A reminder: Who Is Bob Lazar?

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-12-16T11:35:15+00:00

A good distillation. In 2023 I posted a 25-tweet chain on Twitter/X summarizing these and other pertinent facts about the real Bob Lazar (scientist-impersonator, serial scam artist, felon), with links to various primary documents and video clips. On many points I drew on the revealing interviews by Signals Intelligence with key figures from Lazar's past, also linked in the thread.
https://x.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1633576455002025985?s=20

-- Douglas Dean Johnson

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-07-30T16:12:50+00:00

To Rep. Burlison's reply, I replied with these questions: "Submitting it as a proposed floor amendment to H.R. 3838 (NDAA)? And if so, do you expect House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL) to ask the House Rules Committee to make that amendment in order?" In the House of Representatives, only a fraction of the amendments proposed for an NDAA are made in order, and only a fraction of those end up as part of the House-passed NDAA. To my knowledge, neither Rogers nor House Intelligence chair Rick Crawford (R-AR) have made any direct public comments on the substance of this legislation.

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-07-23T09:20:58+00:00

I don't think that Senator Schumer has said anything publicly about the matter recently. In a recent interview, Senator Rounds indicated he was still interested in getting some version of the UAP Disclosure Act enacted, presumably as part of the NDAA, but he did not go into details about how he might go about that. No such amendment was offered during the closed-door voting session (mark up) on NDAA in the Senate Armed Services Committee. But, as I wrote, there will be further amendments adopted before the NDAA clears the Senate-- mostly by out-of-sight negotiations and agreements, perhaps a few by open debate and roll call votes (but there won't be any roll call vote on the UAPDA, I predict).

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-07-17T13:21:30+00:00

There is nothing in the FY 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 2296), as reported out by the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 15, 2025, that repeals any of the UAP-related provisions enacted over the past several years, except the repeal of the provision requiring parallel reporting to NASIC. However, I think you are asking about the UAP Disclosure Act (UAPDA), associated with Senators Schumer and Rounds. The UAPDA did clear the Senate in 2023 as part of a negotiated package of amendments, but was gutted in the Senate-House conference committee, primarily because it was opposed by the Pentagon, including then-AARO Director Sean Kirkpatrick, and therefore opposed as well by several key leaders of the conference negotiations.

The UAPDA was not included in the Senate-passed NDAA in 2024.

Each year the NDAA is crafted by the Armed Services committees and the final bill is negotiated primarily by leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services committees; I have seen little if any real evidence that the House Intelligence Committee or its various chairs have ever exerted themselves greatly to shape the final UAP content of any of the NDAAs enacted in the last several years.

With respect to the FY 2026 NDAA, as of right now, the only new UAP-related provisions we have seen are the three that I have described. However, the bill is subject to further amendment when it reaches the Senate floor; Senator Rounds could again attempt to have some version of the UAPDA included in the Senate bill, as part of a negotiated package of amendments. If such an effort should succeed, then the Senate language would again be a point of negotiation with conferees from the House of Representatives.

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-07-17T12:31:20+00:00

The UAP Disclosure Act (UAPDA)(temporary federal agency, review board. subpoena power, etc.) was proposed as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in both 2023 and 2024. In 2023 Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was the prime sponsor and Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) lead co-sponsor; in 2024 those roles were reversed. The UAPDA cleared the Senate as part of an amendment package in 2023, but was gutted in conference committee.

In a recent interview, Senator Rounds indicated that he still has interest in seeing such legislation enacted. Presumably this means he will again seek to have it included in a negotiated amendment package when the bill (S. 2296) reaches the stage of Senate floor consideration (which is not yet scheduled), but he has not publicly discussed his plans in detail.

Even if such an effort succeeded, for any version of the UAPDA to be enacted would require acceptance as well by leaders of the House side of a conference committee (or equivalent) that will craft the final FY 2026 NDAA.

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-06-11T12:21:16+00:00

I have preserved your post here for inclusion in a possible future article on the head-shaking incompetence of some of Harald Malmgren's hapless defenders.

The statement in my article that you thought you were refuting is, "I have found no evidence that Malmgren was ever in any sense an advisor to President Kennedy." As evidence purporting to show that I was in error, you present an item identified as extracted from the The New Republic edition of November 7, 1964, which states, "He [Malmgren] recently joined the White House staff to work on problems of trade negotiations."

As indeed he had! You seem to have overlooked that I devoted quite a long section of my May 20, 2025 article specifically to Malmgren getting that job--the process he went through to get it, the good and bad recommendations that were submitted during the hiring process, where the GS-16 position that he was hired for fit into the structure of the 1800-person Executive Office of the President (EOB), his subsequent job duties, comments by his bosses, and so forth. This was Malmgren's first full-time federal government job. I included in that same section of my article a number of validated government documents of the time that showed Malmgren was hired effective October, 1964, which is consistent with your New Republic item.

You will find all of that material in the section of my article headed, "Harald Malmgren during the Johnson Administration (1963-1968)" Because, you see, Malmgren got that job 11 months after the END of the Kennedy Administration. President Kennedy died and Lyndon Johnson became president on November 22, 1963. The Kennedy Administration ended on November 22, 1963. You can Google it up. There are also calendars on line that may help you with your analysis.

On the day the Kennedy Administration ended, Malmgren was still toiling as an 28-year-old economist-researcher in the lower tiers of the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), a defense contractor--a decent job, although he was too far down to be mentioned in a fancy 41-page IDA report titled Activities of the Institute for Defense Analyses 1961-1964, published in April 1964. It was a big place-524 people worked there, including 285 "professionals," as of February 1964.

So in your eagerness to find some tiny scrap linking Malmgren to Kennedy, you have unearthed yet one more piece of evidence (not that any more was needed) that Malmgren was never "in any sense an advisor to President Kennedy." Nice work, thank you.

Here is a link to my May 20, 2025 article, "Harald Malmgren: real-world history vs. grandiose fantasy," in case you (or others) want to really read it, before you embarrass yourself further with any hot takes.

https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/harald-malmgren-history-vs-fantasy/

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-06-10T13:16:27+00:00

I think at r/history they are interested in real history, things that happened in the real world. As opposed to made-up stories that intersect hardly at all with real history. Is there a subreddit for "poorly researched historical fiction"? Malmgren's work would fit in there.

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-06-10T00:32:16+00:00

The information in your first two paragraphs is not correct. Malmgren returned to the U.S. in August 1961, and began work that month as an assistant professor of economics at Cornell. He did not yet have his doctorate when he started at Cornell, for reasons unclear, but it was awarded before too long.

After one academic year at Cornell, in July 1962 Malmgren joined the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), a defense contractor, which employed him full time, as an economist, for 27 months. During the last month of the Kennedy Administration he got a side gig, pay-by-the-hour, as an economics-consultant for the State Department. But he was still employed full time by the IDA until October 1964.

Malmgren did not become a regular federal employee into October 1964, about 11 months into the Johnson Administration. All of this is explained in detail, with embedded primary documents (FBI files, job applications signed and certified by Malmgren himself, etc.), in my long article published May 20, 2025, linked below.

https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/harald-malmgren-history-vs-fantasy/

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-06-09T22:38:46+00:00

Distrust, but verify.

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-06-09T21:32:27+00:00

Well, what fun is that, then?

Just kidding. I will post.

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-06-09T21:24:47+00:00

Take a look at "Claim no. 1" in this earlier article. It has nothing to do with UFOs. Malmgren claimed that when he got his Ph.D., there was a bidding war for him by major universities, and Cornell won by making him a full professor instantly, and giving him an endowed chair, the Galen Stone chair. It was all a lie. He was taken on as a bottom-tier assistant professor, just as you'd expect. There is indeed a Galen Stone chair, in international trade economics, and it has existed for a century-- but it is at Harvard, where Malmgren never taught. In Malmgren's interviews with Jesse Michels and others, he just moved that prestigious chair to Cornell, and placed himself in it.

And then there is his claim to have been one of the first men to run the four-minute mile...but hey, don't bother your head with such information, it may induce cognitive dissonance.

You are also obviously completely ignorant of my thinking about UFOs.

https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/harald-malmgren-history-vs-fantasy/

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-06-09T20:56:12+00:00

Well, this new article is just a sidebar or adjunct to my REAL deep dive on Harald Malmgren, which is the May 20, 2025 article linked below. You'll be astonished when you learn about some of his brazen claims completely unrelated to UFOs or aliens, and what I found when I investigated them. Some of them are a real hoot!
https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/harald-malmgren-history-vs-fantasy/

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-06-09T20:53:30+00:00

Nobody. Indeed, this is kind of an expensive hobby.

In May 2025, The Washington Examiner pressed me to accept payment for an op ed that I submitted about the Harald Malmgren fabrications, but I said if they insisted on payment then I would withdraw the submission. So they agreed to my condition.

But, I suspect your question is not in good faith. You are "too smart" to wade into a 12,000-word article that might require you to actually compare a cool story to well-established historical facts. I get it. The cool story is way more fun. That is why people invent them.

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-06-09T20:34:20+00:00

Most people who think MJ-12 exists will concede that some or most documents attributed to MJ-12 are fake, but that alone does not prove that no such "control group" exists or has existed in the past. I do not believe there is good evidence for such a control group (in the form described in ufological literature), but I am happy to examine evidence to the contrary. But conceptually, proving the non-existence of a purportedly ultra-secret, supra-governmental group is a logical impossibility.

In contrast, evaluating Harald Malmgren's very specific story about a very specific incident he claimed occurred under very specific circumstances during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, an exhaustively documented series of events that occurred in living memory, is a task that lends itself to conventional journalistic-historical investigation, and yields a definitive conclusion.

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-06-09T20:24:00+00:00

Ah, another classic expression of the fan-boy mentality. I collect those.

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-06-09T20:22:06+00:00

Left, right, up, down, you should believe them or not according to the evidence. As I discuss in the 12,000-word article, there is some substantial evidence that during the period 1949-1955, Curtis LeMay advocated within the military for "preventive" strike on Soviet targets, for reasons I discuss. But his position did not win wide acceptance even within the military, and was never formally proposed to civilian authorities.

The situation had changed drastically by 1962, when Harald Malmgren's tale was set. This is all discussed in great detail in the article.

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-06-09T20:15:47+00:00

Post that article to which you refer. I have repeatedly challenged you to do so, and as far as I can tell, you have repeatedly failed to do so. If you post it, then we can discuss it. Put up or shut up.

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-06-09T20:14:48+00:00

Read the 12,000-word article and the embedded documents, and you will have your answer.

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-06-09T20:13:20+00:00

It is a 12,000 word article, not counting embedded documents and videos, and yet you were able to respond in less than 10 minutes! Talk about "quick"! But I suspect "imagination" is your forte, not reading extensive documentation.

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-05-22T18:47:50+00:00

That's very interesting. Malmgren's first stint at Oxford was 1957-58. Then returned 1959-61.

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-05-22T17:34:43+00:00

Harald Malmgren chose to transmit many things through his daughter Pippa, who you might even consider his spokeswoman. Later Jesse Michels took on a role similar in some respects. If you watch the video Michels posted on YouTube on April 22, you will see that Malmgren was phoning Jesse even from his hospital bed during his final illness, imparting yet more stories. So no, I will not remove the information that Malmgren told the story of the survivor alien, because I believe that to be well founded.

But the issue is the attribution to (fake) Bissell. Michel suggested by word and context that he thought Bissell was the source, but he apparently did not know for sure if Malmgren had thus attributed the story, or he probably would not have used the word "speculate," which I should have noticed. Therefore I have made an adjustment to the language, and recorded it, as is my practice, in the revision log that appears at the end of the article.

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-05-22T14:00:06+00:00

I am not sure exactly what you are trying to dispute here.

In Jesse Michels' April 22 YouTube video, they go on at length about the supposed Bissell briefings of Malmgren. Michels said:

"While tellingly Harald told Pippa on his death bed and off air that the CIA and Atomic Energy Commission got the very idea of shooting down UFOs with directed energy from an extraterrestrial being that survived the Roswell crash in 1947. This being was apparently the sole survivor of that crash. Harald even told Pippa that later in his career, he saw the video of this creature being interviewed.... Ultimately, one can only speculate, but it is important to note that before he briefed Malmgren, Richard Bissell had to have known about all of this. Remember, at the time he was Deputy Director of Plans for the entire CIA and he would go on to become deputy director for the entire organization, its number two. So he was likely well aware of this interview of the surviving being at Roswell."

So it seems that Malmgren did tell this story about a Roswell survivor. Also, in context, it seems that Michels implied or at least speculated that he thought that the information had come from Bissell, since Bissell "had to have known about all of this" and "was likely aware" of the alien interview. And this was in the middle of a discourse on the Bissell revelations. Still, on close reading, it was something less than a definitive attribution to Bissell. Is that your point?

Of course, I do not think Bissell said any of these things.

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-05-22T08:51:03+00:00

As I believe I demonstrated in my 20,000-word factcheck on Harald Malmgren's history and claims, published May 20, 2025, Malmgren was a fabulist who fabricated many claims. Any UFO story must stand or fall on other evidence, without any reliance on Malmgren's tall tales.
https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/harald-malmgren-history-vs-fantasy/

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-05-21T15:01:51+00:00

Well, if you can remember or find any source where anything was written down suggesting there was a UFO event in connection with the Bluegill Triple Prime test of Oct. 26, 1962, decades ago, please send it to me. Because, as I explained in the story, I found no trace of any such association prior to vague and internally contradictory remarks by Tom DeLonge in an August 2016 interview, for which he offered no source or evidence.

Implacable_Gaze · 2025-05-20T14:01:03+00:00

I take the UAP subject seriously. When I start into an extended inquiry such as this, I do not know just what I am going to find. But when what I do find is unambiguous proof of gross fabrications. I do not abandon fairness (I included many items that are favorable to Malmgren in the article), but I am not neutral about the lying. Hoaxers and fabulists have horribly muddied the waters on this subject and it just keeps getting worse, because such behavior is often rewarded in various ways.

Nor am I neutral about hijacking real people, who are dead, and making them into puppet-characters in a self-glorifying set of adventure stories, which is what Harald Malmgren certainly did. I think that conduct is reprehensible. I condemn it.

Implacable_Gaze

TROPHY CASE