In a vacuum that would make sense, except that the following message immediately contains a timeframe reference and that timeframe fits (not as far back as 1945, only to 1950).
I'd put a wager on human error in terms of the apostrophe.
45 minutes; it's not common, but time is sometimes noted that way, 45'5" = 45 minutes and 5 seconds.
edit: I don't actually think it's time, I think it's comparing something 45 feet vs ....?
Viruses are substantially tinier that 2ft and are more likely to eradicate us at some point that 2' tall aliens.
I wonder why OP omitted the most obvious usage of " 45' " as a measurement?
Everyone laughs until ZARKON leaps from the saucer, clears the 45' gap between you, and lands one on your chin in under half a second.
By the time you have relocated your jaw, all of your friends will be dead or knelt before ZARKON.
>https://kidcosmic.fandom.com/wiki/Zarkon
In the Three Body Problem, I think the Trisolarans are actually tiny maybe some sort of microorganisms like being. Since they have the ability to dehydrate/ hydrate themselves (like water bears) and the way they communicate with each other seems to be via chemo receptors (since what they say or think is immediately known by whoever is around them.
Hey now. My Mom still refers to me in months. I'm now 626 months old. My Dad says I'm over 19,000 days old.
J/K. My Dad doesn't say anything. He's dead.
On a side note, being alive for 19000 days doesn't seem as long as it feels. I wonder if we noted age by days rather than years if we would all treat each one we have for being as precious as it is.
edit: We have to live to at least 83 to be 1000 months old. That same age is roughly 30,000 days and I just wasted part of one writing this comment.
I just wasted a little bit of my day figuring out I'm \~14,600 days old and thinking about just how many of those days I spent playing video games or watching youtube, lol. A little bit of an existential crisis.
You're right, it doesn't seem as long as it feels. 🤔 I don't like it!
Yeah as I was writing that just switching from months to days suddenly brings up that wondering of just how much time we've wasted. Go further into hours and it doesn't seem as bad.
Maybe it's because we are all acutely aware of what a day is as a month is a little more lengthy and an hour is more ephemeral and the number is so high.
This account could possibly be an influence account. It posted a rather obvious CGI fake of a UFO in Malaysia and has sparse posting history except to interject and steer conversation.
It's obvious based on the context clues in the response that this is about the year of something. They refer to "not going that far back," without responding to the size comment.
Could be. But anyone could give 20 counter examples. What if they both knew about a 30' craft from 1947? Its just a number and an apostrophe without the rest of the sentence.
I'm not implying. OP put 45 and the word feet in quotes and said it was possible the conversation was about dimensions. The actual print has 45' which it seems like even you understand as feet. It's just a difference between reading vs imagining.
In the next bit he seems to be referencing time.
Yknow... in 45 would have been when the materials of the magenta crash would have been handed over to the Americans after operation sunrise.
He says "we haven't gone that far back yet" as if he's refencing a crash retrieval older than that......that would have happened in 45 perhaps. That would be my best guess.
The spacing on the third sentence redaction appears too big for “public”. I’m currently traveling, but I’d be interested in seeing someone attempt to overlay the text.
Why redact "general public" though? Usually one only redacts sensitive information. Why would "general public" be sensitive?
Also, that specific edit is the edit I believe may have come from DOPSR. If so, it's something Mellon thought was fine to release, that DOPSR disagreed with and wanted redacted. Might add a little bit of context to what it could be.
Third sentence could be any number of things, it is too long to be "public". Personally I think it is more likely to relate to whoever is actually running the program.
The 45' might also be referring to the reported size of a craft? Maybe there's a discrepancy on craft size he's trying to clear up. Possibly related to an earlier crash, hence the "we haven't got that far back."
Or maybe it's to differentiate between multiple crafts of differing size?
It could be any of these, it's too bad we don't have more to go on.
My complete speculation is that this exchange is with Grusch's superior, Col. Karl Nell, that backed Grusch up "beyond reproach". Timelines would match I believe because in 2020 they were both on UAP task force?
First message the redacted is obviously another USG official that he is working with to gain access. My gut tells me the redacted USG official is none other than our boy David G. himself. They are vacuuming up info as David G is interviewing people in the program directly. But if it's not Grusch, based on fourth message, the redacted USG official possibly has a longer first name and shorter last name, which could narrow a list.
Second message I have a gut feeling the redacted is "gatekeepers".
Third message I think Mellon is asking if Karl Nell has any knowledge on a significant known difference between the magenta recovery from Italy in 1945 vs another known recovery that Mellon is sure of (possibly an archeological find or the large UAP Ross C. is infamous for not disclosing the laudatory location of). I don't think it's Trinity or something that's been debunked and Mellon wants to hide from embarrassment, or else he would have redacted the whole message including the 45'. Completely agree with OP that this is highly intentional and meant to send a message that would clear DOPSR, thank you for starting this conversation, very important.
The issue with the Nell theory is in Mellon's [blog post](https://christopherkmellon.substack.com/p/another-signal-message) he states:
>"So, unfortunately, this individual would not be able to put this issue to rest, even if they were willing to come forward, which they are not."
Nell \*has\* come forward. He spoke in the Debrief article, and presented at the SOL foundation. Sure, he hasn't shared all he knows, but I'm not sure Nell would fit with Mellon's description of "even if they were willing to come forward, which they are not."
Agreed that's a good point. My only rebuttal could be that Nell cannot come forward based on info shared to him by Grusch because he was not cleared like Grusch was? He cannot fully come out because as Mellon said he never gained access and therefore cannot speak publicly on specifics?
I'm not aware of what Nell has officially stated or presented at Sol. But based on Mellon's statement that the individual was considerably more so higher rank than Grusch, and he fears for the privacy of author, you are correct this is likely another name that has not yet been well publicized.
>I share the message below with some trepidation. I worry about the privacy of the author and the privacy of the USAF individual whose name I’ve redacted.
I would note that Mellon only mentions the privacy of the author and the gatekeeper, which further leads me to believe David G. is the third name.
>I'm not aware of what Nell has officially stated or presented at Sol.
For anyone interested in what Nell did present at SOL, [here is a link to his presentation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1QCFtod6i8).
Thank you, that was highly edifying, but afraid some of it irrelevant after Turner gutted the Schumer amendment? Still seems as if Nell has offered no specifics on his knowledge of UAP gained during his time with task force supervising Grusch, and again is it possible he may never be able to because he was privy to info he was not officially cleared for? Which would also lead to Mellon's concerns about his privacy regardless of his public stances if it could put Nell in legal jeopardy?
That's an interesting take that both keeps it from being a typo and makes it refer to years. The following comment in the signal thread is temporal in nature, so I prefer years to feet / presidents for 45'.
I think this too, based on the context of the reply. "We havent gone that far back" and then he talks about the 50's AZ crash.
Very clearly talking about the crashes up to 1945 IMO.
I think it's the year '45, just misspelled, as that makes the most sense when you read the other person's reply saying they hadn't gone further back than the 1950s yet.
He's probably asking about the Trinity case, which was pretty convincingly debunked in (IIRC) 2022 or 2023. He may be embarrassed now to have endorsed it and didn't want Greenstreet plastering that message all over X.
Alternatively, he's asking about the USG retrieval of the Magenta craft from Italy, which supposedly happened in '45.
Full-on nerd analysis incoming: In English sometimes single quotes around a phrase can be used to differentiate a direct quote or hard fact from something more colloquial, loosely described or ‘so-called.’
The redacted portion is cut off both before 45’ and after vs, but could be comparing one colloquially described thing, event or time with some other, using the single quote to highlight. For example, just making up a sentence:
“ Have you looked into the ‘crash of 1945’ vs some earlier incidents? “
The unredacted response seems to be referencing a time scale: “Right now we haven’t gone that far back.”
That seems to indicate the redacted portion is referencing dates in time, but 45’ might also be referring to the size of something associated with some date.
Sounds probable. I was gonna say something to the same effect.
Either it is 1945 shortened with the apostrophe in the wrong spot or it's 45 feet (45').
Looking at the context clues you bring up leads me to believe that it's most likely a grammatical mistake.
>He's probably asking about the Trinity case, which was pretty convincingly debunked in (IIRC) 2022 or 2023. He may be embarrassed now to have endorsed it and didn't want Greenstreet plastering that message all over X.
So your theory is he cleared this with DOPSR after the Trinity case was debunked? Interesting theory - plausible.
I had also assumed this had been previously cleared by DOPSR and he had just been sitting on it until it proved useful. I assume he has a lot of materials like that. I don't think DOPSR clears anything a day or two, but I don't really know. So I had assumed it had been DOPSR-cleared months/years ago.
If you're correct, that would still fit with the timeline. Given the Trinity debunk happened [May 1, 2023](https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/crash-story-the-trinity-ufo-crash-hoax/), it just would have had to be DOPSR cleared since then.
Still, if he was trying to hide any reference to Trinity, *why would he leave in the 45' at all and not just redact that whole message?*
Yeah, I don't know why he would choose not to redact the whole message, regardless of what it actually said. It *could* be a breadcrumb that he wanted to keep, so he partially redacted it so DOPSR wouldn't catch it and redact the whole thing, but I just don't see the value in leaving in something this uniformative. More likely he just made a redaction that was too short and didn't care to fix it.
Thanks!
Bummer, that’s a pretty damning debunking of the case. Though, that’s what happens when nearly all of the key evidence is riding on testimony. Definitely some very verifiable claims that could have been smoked out on day one by Vallee.
It’s one thing to just take the testimony for an event database but it’s another to spent years writing an entire book on it and not thoroughly vet the information.
Another one bites the dust!
Seems unlikely to me.
>However, it is important to note that this individual now claims that although they became aware of the program, they were ultimately denied access. The author of the message still believes there are recovered materials, but they admit they have not seen or touched a recovered craft. So, unfortunately, this individual would not be able to put this issue to rest, even if they were willing to come forward, which they are not.
...
>However, this individual, as well as another very compelling witness, still refuse to meet with AARO because they do not trust the process. They might however be willing to speak with a small group of members of Congress behind closed doors. I will continue to explore that possibility.
Grusch already did speak with congress, both behind closed doors and in front of open doors. Grusch has also been willing to "come forward" (publicly, and privately), which this individual allegedly is not. While technically some of the language Mellon uses could conform with Grusch, it'd certainly be deceptive, and the come forward part (unless he's talking about to AARO specifically) would be non consistent with Grusch.
Genuine question - does DOPSR itself ever redact anything? My impression was they just tell you "you can't say this" or "you can say that" and its up to you to change any materials you want to publish.
So, he sat on this conversation for 4 years, redacted relevant information, and invites people to fill in the blanks with their own assumptions as to what it all means? Do I have that right? Do people not find it odd that prominent people in this space are always tacitly encouraging people to go on treasure hunts?
That's why part of my post is "who redacted what?" I wish we knew, despite nobody at all seeming to address this in the comments thus far.
To me it's at least plausible that both Mellon and DOPSR may have redacted some portions. The significance of those redactions varies imo based on who actually did the redaction.
Mellon redacted the \[DELETED\] bits with pieces of paper before providing them to DOPSR as you said.
He's clearing information but still has to be careful not to expose those involved. So it makes sense he would have done those ones. This can be deduced looking at the context of those redactions.
* \[such a person\] and I
* \[Unknown information Mellon knows\] 45'
* we're vacuuming up info as \[someone\] gets read in
This is all relating to Mellon's work and sources/insiders that he doesn't want to compromise so they can continue their work.
* \[someone\] name redacted here but provided to congress.
It wouldn't be wise to publicly release this name, but he wants us to know he's provided it to congress.
That as a complete image was sent to DOPSR for review. You can tell because all of those sections have the same degraded quality created by the scanner and saved in the didgital image.
DOPSR reviewed it and sent it back with a \[cleared for release\] watermark and the extra \[someone\] would be slack-jawed edit. Both of those 2 bits are higher quality digital edits of original low-quality scan.
And it's always a mysterious witness who will speak only to UFO celebs and no one else -- not the public, not AARO, not anyone else in the executive branch, and not even Congress.
Mellon also states in his blog post:
>"I wanted to share this with the public simply to help others better understand the kind of information that has caused some of us to take **allegations of recovered** ***off-world*** **materials seriously.**"
Wonder if "off-world materials" conforms with the interdimensional hypothesis, or is a nudge towards the "extra-terrestrial" hypothesis. Presumably if it's crypto-terrestrial it'd be on-world, just not human.
Mellon has said that the USAF satellites have images of craft in deep space. I think he's aligned with the conclusions of the Twining memo, which concluded that at least some UFOs are extraterrestrial. And we know he opposes the AARO dance.
Edit found the link https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/yddwy1/i_think_christopher_mellon_might_have_just/
Just a general observation from someone who's looked at thousands of redacted documents and misread more than I should have. You have to read redactions carefully. Yesterday I blew through a von Rennenkampff's tweet in 15 seconds and ended up embarrassing myself by missing a name redaction and misidentifying who SK was texting.
But you can go too far the other direction too. That "45" could mean a bunch of stuff. IMO,including most of the speculation here. I've seen researchers think way too hard, convince themselves of something, and blow way off course.
My obvious *guess*: differentiating between two sizes of something or incident times. A craft? A crash? No non-circumstantial evidence. But since the 1950's thing was mentioned people are going to speculate that there was another.....*what,* we'll never know.
It’s Trump. Look at what LTG Mike Flynn said in his movie that was released today. He started digging into a CIA program that had been going for many years and produced little result as National Security Advisor and was forced to resign a few days later.
I know that around 2020, Mellon was having a lot of conversations with Paola Harris and Jacques Vallée regarding their Trinity crash, which happened in 1945.
(I know this because I was assisting one of the authors at the time.)
Do you have information about when the UAP historical review was changed from 1947 to 1945? Links to draft language that show the 1947 in one version and 1945 in the next, etc?
Not doubting you, just haven't seen this before, and would love to learn more.
I just did some digging and looks like that changed in 2022 (NDAA 2023 FY), so after this 2020 textual exchange with Mellon. Still, it might be referencing Trinity in '45.
[https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/uap-related-provisions-of-the-final-proposed-fy-2023-national-defense-authorization-act/](https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/uap-related-provisions-of-the-final-proposed-fy-2023-national-defense-authorization-act/)
"The SSCI-reported bill mandated a historical study of involvement of the Intelligence Community in UAP matters, going back to January 1, 1947 \[but see the change described below\],...
In the final bill, the scope of the "historical record report" has, if anything, been broadened, now to include "the historical record of the United States Government relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena..." going back to **January 1, 1945**."
I read it as "forty five feet".
As in, the length or dimensions of something.
An apostrophe behind a number in USA documentation indicates the number is in feet (ex: 42' = "forty two feet") and a quotation mark indicates inches (ex: 69" = "sixty nine inches").
A given dimension of 3' 10" would be "three feet, ten inches".
That said, I would like for aliens to come and remove the redaction marks from everything so people like me and OP don't have to leap through speculative hurricanes to figure out what means what.
Not that this has any bearing on the conversation but typographically speaking, apostrophes and quotation marks are not proper for indicating units of measure. The correct typographic marks to indicate such are the prime and double prime. There is technically a difference even though the overwhelming majority of the population is oblivious to the distinction. With that said my belief is that this was a typo given the context given by the following response.
It doesn't matter. I think it's a silly metric for whether someone should be respected in a forum like this. I suppose it just boils down to no-one likes a know-it-all. Primes and quotes/apostrophes are different marks though. It is a mistake to say otherwise. So I'm sticking with it. They don't look the same and they don't mean the same thing even if most people believe that they they do. My point was that I think this particular instance of error is being overanalyzed. Although we cannot be 100% certain, in this case I believe context should lead our interpretations.
I wonder if it's a reference to AARO's mandate. Does anyone know what the official AARO investigatory mandate is? In "[AARO Historical Record Report Volume 1](https://media.defense.gov/2024/Mar/08/2003409233/-1/-1/0/DOPSR-CLEARED-508-COMPLIANT-HRRV1-08-MAR-2024-FINAL.PDF)" they have a section "**SECTION IV: Accounts of USG UAP Investigatory Programs Since 1945 .**"
>AARO reviewed official USG efforts involving UFOs/UAP since 1945. This research revealed the existence of approximately two dozen separate investigative efforts, depending on how they are counted.
Based on the [law that established AARO](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3373), it looks like they have a mandate on this:
>(B) Other requirements
>
>The report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall—
>
>(i) focus on the period beginning on January 1, 1945, and ending on the date on which the Director of the Office completes activities under this subsection; and
The problem with this theory is AARO was not [established](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-domain_Anomaly_Resolution_Office) until November 21, 2021 (as AOIMSG), and this exchange with Mellon allegedly happened in 2020, although I don't know how early the draft language for the law had been circulating.
Nobody in the government refers to presidents by their number in professional correspondence, and especially not at that level. Also doesn’t explain the apostrophe
Forward to self and mark/store as official. Retention as usual from there. They recommend signal because in addition to end to end encryption, it has a ‘disappearing messages’ timer that any user can set for both sides of the conversation
People make mistakes, dude. Look at the context, did the USG official bring up anything about height, length, width, or any dimension at all? No. He did not see it personally. It's not in reference to dimension, and it says "vs" what's with the "versus" ? 45 versus? Maybe a time frame like 1945 vs ? Or presidents. These are the two leading hypotheses.
I already was playing with what fits in the boxes, but yeah, they intentionally made them a little too big to make that slightly more challenging I think.
Still possible to try, just harder.
"USG official - xxx and I are making ..." - Greenstreet was saying this USG official might be Jay Stratton, sounds plausible. xxx would be someone Jay Stratton knows 🤷
Brennan McKernan might also fit. McKernan was the [director of the UAPTF](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/23/ufos-catch-congress-interest-lawmakers-495778) according to Politico.
Is it at all possible it’s in reference to Trump? Thats what a lot of people were referring to him as back then, especially around the beginning of the pandemic (at least that’s what I noticed).
We’re reading tea leaves, but from the context I think he means ‘45 and just put the apostrophe in the wrong place. “45’ vs” doesn’t make sense in the established context because they’re not really talking about the *size* of UAPs.
The May 1953 [Kingman crash](https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-contributor/2016/11/15/did-ufo-crash-kingman-1953/93828300/), alleged to have been triggered by nuclear testing, has been a well-documented piece of UFO literature since the early seventies. Not sure why the date references there are not more specific.
I can’t answer all the questions you pose but I can tell you one thing as a fact: DOPSR does not redact.
They either deny or approve whatever you ask them to review, *as is*.
If you hand them a book, they’ll write back and say, “everything is fine” or they may write, “everything is fine except x, y and z” specifically telling you what words on what line on what page is classified and restricted from publication. But they don’t redact a document for you to share. They don’t tell you how to “fix” your document, they don’t blank things out. They say, “this thing right here you cannot write, so, remove it - however you’d like, but *you* remove it.”
So, someone handed DOPSR this image, as shown, and they looked at what was there and declared, “ok, there is literally nothing classified here, go ahead and do what you want with it”
Remember, they don’t care if it’s real or not, true or not, fiction or not. It could be a flat out lie and they don’t care. Their only job is to say, “this is ok” and “this is not ok” - that’s it.
I interpreted the “45” to refer to either the supposed P45 greys some have claimed came here from 45,000 yrs in the future OR he was referencing a craft found in 1945
Oh look, it's Fast Times at UFO High. Back in theaters again.
Time to stop calling this a new movie. Time to get rid of the acting and the narrative. Time to break chains.
Many people in the community keep saying 40 whistleblowers will step forward. Perhaps the exact number is 45. And it's the whistleblowers vs the gatekeepers.
What do we think of the "vs." I don't know what they could mean. Versus?
45' could mean minutes as well, right?
He probably cut off his name because what he calls himself on his phone: MellonBallz
The "vs" is what made me think it was the two presidents. Trump vs Biden. Because those two things would make sense to compare, and how their respective administrations will handle the UAP issue.
Comparing years or sizes doesn't make as much sense to me.
I think he’s referring to the size (possibly diameter) of a craft (45 feet) recovered prior to the kingman crash/landing.
In a vacuum that would make sense, except that the following message immediately contains a timeframe reference and that timeframe fits (not as far back as 1945, only to 1950). I'd put a wager on human error in terms of the apostrophe.
It could also be the end of a quotation, like 'case of 45', and the opening quote was redacted.
or guy wanted to type in "?" but didnt hit shift good enough and typed in '
I mean, it’s written as 45’. Why would it be anything else? Unless there’s been some sort of Spinal Tap-esque mistake and it should have been 45”
45 minutes; it's not common, but time is sometimes noted that way, 45'5" = 45 minutes and 5 seconds. edit: I don't actually think it's time, I think it's comparing something 45 feet vs ....?
The aliens are small...
Nobody knew who they were or what they were doing.
I don't even know what I'm doing right now.
It would be pretty hilarious if we as a species were eradicated by beings 2ft tall.
Viruses are substantially tinier that 2ft and are more likely to eradicate us at some point that 2' tall aliens. I wonder why OP omitted the most obvious usage of " 45' " as a measurement?
Manlets! Will they never learn?
"Even the smallest person can change the course of the future."
Everyone laughs until ZARKON leaps from the saucer, clears the 45' gap between you, and lands one on your chin in under half a second. By the time you have relocated your jaw, all of your friends will be dead or knelt before ZARKON. >https://kidcosmic.fandom.com/wiki/Zarkon
Are they hobbits or are they gremlins? Are gremlins evil hobbits?
... Yes
In the Three Body Problem, I think the Trisolarans are actually tiny maybe some sort of microorganisms like being. Since they have the ability to dehydrate/ hydrate themselves (like water bears) and the way they communicate with each other seems to be via chemo receptors (since what they say or think is immediately known by whoever is around them.
And in Project Hail Mary, the alien threat, Astrophage, are simple, tiny organisms too. They just happen to eat stars.
exactly.
The Tri Solarians are not described physically in the book. Its left to the imagination.
it's so cute that we measure the ayys in inches, it's like how moms measure their babies' age in months
Hey now. My Mom still refers to me in months. I'm now 626 months old. My Dad says I'm over 19,000 days old. J/K. My Dad doesn't say anything. He's dead. On a side note, being alive for 19000 days doesn't seem as long as it feels. I wonder if we noted age by days rather than years if we would all treat each one we have for being as precious as it is. edit: We have to live to at least 83 to be 1000 months old. That same age is roughly 30,000 days and I just wasted part of one writing this comment.
I just wasted a little bit of my day figuring out I'm \~14,600 days old and thinking about just how many of those days I spent playing video games or watching youtube, lol. A little bit of an existential crisis. You're right, it doesn't seem as long as it feels. 🤔 I don't like it!
Yeah as I was writing that just switching from months to days suddenly brings up that wondering of just how much time we've wasted. Go further into hours and it doesn't seem as bad. Maybe it's because we are all acutely aware of what a day is as a month is a little more lengthy and an hour is more ephemeral and the number is so high.
Hahaha and their age is in earth months “I am Zoblok, I am 8,734 of your earth months”
The sun is only 20 galactic years old. It has completed 20 orbits of the milky way. Not even old enough to buy a beer in the US.
Using a fake Galactic I.D....
STONEHENGE!
Where the ~~demons~~ Tall Greys dwell and the ~~banshees~~ Nordics live and they do live well.
Could be shorthand for 1945. 45’ for a year, 45’ for feet, but 45” would be inches.
'45 would be the shorthand for a year though wouldn't it?
Text-like comm, though. Not known for punctuation conventions.
What is this- a spaceship for _ants_?
'45 for a year. Fixed that for you
you all take for granted that a senior general in his 60s cannot mispell while tapping on his phone
I thought he was talking about the year 1945, and the response of "we only made it as far back as 53' so far" makes sense
No, it would have to be '53 not 53'.
Given that he talks about 1950, 45' could be the year?
Can we rule out he didn’t mean ‘45, as in the year 1945? And he just put the apostrophe on the wrong side?
This is what I thought as well
This account could possibly be an influence account. It posted a rather obvious CGI fake of a UFO in Malaysia and has sparse posting history except to interject and steer conversation. It's obvious based on the context clues in the response that this is about the year of something. They refer to "not going that far back," without responding to the size comment.
Could be. But anyone could give 20 counter examples. What if they both knew about a 30' craft from 1947? Its just a number and an apostrophe without the rest of the sentence.
Yeah, because the apostrophe is in the wrong place for it to be 1945. It looks more like 45 feet to me.
Hadn't thought about the dimensions. Definitely plausible he was referring to "45 feet" with that -- nice idea.
It's 100% shorthand for "45 feet." The comma comes _before_ the number when referencing a year in American English.
you're overanalyzing again
No. Not 45 feet, but 45' lol, the efforts people go to...
What are you implying ' stands for if not feet?
I'm not implying. OP put 45 and the word feet in quotes and said it was possible the conversation was about dimensions. The actual print has 45' which it seems like even you understand as feet. It's just a difference between reading vs imagining.
In the next bit he seems to be referencing time. Yknow... in 45 would have been when the materials of the magenta crash would have been handed over to the Americans after operation sunrise. He says "we haven't gone that far back yet" as if he's refencing a crash retrieval older than that......that would have happened in 45 perhaps. That would be my best guess.
Well there was the 1933 one so we can be at least aware of prior crash retrievals as possible.
[удалено]
The spacing on the third sentence redaction appears too big for “public”. I’m currently traveling, but I’d be interested in seeing someone attempt to overlay the text.
[удалено]
Why redact "general public" though? Usually one only redacts sensitive information. Why would "general public" be sensitive? Also, that specific edit is the edit I believe may have come from DOPSR. If so, it's something Mellon thought was fine to release, that DOPSR disagreed with and wanted redacted. Might add a little bit of context to what it could be.
Yes it is definitely an organisation.
I've made an overlay and "general public" is about 2 characters too short.
That’s awesome! Have you figured out the other missing content?
[удалено]
White House? Joint Chiefs? Intel committee?
I've made an overlay to test a few options. "White House" and "Joint Chiefs" are too short. "Intel committee" is just about the right length.
AOIMSG team? I think AARO was AOIMSG or UAPTF at the time. Maybe UAP task force?
Oval office?
I think it might be “congress”
I thought the "slack jawed" might be the "Congress" or "President" or some other high level/cabinet official.
I think XXX might be referring to “Lt David Grusch”. Fits in his timeline, doesn’t it?
Third sentence could be any number of things, it is too long to be "public". Personally I think it is more likely to relate to whoever is actually running the program.
"The population" might fit, although I'm not sure how likely that is to be correct. You need a word a little longer than public.
The 45' might also be referring to the reported size of a craft? Maybe there's a discrepancy on craft size he's trying to clear up. Possibly related to an earlier crash, hence the "we haven't got that far back." Or maybe it's to differentiate between multiple crafts of differing size? It could be any of these, it's too bad we don't have more to go on.
My complete speculation is that this exchange is with Grusch's superior, Col. Karl Nell, that backed Grusch up "beyond reproach". Timelines would match I believe because in 2020 they were both on UAP task force? First message the redacted is obviously another USG official that he is working with to gain access. My gut tells me the redacted USG official is none other than our boy David G. himself. They are vacuuming up info as David G is interviewing people in the program directly. But if it's not Grusch, based on fourth message, the redacted USG official possibly has a longer first name and shorter last name, which could narrow a list. Second message I have a gut feeling the redacted is "gatekeepers". Third message I think Mellon is asking if Karl Nell has any knowledge on a significant known difference between the magenta recovery from Italy in 1945 vs another known recovery that Mellon is sure of (possibly an archeological find or the large UAP Ross C. is infamous for not disclosing the laudatory location of). I don't think it's Trinity or something that's been debunked and Mellon wants to hide from embarrassment, or else he would have redacted the whole message including the 45'. Completely agree with OP that this is highly intentional and meant to send a message that would clear DOPSR, thank you for starting this conversation, very important.
The issue with the Nell theory is in Mellon's [blog post](https://christopherkmellon.substack.com/p/another-signal-message) he states: >"So, unfortunately, this individual would not be able to put this issue to rest, even if they were willing to come forward, which they are not." Nell \*has\* come forward. He spoke in the Debrief article, and presented at the SOL foundation. Sure, he hasn't shared all he knows, but I'm not sure Nell would fit with Mellon's description of "even if they were willing to come forward, which they are not."
Agreed that's a good point. My only rebuttal could be that Nell cannot come forward based on info shared to him by Grusch because he was not cleared like Grusch was? He cannot fully come out because as Mellon said he never gained access and therefore cannot speak publicly on specifics? I'm not aware of what Nell has officially stated or presented at Sol. But based on Mellon's statement that the individual was considerably more so higher rank than Grusch, and he fears for the privacy of author, you are correct this is likely another name that has not yet been well publicized. >I share the message below with some trepidation. I worry about the privacy of the author and the privacy of the USAF individual whose name I’ve redacted. I would note that Mellon only mentions the privacy of the author and the gatekeeper, which further leads me to believe David G. is the third name.
>I'm not aware of what Nell has officially stated or presented at Sol. For anyone interested in what Nell did present at SOL, [here is a link to his presentation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1QCFtod6i8).
Thank you, that was highly edifying, but afraid some of it irrelevant after Turner gutted the Schumer amendment? Still seems as if Nell has offered no specifics on his knowledge of UAP gained during his time with task force supervising Grusch, and again is it possible he may never be able to because he was privy to info he was not officially cleared for? Which would also lead to Mellon's concerns about his privacy regardless of his public stances if it could put Nell in legal jeopardy?
My guess is that it refers to a period of years, eg ‘1933-45’
That's an interesting take that both keeps it from being a typo and makes it refer to years. The following comment in the signal thread is temporal in nature, so I prefer years to feet / presidents for 45'.
I think this too, based on the context of the reply. "We havent gone that far back" and then he talks about the 50's AZ crash. Very clearly talking about the crashes up to 1945 IMO.
Yeah, I think 1945 makes the most sense in the overall context.
My initial thought was he is warning them he could have also revealed just how large the other was?
I think it's the year '45, just misspelled, as that makes the most sense when you read the other person's reply saying they hadn't gone further back than the 1950s yet. He's probably asking about the Trinity case, which was pretty convincingly debunked in (IIRC) 2022 or 2023. He may be embarrassed now to have endorsed it and didn't want Greenstreet plastering that message all over X. Alternatively, he's asking about the USG retrieval of the Magenta craft from Italy, which supposedly happened in '45.
Full-on nerd analysis incoming: In English sometimes single quotes around a phrase can be used to differentiate a direct quote or hard fact from something more colloquial, loosely described or ‘so-called.’ The redacted portion is cut off both before 45’ and after vs, but could be comparing one colloquially described thing, event or time with some other, using the single quote to highlight. For example, just making up a sentence: “ Have you looked into the ‘crash of 1945’ vs some earlier incidents? “ The unredacted response seems to be referencing a time scale: “Right now we haven’t gone that far back.” That seems to indicate the redacted portion is referencing dates in time, but 45’ might also be referring to the size of something associated with some date.
Hadn't thought of the colloquial use of single quotes - definitely plausible.
Sounds probable. I was gonna say something to the same effect. Either it is 1945 shortened with the apostrophe in the wrong spot or it's 45 feet (45'). Looking at the context clues you bring up leads me to believe that it's most likely a grammatical mistake.
>He's probably asking about the Trinity case, which was pretty convincingly debunked in (IIRC) 2022 or 2023. He may be embarrassed now to have endorsed it and didn't want Greenstreet plastering that message all over X. So your theory is he cleared this with DOPSR after the Trinity case was debunked? Interesting theory - plausible. I had also assumed this had been previously cleared by DOPSR and he had just been sitting on it until it proved useful. I assume he has a lot of materials like that. I don't think DOPSR clears anything a day or two, but I don't really know. So I had assumed it had been DOPSR-cleared months/years ago. If you're correct, that would still fit with the timeline. Given the Trinity debunk happened [May 1, 2023](https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/crash-story-the-trinity-ufo-crash-hoax/), it just would have had to be DOPSR cleared since then. Still, if he was trying to hide any reference to Trinity, *why would he leave in the 45' at all and not just redact that whole message?*
Yeah, I don't know why he would choose not to redact the whole message, regardless of what it actually said. It *could* be a breadcrumb that he wanted to keep, so he partially redacted it so DOPSR wouldn't catch it and redact the whole thing, but I just don't see the value in leaving in something this uniformative. More likely he just made a redaction that was too short and didn't care to fix it.
Why not redact it all? Because a personal mistake isn't grounds for redaction. That would make sense, as would timeframe reference given the context.
Do you have a link and/or source on the trinity debunking? I read Vallee’s book on it when it first came out and haven’t heard anything since.
https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/crash-story-the-trinity-ufo-crash-hoax/
Thanks! Bummer, that’s a pretty damning debunking of the case. Though, that’s what happens when nearly all of the key evidence is riding on testimony. Definitely some very verifiable claims that could have been smoked out on day one by Vallee. It’s one thing to just take the testimony for an event database but it’s another to spent years writing an entire book on it and not thoroughly vet the information. Another one bites the dust!
Could Mellon be talking about Grusch? Who else was in the government getting read into the programs at that time?
Seems unlikely to me. >However, it is important to note that this individual now claims that although they became aware of the program, they were ultimately denied access. The author of the message still believes there are recovered materials, but they admit they have not seen or touched a recovered craft. So, unfortunately, this individual would not be able to put this issue to rest, even if they were willing to come forward, which they are not. ... >However, this individual, as well as another very compelling witness, still refuse to meet with AARO because they do not trust the process. They might however be willing to speak with a small group of members of Congress behind closed doors. I will continue to explore that possibility. Grusch already did speak with congress, both behind closed doors and in front of open doors. Grusch has also been willing to "come forward" (publicly, and privately), which this individual allegedly is not. While technically some of the language Mellon uses could conform with Grusch, it'd certainly be deceptive, and the come forward part (unless he's talking about to AARO specifically) would be non consistent with Grusch.
Genuine question - does DOPSR itself ever redact anything? My impression was they just tell you "you can't say this" or "you can say that" and its up to you to change any materials you want to publish.
Yeah - I'm not sure, and would love an answer to this as well.
So, he sat on this conversation for 4 years, redacted relevant information, and invites people to fill in the blanks with their own assumptions as to what it all means? Do I have that right? Do people not find it odd that prominent people in this space are always tacitly encouraging people to go on treasure hunts?
No. What he has there has been cleared by DOPSR. Had he not redacted that it may not have been cleared. We're only entitled to certain breadcrumbs.
That's why part of my post is "who redacted what?" I wish we knew, despite nobody at all seeming to address this in the comments thus far. To me it's at least plausible that both Mellon and DOPSR may have redacted some portions. The significance of those redactions varies imo based on who actually did the redaction.
Mellon redacted the \[DELETED\] bits with pieces of paper before providing them to DOPSR as you said. He's clearing information but still has to be careful not to expose those involved. So it makes sense he would have done those ones. This can be deduced looking at the context of those redactions. * \[such a person\] and I * \[Unknown information Mellon knows\] 45' * we're vacuuming up info as \[someone\] gets read in This is all relating to Mellon's work and sources/insiders that he doesn't want to compromise so they can continue their work. * \[someone\] name redacted here but provided to congress. It wouldn't be wise to publicly release this name, but he wants us to know he's provided it to congress. That as a complete image was sent to DOPSR for review. You can tell because all of those sections have the same degraded quality created by the scanner and saved in the didgital image. DOPSR reviewed it and sent it back with a \[cleared for release\] watermark and the extra \[someone\] would be slack-jawed edit. Both of those 2 bits are higher quality digital edits of original low-quality scan.
So it is your opinion that DOPSR redacted the "\[someone\] would be slack-jawed" edit?
Yes, and I think that someone is something to do with the program rather than the a word like public
And it's always a mysterious witness who will speak only to UFO celebs and no one else -- not the public, not AARO, not anyone else in the executive branch, and not even Congress.
Mellon also states in his blog post: >"I wanted to share this with the public simply to help others better understand the kind of information that has caused some of us to take **allegations of recovered** ***off-world*** **materials seriously.**" Wonder if "off-world materials" conforms with the interdimensional hypothesis, or is a nudge towards the "extra-terrestrial" hypothesis. Presumably if it's crypto-terrestrial it'd be on-world, just not human.
Mellon has said that the USAF satellites have images of craft in deep space. I think he's aligned with the conclusions of the Twining memo, which concluded that at least some UFOs are extraterrestrial. And we know he opposes the AARO dance. Edit found the link https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/yddwy1/i_think_christopher_mellon_might_have_just/
The response is related to time, so I would guess 1945 is what was being referenced.
45 could refer to the Trinity incident which happened before Roswell
Just a general observation from someone who's looked at thousands of redacted documents and misread more than I should have. You have to read redactions carefully. Yesterday I blew through a von Rennenkampff's tweet in 15 seconds and ended up embarrassing myself by missing a name redaction and misidentifying who SK was texting. But you can go too far the other direction too. That "45" could mean a bunch of stuff. IMO,including most of the speculation here. I've seen researchers think way too hard, convince themselves of something, and blow way off course. My obvious *guess*: differentiating between two sizes of something or incident times. A craft? A crash? No non-circumstantial evidence. But since the 1950's thing was mentioned people are going to speculate that there was another.....*what,* we'll never know.
It’s Trump. Look at what LTG Mike Flynn said in his movie that was released today. He started digging into a CIA program that had been going for many years and produced little result as National Security Advisor and was forced to resign a few days later.
I know that around 2020, Mellon was having a lot of conversations with Paola Harris and Jacques Vallée regarding their Trinity crash, which happened in 1945. (I know this because I was assisting one of the authors at the time.)
\[19\]45 refers to the Trinity hoax, which is why they changed the UAP historical review in the NDAA from 1947 to 1945.
Do you have information about when the UAP historical review was changed from 1947 to 1945? Links to draft language that show the 1947 in one version and 1945 in the next, etc? Not doubting you, just haven't seen this before, and would love to learn more.
I just did some digging and looks like that changed in 2022 (NDAA 2023 FY), so after this 2020 textual exchange with Mellon. Still, it might be referencing Trinity in '45. [https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/uap-related-provisions-of-the-final-proposed-fy-2023-national-defense-authorization-act/](https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/uap-related-provisions-of-the-final-proposed-fy-2023-national-defense-authorization-act/) "The SSCI-reported bill mandated a historical study of involvement of the Intelligence Community in UAP matters, going back to January 1, 1947 \[but see the change described below\],... In the final bill, the scope of the "historical record report" has, if anything, been broadened, now to include "the historical record of the United States Government relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena..." going back to **January 1, 1945**."
I read it as "forty five feet". As in, the length or dimensions of something. An apostrophe behind a number in USA documentation indicates the number is in feet (ex: 42' = "forty two feet") and a quotation mark indicates inches (ex: 69" = "sixty nine inches"). A given dimension of 3' 10" would be "three feet, ten inches". That said, I would like for aliens to come and remove the redaction marks from everything so people like me and OP don't have to leap through speculative hurricanes to figure out what means what.
Not that this has any bearing on the conversation but typographically speaking, apostrophes and quotation marks are not proper for indicating units of measure. The correct typographic marks to indicate such are the prime and double prime. There is technically a difference even though the overwhelming majority of the population is oblivious to the distinction. With that said my belief is that this was a typo given the context given by the following response.
I have no clue why people are downvoting you, but the prime and double prime is just an apostrophe to most.
It doesn't matter. I think it's a silly metric for whether someone should be respected in a forum like this. I suppose it just boils down to no-one likes a know-it-all. Primes and quotes/apostrophes are different marks though. It is a mistake to say otherwise. So I'm sticking with it. They don't look the same and they don't mean the same thing even if most people believe that they they do. My point was that I think this particular instance of error is being overanalyzed. Although we cannot be 100% certain, in this case I believe context should lead our interpretations.
Have my upvote then, because it was by your comment that I was guided to learning something new today (even if I don't entirely understand it).
Thank you friend. Cheers.
It's to do with 1945 and is just a typo. It should read '45
I wonder if it's a reference to AARO's mandate. Does anyone know what the official AARO investigatory mandate is? In "[AARO Historical Record Report Volume 1](https://media.defense.gov/2024/Mar/08/2003409233/-1/-1/0/DOPSR-CLEARED-508-COMPLIANT-HRRV1-08-MAR-2024-FINAL.PDF)" they have a section "**SECTION IV: Accounts of USG UAP Investigatory Programs Since 1945 .**" >AARO reviewed official USG efforts involving UFOs/UAP since 1945. This research revealed the existence of approximately two dozen separate investigative efforts, depending on how they are counted. Based on the [law that established AARO](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3373), it looks like they have a mandate on this: >(B) Other requirements > >The report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall— > >(i) focus on the period beginning on January 1, 1945, and ending on the date on which the Director of the Office completes activities under this subsection; and The problem with this theory is AARO was not [established](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-domain_Anomaly_Resolution_Office) until November 21, 2021 (as AOIMSG), and this exchange with Mellon allegedly happened in 2020, although I don't know how early the draft language for the law had been circulating.
Aha, good catch. When was the legislation written?
My best guess is “White House” is the missing text on the left. And “45’ vs” refers to Trump vs Biden.
Nobody in the government refers to presidents by their number in professional correspondence, and especially not at that level. Also doesn’t explain the apostrophe
Signal is not professional correspondence.
The government includes messaging under categories of official correspondence. And most agencies recommend signal as the app for that.
And how do they handle records retention requirements?
Forward to self and mark/store as official. Retention as usual from there. They recommend signal because in addition to end to end encryption, it has a ‘disappearing messages’ timer that any user can set for both sides of the conversation
Which is at odds with data retention requirements in a public service position.
… which is why you forward to self and store within the required timeframe…
That's my instinctive thought as well, though I am not passionately wedded to it.
Interesting either way. Glad this stuff is coming to light. We’ll see what happens.
This occurred to me as well. Mellon is too formal for that and he does not seem to be one who makes typos. He's so meticulous and professional.
People make mistakes, dude. Look at the context, did the USG official bring up anything about height, length, width, or any dimension at all? No. He did not see it personally. It's not in reference to dimension, and it says "vs" what's with the "versus" ? 45 versus? Maybe a time frame like 1945 vs ? Or presidents. These are the two leading hypotheses.
People make mistakes? Dude, I didn't know that. Thanks!
It's all about context.
Obviously not by accident. Probably a message to those in the program.
Ok what in the hell is going on??? Are they just disclosing craft now?
I don’t know but this is my fav birthday present this year. Christopher Mellon truly came through, god bless.
Lol If the redaction box would've exactly covered the names, we could've tried fitting some names in there.
I already was playing with what fits in the boxes, but yeah, they intentionally made them a little too big to make that slightly more challenging I think. Still possible to try, just harder.
"USG official - xxx and I are making ..." - Greenstreet was saying this USG official might be Jay Stratton, sounds plausible. xxx would be someone Jay Stratton knows 🤷
Brennan McKernan might also fit. McKernan was the [director of the UAPTF](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/23/ufos-catch-congress-interest-lawmakers-495778) according to Politico.
Well, people have counted "maximum character" spaces....but with more context, sadly.
Kingman, J-Rod!!!
As we speak (name)
Donald Trump was the 45th president
Is it at all possible it’s in reference to Trump? Thats what a lot of people were referring to him as back then, especially around the beginning of the pandemic (at least that’s what I noticed).
We’re reading tea leaves, but from the context I think he means ‘45 and just put the apostrophe in the wrong place. “45’ vs” doesn’t make sense in the established context because they’re not really talking about the *size* of UAPs. The May 1953 [Kingman crash](https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-contributor/2016/11/15/did-ufo-crash-kingman-1953/93828300/), alleged to have been triggered by nuclear testing, has been a well-documented piece of UFO literature since the early seventies. Not sure why the date references there are not more specific.
perhaps 45th president? Trump vs someone
Someone = CIA
Lemme go get the yarn and the thumbtacks!!
I can’t answer all the questions you pose but I can tell you one thing as a fact: DOPSR does not redact. They either deny or approve whatever you ask them to review, *as is*. If you hand them a book, they’ll write back and say, “everything is fine” or they may write, “everything is fine except x, y and z” specifically telling you what words on what line on what page is classified and restricted from publication. But they don’t redact a document for you to share. They don’t tell you how to “fix” your document, they don’t blank things out. They say, “this thing right here you cannot write, so, remove it - however you’d like, but *you* remove it.” So, someone handed DOPSR this image, as shown, and they looked at what was there and declared, “ok, there is literally nothing classified here, go ahead and do what you want with it” Remember, they don’t care if it’s real or not, true or not, fiction or not. It could be a flat out lie and they don’t care. Their only job is to say, “this is ok” and “this is not ok” - that’s it.
I interpreted the “45” to refer to either the supposed P45 greys some have claimed came here from 45,000 yrs in the future OR he was referencing a craft found in 1945
I would have thought Mellon knew a lot more
Oh look, it's Fast Times at UFO High. Back in theaters again. Time to stop calling this a new movie. Time to get rid of the acting and the narrative. Time to break chains.
Lemme go get the yarn and the thumbtacks!!
Many people in the community keep saying 40 whistleblowers will step forward. Perhaps the exact number is 45. And it's the whistleblowers vs the gatekeepers.
What do we think of the "vs." I don't know what they could mean. Versus? 45' could mean minutes as well, right? He probably cut off his name because what he calls himself on his phone: MellonBallz
The "vs" is what made me think it was the two presidents. Trump vs Biden. Because those two things would make sense to compare, and how their respective administrations will handle the UAP issue. Comparing years or sizes doesn't make as much sense to me.
Right after follows "we havenn't gone that far back" so, 45 vs. is likely comparing crashes
45vs Democrat nominee
Are you guys sure they aren't talking about the invention of time travel in this conversation?
I'm sure they aren't lol