Discussions between US officials point to the existence of a UFO recovery programme
In a bizarre turn of events, new documents show discussions between senior members of the US administration about UFO recovery.
The exchanges involve former Deputy Secretary of Defense Christopher Mellon, former director of the Pentagon's UFO study group Sean Kirkpatrick, and a high-ranking US administration official.
In a conversation made public by himself after validation by the Department of Defense, Christopher Mellon exchanges words with said official, whose name has been redacted.
The unknown government official writes:
REDACTED and I are making huge progress getting into the C/R program. He plans to meet with you at some point.
We understand here that there is an effort by another team within the US administration, outside Christopher Mellon's own efforts, to obtain information on the supposed crashed recovery programme, and that this effort is producing significant results.
The REDACTED would be slack-jawed if they found out what we know.
It is interesting to note here the mention of a third party, who would be amazed at the amount of information recovered by the group. Given the context, one wonders whether there exists a faction actively preventing UAP-related information from getting out.
The next message, from Christopher Mellon is largely censored, but shows “ ‘45 vs”. Presumably this is a query about the supposed trinity crash in 1945, the date of which was used as a starting point for the AARO's historical fact-finding mission, possibly contrasted with the summer of '47 and the Kenneth Arnold sightings and the Roswell case.
The unknown government official replies:
Right now we haven't gone that far back. We are dealing with the recovered UAP that landed in Kingman, AZ in the 50s.
We learn here that, according to this person, the object that crashed at Kingman May 21, 1953, was indeed a UAP - the contemporary name for a UFO. With the AARO's latest historical report carefully avoiding this question, one wonders whether this Signal conversation just might be the first contemporary document to mention the reality of an alleged phenomenon observed throughout history by hundreds of witnesses.
We're vacuuming up info as REDACTED gets read-in.
Here again are mentioned the efforts of the official's team, this time indicating that not only are they in the process of absorbing as much information as possible, but that they are also in the process of briefing others on this information.
We now know the management structure and security control systems and ownership of the C/R.
Beyond confirming the reality of UFO crashes, the unknown government official also describes knowing the management, security measures and hierarchy to which the UFO recovery programme responds. This raises many questions. While it is conceivable that every department in the US administration would have to deal with encounters with UFOs when they occur, the fact that a programme outside congressional oversight could exist, across the jurisdiction of several departments, as described by whistleblower David Grusch, would require a much more extensive management and structure than seems to be the case here.
We also know that a still-highly classified memo by a Secretary of the USAF in the 1950s is still in effect to maintain the cover on UAP.
Along these lines, the following sentence indicates that the secret about the existence of UAP came from one of the Secretaries of the Air Force in the 1950s. This shows the extent to which the subject was taken seriously from the start of the Cold War, and the legitimacy of the secret already mentioned by the intelligence services.
We also know the SES-2 who is the Air Force gatekeeper : REDACTED
The gatekeepers of secrecy are structured around secret programmes ensuring that access to information is restricted to those who need to know the information to prevent any leaks. However, one might question their legitimacy in relation to an illegal programme, or even their responsibility, given that they would prevent ethical control bodies from verifying the actions of this programme.
In his commentary, Christopher Mellon points out that the official is clearly referring to "an alleged U.S. alien technology recovery and exploitation program". He indicates that he is unable to give any details of the identity of the official, but states that the individual has “plausible access and was high-ranking; considerably more so than whistleblower Dave Grusch".
Christopher Mellon also indicates that he has given the identity of the keeper of the secret to the members of the congressional oversight committees, but states that, to his knowledge, none of them has contacted the keeper of the secret to verify the information.
Furthermore, he adds that, some time after the exchange, the mysterious government official was denied access to the programme, and that he and his team have not been able to access or touch the devices.
Christopher Mellon concludes his article by pointing out that this unknown person is just one of the sources he has at his disposal, and that they might be willing to talk to Congress behind closed doors.
In documents released earlier in the week by John Greenewald, another conversation between Christopher Mellon and the former director of AARO, Dr Sean Kirkpatrick, is revealed.
In the first exchange, we learn that David Grusch's complaints launched a "criminal investigation". This largely reinforces his statements. David Grusch had stated that an illegal UFO recovery programme existed within the US administration. Christopher Mellon goes on to explain David Grusch's aversion to talking to Sean Kirkpatrick because he himself could be the target of this criminal investigation. Christopher Mellon also relays Grusch's words, stating that the General Intelligence Inspectorate has access to all information, "fully documented to include confirmation the program is real from active, cleared insiders".
This leaves little doubt as to the quality of the documents provided by Grusch, since his complaints have been deemed "credible and urgent" by the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.
In the rest of the exchange, we are surprised to learn that the Director of AARO is unable to give a contact who can prove that his group has the authority to collect the testimonies. One could wonder if the processes put in place by AARO to supervise this collection are appropriate, such as threatening witnesses with the death penalty if they leak out information.
In another exchange with a contact whose name is censored, Kirkpatrick complains that he has been sidelined by another group under the authority of Congress receiving witnesses to UFO recovery programmes who do not wish to talk to the AARO. The latter declared "still need those alleged program names", they wanted to know who their "owners" were and insisted further: "Anything I can verify?”
In the many exchanges between David Grusch and Sean Kirkpatrick revealed by FOIA, Grusch asks an interesting question:
What signed policy does AARO have to receive non-title-10 SAPs (ie, DOE and NSC)?
This is a significant issue, as it relates to AARO’s ability to get access to all relevant actors. Indeed, not only is the document addressing it vague, but the US administration doesn't limit its bounds to the mere intelligence community or the Department of Defense. Another crucial player is the Department of Energy, responsible for nuclear weapons. Overseeing all these entities is the powerful National Security Council, which announced the formation of its own UAP review group following the US air defense incident in February 2023.
The documents also reveal the tensions among different stakeholders in the field, with the AARO and its former director appearing to be the primary source of friction.
Translation by Guillaume Fournier Airaud
This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0