Johnson is not an objective investigator, in my view. He tried to torpedo Chris Sharp and David Grusch, not to mention Jacques Vallee. He presents himself as an honest broker of information and critic, and as a true friend to the topic. I think not. Just my take.
I had the good fortune to view the interview done before he died. This highly accomplished man had no need to embellish his reputation before he died. He told facts that could be corroborated in due time.
It takes a "Nobody" to create doubt about someone who has lived longer than himself ; who has attained more achievements in his lifetime than any junior critic; and who has made a positive difference to our world. Whoever Johnson is ( and I wish I could care), I suspect his career resume would not eclipse that of Harald Malmgren. It's a bit naive to dare classified evidence to be produced to validate Malmgren's vast (and well-documented) legacy, just to satisfy the critic's idle journalistic musings. He needs to learn about , and consider, the facts of life concerning government and military secrecy. He is not even in the pecking order of their administration protocols, or entitlement to a share in the evidence he craves. What will the Johnsons of today's world be remembered for in 90 years? Toxic character assassination of his betters? Harald Malmgren was a valued scientific and political genius. He needs no critic.
This seems like an appropriate place to share a very interesting video I watched yesterday on YouTube. It's a skillful hour long interview with an academic who is studying my favorite claim about UFOs, that they are piloted by future humans.
2) Those "aliens" that people report seeing almost always have a humanoid form.
3) It doesn't seem likely that species on far distant planets would also have a humanoid form.
4) All this theory requires is that a) time travel is possible, and b) humans don't go extinct. If those two conditions are met, it seems likely future humans would be interested in visiting this period in history.
The professor offers other reasoning which is worth considering.
I’m saying don’t form opinions on honesty based on documents you can’t find in an organisation of professional secret keepers. Also, see this from Fmr CIA officer John Ramirez: “Standard Form SF-86 is a self-report of one’s biography. SF-86 is utilized as the starting document for background security investigations in order to determine one’s suitability. The information provided by the individual is subject to a counter-intelligence or a full-scope lifestyle polygraph examination. SF-86 does not list actual control systems and compartments. General security clearances (TS, S, C, for example) can be self-reported on the SF-86.
The correct form is Form 4414. Every Form 4414, which is the NDA agreement form, is archived in the individual’s security file. The Form 4414 NDAs are recorded in Scattered Castles (SC) for Title 50 employees and Defense Information System for Security (DISS) for Title 10 employees. My Q clearance adjudication is in my SC entry. The SC entries are accessible 1) by Special Security Offices, 2) are not subject to FOIA, and 3) are not released to the public.”
Sure but where we stand right now is Malmgren made a bunch of claims that can’t be verified. Many of them are the basis of his credibility. So isn’t it good for people to be attempting to verify them and report out when they can’t? For example the 4 minute mile claim should be easy to verify. It was a remarkable and newsworthy feet at the time. Someone who makes a claim like that would either be confident it’s easy to be verified or they are a pathological liar and a disorder compels them to make grandiose claims about themselves.
“Whistleblowers” coming out to tabloids and podcasters and bypassing a professional vetting process is counterproductive.
Why do you feel it’s counterproductive? Going to AARO who then hide or obfuscate their evidence in later reports (as has been the testimony thus far, and my experience interviewing some of them) doesn’t fill you with confidence. And I agree we should look in to all claims. That’s simply not disputed in this article. But disregarding them because secret keepers may be really good at keeping secrets is also counterproductive.
Spreading unverified claims is just story telling. We need less stories and more verified facts. If the podcasters that spread the claims aren’t going to verify them then someone needs to. Accepting what a perceived authority says as fact is incredibly dangerous. It’s a hallmark of a psyop.
What are your thoughts on the background and intentions of the author of the article?
But I believe that the claim itself and the credibility (or position held…would they have been in a position to know?) is part of that verification process. The undertones of “I can’t find evidence from FOIA, therefore it’s probably not true” isn’t helpful. The ‘anonymous’ author of the article appears to be a very good lobbyist from Washington with connections some interesting places. That’s a whole conspiracy in itself and perhaps for another day.
My takeaway was that someone looked in logical places to find verifications and Halmgren’s claims and didn’t find anything. So my confidence in them remains low.
I’ve seen others imply that Douglas Dean Johnson is the same Doug Johnson that was a powerful lobbyist for Nation Right to Life but I have seen anything verifying it. It would be huge if true. Are you able to verify that it’s the same guy?
Johnson is not an objective investigator, in my view. He tried to torpedo Chris Sharp and David Grusch, not to mention Jacques Vallee. He presents himself as an honest broker of information and critic, and as a true friend to the topic. I think not. Just my take.
I had the good fortune to view the interview done before he died. This highly accomplished man had no need to embellish his reputation before he died. He told facts that could be corroborated in due time.
I think a deathbed testimony is a powerful piece of evidence in a Court of law. Isn't it?
J.L. Powell
If you want to see the entire interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09KP8XVf5nY
It takes a "Nobody" to create doubt about someone who has lived longer than himself ; who has attained more achievements in his lifetime than any junior critic; and who has made a positive difference to our world. Whoever Johnson is ( and I wish I could care), I suspect his career resume would not eclipse that of Harald Malmgren. It's a bit naive to dare classified evidence to be produced to validate Malmgren's vast (and well-documented) legacy, just to satisfy the critic's idle journalistic musings. He needs to learn about , and consider, the facts of life concerning government and military secrecy. He is not even in the pecking order of their administration protocols, or entitlement to a share in the evidence he craves. What will the Johnsons of today's world be remembered for in 90 years? Toxic character assassination of his betters? Harald Malmgren was a valued scientific and political genius. He needs no critic.
This seems like an appropriate place to share a very interesting video I watched yesterday on YouTube. It's a skillful hour long interview with an academic who is studying my favorite claim about UFOs, that they are piloted by future humans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75MEePSaAbs
My own arguments for this theory...
1) Who would be more interested in us?
2) Those "aliens" that people report seeing almost always have a humanoid form.
3) It doesn't seem likely that species on far distant planets would also have a humanoid form.
4) All this theory requires is that a) time travel is possible, and b) humans don't go extinct. If those two conditions are met, it seems likely future humans would be interested in visiting this period in history.
The professor offers other reasoning which is worth considering.
So are you saying that just because Malmgren’s claims can’t be verified doesn’t mean we shouldn’t believe them?
I’m saying don’t form opinions on honesty based on documents you can’t find in an organisation of professional secret keepers. Also, see this from Fmr CIA officer John Ramirez: “Standard Form SF-86 is a self-report of one’s biography. SF-86 is utilized as the starting document for background security investigations in order to determine one’s suitability. The information provided by the individual is subject to a counter-intelligence or a full-scope lifestyle polygraph examination. SF-86 does not list actual control systems and compartments. General security clearances (TS, S, C, for example) can be self-reported on the SF-86.
The correct form is Form 4414. Every Form 4414, which is the NDA agreement form, is archived in the individual’s security file. The Form 4414 NDAs are recorded in Scattered Castles (SC) for Title 50 employees and Defense Information System for Security (DISS) for Title 10 employees. My Q clearance adjudication is in my SC entry. The SC entries are accessible 1) by Special Security Offices, 2) are not subject to FOIA, and 3) are not released to the public.”
Sure but where we stand right now is Malmgren made a bunch of claims that can’t be verified. Many of them are the basis of his credibility. So isn’t it good for people to be attempting to verify them and report out when they can’t? For example the 4 minute mile claim should be easy to verify. It was a remarkable and newsworthy feet at the time. Someone who makes a claim like that would either be confident it’s easy to be verified or they are a pathological liar and a disorder compels them to make grandiose claims about themselves.
“Whistleblowers” coming out to tabloids and podcasters and bypassing a professional vetting process is counterproductive.
Why do you feel it’s counterproductive? Going to AARO who then hide or obfuscate their evidence in later reports (as has been the testimony thus far, and my experience interviewing some of them) doesn’t fill you with confidence. And I agree we should look in to all claims. That’s simply not disputed in this article. But disregarding them because secret keepers may be really good at keeping secrets is also counterproductive.
Spreading unverified claims is just story telling. We need less stories and more verified facts. If the podcasters that spread the claims aren’t going to verify them then someone needs to. Accepting what a perceived authority says as fact is incredibly dangerous. It’s a hallmark of a psyop.
What are your thoughts on the background and intentions of the author of the article?
But I believe that the claim itself and the credibility (or position held…would they have been in a position to know?) is part of that verification process. The undertones of “I can’t find evidence from FOIA, therefore it’s probably not true” isn’t helpful. The ‘anonymous’ author of the article appears to be a very good lobbyist from Washington with connections some interesting places. That’s a whole conspiracy in itself and perhaps for another day.
My takeaway was that someone looked in logical places to find verifications and Halmgren’s claims and didn’t find anything. So my confidence in them remains low.
I’ve seen others imply that Douglas Dean Johnson is the same Doug Johnson that was a powerful lobbyist for Nation Right to Life but I have seen anything verifying it. It would be huge if true. Are you able to verify that it’s the same guy?
No.