Sunday, June 23, 2019

New Questions and answers - James Rigney


In a blog post dated 12 June 2019, I revealed that I had located the person who had provided Canadian researcher Grant Cameron, with Grant's copy of the Davis/Wilson document. I then published a statement from that individual, who at that time had decided to remain anonymous. However, shortly afterwards, my source revealed his real identity. He is a fellow Australian named James Rigney, who has had a long term interest in the subject of UFOs.

From information provided in the Davis/Wilson document and the two others subsequently released, I had deduced that the original source of James' copies of the documents, was the files of the late Doctor Edgar Mitchell. James has confirmed to me that the source of his copies of the documents, was indeed someone who had obtained them, from the files of Edgar Mitchell.

At his invitation, I have now had an opportunity to pose a further series of questions to James. Below I provide these questions and James' responses to them. After this, he simply wishes to remain in the shadows.

Questions and answers

Q1. There is speculation that you possess additional Mitchell documents. Grant Cameron, on yesterday's Spaced Out Radio interview mentioned the subject of at least one. Do you indeed, have more Mitchell sourced documents? If so, would they add significantly to what has already emerged, or are they of lesser interest? Could you describe them, in whatever manner you prefer?

A1. As I explained in my statement to Richard Dolan, there are more documents, but it would be wrong to assume that these are as significant as the two principle documents. In any event, these are with Grant's lawyer, Michael W. Hall, and may or may not be released in the future. Please bear in mind that the people in control of these decisions share the objective to move things forward as effectively as possible, so that any decision to reveal future documents will be considered in this light.

Q2. Richard Dolan has mentioned that there were some six boxes of Mitchell related material. Is this also your understanding? If so, can you elaborate on what these six boxes contained?

A2. I was once told that there were six boxes of material, although I certainly didn't see these, and I certainly wasn't given access to anything like that number of documents. Six boxes may or may not be a lot of documents, depending on the size of of the boxes.

Q3. On the Spaced Out Radio show, Cameron mentioned that at one point, he suggested you drop the material anonymously onto the Internet, but that you did not. Is this statement correct? May we again, hear directly from you whether or not you dropped the first two documents on to the Internet?

A3. Grant did advise me on a video conference in early May, or thereabouts, that he wouldn't be dropping the documents. We did discuss as to whether I would drop them, and I said I wouldn't. I can categorically state that I did not drop  the documents, or for that matter, pass them on to Richard Dolan. It is evident by mid-May there were a number of people in possession of the documents, along with several others that I know of who have had them for a decade or so.

Q4. Cameron then mentioned that he approached a "group of people" about leaking the first two documents, and they said "we'll take it from here." The implication being, that someone from this group was the anonymous leaker. Are you aware of the identity of this group, and would you be willing to name them? Thus enabling the question to be put to bed.

A4. I have no knowledge of who dropped the documents. Whilst I have heard Grant drop various names on a couple of his recent interviews, he did not discuss anything with me about who was going to, or who had, dropped the documents. Clearly that person wants anonymity, so it would be fitting that people respect that, and further to that, thank them for their efforts.

Q5. Richard Dolan mentioned that he was shown, what he believes were two pages of the Davis/Wilson document, in about 2006. In order that we can understand the timeline since 2002 when the Davis/Wilson document is dated, can you name the year in which you first came into possession of that document?

A5. I was in possession of the documents for a few years before I showed them to Grant in November, 2018. I would prefer not to nominate the exact dates in which I came into possession of the documents.

Q6. Given that it appears that a full set of the documents are held only by Cameron, Hall and yourself; and that neither Hall nor Cameron intend to ever publish them; do you feel comfortable in sharing them with anyone else, in order to have an independent person aware of their contents? Perhaps not to share them in public but to be aware of whether or not they will move the debate forward?

A6. I will not be releasing any documents personally. I doubt that anything new will be coming out anytime soon, if ever. There is already  a huge amount of data to process and a lot of work to be done, so the focus should solely be on that for the near future.

Q7. A number of people have so far come forward and suggested lines of evidence that suggest that the Davis/Wilson document is not genuine. What have you to say about this?

A7. I have watched the discussion around the authenticity of the documents. People are free to believe whatever they want, but I would say, "Follow the evidence." Personally I have seen  no evidence put up so far that would even remotely discredit the documents. I am with Richard Dolan and Grant Cameron, along with many others, in having no doubt that these documents are genuine.
Things are unfolding very quickly, so no doubt there will be more surprises to follow as these stories unfold.

Q8. I have been informed that your source for access to the documents, may have been Bob Staretz, a close friend of Mitchell, and someone who collaborated with Mitchell on his work on consciousness. Without naming the person who provided you with access to the original documents from the Mitchell files, can you provide any further information about them, even if only in general terms?

A8. I would rather not comment on anything in relation to the direct source of the documents due to my verbal NDA. I would hope that people respect this and understand what it has taken to get to the point we are at now.

Q9. At his point, is there anything further that you would  like to say?

A9. Yes. I would like to reiterate and emphasise that while people would no doubt like to know the direct source of the documents, and my role in it, this is now just background noise and of little direct consequence in moving things forward. The authenticity of the documents has now been established beyond reasonable doubt, so if these documents are to be the catalyst that fundamentally changes the discussion, I would urge people to get behind Richard Dolan, Grant Cameron and numerous others now getting on board to get the job done.

If anyone has any information which would add to the discussion, or in fact, any further documents around these, or other issues which they are holding which they feel should be made public, please feel to make contact with us. Thanks. 


  1. One of the key problems in dealing with leaked documents is the "lack of provenance". It's not unreasonable to think that the items in question originated from Edgar Mitchell's files. But in establishing the legitimacy of all this, it is extremely important to also determine a firm chain of custody. I disagree with the statement "this is now just background noise and of little direct consequence in moving things forward."

  2. In the end even if they are real documents coming from Edgar Mitchell's files, it doesn't prove the Davis/Wilson meeting took place, that Wilson confirmed to Davis any of this, and even if he did that this wasn't some kind of disinfo.

  3. I did not ask the group to leak the documents. I could have done that myself. I expressed my problems holding the documents. I am not even sure who did it. I didn't ask and they did not tell. James haad nothing to do with this. At this point I was not talking to him.

  4. I think Mr Rigney did a great service to all in the release. I also think he is an integral person , signing an NDA and honoring it , in not revealing the source . Anyone who wants to do further detective work may do so, and knowing this community, Im sure that all will eventually be discovered. In the meantime , we should all be grateful for where we are as of now. Thanks for the interview and testimony .

    1. I agree, well said, doug auld! Provenance of the documents is not unimportant, but at the moment, competent and curious researchers have to focus on the content. I would also like to raise my hat for Mr Rigney´s courage, effort and integrity.


A National Science Foundation initiative - a UAP workshop

 Introduction Details have emerged of a workshop titled " Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP): A Dialogue on Science, Public Engagem...