r/CrashRetrievals

It seems that there's so many camps of thought that nobody tries to think simply about why aliens might do what they do.

Too many people think they're Angelic Smart, or Beyond Understandable, or like on the Starship Enterprise and everything they do must have a logical and higher intelligence explanation.

For me, I see no reason not to assume they're like us, just a little more technologically advanced. Now maybe some of them are Unknowable or Woo Plasmoid 5th Dimensional beings, but the craft and bodies? They could be like anyone crashing on i95 in the USA.

Abductions, if they're real, don't need to be a scientific hybrid engineering program, it could just be Human Trafficking by assholes who make money/influence/power by doing it in the alien socio-political spectrum.

Crashes (or the alleged "donated" vehicles) could be anything from a breakdown and the occupants are picked up by another ship, to Drunk/high aliens on a joy ride that mess up at the controls and crash.

Alien craft sightings could be like Alien Whale Watchers, where some "boat" pilots are more unscrupulous and get too close/mess with humans because they either don't care or they're chartered by alien rich folks who tell them to get closer.

And the somehow controversial Greys v Reptilians that Grusch just talked about could be any kind of skirmish. Two drunks fighting. Two groups of scientists who wanted a contract and the other ship messed it up for them. Could be that they are both some kind of alien drug runners and are beefing.

But everything people say aliens are doing, doesn't have to be scientists or military or some high level 200IQ reason we cannot understand. They could be doing super normal shit that none of us would think twice about if they heard people doing it, but their tech just looks crazier so we assume it's some enigmatic, unknowable, super intelligent reason for it.

I tend to view most stories about UFOs and aliens by assuming what is happening is understandable and relatable, just like how we understand and relate to animals like cats and dogs and whales and monkeys, even though they're not a lot like us, because sentience has some things like emotions, play, mental illness, physical illness, and rogue assholes that make a lot of actions make sense even if they physiologically or socially resemble us.

TLDR: America has 0 maglev speed trains, and if you heard and saw pictures of a crashed maglev speed train in China, you wouldn't think the passengers were military, scientists, or that the people who made that tech were incredibly different than Americans. So, why don't you look at UFO stories that way?

The Alien Reproduction Vehicle (ARV) hypothesis proposes that the United States progressed from recovering anomalous craft to building its own:

Recovery → custody → exploitation → activation → derivation → reproduction → operational deployment → sustained testing and logistics

Recovery allegations, activation claims, and accounts of human-operated unconventional vehicles do not establish an operational American ARV.

Date claims by when they became public. A 1992 event first described in 2025 is not an independent 1992 data point; it entered a narrative of electrogravitics, Fluxliners, secret fleets, and contractor custody already decades old.

AI assistance disclosure: I take notes while watching interviews, then revisit transcripts to extract relevant passages. I use AI to help research and draft, read the sources it turns up, and revise the post through further research and editing. Source links are included so readers can assess the evidence themselves.

1950s: Townsend Brown

Thomas Townsend Brown’s 1957 patent filing interpreted charged-electrode thrust as connected to gravity. Later work generally found conventional explanations; a 2024 vacuum study found no anomalous forces. McCandlish’s later Fluxliner drawing used this public architecture; resemblance is not corroboration.

1993, Reported Later: Ben Rich

Skunk Works director Ben Rich’s alleged “act of God” confession has no contemporary recording or transcript; this investigation traces it to his documented E.T. joke. It is folklore, not confirmation.

2001: McCandlish’s Fluxliner

Mark McCandlish relayed Brad Sorenson’s alleged 1988 sighting of three hovering human-built ARVs, or Fluxliners, at Norton Air Force Base, allegedly derived from recovered technology. His reconstruction paired capacitors and a coil with alleged mass or inertia reduction. UAP Gerb revisits the account.

McCandlish was not present. No authenticated photograph or program record has surfaced. The drawing is not corroboration.

2005–2006: McKinnon’s Secret Fleet

Gary McKinnon, who accessed NASA and military computers while already hunting UFO evidence, reported “Non-Terrestrial Officers,” “fleet-to-fleet transfers,” and, in Wired, a cigar-shaped object above Earth. He saved nothing. The intrusion was real; the evidence survives only in his recollection, and the labels could be conventional categories.

2013–2014: Lockheed’s Compact Fusion Reactor

Lockheed’s 2014 proposal for roughly 100 megawatts at truck scale appeared relevant to ARV power demands. No public data established a working reactor. Cancellation before 2021 weighs against interpreting it as disclosure of mature hidden technology.

2016–2019: Pais’s Navy Patents

Salvatore Pais’s craft patent proposed electromagnetic fields reducing inertia. After an enablement rejection, Naval Aviation Enterprise CTO James Sheehy asserted operability and funding. That shows institutional interest, not reproducible physics or a recovery link.

2019–2021: Contractor Custody

The Wilson-Davis notes, written by Eric Davis and public from 2019, allege a 2002 conversation about contractor-held non-Earth technology, stalled exploitation, and denial of access to Vice Admiral Thomas Wilson. They do not name Lockheed. Archival provenance does not authenticate the conversation; Wilson denies it.

Harry Reid told The New Yorker he heard Lockheed held retrieved material and was denied access. He never claimed to see it. Naming Lockheed does not make these stories mutually validating.

2023–2025: Possession Versus Reproduction

In 2023 testimony, David Grusch alleged a multidecade retrieval and reverse-engineering program he was denied access to, based on about 40 witness interviews. He did not claim to have handled a craft. His claim that recovered material inspired other technologies supports derivation more readily than reproduction.

James Lacatski described a government-held “craft of unknown origin.” In 2025, he confirmed authorization to discuss possession and interior access. “Unknown origin” is not necessarily extraterrestrial, and possession is not reproduction.

The KONA BLUE proposal documents an attempted program to receive alleged technology and biological material. AARO says the program was never established and received nothing; its 2024 report found no empirical evidence of undisclosed extraterrestrial reverse engineering.

2023–2025: Claims of Operational Craft

Michael Herrera: His 2023 account describes a 2009 Indonesian encounter with a 300-foot craft, unmarked armed personnel, and cargo, which he read as a human logistics operation. No independently testable teammate corroboration or imagery has appeared.

Matthew Livelsberger: His January 2025 email alleged U.S. and Chinese gravitic aircraft. FBI-confirmed authorship does not validate its contents. Knowledge, hearsay, speculation, and interpretation during severe distress remain possibilities.

Gregory Rogers: The former Air Force flight surgeon and NASA official said in 2025 that a major showed him footage in 1992 of a 20-foot white saucer with Air Force markings. It allegedly rose and rotated without support or downwash. The major said, “We got it from them.”

Rogers offers the strongest direct ARV-relevant account here, but saw a monitor, not the craft. He knew neither the hangar location nor whether the footage was live, recorded, or a mockup. Recollection came over thirty years later. Casual access by a major conflicts with Wilson-Davis compartmentalization. A breach or different program could explain it, but adds hypotheses.

Dylan Borland: His 2025 testimony describes a silent 100-foot triangle rising rapidly near a NASA hangar at Langley in 2012. Proximity does not establish NASA ownership or manufacture.

2026: Davis’s Exploitation Account

Eric Davis’s interview draws on alleged program personnel, not his own craft inspections. He says 1950s gravity research failed. A contractor assistant allegedly had access to about six intact UFOs, some from foreign recoveries; a “three-letter agency” distributed components without telling engineers their alleged origin.

Researchers reportedly found material organized nearly atom by atom but could not reproduce it. One combination of actions allegedly caused levitation and a piercing whine (1:40:59). If true, that shows activation, not understanding or manufacture.

Davis says major efforts were shut down in 1989 for failing to reproduce the technology or yield operational capability, followed by periodic revivals. A senior aerospace source still reported no propulsion breakthrough shortly before dying in 2018.

Davis’s notes shaped this narrative, but his reported failure cuts against it; accepting his recoveries and levitation while discarding that failure would be selective.

2026: MITRE and Amentum

UAP Gerb proposed MITRE as a systems-integration layer. Its FFRDC role establishes capacity, not UAP involvement. MITRE’s archive review after Rep. Eric Burlison’s request is procedural; documented null results should lower confidence.

In August, Matthew Brown invoked Amentum-linked hangars, “Sirius,” and electrogravitic propulsion, then pointed back to Townsend Brown. He identified no vehicle, contract, or technical document establishing an ARV program.

What Would Change the Assessment?

Similarity is not independent corroboration. Convergence requires witnesses recording matching nonpublic details before influencing one another.

Later success, separate compartments, derivative technologies, or recovered vehicles under test could reconcile Davis with ARV accounts, but each adds unseen successes or distinctions. Mistaken or unrelated accounts remain the simplest reading of the public evidence.

Confirmation requires authenticated records, examinable hardware, imagery with chain of custody, reproducible effects, or independent matching testimony; Rogers’s footage and Norton records are concrete tests. Mundane identifications, contradicted accounts, failed replication, and documented null searches should lower confidence. Explaining every failure through deeper concealment makes the hypothesis untestable.

No operational American ARV has been demonstrated. Limited activation or derivation remains possible; success in an unknown compartment lacks independent public evidence. Recovered-hardware claims deserve investigation, but on the public evidence the answer is still no.

If you liked this post, you can read the full length version here.