The Wilson/Davis notes - latest data

 Updates 

Since the online publication of the Wilson/Davis notes last year, there has been an outpouring of opinion on the question of the authenticity of these notes. In recent months, a number of researchers have added  pieces of information which speak to this question. I, like many others, have found it difficult to keep up with this flow of additional data. I thought it might be useful to recap what's come forward since June this year, for blog readers.

15 June 2020

Billy Cox, a journalist for the US Sarasota Herald-Tribune  newspaper, wrote an article titled "Eric Who? - the Admiral." Cox interviewed Thomas Wilson for the article., which opened with:

"The admiral at the center of controversial notes describing his inability to access a classified UFO research program says the documents are bogus. Furthermore, he says the alleged author of those notes, physicist Dr. Eric Davis, never interviewed him."

Cox's interviews with Wilson go back as far as 2008. Other individuals who have contacted Wilson have received similar negative statements from Wilson

19 June 2020

In a "Mystery Wire Podcast" Las Vegas journalist George Knapp made a statement. He said he was fairly certain that the notes are:

 "...an accurate representation of a meeting that really did happen...It was typed up not to distribute to the public, but to share with the very tight group of professionals in the NIDS Science Advisory board. Among them was Dr. Edgar Mitchell. It looks like Dr. Edgar Mitchell after he died, his personal papers got into the hands of members of his family , and then dribbled out to the UFO community, and I think this is where this came from."

21 June 2020

US blogger Joe Murgia posted a four part series of articles on the Wilson/Davis notes. Murgia described how he first learnt of the existence of the notes in April 2019. Murgia reached out to Dr. Eric Davis who responded with a "no comment." Davis later made the same "no comment" in response to queries from other researchers. 

The series details Murgia's exploration of a number of aspects of the notes; via comments from Will Miller; Richard Dolan; Giuliano Marinkovic; the late Dr. Edgar Mitchell, and others. The blog series is essential reading for anyone following the saga. Murgia argues that the notes are genuine.

29 June 2020

On a Facebook page, US researcher Christian Lambright drew people's attention to an anomaly in the notes. With Christian's permission I reproduce his words:

"Something odd in the Davis/Wilson documents:

On page 7 is a discussion that mentions Paul Kaminski and Mike Kostelnik. Kostelnik is described as a Brig, General and as being in Kaminski's office at OUSDAT. Kostelnik is also said to be the SAPCO director and a member and executive secretary of the SAP Oversight Committee, among a few other things.

But according to Kostelnik's AF biography (on af.mil) he held the above position(s) from June 1994, through September of 1995, then moved to Air Material Command. In 1997, when Wilson is said to have been talking to these men in Kaminski's office, Kostelnik was  a Vice Commander at Headquarters Air Material Command at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio! 

Furthermore he was not a Brig. General in 1997, having already been promoted to major general in late 1996!

Not to cause problems, but this would seem to deserve an explanation."

Paul Kaminski - source: Wikepedia

 I asked Christian if anyone had been able to satisfactorily resolve this anomaly in the notes, which he pointed out in June 2020? He replied that he had not. He and I would be delighted to hear from any blog reader who may be able to assist with this.  

Back in December 2019, Billy Cox spoke to Kaminski. Kaminski stated "I don't think I knew Admiral Wilson. I don't recall meeting him."

2 July 2020

On the Facebook page of Dave Scott, the host of "Spaced Out Radio" Dr. Bob McGwier made the following comments:

"The most interesting thing that I've read is contemporaneous mail from Thomas Wilson to someone else confirming the meeting and the contents of the meeting BEFORE it was widely distributed."

Later:

"I believe there is sufficient evidence that the meeting was held...I lean toward accepting the meeting and the contents..."

Following these statements I emailed McGwier and posed a series of questions, to which he responded:

Q1. Was the communication from Wilson to someone else, an email, a letter or some other form of communication? Which?

A1. Mail.

Q2. What were the circumstances which allowed you to see this communication?

A2. Happenstance, serendipitous, synchronicity? I was doing work in the intelligence community and a friend been sent the mail. He showed it to me and told me what he thought it meant. I could never forget Admiral Wilson. So this is a personal confidence but did not come from Wilson. I didn't think about it again until this all blew up again.

Q3. You mentioned to Joe that you thought this was in 2004/2005. However, where specifically were you when you saw the communication?

A3. Inside a USG government facility. The person was concerned that the mail might be classified. It may be.

Q4. At the time what were your thoughts upon seeing the contents of the communication?

A4. At that point in time I was a hard nosed scientist acting regularly as an Engineer/MacGayver in the US government and I thought it was probably crap. I put it out of my mind until recently.

Q5. What can you recall about the contents of the communication?

A5. Wilson was complaining about programs dealing with UFOs and crashes that he didn't have access to.

Q6. Do you recall who the recipient of the communication was?

A6. Yes. I do recall. That is what I am protecting for the time being.

18 July 2020

Investigative journalist Giuliano Marinkovic located a reference in an interview with the H+ magazine, published 18 October 2010. In that interview Dr. Mitchell said:

"...another contact of mine, who must remain nameless because he's in classified programs, encountered the Admiral in Las Vegas, where he had been looking for and trying to get into the so-called "strategic access programs" around the UFO incident and had been denied."

22 July 2020

Researcher Chris Jensen alerted Giuliano Marinkovic to similarities between the contents of a 2006 Jacques Vallee novel "Stratagem" and the contents of the Wilson/Davis notes. In a blog post Giuliano lists these similarities and concluded 

"My opinion is that emphasized similarities from "Stratagem" go beyond accidental chance. This could indicate that Vallee probably had his own copy of the Wilson leak at least from 2005, and probably before."

3 October 2020 

On page 7 of the Wilson/Davis notes, there is a statement, attributed to Wilson, which reads "Ran into Bill Perry in May '97 talked about this quietly - he suggested the same thing." (Going through the records groups files.)

In a Youtube video, Twitter user It's [redacted] reports on a response they got from a non-profit operated by former US Secretary of Defense [1994-1997] William J. Perry about the Wilson/Davis notes. It read

"Dr. Perry looked over the document and he does not recall any such meeting as described, nor does he have any memory of a person by that name [referring to Admiral Thomas Wilson.] Although he does admit that it has been many years since and therefore difficult to say whether he would remember if such a meeting had occurred."

7 October 2020

Giuliano Marinkovic listened to 120 hours of radio/podcast interviews with Dr. Edgar Mitchell, looking for a specific quote. he found it on an episode of the radio show titled "We are not alone" which aired on 5 October 2010. Dr. Mitchell says:

"...one of my other colleagues encountered this gentleman, this admiral in Las Vegas, where presumably he was looking into the Special Access Programs...And this admiral was not very happy with the answer that he didn't really have need to know."

A smoking gun? 

What additional information would help us to resolve the authenticity question, i.e. whether or not these notes are an accurate representation of a meeting between Wilson and Davis?

1. A direct statement from Dr. Davis, along the lines of "Yes, there was such a meeting and these are my notes from that meeting" would certainly help. However, based on his previous "no comment," statement, this is unlikely. 

2. A copy of a National Institute of Discovery Science (NIDS) memo, written by Dr. Davis to members of the NIDS  Science Advisory Board (SAB) along the lines "Guys, attached here is a copy of my notes concerning a recent meeting with Wilson and myself," would be useful. 

Is there such a memo in the currently unreleased papers from the late Dr. Mitchell's UFO files, held by Australian James Rigney? I reached out to James on 10 October 23020, and asked him "...have you heard of, or seen, a memo from Eric Davis attaching the meeting notes, either to select members of the NIDS SAB, or indeed to anyone?"

James kindly replied "I wish I had that document, but alas no, it must have existed. If I had it I would certainly have released it."

Later, in a follow-up email he wrote:

"...it just occurred to me that they may have been distributed at a NIDS meeting, in which case such an introductory memo may not exist. It would be interesting to know when the first NIDS meeting after the the Davis/Wilson meeting occurred...Maybe they called a special meeting to discuss the Notes..."

We may have to wait for the publication of Jacques Vallee's "Forbidden Science: Volume Five," which should cover the 2001 era, to see if Vallee, a member of the NIDS SAB, makes any comments along these lines. 

Resolution

Are we any closer to resolving the question of the authenticity of these notes, i.e. are they an accurate representation of an actual meeting between Wilson and Davis? Some researchers will point out the cons, e.g. that Kaminski's and Perry's comments suggest that at least parts of the notes are not correct, and that Wilson says the notes are not genuine. Others will suggest that the notes have provenance; and were known to at least Vallee, and Mitchell. Still others, read into Davis' "no comment" a belief that this means they are genuine, as Davis did not state that they are not. Others, such as Christian Lambright point out anomalies, which to date have not been resolved. I don't think at this point, that we can categorically say whether the notes are genuine or not.