iStockphoto
Yet another former government official has come forward with claims about the United States having obtained technology not of this Earth.
In 2020, Eric W. Davis, an astrophysicist who worked as a subcontractor and then a consultant for the Pentagon UFO program, said he examined materials that “we couldn’t make it ourselves” and “off-world vehicles” that were not made by humans.
In 2023, David Grusch, a veteran of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), claimed the United States had retrieved and studied UFOs of non-human origin.
And now, in 2024, Harald Malmgren, who served as a senior adviser under Presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, claims the CIA briefed him on what he calls “otherworld technologies.”
“60+ years ago I was provided highest level classifications to lead DOD work on nuclear weapons & anti-missile defense,” Malmgren wrote on X (Twitter) this week. “Informally briefed on ‘otherworld technologies’ by CIA’s Richard Bissel (who had been in charge of Skunkworks, Area 51, Los Alamos, etc.) but sworn to secrecy.”
In another post replying to a comment, Mamlgren wrote, “Bissell briefed me off the record after his resignation as CIA Deputy Director Specal Ops. I am not seeking public confirmation status–just telling my personal story. Confirmations will be up to others directly involved, in coming months.”
Those comments came in the wake of comments Harald Malmgren made earlier this year claiming to have been told by rocket scientist Lawrence Preston Gise, the grandfather of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, about “his alleged work on reverse-engineering of [UAP] objects” during a conversation at Los Alamos in 1963.
Malmgren’s daughter, former White House adviser Dr. Pippa Malmgren, has also been busy discussing UFOs, includiing a 2023 blog post and a recent post on X in which she addresses a new book published by Luis Elizondo, a lead UFO investigator in the the Pentagon’s Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP).
“Here’s the question: what is the cost of asking “what if this is true?” vs the cost of assuming it is not true and being wrong?,” she wrote. “Real/Serious scientists will want to bring all our new tech to bear on this to prove things one way or another. We have to question those who insist on not investigating all this. What is there to lose? Nothing. What is there to gain? Possibly a transformation of our understanding of reality. Seems odd that so many go to such lengths to dismiss something that is potentially so consequential before we even consider it.”