Friday, May 27, 2011

AREA 51 BOOK EXPOSED: SOURCE FOR ROSWELL STORY NAMED AND INTERVIEWED! by Anthony Bragalia

a51.jpg

Annie Jacobsen’s recently released bestseller Area 51 has stirred global interest. She has been featured numerous times on many networks and websites. Her book was reviewed last week by the New York Times. Jacobsen’s biggest “scoop” concerns the Roswell crash. She learned from an early executive of one of our nation’s largest defense contractors that the Roswell crash of 1947 was resultant from a scheme by Russia’s Josef Stalin and escaped Nazi mad-scientist Josef Mengele to “hoax” the Americans by staging UFO sightings. The plan was to induce panic and psychological warfare in the manner of the Orson Welles War of the World broadcast aftermath. They would launch unusually-designed craft from a “mothership” (located near Alaska.) These were single-wing, remote-controlled “UFOs” with “alien-like” children on board. The craft were of Nazi German design (captured by the Soviets at the close of the War) and the “aliens” were actually 13 year olds. The grotesque child aviators were biologically engineered by Mengele with strange large heads and oddly spaced eyes. The craft and pilots had crashed near Roswell in July of 1947 and were flown to Wright Field. In 1951, Jacobsen’s source maintains, the crashed vehicle and the two still-surviving deformed children were taken to Area 51 and to the facilities of defense contractor EG&G (now URS Corporation)

This author has identified and located Annie Jacobsen’s anonymous source. I have also decided, after much consideration, to “out” him. In this article I will openly name him. I have also contacted him very recently. He reluctantly spoke with me for some time. I believe that the source was indeed told this bizarre story by officials. But just why this is so will stun readers, and is not for the reasons that you may think.

JACOBSEN’S SOURCE NAMED

alfred27.jpg
EG&G’s Scientist Alfred O’Donnell in 1955

Ms. Jacobsen’s source about this Roswell story is unnamed by her in the blockbuster book. He wanted to remain anonymous. Annie Jacobsen kept her promise. I did not learn her source from her or from anyone associated with her publishing company. His identity and his background is revealed here and now:

Alfred O’Donnell is nearly 89 years old and he is one of Annie Jacobsen’s key sources about this Roswell crash story “interpretation.” O’Donnell is indeed exactly who he claims to have been. In the early 1950’s he was at the “Nevada Test Site” where atomic bombs were tested regularly. O’Donnell was indeed part of the nucleus of top management and engineers for EG&G- one of our nation’s top defense contractors. Founded as Edgerton, Germeshausen and Grier (EG&G) the company was acquired by URS Corporation some years ago. URS employs over 50,000 and is the leading designer and builder of federal classified facilities in the United States. They work with military as well as with the Intelligence Community (particularly the NSA) in constructing and operating some of our nation’s most sensitive and secret facilities.

O’Donnell joined EG&G in 1947 when the company employed only 15 people. He worked alongside the company’s founders and obtained Top Secret Clearance to work on our nation’s nuclear arsenal. He helped to develop explosives research protocols and optimized the firing systems of bomb devices. O’Donnell – a Bostonian - is a brilliant man who made significant contributions to EG&G and to our nation’s defense for many years. EG&G – and O’Donnell - had specialized expertise in electronically capturing and measuring the energy that was emitted from DOE nuclear blasts in the remote Nevada desert.

THE SOURCE SPEAKS

eg27.jpg

TRANSCRIBED INTERVIEW WITH ALFRED O’DONNELL, FORMERLY OF EG&G

MAY 26, 2011 (AFTERNOON)

(Bolded text that follows indicates Alfred O’Donnell speaking;
Light text indicates this author speaking to O’Donnell)

Hello…

Hi Mr. O’Donnell, my name is Tony Bragalia, a freelance journalist in Florida..How are you doing?

Fine, and who are you again? (I repeat above)

I’m a researcher, including of things like military history and the history of science. I happened to see an online article about an ‘Alfred O’Donnell’ that was from the Review-Journal. It’s called “100 Men Who Shaped Southern Nevada” It discusses your early work at EG&G in the 50s in nuclear blast testing and measurement.

Oh, oh, yes… I do remember that. I recall that very well.

It was written by a “ K.J. Evans”…

Yes, he’s dead now. That article was written some time ago. Some years ago.

It’s found its way onto the Internet so the story is everywhere now, forever…So I do have the right Alfred O’Donnell who was with EG&G in the ‘40s and 1950s?

Yes, that’s me.

Well, of course you must be aware then of the recent bestseller by Annie Jacobsen that is entitled Area 51?

I am. (silence/pause)

You know Annie?

I do know Annie.

Well you said something to Annie Jacobsen about the subject that I’d like to talk with you about…

I don’t talk about my work at Area 51.

Well, EG&G does not seem to be the kind of place that would be reverse engineering a Soviet craft and also doing biological experiments and analysis, there were better places….

Well, you really need to speak with the Publicity Director at Little Brown.

Why them?

They published the book.

What do they know more about all of this than you do?

They don’t. But I’m not saying anything…

Tony, how…how did you find me?

I am a researcher of some of these things. I think sort of like a computer when I am investigating. I googled key words. I happened across the article on you. I knew intuitively that you are Annie’s source, Alfred. And of course you are, so…

Alfred, you must realize that you have an obligation to truth and to history to come forward publicly. This is a much larger issue. It is about having people understand what really happened -if this is what really did- and to not believe in fantasies..things that aren’t scientific or historical truth…

I know…I understand… what you’re saying, Tony.

You know Alfred, I communicated with Dr. Stirling Colgate at Los Alamos recently and he made a recent confession about a UFO hoax that he was aware of from many, many years ago.

Oh…

Colgate is in his 90s and he’s still at Los Alamos. He confirmed to me that the famous Socorro, NM case involving a policeman in 1964 was a hoax by some of his students from New Mexico Tech. But it took him over 40 years to really say something! Colgate took to a real long time to tell the truth. And he still is reluctant…but his allegiance was in the wrong place for too long. It was to his kids at the college!…

(Laughs) So how did you find out about him?

Through a letter that I had found in some archives from Stirling Colgate to his friend Linus Pauling, who had an interest in UFOs I found out. In his reply, Colgate told Pauling the truth that it was a hoax.

Who is that he wrote to?

Linus Pauling.

Oh! Yes…

So my point is that we will all pass. And because of this we all have larger obligations as we get older. As a scientist you must understand this, truth is it. It’s really all that we want have in the end.

Will you leave anything - a document in writing to benefit history and science on all of this before you pass, including your name?

I don’t know. I don’t think so.

I think you must forget about your oaths and clearances. The Soviet threat is no longer. It is more than six decades on Alfred! I sometimes almost get emotional about all of this…doesn’t, does not truth mean anything? Why have our children’s children believe in fantasy, if this is what it was?

I will think about it. I will give it some consideration…

Alfred, have other people called you about this?

I’m not going to say anything at all about that.

Well, people come to very different conclusions that you do on all of this. The Air Force says that it is a Mogul balloon, others say it was a terrestrial secret experiment by German Paperclip scientists…

Yes, I have heard about that one.

Well, I will level with you Alfred. I come down on the side of truth - it was an extraterrestrial vehicle that crashed. And frankly I think that you know this and that you were “played with.”

I am certain that the craft was constructed of materials that were not known to science in 1947. I based this on many things including on my study of the history of Shape Recovery Alloys. They had reported they found “memory metal” at Roswell that was tough and would return back to its original shape. I found that in the months immediately following the crash that Wright Patterson contracted Battelle Memorial Institute to begin work on what we now know as Nitinol. I traced the scientific documents on Shape Memory metals to the incident. When you are reverse engineering, it is always easiest to begin with the ‘materials of construction’ –what is it made of- not the propulsion or navigation systems…

Yes..I follow.

And, Alfred, I will be candid with you: you must come forward. You are a man of science. You have lived for the discovery of truth. Why do you care now? Say what needs to be said. I mean I know you have. But openly. You know Annie is taking a beating on this. I frankly would like to know, as someone who believes in truth and accurate history…you are a man who honors science…you must know what I mean…

Tony, look, I will say this to you: if the Federal Government really wanted to have all of this released, why would they not have already done it themselves?

I don’t know. But you do Alfred. And I do respect your respect for your oath and your security clearances.

If we could get you a release from the Department of Defense to speak of this- of the truth of Roswell- would you then be open to speaking openly?

No. I would not. I just…I just cannot get involved like that.

Oh, one more last thing…

Yes.

Do you think that when URS acquired EG&G a few years back that they also got all of the early scientific and historical records from EG&G? I mean would they even know now? Many of the people there at URS now weren’t yet even born when this happened…

I don’t know. I really have no idea.

Again, Alfred, I have an understanding of the Intelligence Community –IC- and of the Defense communities, so I do understand where you are coming from. Thanks for all of your time, I really do appreciate it very much…

OK, Tony, Goodbye.

Goodbye.

THE STRANGE STORY HE TELLS – AND WHY HE WAS TOLD IT


dis27.jpg

I found Alfred O’Donnell to be telling the truth as he remembers it – and likely as he himself claims to have witnessed it. He was extremely lucid, deliberate and controlled in his responses to me. Frankly he seemed years and years younger on the phone. Like author Annie Jacobsen, I find O’Donnell to remain a bright and believable person.

However, I do not believe that the “essence” of what he was told was true. O’Donnell says that he viewed a hoaxed UFO by Stalin that was used to scare us - and that used a former Nazi’s eugenics skills to create the aviators. O’Donnell told Jacobsen that they were “grotesque.” O’Donnell also told Jacobsen that he and his other scientist cohorts at EG&G were “prepared” for the sight of them. They were told in advance that “seeing the bodies would be a shocking and disturbing experience.”

But the truth is this: It was all “staged.” O’Donnell was indeed “exposed” to what he says he was- but this “exposure” was planned, it was for a reason - and the accompanying story that he was told was not genuine.

He was told that it was of Soviet origin. But “exotic technology” that has been recovered by military are often studied by using the “subterfuge” or “cover” of being told that they are of “Russian origin.” And this holds especially true for the Roswell crash. There are numerous times when the “Soviets” or the “Russians” were used to describe where such artifacts came from. They were a convenient and ideal “excuse” or reason for the study of such things:

1) When Elroy John Center (the Battelle scientist who confessed to analysis of ET metal debris and who co-authored the first “memory metal report” for Wright Patterson) was told to analyze the unusual “piece”- he was told by his Battelle supervisor that it was recovered in a crash from “the Soviets.” Center knew this not to be true and he believed the material could not have been made by man. (See prior articles on the Battelle-Roswell connection archived on the Iconoclasts site to learn more.)

2) General George Schulgen, in a 1947 secret memo, instructed his officers to be aware of UFO’s and their “Items of Construction.” He indicated that the discs could be of possible Soviet origin. Schulgen was of course using this as a cover. Forthcoming information on Schulgen will show that this top Pentagon Intelligence official of the time knew that the material of which the discs were comprised was not known to science- and were engineered by those from another world.

3) When RAAF Base Commander Butch Blanchard told his wife and daughter Dale of the crash, he kept on repeating to them: “those Russians have some amazing things.” New information from researcher Tom Carey indicates that the exact opposite was true: Blanchard actually believed that it was an ET craft at Roswell, something he related to his second wife and others later in life.

The deepest recesses of Government were testing key personnel at emerging EG&G to see if they could be entrusted with such “remarkable secrets.” Would they say anything to anyone about this made-up Russian-Roswell scenario? They did not (at least not until a half-century later, and then only anonymously.) They could be entrusted with anything. And today the company is rewarded as the largest infrastructure firm to Federal government in the nation.

More importantly this author maintains that:

- Those in Government who knew about Roswell wanted to confuse the ET truth of the event to others with whom they may work by alluding to things “Russian.” It may have even been used as a “code word” of sorts.

- They felt that it was also a perfect way to have studies performed on actual ET crashed disc material by private contractors. Tell them these strange things were Russian. Fold the research into existing defense related technology research.

- They wanted to see if organizations that they would bring into the fold would keep such a pretend ‘Secret.’ And point to the Russians, feared and hated.

- They would occasionally and selectively “test” individuals within government (and its contractor community) to measure the “reactions” and coping skills of learned men when exposed to such bizarre things

- They “orchestrated” cover stories on Roswell to purposely confuse and obfuscate the issue. They sought to blur the ET truth of Roswell with layers of plausible deniability. They officially issued (and in other ways spread) many possible “real reasons” for the Roswell crash. In this way the actual extraterrestrial nature of the Roswell event will become “muddled.”

O’Donnell was shown an American-hoaxed UFO and “aliens” for one (or some) these reasons. But it was not a “Soviet” thing that he saw. That he saw these things is likely true… but the associated story that he was told about their origin was not.

The most telling reason that this is so is this: The story told to O’Donnell those many years ago –in historical hindsight- is ludicrous on the face of it. I will not detail those reasons. Many others (including the New York Times) have pointed out the many “holes” found like Swiss cheese within the story. These include fundamental logistical, technological and historical issues associated with the cover tale told O’Donnell.

And there is this clue: O’Donnell told Jacobsen that “Cyrillic writing” found around a rim area in the craft had led he and his EG&G associates to confirm that the craft was of Soviet origin, so that the story that they were told by their superiors made complete sense.

However, the fact is that the Russians would never have made such alleged “hoax overflights” of the US using anything like “Cyrillic writing” that would reveal the craft’s true Soviet origin. It would defeat the entire purpose of having our people believe that we were being invaded by “aliens” as O’Donnell maintains, like “Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds”- and so O’Donnell should never have found such writing.

It was, rather, placed there by US military intelligence to encourage the belief that it was Russian. And O’Donnell was just 29 in 1951 when he states that he saw all of this at EG&G at Area 51. He was impressionably young, as were his EG&G colleagues. They would go on in their defense contracting careers believing all the while (and repeating late in life) the lie that they had been made to believe that these things were “Russian.” How very “Cold War-ish.”

But given the context of the timeframe of the late 1940s and early 1950s (and the fear of Russians, with “War of the Worlds” having aired only 10 years prior) it is easy to understand why O’Donnell and his EG&G colleagues “bought in” to this scenario fed them. Given the “tenor of the times” and the initiation of the Cold War, anything related to the devious Soviets could be believed at that time.

And, tellingly, the “Russian” explanation that had been told by these EG&G retirees reminds one of the famous Kecksburg, PA UFO case of 1965. Some in Government offered the (now discredited) explanation that this crash incident was resultant from a Russian launch as well. That one though was explained away as the crash of an advanced Soviet satellite. Always the Russians…

The story is strange. And the reasons that I have offered that I “believe” the old scientist may seem even stranger to some. I have more to report on this and I hope to release other findings soon…

Roswell is an onion. We continue to peel away at its layers. But it still stinks and dizzies with the stench of disinformation, even after decades.

48 comments:

  1. Nice job on this. The Area 51 book is selling well and getting plenty of media attention. Hopefully, there is some trickle effect.

    ReplyDelete
  2. For O'Donnell to believe the Stalin/Mengele/ genetic engineering story, he would have to be as big a dummy as Jacobsen. A more likely explanation is what he told ABC Nightline, that he was trying to help "Annie sell books."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bragalia responds:

    Thanks for the comment to my post David.

    But, David..that isn't at all what was said on Nightline...listen again very closely to the video (on the Iconoclast website.)

    The host actually quotes O'Donnell as having said that he is there "to help Annie's book" not, as you said, to "help Annie sell books."

    This is a a very, very big difference. He wants to assist Jacobsen to get the word out. He talked with the newsman (off-camera) to lend his support to her and show that he exists and that he is who he says he is...but he was not to help her make bucks.

    And when the reporter characterizes O'Donnell as "confused and conflicted"- he was! But not out of some problem with with his mental capacity, but because O'Donnell is just not sure just how to deal with all of this.

    When I spoke with O'Donnell he was somewhat guarded and cautious as I mentioned in the article. He wants to get the information that he believes to be true out, but he also wants minimize disruption to his few years remaining.

    I also agree it is hard to fathom how such learned men at EG&G would actually believe something that we can now see clearly is a preposterous story...

    But in the context of Cold War 1951, at a place like Area 51, we can easily see how even smart guys would "buy in" to such a dumb scenario that was fed to them: Their paranoia of the Soviets ran exceptionally high. And their acceptance of whatever their superiors told them as true was blind.

    And if O'Donnell did not actually touch, but only viewed it from a distance, these "creatures" (as implied in the news video of Jacobsen that is at the Iconoclasts site) it becomes easier to see how he may have been fooled.

    AJB
    Anthony Bragalia

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Tony,

    Much praise for finding the source!

    I don't agree with the reasoning behind your conclusions at all but I very much admire your investigative skills.

    Lance Moody

    ReplyDelete
  5. I shall try and summarise the story as I see it:

    1. O'Donnell tells Ms Jacobsen (requesting anonymity) about the Soviet/Nazi Roswell saucer that was brought to Area51.
    2. Jacobsen reveals this startling news in her book on Area 51
    3. Tony Bragalia, who is dedicated to the ET Roswell saucer, traces O'Donnell and speaks to him by phone.
    4. Tony gently 'persuades' O'Donnell that his information to Jacobsen about the Soviet/Nazi saucer was wrong.
    5. O'Donnell says virtually nothing to either confirm or deny Tony's suggestion.
    6. Tony then decides O'Donnell was the victim of a deception by his superiors (names unknown). They fooled O'Donnell, somehow, into believing it was a Russian/Nazi saucer with genetically engineered children as pilots; whereas they knew it was actually a crashed craft from another planet but had to cover up this fact.
    7. Roswell ET believers and ET skeptics alike agree that Jacobsen's story is garbage.
    8. Jacobsen insists her story is true.
    9. Everyone maintains their own previously held stance on the Roswell case.
    10. The UFO 'community' has not advanced one iota in their resolution of the case, and the crucial hardware (whether ET or Russian/Nazi) is nowhere to be found.

    I rest my summary, unless someone wishes to add to it (or subtract from it).

    ReplyDelete
  6. This preposterous story sounds like a leftover from the McCarthy era.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I knew instantly that the Russian/Nazi scenario was just the latest cover-up/weather balloon type of fabrication. It convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt it was a UFO even more, especially when I heard about the ridiculous discovered deformed children bit, which would make sense when you realize they're trying to cover-up aliens. Their desperation to conceal the truth is so obvious. Thank you, Tony.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks Lance- I appreciate your comment about my investigative prowess. We can agree to disagree about the interpretation of all of this of course...

    You may be interested that I have just located a few more of her sources...More to come!

    AJB
    Anthony Bragalia

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anthony, I admire your research skills and persistence also, and your creativity in deciding what to look for and in which direction to look.

    As far as O'Donnell being fooled, you said:

    "But in the context of Cold War 1951, at a place like Area 51, we can easily see how even smart guys would "buy in" to such a dumb scenario that was fed to them: Their paranoia of the Soviets ran exceptionally high. And their acceptance of whatever their superiors told them as true was blind."

    Not only this, but in 1951 there were very few people who had heard of the Roswell incident (and of course fewer still who knew the real story). Flying saucers were frequently thought to be fairy tales, and I'm sure most scientists who weren't "in the know" believed them to be fairy tales more than the general population. If the general population were officially told today that aliens exist, it would definitely be easier for us to "wrap our heads" around the notion due to all the exposure we've had through various media over the years, however, the human psyche being what it is would still leave many vulnerable to flat-out denial and disbelief even if an alien knocked their door and introduced itself--the human mind wants and often needs to "take the path of least resistance" and explain away extraordinary, disturbing events. In the '50s, there was much less media exposure to UFOs, aliens, etc., and in combination with disinformation to the public, the minds of young scientists such as O'Donnell were fertile ground for planting seeds of disinformation such as the remote-controlled Russian UFOs manned with genetically altered children. What were the odds that he would've been able to realize he had been deceived? Very little, probably. And even if he did see some quirky, unexplainable holes in the story he was told, I'm sure his psyche smoothed things over so that he could continue to perform his duties without the disruption that would have occurred had he realized what the truth was.

    CDA, I hope you have your evidence and "crucial hardware" soon. I see Anthony going in different, thoughtful directions in trying to gain this evidence, as opposed to many popular UFO "experts" who sit and spin their wheels for decades before they burn out.

    DF

    ReplyDelete
  10. It looks like what we have here is someone finally admitting to a crash, strange bodies and a highly-advanced, foreign craft. I'm happy with this progress although the book is a disgrace to journalism. The Soviet explanation is counterlogical from every conceivable angle.

    ReplyDelete
  11. First of all, you are to be congratulated for figuring out Jacobsen's source and interviewing him, even though he told you bupkiss.

    Tony, I indeed didn't get the Nightline quote exactly right (didn't want to go back through the video), but "to help Annie's book" sounds like he meant "to help Annie sell books," and that's the way the Nightline reporter took it as well. Of course, we're all engaged in mind reading here as to what O'Donnell really meant or what his motives might be in telling his story at all.

    Nightline did indicate O'Donnell was sticking to some parts of his Roswell story. O'Donnell didn't really tell you anything, other than he wouldn't talk about it and it was up to the government to release what they knew about Roswell. So O'Donnell does hint the full Roswell story has not been told, thus I seriously doubt he believes it was explained by a balloon or his own little fable, much of it being impossible.

    Another line of _pure speculation_, much like your own, is that he does know something about Roswell (such as maybe seeing a craft and bodies), but deliberately disguised the truth with his ridiculous Nazi/Stalin story, perhaps in an effort to get people interested again in what really happened.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why would the government want to spread panic?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi David-

    "O'Donnell does hint the full Roswell story has not been told, thus I seriously doubt he believes it was explained ..buy his little fable."

    You point is well-taken, and exactly how I took it when he said it.

    AJB
    Anthony Bragalia

    ReplyDelete
  14. If you have read the numerous books about Roswell, especially by Stanton friedman (Crash at Corona) and Carey and Schmitt (Witness to Roswell) then you would be able to logically see that the ET angle is the correct one. The government themselves got it right the first time when the lid had not come down when they announced the the "RAFF Captures Flying Saucer on Roswell Ranch" only to later be followed by no less than 3 ridiculous explanations over the next 60 years. If the government was trying to hide a secret experiment, Russian or any other terrestial event,then surely they would not announce that they had a "Flying Disc" in their possesion, that is a ludicrous way to try and bury a story. They just screwed up the first time with the truth and have been trying to bury it ever since with hilarious lies. RE: That the bodies seen were burnt up monkeys or crash test dummies, all launced for the first time in the 1950's, not 1947. Also there have been a few pieces of the wreckage that were mailed to Linda Moulton Howel, and after she took it to at least 3 labs for testing nobody could figure out who made it, how it was made, or what purpose it served except that it made sense as the shielding for a flying object as the combination of magneseum and bismith could block cosmic radiation and when it was placed on a million volt generator it 'shot across the room' when the device was turned on. Nobody who was ever at Roswell at the time has come forward and said "I confess it was a Mogel Baloon", at least %95 have said it was 'not of this world'. The government can fool some of the people some of the time...
    PS: I am a State Investigator For MUFON and most UFO reports are mis identifications of normal things, but if you do some homework on Roswell the only answer is ET had some bad driving combined with new radar, a probable direct lightning strike, and some bad luck.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If you have read the numerous books about Roswell, especially by Stanton friedman (Crash at Corona) and Carey and Schmitt (Witness to Roswell) then you would be able to logically see that the ET angle is the correct one. The government themselves got it right the first time when the lid had not come down when they announced the the "RAFF Captures Flying Saucer on Roswell Ranch" only to later be followed by no less than 3 ridiculous explanations over the next 60 years. If the government was trying to hide a secret experiment, Russian or any other terrestial event,then surely they would not announce that they had a "Flying Disc" in their possesion, that is a ludicrous way to try and bury a story. They just screwed up the first time with the truth and have been trying to bury it ever since with hilarious lies. RE: That the bodies seen were burnt up monkeys or crash test dummies, all launced for the first time in the 1950's, not 1947. Also there have been a few pieces of the wreckage that were mailed to Linda Moulton Howel, and after she took it to at least 3 labs for testing nobody could figure out who made it, how it was made, or what purpose it served except that it made sense as the shielding for a flying object as the combination of magneseum and bismith could block cosmic radiation and when it was placed on a million volt generator it 'shot across the room' when the device was turned on. Nobody who was ever at Roswell at the time has come forward and said "I confess it was a Mogel Baloon", at least %95 have said it was 'not of this world'. The government can fool some of the people some of the time...
    PS: I am a State Investigator For MUFON and most UFO reports are mis identifications of normal things, but if you do some homework on Roswell the only answer is ET had some bad driving combined with new radar, a probable direct lightning strike, and some bad luck.

    ReplyDelete
  16. i think its possible that what crashed was kind of how odonnel described...but id sooner believe that the craft and its crew were made in america...and the russian angle would be like a scape goat if the truth ever got out about the eugenics and project paperclip scientists hanging out with americas scientists. http://www.tr-3b.com

    ReplyDelete
  17. Tomorrow the media receives an expose of Annie Jacobsen's book and also names this man. Mengele's whereabouts are proven, he was never in custody of the Soviet Union.

    I wouldn't trust what Rudiak says, not only does he endorse nearly every Roswell "witness" (even frauds) but he rorschachs the Ramey memo. Brad Sparks nailed him years ago.

    The fact is there is not a single defector from the cold war from other intelligence agencies who either saw or talks or offered the secret Roswell files. This is because the event was not ET, but it DID cause the U.S. Govt to re-think its safeguarding of nukes. It's too bad Rudiak and others ignore the testimonies of the other Mogul scientists. It's because they have an agenda to push, ET.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Linda Moulton Howe took a piece of Roswell hardware to 3 labs for testing??

    How did she ever get hold of it? The whole affair is supposed to be highly secret. So how on earth did she manage to procure any of it?

    Where did you learn this story?
    Where are the published results of the lab investigation of this wreckage?

    Or is this just another tall tale?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I did a quick scan of comments and may have missed this, and if I did I apologize. In both the book and apparently from your interview of O'Donnell there is a time discrepancy. My understanding is that Area 51 was built in 1955, but there are statements to the effect that the wreckage, etc. was sent to Area 51 in 1951. Is this the case, or do I have the build date for Area 51 incorrect?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I became suspicious of Annie when I couldn't reach
    her at the LATimes. After a couple of tries I e-mail
    the Magazine directly (with hope of a hand-off).Zero
    and then still trying at other name sites, I get a
    personal 2-line drop-down advising me to cease. As
    you will see the editorial page shows NO Annie as a
    editor but as a lower level column writer.
    http://www.latimesmagazine.com/editorial.html
    But, she did do 2 page short in 2009 on "OxCart" and I believe this what sparked her interest in
    AREA 51 secrets. Little Brown sucked up on Secrets
    and wrapped the EGG/CIA faux with recently FOIA
    de-classifies to build sales.
    If you are concerned that Fiction is being offered
    as History by Little Brown (NY) contact Annie's
    handler nicole.dewey@hbgusa.com or her editor and
    fact-checker John Parsely who she gives credit for
    re-packaging her manuscript. They claim the book
    is HISTORY-NON-FICTION? But everywhere she appears
    she immediately launches into ROSWELL as a FAKE.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sorry her last name is Howe. As far as the pieces of course I did not make that up, here is a link to her article, look for the year 2006.
    http://www.earthfiles.com/search.php?query=magnesium&sYear=1998&sMonth=01&sDay=01&eYear=2011&eMonth=05&eDay=30&table2=NEWS&submit=Search
    The bismith was microns thin in layers in magnesium, and the scientist at I think Sandia and some other well known labs could not tell her who made it and what it was used for but it did have flying properties when elctricity was applied to it. It was mailed to her by an older army vet who was at Roswell.He said it came from the bottom of a 'wedge shaped craft' and that is of course what the Roswell ship was, not a typical saucer. Dude maybe you need to use Google, this story is easy to find, its just a few years old but was on several TV shows over the last 6 years.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Direct link to bismuth/magnesium metal story.
    http://doctorkoontz.com/Contact/Contact/Earthfiles/Mysterious%20Bismuth-Magnesium%20Metal/Earthfiles_com.htm

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well Done, Tony.

    A very good article and good detective work in finding the source.

    Re: Jacobsen's book, I have to say (in all honesty)that compared to this Stalin/Mengele hoax, even General Ramey's Weather Balloon fabrication is better cover story than a Ruskie Saucer and mangled Mengele-made aliens.

    Robert M*
    Editor, UFO Digest

    ReplyDelete
  24. The base at Groom Lake (aka Area 51) was not constructed until 1955. That indisputable fact, alone, completely invalidates this entire fairy tale story. In 1947, when the Roswell incident occurred (whatever actually happened), any materials being studied would have been taken to Wright-Patterson in Ohio, which was the preeminent Air Force technical research center at that time.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi-
    Thanks everyone for the kind comments.

    I do wish to correct "anonymous" though-

    The Nevada National Security Site (formerly the Nevada Test Site or NTS) was established in January of 1951, so the date "issue" is not a discrepancy. It is comprised of 30 "Areas" and is a sister site to "Area 51" planned at the same time as NTS, with construction completed four years after NTS.

    AJB
    Anthony Bragalia

    ReplyDelete
  26. You sure did seem to badger the old man. This conversation sounds made up. After all, if he denied it you would just say he is covering up. Based on his background, I am sure he would have hung up on you and followed protocal which is report the incident.

    ET vs. Russian vs. Psy Ops Test/exercise, you decide.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The idea that the Roswell craft was a Soviet flying saucer piloted by Nazi genetically modified small people is utterly implausible.... If this was the case it would have been a huge propaganda coup for the US during the early days of the cold war. An opportunity to associate Stalin and the Communists with Nazi atrocities would have been milked for all it was worth. Why would this propaganda opportunity have been kept a secret? Makes no sense at all.

    Andrew

    ReplyDelete
  28. Congratulations on finding the source.

    The thing that bother me is how a brilliant scientist would have kept believing such a preposterous story after so many decades. Sure, he would have been confused and amazed by the things he was shown at the beginning; and during the early years of the modern UFO era I'm sure many in the military would have had no trouble into considering the paranoia-fueled possibility that flying saucers were of Soviet origin. Even if O'Donell might not have believed the story entirely, he knew he had to keep his mouth shut —and that might very well be the whole point of it from the beginning.

    But... I find it hard to believe that a brilliant and intelligent man, with a natural curiosity that is so necessary to excel in Science, would not have realized over the years that there were many serious impossibilities to the Soviet story. For starters, it would have dawned on him that the Russians were not developing aircraft similar to the Horten design to increase their arsenal in the 60s, 70s and 80s. And our progress in genetic engineering in the last decades would have underscored the impossibility of Mengele ever being able to 'engineer' the alleged deformed children with crude 1940s technology —besides, a man who was employed in the most secret Air Force base would need to be aware of why children couldn't be able to pilot an airplane!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thank you, Anthony, for your sharing of this information. And i didn't read all the posts, but those i have read sound very thoughtful. I haven't been 'here' before.....

    A couple of thoughts to add.

    During WWII, social psychology became quite important (I learned this while studying for my licensing exam several years ago). The finding that hit me very hard, was this. The way to contol mass thinking was that a story or event would be published as 'truth', and soon afterwards, it would be retracted and found to be 'false'. This was the easiest way to negate a particular 'event'.

    When i read this i immediately thought of Roswell. I don't think i have ever heard anyone mention this fact before. Also,

    I have heard Anne Jacobsen interviewed by Jon Stewart and Terry Gross on NPR. I find her to be quite pretentious and not particularly well versed in her responses. A good freind of found nothing new in her general information. My personal take on this....

    I think it is disinformation. I agree with Anthony's interpretation. Ms. Jacobsen became famous for her response to Lebanese musicians on an airplane in 2004. After that she was visited by homeland security agents, as she writes it, and was told how patriotic she had been. She thought the musicians were 'terrorists' and caused a problem on the plane. So,

    She is known to be highly impressionable and easily susceptible by the u.s. government. I think that made her the perfect conduit for more disinformation. Whether or not her anonymous source was being sincere, i can't say....

    ReplyDelete
  30. Rita wrote: " I think it is disinformation. I agree with Anthony's interpretation. Ms. Jacobsen became famous for her response to Lebanese musicians on an airplane in 2004. After that she was visited by homeland security agents, as she writes it, and was told how patriotic she had been. She thought the musicians were 'terrorists' and caused a problem on the plane. So,

    She is known to be highly impressionable and easily susceptible by the u.s. government. I think that made her the perfect conduit for more disinformation. Whether or not her anonymous source was being sincere, i can't say.... " ---

    Good point!

    IMO, She also impressed me as a bigot with her histrionics over the Lebanese musicians on board her flight. She was quite the enthusiastic, willing citizen wanting to help Homeland Security go against imagined bogeymen. And they rewarded her by calling her "patriotic".

    Indeed Jacobsen is likely someone who'd diseminate disinformation well.

    ~ Susan

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thanks, Susan. I completely agree!

    Rita

    ReplyDelete
  32. Alfred's responses read like the ones you'd get from typing inane phrases and questions in 'Zork'. I don't think it's him at all; they're simply phrase introduced by the 'interviewer' to turn his term paper into an interview.

    I mean, if the guy is so succinct and unwilling to talk, he would've hung up long ago, instead of uttering adjective-less one-liners.

    ReplyDelete
  33. IMO Bragalia has correctly analyzed the facts surrounding Jacobsen's sensational but ultimately unpersuasive claims. But Jacobsen, while unforgivably shallow and thin with her investigation, has not necessarily intentionally falsified anything - she just didn't want to learn or disclose anything which would destroy her case...and leave her with no book to sell.

    So she willingly suspended what should have been her journalistic default setting of disbelief, and accepted too easily what she was told. She comes off as someone who tries to bolster her case; not someone who goes where the evidence leads regardless of the consequences. Her book smacks of someone who stopped investigating and started writing just as soon as she got a story that would sell - a story that was "just too good to check out too much".

    That doesn't make her a liar - just someone who is hawking a book. Unfortunately that means her word cannot be accepted unless there is corroboration...and she just doesn't have nearly enough corroboration here.

    Seriously, anyone who has the least experience with interrogations or investigations knows that a source may be telling you the absolute truth as he knows it, and yet still be full of bull - because he was fed bull, either intentionally, or through accident, mistake, error, ambiguity, coincidence or so on. Jacobsen had to know that O'Donnell's credibility, while necessary to taking the investigation further, was still meaningless as far as being the ultimate proof his story was true. Because he couldn't know if it was true: he only knew what he was told, plus any reasonable conclusions (supported by evidence) he took from subsequent events.

    It's almost shameful to see the contortions that news outfits like the New York Times and the major networks have engaged in to bolster her story. Rest assured that the story matters in what the news media will push, and the media loves anything that tends to debunk a Roswell UFO connection. With the death of news media which worked hard at being objective and fair, and the rise in the new millenia of news media which doesn't even try to disguise either its naked advocacy or open antipathy, much of our news today is little better than cheerleading or poison pen letters. If someone had used Jacobsen's precise methods, and wound up with precisely the same degree and kind of supporting evidence as she did, but instead had written on a subject unpopular with the news media, the book would have been trashed by the same media which now praises and pushes her book. Just imagine that Jacobsen's book was the very same, except that she was making the case that the Bush Administration was told by very credible and absolutely truthful sources that Saddaam Hussein had been on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. The media would have savaged her book and attacked her personally; and the first point the media (quite rightly) would have made was, "How did she know that what the source was told was the truth?!" But because the media likes Jacobsen's premise that there was no Roswell UFO, then they conveniently forget to ask that basic question.

    Jacobsen unfortunately is just another sloppy investigator, with a little bit of intellectual dishonesty tossed in, although she certainly has had an assist from the mainstream media. It's up to those who know far more than the media about the history and the evidence surrounding Roswell to correct the record.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I have Annie's book on Kindle and I did a search for the name O'Donnell. It came up 64 times! Sometimes it's in the notes at the end and at least a couple of times it refers to Alfred's wife Ruth. As it turns out, many of the stories in the book have Alfred O'Donnell as a source...especially the ones about the nuclear testing. That would explain why he said he knew Annie in the interview and could cast doubt on him as the "anonymous source". Or maybe he just wanted to be anonymous in chapter 21.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Bragalia seems to be suggesting then that the Russian UFO story is a cover for a real ETV and ETs, citing some of his claims in previous blogs as evidence. I went and looked at these previous articles by A.B. and there is a dearth of source citing in them, although hearsay evidence of documented sources are mentioned over and over again. Not terribly credible.


    The Russian UFO explanation is quite unbelievable; however, a better, i.e. more believable/probable, explanation than Bragalia's ET/ETV hypothesis is that O'Donnell was fed misinformation as a loyalty test/counterintelligence operation.

    As an aside, it is quite interesting -- if not telling -- that Annie Jacobsen says nothing about the analysis O'Donnell apparently would have done on the equipment from this supposed saucer.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Tony wrote: "I found Alfred O’Donnell to be telling the truth as he remembers it – and likely as he himself claims to have witnessed it."

    "However, I do not believe that the “essence” of what he was told was true."

    "But the truth is this: It was all “staged.” O’Donnell was indeed “exposed” to what he says he was- but this “exposure” was planned, it was for a reason - and the accompanying story that he was told was not genuine."


    I agree with this assessment. It is an accurate report of something false. I think a lot of what is termed by some "the Roswell mythos" should be assessed by the same standard.

    Identifying the accurate and true is the hard part.

    Regards,

    Don

    "When you're looking for something that doesn't exist, it makes you crazier the closer you get to it." from Roger Ebert's review of PI

    ReplyDelete
  37. Part 1 of 2:

    What I find most remarkable in the controversy Annie Jacobsen's "Area 51" book has stirred up is not the astounding number of basic factual errors she made in writing her book, nor the issue of whether her single source, retired E.G.& G. engineer Alfred O'Donnell, was
    deluded into believing the fabulous Stalin/Mengele disinformational back story he was provided in 1951 (presumably a US government hoax fabricated for the most likely purpose of testing O'Donnell, and others, ability to maintain security when exposed to a deliberately and intentionally provocative fake scenario before being read into later, genuine black projects), but the quite intriguing fact that, if his basic story is true, that elements of the US government's military and intelligence communities would, within only four years after the Roswell incident (and whatever it may have actually been), be using the UFO and ET themes as a means to both test security consciousness, surface hostile agents, and to utilize same in a manner which strongly suggests a form of domestic intelligence psyop replete with self-denying disinfo elements which, even if exposed, or simply rumored within such circles, readily functioned as the basis for and means to exploit and simultaneously plausibly deny the genuine basis for those aspects of the UFO phenomenon which actually do suggest a reasonable foundation for evidence of some form of advanced non-human intelligence periodically making its presence known in select cases, such as the 1957 RB-47 incident or the 1976 Iranian F-4B encounter, among many others.

    These kind of disinfo ploys or security-testing ruses, using
    faked UFOs and/or "non-human" entities, would suggest they were successfully used more than once domestically, such as in the scenario Nick Redfern describes in his "Body Snatchers in the Desert" book, wherein two anonymous sources describe very similar scenarios being used for presumably similar counter-intelligence (CI) purposes. Kind of makes one wonder just how and why these CI ploys originated, and how often they have been used since, over time.

    The psyop conducted on Paul Bennewitz comes to mind, and begs the question of the ethics and legality of such CI "games" being domestically used on civilians, including UFO researchers, over the intervening decades, and on others for military and intelligence purposes for a wide variety of reasons. There are a number of other cases where such hoaxed scenarios have been used.

    Kind of a "Swiss Army Knife" of many disinfo/psyop "tools," or "sources and methods," that both provide cover for real black ops and projects, further muddy the waters of ufology, and create a swarming school of red herrings for those so deliberately exposed to such distracting and diversionary techniques to pursue in a falsely enigmatic and fruitless wild goose chase, like a magician's slight of hand. The repercussions within society and to history and belief when these stories do finally surface are manifold and disturbing.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Part 2 of 2:

    What concerns me is the subtle long-term sociological and
    societal impact and manipulative "black propaganda" effects such hoaxed fabrications have on ufology, and societal belief systems in general, which I think are both unhealthy and quite possibly damaging to the body politic and our right to know the truth about our government's policies (and how the use of such misbegotten and deleterious practices has a disruptive, undermining effect on the authority and trust in the institutions of government), and I think such techniques and methods, especially when employed domestically on US citizens and
    civilians, should be thoroughly investigated, exposed, and made illegal due to their potential negative effects and impact on society and the right to know in a democratic republic.

    What do others here think of the morals, ethics, and legality of the use of such practices by elements of the government? Should they be the subject of Congressional investigation and legislation to legally ban such, essentially, negative and destructive domestic disinformational manipulation or psyops?

    To me, it smacks of the manipulation and propagandizing
    efforts of the USAF and CIA-sponsored Robertson Panel
    and the policies they recommended be used to suppress and divert genuine interest in and research concerning the actual UFO phenomenon. It disgusts me that elements of the US government can so easily and blithely get away with secretly distorting, covering up, and lying to the American electorate about such a seriously important subject of real scientific and societal interest and significance for the last 65 years.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Within only four years after the Roswell incident (to be) using the UFO and ET themes as a way to test security consciousness..."

    This is the major point of the article, and I am pleased that you articulated it so well, Steve.

    It is a strange, strange scenario and I am unsure that we will ever fully understand its meaning.

    Tony

    ReplyDelete
  40. Thanks, Tony. Yes, the scenario outlined in Jacobsen's book, as told to her by O'Donnell, is incredibly strange and suggests a variety of follow-up questions, most of which will probably not be answered anytime soon. O'Donnell has some real explaining to do, but it's unlikely he will ever go public on this controversy, considering the aftermath of Jacobsen's book being released. And so the cover-up continues.

    Somehow, I think the use of such hoaxed and fabricated domestic psyops crosses both a legal and ethical line, and deserves to be exposed and investigated, at the very least.

    What bothers me most is how such acts and techniques, regardless of their ostensible purposes, should be banned due to the reprehensible effects and impact they have had on the field of UFO research and even more importantly how they've also affected belief and objective understanding of history by injecting false scenarios and hoaxes into mainstream culture and society at large while simultaneously obscuring and diverting real empirical efforts to find out the bases for the genuine UFO phenomenon. I think that is criminal in both intent and consequence.

    I also posted my comment above to UFO UpDates, but other than one appreciative comment, there has been silence over there. I guess people either don't care or don't think anything can be done about these domestic psyops, which is a real pity.

    Frankly, I have little hope that our elected representatives have either the intellectual interest, will, or competence to investigate these issues.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Little chance of elected representatives going down this road. Recently at the press clubs roast, Obama joked that Trump, who was in the crowd, would as President look into wild stories like'Roswell'. So no hope there, and since Clinton was blocked in his attempt to uncover the secret of Roswell, the last president to know the truth was probably G Bush senior since he used to head the CIA, but certainly not junior since he might blurt out the truth will going on a bender of coke and bourbon. Alas, I think that the real story will never be told by those 'in the know'.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Update on new Roswell fragments and testing
    http://www.openminds.tv/test-confirms-roswell-debris-733/

    ReplyDelete
  43. Annie Jacobsen writes for the "National Review', Bill Buckley's magazine that has been trying to keep the cold war going since its' inception. It makes perfect sense that she would come up with this new rehash of "The Russians Are Coming".
    What is really strange is that Amy Goodman gave Jacobsen a whole segment of"Democracy Now" to disseminate her misinformation about. Goodman had shown absolutely no interest in UFO's until this debunker came on the scene.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The idea that the Roswell craft was a Soviet flying saucer piloted by Nazi genetically modified small people is utterly implausible....

    ReplyDelete
  45. Fascinating discussion. As I read the interview with O'Donnell I hoped against hope that he would let the cat out of the bag, but no such luck. That he would still, 60 years later, hold to the absurd cover story of Russians and Nazis seems hard to swallow. But, then again, he undoubtedly swore a National Security Oath and perhaps fears the consequences for his family should he break his cover, so who can blame him for keeping mum.

    I too saw the flaccid Jacobsen interview on "The Daily Show" and was immediately struck by her disingenuous 'nothing to see here folks' take on Area 51. Which, of course, as a mainstream 'reporter' was about all one could expect.

    I have to say that Anonymous' August 9 post about Jacobsen as a writer for the "National Review" and her appearance on "Democracy Now" put things in perspective. For all the good she does, Amy Goodman is very much a gatekeeper for the status quo on what might be called 'fringe' subjects (the UFO, the 9/11 Truth Movement, etc) and it is telling that she had Jacobsen on to peddle her reiteration of the quasi-official version of the Area 51 story.

    Admittedly, for Jacobsen to cite an anonymous source for the unverifiable Stalin-Mengele connection and then publishing this story as if it had merit goes beyond sloppy journalism.

    However, as Janet Maslin noted in The New York Times, “… the book is noteworthy for its author's dogged devotion to her research... And when it comes to EG&G, the secretive engineering company that plays a major role in the Area 51 story, she describes pressuring one unnamed EG&G employee persistently, no matter how hard he resisted.

    'You don't want to know,' said this anonymous source [apparently, O'Donnell] when grilled about the most nefarious part of Ms. Jacobsen's U.F.O. theory. She asked again. 'You don't know the half of it,' he replied, still stonewalling And then, over lunch, she put a crouton on a plate and asked how the extent of her knowledge about the whole Area 51 story compared with the crouton-plate ratio...Great news for ufologists: the still-untold truth, this man finally admitted, is bigger than the crouton. Bigger than the plate. To the delight of conspiracy fans everywhere, it remains bigger than the whole table."

    So, to her credit, Jacobsen does include the crouton and the plate/table anecdote from her anonymous source, who worked for military industrial contractor EG&G, and who thanks to Tony Bragalia we know is O'Donnell. Too bad this wasn't the big "untold" story she chose to pursue.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The worst thing about the Mengele Theory (I heard it on NPR's "Fresh Air" while driving and did a spit-take with a 7-11 icee) and the altered-child gibberish, is that that is ALL anyone is talking about regarding what is revealed by her book. There are far more shocking things exposed which most people did/do not know, and which are copiously documented, unlike the parts which only cite "anonymous E,G&G engineer" over and over:

    *There are things kept secret from the President by not only governmental agencies (e.g. Atomic Energy Commission) but also private companies (E,G &G) because the President is not always "need to know"! Is that not disturbing?

    *The Cuban Missile Crisis, when put into context, was not the naked unprovoked Soviet aggression we've all been led to think, but came after some pretty nervy and threatening behavior from the USAF and CIA that would have been scandalous if it had happened the other way around.

    *The shocking recklessness of thermonuclear bomb tests and the slipshod handling of their aftermath.

    *The astonishing personal pettiness between egomaniacal department heads' compromising national credibility and security.

    *The ghastly amounts of money spent on ridiculous ideas.

    Jacobsen has never had much credibility in my opinion, having written for The National Review and the Dallas Morning News which are organs of the neocon imperialist crowd, but I must compliment her on the documentation with which she supports most of her assertions, with the exception of the rather glaring one which has come to be treated as if it's the only subject of the book, rather than taking up only a relatively slim amount.

    Another disturbing thing this book has revealed is how quickly and unselfconsciously people will dismiss things they have not read.

    --josef

    ReplyDelete
  47. Tony,

    I am sympathetic to your interpretation of the O'Donnell story, but I think you are far too kind to Jacobsen's book. The fact that she uncritically accepts both O'Donnell's statements and Bob Lazar's story is a big red flag for me.

    Here's my full review of Jacobsen's book in case you are interested, but be warned that it is not a kind one:

    http://aftercontact.org/2011/09/reading-between-the-lines-a-review-of-annie-jacobsens-area-51/

    ReplyDelete
  48. Colonel Ben Wright http://area51secretsof.blogspot.com/ I am sympathetic indeed. I hope you know my fictional name is John Damaris as that name was chosen for TOP SECRET SECURITY reasons. View the site and you will better understand why.

    ReplyDelete