high-tech systems permanently co-located with highly advance UAP detection systems around not just our country but every country—at a time no less that it took years (and tens of millions of dollars) just to establish a conventional missile defense system around 40 or so of our most populated areas. People simply have no concept of the time, effort, money and planning, that goes into the development of any new weapons system, and the support infrastructure needed to deploy and maintain it. There is a reason why our defense budget is as big as it is. For example, most people would have no idea that samples from every lot of NC based propellant ever made—which is used in almost every weapon system in the US arsenal (and is stored in the world stock pile) is continuously surveilled for stability because it’s inherently unstable and can, and has led to catastrophic accidents

        Also keep in mind that one of the specific areas of study for AAWSAP, for which the DIA paid good money to BAASS and its sub-contractor’s, like Earthtech International, to investigate, was the potential development of DEW systems, ostensibly for the purpose of defense against UAP, should they ultimately prove to be a threat to our national security. One would think those within the DIA would have already been aware of such advanced tech if it had already existed in our weapons inventory for the last 70 years. Just something to think about.

        D.A.

        1. Richard Dolan Post author

          These are good points about radar and DEW. I don’t think Frank Feschino made the argument that DEW took down ET craft, but he did/does believe that the USAF did attempt to use standard missiles against them. Btw, to find my interviews with Frank, you can literally just type in “Feschino” in the search bar, but I did that and here is the link. Three interviews — two are public on my Youtube channel and #3 is members only, as I recall. I don’t know that they will answer everything you want to know, but they are quite interesting for sure. https://richarddolanmembers.com/?s=feschino

  5. Scott Santa

    I believe it is safe to say that – YES – Mellon HAS confirmed a C/R event/program without really actually saying it. What else would he mean?

    I think it is also safe to state that in the UFO world, reading between the lines in either the written word OR the spoken word is a handy tool to carry in one’s toolbag whilst digging thru debris (pun intended)!!

  6. Andromeda107

    Absolutely great discussion. I never get tired of listening to you and Michael talk about crash retrievals. Michael really knows his stuff. He is one of my favorite guests. The illustrations and he and Tom Bogan are come up with are amazing! I have his book ‘ Dark Files’ . The 4 humanoids that were taken alive by the military , I can’t help but to wonder what happened to them? Did the military keep them locked away permanently? Are they still alive ?

    I also tried searching for the book by Harry Drew, couldn’t find it, I guess it may be out of print.

    1. Richard Dolan Post author

      Michael is indeed a real treasure. And personally, what a gentle soul. A truly good, humble, and decent human being, aside from being such a great researcher. The Harry Drew book? Dang. If I can scrounge up a copy I will rely the info as best I can. Currently I don’t have it either.

  7. D.A.

    Richard,

    I only got 4 minutes into the show, and had to stop to make a quick comment, so if you addressed this later on in the video, please forgive me. The person corresponding with Mellon is most likely fellow AOA member, Jay Stratton, based on the following observations:

    1. They are clearly close acquaintances based on the informal tone of the memo, and the fact that Mellon got permission from him to disclose the memo as he did.

    2. The time frame (2020) is smack in the middle of Stratton’s and Grusch’s CR&REP investigation—during which time such events would coincide perfectly.

    3. The redacted individual and the person who wrote the comment to Mellon (Stratton) are clearly part of what appears to be a two-man investigation team based on the fact he (Stratton) refers to the individual and himself as making huge progress into the C/R, and that “he” (i.e., the redacted individual) plans to meet with Mellon at some point. Of course, that individual is likely Grusch, who Stratton would also later introduce to Knapp, Corbell, and Alexander at the SCU conference in Alabama after he officially lodged his IG complaint.

    4. The fact that “Stratton” specifically stated that they were dealing with the UAP that was recovered from Kingman, as apposed to dealing with “information about” the UAP recovered from Kingman, possibly indicates that someone outside the deep-state faction’s CR&REP is (or at least was in 2020) in physical possession of that particular craft, which could very well be the very same craft that Lacatski had mentioned with regards to AAWSAP. The person who was still getting “read in” may have been someone involved with AAWSAP, someone who knew the most about that craft, someone like…well, like Lacatski; or possibly even a particular contractor—someone who would not only have the resources to hold such a vehicle (and hide it from prying eyes), but who would have been in the right place at the right time to be in actual possession of the craft—someone like…well, Robert Bigelow. How AAWSAP got possession of this craft in the first place is another story. I haven’t got around to reading Lacatski’s book yet. Maybe he gives a hint about how they came in possession of it in there. I’ll have to read it. Just so you know, George Knapp knows a lot more about all of this than what he is publicly stating, which I am sure is for a good reason—just like Mellon knows a lot more than what he has disclosed so far, but is feeding it out in a calculated manner…Smart man, very smart man. This actually give me hope that the AOA do in fact have more up their sleeves, which they are going to disclose at the right time–when its absolutely needed in order to counter the USE’s moves.

    5. Clearly the individual, who I believe is Stratton, was discussing his progress on the CR&REP investigation he initiated when he took control of the UAPTF—there were no other such investigations going on at the time regarding CR&REP that anyone is aware of, just Stratton’s. Moreover, there’s no such investigations going on now outside of AARO’s, and we know what they’re investigating.

    6. The SES-2, who is the AF’s CR&REP gatekeeper is the same AF gatekeeper I had mentioned in a comment to you a while back, who Mellon referred to as one of Gruasch’s 30+ “whistle blowers” in a relatively recent tweet. Mellon had stated in the tweet that he had met and talked to this individual. The fact that the individual is an SES means that he is (or was at the time) not an active member of the military, but a civilian AF employee, (a very high up civilian employee).

    7. At the expense of sounding like that I am beating a dead horse, these are just more dots connecting the AOA theory together.

    Again, I apologize, if you already addressed these issues later in the video, which I will finishing watching tonight when I get home.

    D.A.

  8. D.A.

    Richard,
    OK, I just picked up where I left off in the video, and stopped to make a couple quick comments again (which I’m sure I will continue doing as I go through more of the video).

    1. At roughly 10:30, you mention that Mellon stated that the individual in the signal exchange from 2020 had never seen or touched a craft and was denied further access to the program. With regards to that statement, I still stand by my original assertion that the person in question was Stratton despite the fact that at first blush some of Mellon’s statement would appear to possibly contradict that. As the head of the UAPTF, and who was working with Grusch on investigating the CR&REP, Stratton would have absolutely been denied access to the USE’s program and all its goodies, as you had mentioned; however, if Lacatski did in fact see and touch a craft as he had claimed he did in his somewhat contentious Weaponized interview with Knapp and Corbell (to promote his book), which I assume he did as part of AAWSAP, then I find it hard to believe that his right hand man at AAWSAP, Jay Stratton, would not have seen it or touched it as well. Either there is more to what Mellon had said in the article, or to what Lacatski’s had said on Weaponized, or both—again, I’ll have to read Lacatski’s book to see if I can glean more from it.

    2. Regarding SES’s, try not to read too much into its online government position description. Yes, they’re technically responsible for all of what you had read, but that’s just an overall description of their general responsibilities. In reality, SES’s are—in simple terms—just the highest level (or rank equivalent) that a non-appointed civilian employee can attain in government service (in this case DOD), and is the level usually required to obtain certain high-level positions. The head of our Center and his immediate subordinates are all SES’s. SES’s are ubiquitous throughout the civilian DOD workforce. There is a very close working relationship between civilian DOD employees, especially at the SES level, and active military employees and the military command infrastructure. In fact, I would say SES’s are the direct bridges between the active military and the civilian work force, as well as—as you had stated—a bridge between the DOD workforce and appointed officials. As I mentioned in a comment a while back, Jay Stratton was an SES before he retired from the government, and was one while heading up the UAPTF. With that said, given the rotational nature of active service members (i.e., their temporary nature), I suspect in order to maintain continuity and stability (and ultimately secrecy) all of those in charge of the deep-state faction of the USE are in fact civilian SES’s buried somewhere in plain sight within the Pentagon, who could have been active military at one time, or had come up through the ranks of the civilian work force. The SES gatekeeper, who Mellon talked about, and is likely one of the “whistle blowers” Grusch had interviewed, was not likely the individual in charge of determining whether the public (or if other government officials) could have access to the CR&REP, but was acting on behalf of whomever the highest ranking individual, or individuals, in charge of it were. Gatekeepers, are just that…gatekeepers, who despite their official rank or grade, are responsible for keeping outsiders out; and given the nature of their functions, are in a sense expendable in that they are a sacrificial buffers between those who truly are in charge and outsiders. The SES gatekeeper in question is not unlike the contractor’s gatekeepers Wilson had met, who were instructed to meet Wilson in order to stop him from going any further with his investigation. The limited amount of information those gatekeepers had shared with Wilson was cleared by their government sponsors, who could have been SES’s sitting in an office just down the hall from Wilson’s own office in the Pentagon. There is a distinct possibility that those running the deep-state faction of the USE may have been acquaintances, or even friends of Wilson’s, not unlike how many of the deep-state insiders, who recently became whistle blowers, actually knew Grusch. Those running an illicit CR&REP are certainly not going to expose themselves to Wilson, or anyone else, like Stratton or Grusch—that’s why they have gatekeepers. The SES gatekeeper was likely very pivotal to the UAPTF’s CR&REP because he was probably the one who led Grusch to the other 30 or so deep-state insiders who were willing to come forward as whistle blowers.

    As usual, just my humble opinion.

    D.A.

    PS: I got to make the time to sit down and read Lacatski’s book.

  9. D.A.

    FYI: SES-2 is just the pay level, and is the second lowest on the 5-level SES Pay schedule. So he was not a top level SES, which I wouldn’t expect a gatekeeper for the CR&REP to be, especially one that had become a whistle blower. He was nothing more than a subordinate, who was tasked with keeping people, like Stratton and Grusch away, but instead had become the opposite— a whistle blower. The importance of this individual cannot be underestimated. He was likely critical to everything Stratton and Grusch had uncovered, and what Grusch had told the IG’s and Congress.

    No doubt his testimony was the most critical to Statton’s and Grusch’s investigation, because of all the whistle blowers he would have the most knowledge and insight about the overall CR&REP. Bar none.

  10. D.A.

    Richard,

    Hopefully, you are right (at 18:33 into the video), and that we are looking at a house of cards that is starting to fall, but I see it more like a 75-year old bunker that is slowly starting to crumble under the unrelenting bombardment of CL20-filled bunker busters that the AOA has been dropping on it for the last 6+ years. And every time the USE seals up a crack, the AOA drops yet another, well-placed, haymaker, creating yet another crack. With any luck, at some point the cracks will become self-sustaining and unrepairable, as well as irreversible.

    Regarding the possibility of seeing a genuine full disclosure or transparency, you were correct in your original assessment about never seeing it. We will never see an “official disclosure”…ever. At least not in truest sense of the word in which the USE (deep-state or shallow-state faction) will simply come clean and reveal everything they know and have in their possession regarding UFOs past and/or present. The deep-state faction, in particular, simply has too much to lose in every sense of the word, including the legal one. At best, what we’ll hopefully be able to see is a continuation of, and hopefully escalation of, what we have been seeing for the last 6+ years, which is “official UAP acknowledgment”, albeit begrudging acknowledgment. The current environment of official UAP acknowledgment by the USG is a direct result of the “unofficial UAP disclosures” that have either been made by the AOA, or made as a direct result of their efforts, which has led us to where we are today with respect to having a Congressional UAP Disclosure Caucus and a group of deep-state CR&REP whistle blowers that are waiting in the wings to blow the entire roof off the 75-year UFO secrecy bunker. With these critical pieces now in place, the notion of “sustained” official UAP acknowledgment (vs any kind of official disclosure) is becoming more and more of a reality with each subsequent unofficial disclosure bomb dropped by Mellon (or Elizondo), or one of the AOA’s foot soldiers, like Grusch, or to a lesser extent one of the AOA’s public emissaries, like by George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell.

    Based on what Mellon has written in his recent tweet and online article, is he telegraphing to us what (or who) the next bomb is going to be? I can’t speak for you, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the CR&REP’s AF SES gatekeeper (who Mellon has now brought up on two separate occasions) ends up being the next whistle blower to go public. And based on the timing of Mellon’s article and tweet, I would expect that bomb to be dropped sometime within the next month or so. My guess sometime between now and when AARO comes out with Volume 2 of their UAP report on the USE’s investigation of themselves. With that said, I expect Grusch-Gate, Part Deux, to be coming to a theater near me by June of this year. What do you think?

    D.A.

    1
  11. D.A.

    Richard,

    Two more quick (OK…not so quick) comments I want to make on your interview with Michael Schratt, who is a great guest, by the way:

    1. The Kingman craft may very well have been a forced landing, but I would be more inclined to believe it was possibly due to an onboard malfunction. In the absence of substantive circumstantial and/or empirical evidence (or as the UFO debunkers and deniers like to say, “data”) to support the RADAR theory, I’ve always found this hypothesis dubious at best. Though not entirely impossible based on what little I (and everyone else) truly know about these craft, it’s still highly unlikely that any RADAR system—by virtue of its long wavelength and hence low-energy nature—could have brought down such an advanced craft, especially if the craft employed an anti-gravitic field propulsion system, like the one described by Lazar, which creates a field, or envelope, around the craft shielding it from most, if not all, EM interference, including RADAR. Remember, the field created by these propulsion systems has been speculated (and with good reason) to be the likely cause of UAP’s low visibility characteristic (one of the “5 UAP Observables”), because the field distorts/bends or deflects visible light, which like RADAR is a form of EM (just a different wavelength). The one outlier here, of course, is the fact that Lazar did mention that a technician outside the craft at S-4 was able to communicate with another technician inside the craft using a hand-held radio despite the anti-gravitic field, meaning the radio waves penetrated the craft and surrounding energy field, which Lazar couldn’t explain. Still, there’s no evidence to support the likelihood that radio waves (in the frequency band of that used for RADAR), had taken down the Kingman craft, or any other such craft, despite the transmission levels used by the particular RADAR system in question, outside of a single piece of circumstantial evidence that is based on the sheer happenstance that the craft had come down in an area in which the AF was operating the RADAR system. One also needs to take into consideration the fact that in the early 1950’s RADAR was something that was still considered by many (along with nukes and jet engines) as somewhat of a technological marvel and therefore an apex symbol of mankind’s technological prowess and advancement, which people likely wanted to believe was capable of taking down these things if need be, which is not likely the case—neither then, nor now (just ask David Fravor, or any other military pilot, who had ever engaged UAP). Our most sophisticated radar systems today are much more powerful than anything made in the 1950’s, and have a greater range and focus, and yet UAP simply jam them at will as if swatting away a fly. Moreover, any sources of EM powerful enough to disable such craft would also be able to disable, or at a minimum interfere with, the electronics on the Russian bombers, which the system was designed to only track; as well as disable any of our own airborne assets and civilian craft flying anywhere within the reach of the RADAR system. In other words, all craft—regardless if they are friend or foe—would likely drop out of the sky anywhere within the operational radius of the RADAR system, which was located within the continental US. As a whole, we humans tend to falsely exaggerate our own intellectual and technological capabilities due in large part to the level of hubris that comes with being the preeminent “indigenous” life form on earth. With that said, could a massive multispectral EM pulse generated by one of our nukes take out such an advanced craft? Possibly, if not likely, depending on the range, but a passive RADAR system designed to track mankind’s stone-aged aircraft? Not likely. Again, the most likely cause for downing this craft was an internal malfunction. Keep in mind that high levels of electromagnetic radiation will cause people to feel disoriented or sick, and might even be incapacitating at high enough levels. The fact that military personnel immediately felt sick upon entering the craft could indicate the presence of either a noxious environment (i.e., chemical vapor or incorrect air mixture), or high-voltage EM radiation emanating from within the craft—either of which could have brought down the craft if it were being controlled by biological entities. Just saying.

    2. Regarding the transportation of the Kingman craft across Lake Meade and running into the Hoover dam: if this crash retrieval account is hinged on the fact that the US military had to transport the craft by barge across Lake Meade, especially anywhere near the dam during the time frame it was assumed to have occurred, then the whole story, at least what we think we know about the actual story, simply falls apart. First, let me talk about the likelihood of running into the dam. In order to pull a barge across a body of water, there has to be no current. In the times of towpath canals and ferries it was called slack-water navigation (though some ferry systems across narrower rivers, like the Delaware River between Phillipsburg, NJ, and Easton, PA, actually used river current as a propulsion system to ferry canal boats back and forth between NJ’s Morris Canal and PA’s Delaware Division of the Pennsylvania Canal and Lehigh Canal). Regarding a barge crossing near the Hoover Dam, they would’ve had to cross the water on the upstream side of the dam (as correctly shown in the artist’s rendition), where there is no water current other than in the immediate vicinity of the four penstock towers that feed water to the hydroelectric plant’s water turbines, which at that time of night weren’t likely operating. As a result, there would have been no lateral forces acting on the barge except for possibly wind, which would have had a marginal affect on a water craft with such a heavy displacement and relatively small sheer line; therefore, the only force acting on the barge would have involved it’s own forward momentum, which “could” have allowed it to slowly drift into the dam, but given the vector of such a drift, it’s velocity relative to the dam would likely have not produced enough force to cause anything more than superficial damage, a glancing blow so to speak, which might not have been highly visible at the time, never mind now after decades of weathering and accreted surface patina. On the other hand, if the barge were allowed to drift head on into one of the penstocks, then the barge’s momentum could have done a substantial amount of damage to it, which might be visible at or just below the waterline (at the time). One could always look into seeing if there are any records of repair work being done on the Hoover dam, or one of its penstock towers, right after the incident, but that would be a long-shot at best.

    Perhaps, more important than looking for marks on the dam would be locating evidence of the transportation infrastructure that would have been needed to make such a crossing, which would have included unencumbered road access to and from the both sides of the water, as well as barge terminals on BOTH sides near the dam that were large enough to carry a lowboy tractor trailer and its over-sized cargo. The dam is built in the middle of a precipitous canyon in an area where there is no readily available access to the water that is suitable for such a crossing. Please note that even in the artist’s rendering of the scene there is no location of egress from the waters edge—only canyon wall. And as far as I can tell from satellite photos, there is no such infrastructure for transporting the craft anywhere on Lake Meade, never mind within the canyon in which the dam is located. The only water access on the lake appears to be those of inclined boat ramps that are designed for launching small recreational boats, which aside from being miles away from the dam, simply wouldn’t work for loading a tractor trailer onto a barge (assuming such a barge was already located on the lake at the time of the crossing). And assuming such a crossing could be made, which meant having to create some sort of temporary transportation infrastructure, it would’ve had to have been done within a few hours, in the pitch dark of the night, without any eyewitnesses, and on the spur of the moment (without the luxury of time to plan such a major engineering feat). I don’t see it happening. I don’t even think the spirits of Christmas Past, Present, or Future could have done all of that in one night. Even George Washington, who pulled off the two greatest night-time water crossings in the history of the US (once over the Delaware and once over the East River) would scoff at such a notion. To be perfectly honest, the possibility that a craft from an alien world had crashed landed in Kingman AZ is actually more plausible than the military being able to transport that same craft across Lake Meade (or the Colorado River) by barge anywhere near the Hoover Dam in the middle of the night.

    I don’t mean to come off like a wet blanket, but if the validity of the Kingman UFO crash retrieval story is ultimately hinged on this aspect of it, then the whole story starts to unravel in my eyes. With that said, when recounting stories by memory, people as a rule often fill in gaps of missing information with sheer speculation based on their own beliefs and level of understanding, which may or may not be correct or in some cases even remotely plausible, which only helps to diminish the plausibility of the overall story. UFO debunkers, deniers, skeptics, and naysayers, have been using this flaw in human recollection as the basis for making specious arguments against such stories since the dawn of the modern-day UFO era. In this case, I think the author of the story simply filled in the blanks with implausible conjecture, not unlike what Phillip Corso did when he recounted his story. Does that make the either story untrue? Absolutely not, but in regards to this case, I think Michael needs to do a little more research into this aspect of the story. Just my humble opinion.

    D.A.

    PS: Some time ago, I thought I had come across an online article or video somewhere that stated the Kingman incident actually involved more than one craft, but I could be wrong. Perhaps, I am just starting to fill in the gaps of my own faulty memory;-)

    1
    1. Richard Dolan Post author

      To be honest, I have never really understood the technical/scientific rationale behind the argument that our early radar took down these craft. I understand the basic idea but like you it just seemed like a real stretch. I replied to your other thoughts on Kingman in another response.

      1
  12. RavenMaven

    Wow. This was an amazing discussion. Michael has a great gift for bringing a case to life. Thank you, Richard.

  13. D.A.

    Richard,

    One more thing, if I were to believe Harry Drew’s version of the Kingman crash retrieval case, in which at least one of the downed craft (other accounts include as many as three craft in various states of disrepair) had been transported to Area 51 that night; then I would also have to believe that at least some of the specialists in the 40-man military detachment he discussed were civil engineers who, as such, would have been quite aware of the problem of getting the craft transported across the Colorado River/Lake Mead well in advance of executing the operation. Unlike Drew’s assertion to the contrary, they would have had to have known ahead of time about the difficulties associated with crossing over the dam, which go well beyond negotiating just the width of the roadway on top of the dam, but also the narrow, precipitous, and winding roadways leading down to the dam on both sides of the canyon—both of which would have likely been just as difficult to navigate, if not more so, than the dam itself. If you had ever driven across the Hoover Dam, which I suspect you have, then you would know exactly how steep and winding those roads are. No way could a simple wooden cradle, like the one described by Drew, keep that craft secure on the truck.

    I would be more inclined to believe Drew’s version of the story if he had said that some of the engineers never went to Kingman that night, but instead reconnoitered Lake Mead for accessible water crossing locations, and then set in place the temporary infrastructure needed for the crossing, while the other engineers worked on extricating the craft from the ground and securing it on the lowboy trailer (as well as cleaning up the impact area, which could have very well included partial recoveries at two other nearby sites).

    Such a water crossing location would need to be upstream from the dam, not only for the purpose of slack-water navigation, but to be in as close proximity as possible to both Kingman on the south side of the lake and Area 51 on the north side. Furthermore, the routes going to, and away from, the lake would need to be as isolated as possible, as well as readily accessible to the lake itself. Therefore, if I were one of the engineers that night, I would pick a place like Kingman Wash Beach on the south side of the lake as the most viable launching spot, and Government Wash—Yes…Government Wash, I kid you not—on the north side of the lake as the most viable landing spot. Both locations satisfy all the requirements for such an over-water transportation route; whereas, the Hoover Dam route satisfies none.

    Aside from the fact that there are no “put ins” on EITHER side of the lake within 100′ of the dam, you just can’t “float” a barge down a lake, which has no current, without it being pulled by a sufficient sized boat—neither of which would have been readily available to them on the spur of the moment in the middle of the night (if either even existed on the lake at the time). On the other hand, military civil engineers, who are very good at fabricating temporary water crossings, could have installed the necessary water crossing infrastructure at another location on the lake (as discussed above), but they would have needed to bring the equipment in with them ahead of time, meaning that the route had to have been planned out ahead of time, not on the spur of the moment. For the record, the penstocks and spillways on both sides of the lake on the north side of the dam were installed when the dam was built; therefore no such “put ins” could have existed within 100’ of the dam in 1953 either—even if such “put ins” could be installed along a canyon wall (which they can’t).

    Does this inconsistency in Drew’s account make the whole story false? No, but it certainly does call the story’s overall credibility into question. Keep in mind Drew’s story is just one version of the Kingman event.

    D.A.

    PS: For the record, I do not enjoy eviscerating other people’s stories, or work, but sometimes I just have to call it the way I see it. Again, the water crossing aspect of his story is just one part of it; however, the added details he included about it, like when the men screamed and shouted as the barge hit the dam, makes me start to question it as a whole. Just saying.

    1
    1. Richard Dolan Post author

      Very interesting assessment — thanks for this. Honestly, I think I am going to want to hunt down Harry Drew’s literature and videos on this, to the extent I can track them down. I’m pretty sure there are statements of his that can be examined more carefully. I do think Michael Schratt is probably attentive to the details presented by Drew, but honestly, Drew was putting this all together more than 50 years after the fact. I have to think there are not just missing pieces of the puzzle, but perhaps some old-fashioned guesswork. I could be wrong on this. It’s an important enough story that it warrants a closer look at just how Drew put his argument together. Going to try to find more of Drew’s work in the future.

      1
      1. D.A.

        Richard,

        I hope you find more on the Kingman case. It would make for a good follow-up show, especially now since the Kingman craft was brought up in the correspondence between Mellon and (Stratton)—meaning that it’s likely going to be brought up again, perhaps with respect to AAWSAP. Was the intact Kingman craft and the craft that Lockheed was going to hand over to BAASS for Kona Blue one in the same?

        Also, what are your thoughts on the Kingman story involving what appeared to be a pitched battle between multiple craft, which ended up in 3 craft coming down? I assume that was not part of Drew’s account of the story, correct?

        If such a battle did take place, it might provide some insight into not only why the vehicles crashed, but why they are here, and to what end. After all, why would two groups of beings wage war on a distant planet if it didn’t somehow involve that planet, or the people inhabiting it? We fought the Germans in France during WWI and WWII not because we thought it would be a convenient place to fight, but because the German’s were occupying France.

        Similar rumors had been attached to Roswell/Plains of San Agustin as well—not to mention Nuremberg. I also recall another similar incident happening in Australia once as well. Could there be a race of ET, or a Federation of many races of ET, blocking other ET from interfering with our affairs? What say you?

        D.A.

        1. Richard Dolan Post author

          Hi DA, you asked “Was the intact Kingman craft and the craft that Lockheed was going to hand over to BAASS for Kona Blue one and the same?” I can’t know for sure but have heard SO many references to the intact Kingman craft that I wondered if it was the craft referenced in the Davis-Wilson notes as well. And yes, in this context, too, I wonder. Can’t know for sure of course. Regarding the warfare angle, I don’t know about that in connection with the Kingman event, but I do think the scenario of a multi-Et “war” of sorts is entirely possible. But I have no genuine knowledge of such a thing.

  14. D.A.

    Richard,

    I want to make one more quick point regarding Mellon and the AOA, and the AOA’s primary objective to resurrect AAWSAP. Regarding the Black Vault FOIA Grusch memo, I just wanted to quote something that Kirkpatrick wrote in the disclosed Signal message to Mellon. He wrote “And yes, you’re defending & adjudicating the very organization (i.e., AARO) you purported to help establish for this purpose (i.e., investigate the CR&REP). I will repeat the key statement: “…the organization you purported to help establish for this purpose”. Assuming that aspect of Kirkpatrick’s comment is true—which I’m inclined to believe is the case since he is repeating it back to Mellon in defense of his position—then it clearly alludes to Mellon having admitted at some point that he played a major role in establishing AARO (via the creation of the UAPTF, which was run by Stratton, who hired Grusch). Mellon likely also played a major role (via his Congressional connections) in getting the AOIMSG, which was stood up by the USE to get Stratton and Grusch off their back, replaced by AARO through the FY23 NDAA. The AOA dots keep connecting. Mellon’s mistake was in underestimating the USE’s ability to infiltrate AARO. Just my humble opinion.

    D.A.

    PS: I wonder who tipped the Black Vault off about this exchange in the first place. I look forward to hearing your comments on the FOIA document (if you haven’t addressed it already)

    1
  15. D.A.

    One more thing that I think needs to be said regarding the issue of Grusch’s refusal to talk to AARO aside from his and other whistle blower’s reluctance over their lack of trust in AARO, and that is the legal issues associated with Grusch’s IC IG complaint about criminal conduct on the part of those running the CR&REP, which—though related—are very different from the legal issues associated with disclosing classified information and violating NDAs. I’m sure that Grusch’s lawyer has advised him not to talk to anyone out of concern about jeopardizing their case. Kirkpatrick’s and Grusch’s interpretation of this is what’s at the heart of the issue discussed between Kirkpatrick and Mellon. Moreover, different types of classified information often overlap, like that associated with UAPs and that associated with classified targeting systems on aircraft, which often cannot be isolated from one another. In other words, you can’t discus one without discussing the other. And what guarantees does Grusch get that someone in the USE (the very same people he had lodged a formal complaint against) won’t just claim that he had crossed an arbitrary line (which the USE drew) and therefore knowingly divulged non-UAP-related classified information? I believe that is the crux of the issue regarding Grusch’s reluctance to talk to AARO, which Kirkpatrick used to set up his straw man argument that Grusch refused to talk to AARO. I also thought it was quite ironic that Kirkpatrick had the audacity to remind Mellon about the whistle blower protections (codified in the FY 23 NDAA), which Grusch (and likely Mellon) helped to draft.

    D.A.

    1
  16. D.A.

    Richard,

    I apologize. I was half asleep late last night when I was writing my previous comments on my iPhone, which I absolutely hate writing on (like I am now). In my one comment, I had inadvertently omitted a small part of the quote in Kirkpatrick’s Signal message to Mellon, which should have been as follows: “And yes you’re defending and adjudicating, AND UNDERMINING the very organization you purported to help establish for this purpose”. In this statement, which was clearly meant to admonish Mellon for defending Grusch, our friend, Kirkpatrick, divulged the fact that Mellon had previously communicated to him that he (Mellon) had helped orchestrate the creation of AARO, which we all know he did as part of a small cabal of whistle-blower dissidents from within the shallow-state faction of the USE that I call the AOA. What Kirkypuss didn’t realize is that as a charter member of the AOA, Mellon already knew much (if not all) of what Grusch had disclosed to the IGs (DOD and IC), Congress, and the public, about the CR&REP was true long before Grusch even knew about the program himself.

    D.A.

    PS: I referred to Kirkpatrick as Kirkypuss because every time I think about that lying little weasel, I can’t help but envision that stupid side-angle press-release headshot of him that the MSM puts up every time he is discussed in the news. I don’t know about you, but every time I see that creepy Dorian Gray-looking mugshot it makes my skin crawl.

    1

Leave a Reply