The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Friday, April 10, 2009

AF ROSWELL STUDY CONTRIBUTOR ADMITS "IT WAS ET!" by Anthony Bragalia

roswell-report.jpg

The Lt. Colonel who was a major contributor to the Air Force's official 1997 study that concluded that the Roswell ET crash of 1947 is a "myth"- now states that the Air Force's Roswell report is itself a lie. The Colonel goes further to state that what he really believes to be true is that aliens actually did crash to Earth decades ago! He adds that he was "used" and that the the author of the Air Force report "was on a mission" with no interest in discovering what really happened at Roswell.

In the Air Force's publication Roswell Report: Case Closed (authored by Intelligence Officer Captain James McAndrew in 1997) the Roswell crash is debunked. The report serves as the US Air Force's official and "final word" on the matter. Captain McAndrew explains in the Air Force report that "crash test dummies" that dropped from airplanes were mistaken by witnesses for the rumored Roswell "aliens." McAndrew contends that local ranchers -when confronted with these humanoid figures laying on the desert floor-confused them in some way to be creatures from another world. An earlier Air Force Roswell report had concluded that the "craft" that was witnessed was actually a fallen top-secret "Mogul" spy balloon project.

Lt. Col. Raymond Madson, now 79, recently related to this author that he was the Project Officer that led the Air Force's "crash test dummy" program, known as "Project High Dive" from 1956-1960 at Holloman Air Force Base. He designed and managed tests that used anthropomorphic dummies in aerial "dummy drop" tests. These tests were part of an Air Force project to identify ways to safely parachute pilots from aircraft at very high altitudes. He tested and analyzed problems that pilots might encounter with the ejection mechanisms for bailing out of new generation aircraft.

Lt. Col. Madson is extensively quoted and referred to by Captain McAndrew throughout the Air Force's Roswell debunking report, issued in book form. His affidavit is found on page 180. Madson even provided many of the famous crash test dummy pictures used in the book. He says that he made it clear to McAndrew that although the "dummies could be mistaken for something they are not" - they could never be mistaken for small alien beings! Madson was visited by Captain McAndrew for in-person interviews over a period of two days. Madson told McAndrew that the dummies did not appear alien- and that anyone would know that these are "essentially large dolls." Madson also expressed to McAndrew that the period of time in which these dummy drop tests occured could not possibly coincide with the time of the Roswell event- the events were too many years apart from one another. McAndrew listened -but did not comment- on Madson's opinion. Madson also said to McAndrew that "we were testing with these 6' dummies to try to protect grown men. The aliens reported at Roswell were said to be child-sized."

dummies.jpg

In fact, McAndrew's Roswell report did not include Madson's real opinion on the matter at all! It appears as though McAndrew wanted to get desired comments out of Madson to be later used to support the crash dummy program explanation for the alien bodies. McAndrew took Madson's words and placed them in the Air Force debunking report in such a way that it did not convey the truth about the way Madson actually felt about the nature of the Roswell event!

Madson says that the statement that he signed for McAndrew (which appears in the report) was accurate, but that -in the context of the overall Air Force report- it is misleading. Madson feels that he was "used for purposes" and that his intent was misrepresented- he did not "buy into" the idea of his "Air Force dummies as aliens." Madson adds that the dummies had tags on them with instructions for getting a $25 reward for their return. He says that this is another reason why the Air Force explanation makes no sense whatsoever. Clearly McAndrew wanted to get all of the historical details from Madson about the dummy drop program that he could (details that only Madson could offer) and then make all of this information seem to support the Air Force debunking efforts.

Madson got an "uneasy" feeling about the whole inquiry. He now wonders why the Air Force even felt compelled in the first place to come up with an explanation for "supposed bodies" resulting from a crash "that supposedly never happened." He adds, "The whole need to even do that is unusual, now that I look back on it."

We discussed that the Air Force had (in 1994) already issued a "final word" debunking report on Roswell, explaining that the crash resulted from a top-secret Mogul balloon project. Why then the need in 1997-three years later- to come up with yet another "final word" report detailing the explanation, this time for the bodies? If it was a balloon, then that should have been the end of the inquiry. Paraphrasing Shakespeare, "Methinks doth protest too much." McAndrew objected so much to the idea of the ET nature of the crash that he lost credibility and he has revealed a hidden motive.

Madson then becomes more emphatic: "I didn't trust McAndrew. In fact, I don't even like him. I don't like the way that he operates." Madson goes on to say that he even gave McAndrew some of the famous photos of the crash test dummies that are used throughout the Air Force debunking report. Madson states that McAndrew never returned any of the original materials that he had offered to McAndrew for reproduction. Madson said that after the Air Force's Roswell report was issued and he read it -alarmed- he called McAndrew repeatedly, but McAndrew never returned Madson's calls. So incensed was Madson that he debated whether to call McAndrew's Air Force superior.

Very tellingly Madson now says that, "McAndrew was sent on a mission." Today he had no doubt that McAndrew "was assigned to carry out a directive" that was intended to "produce a specific result." I asked him, "Was McAndrew on a mission to uncover the truth about Roswell?" Madson simply repeated, "No, he was on a mission." Asked if he felt that McAndrew himself believed his own report's conclusions, Madson paused and again intoned, "McAndrew was sent on a mission."

But Madson goes far beyond saying that the Air Force used his "crash dummy program" as a feeble explanation and "cover story" to debunk the stories of Roswell alien beings.

Amazingly, Madson believes that an extraterrestrial crash actually had happened - and that the bodies were stored for a period of time at Wright Patterson! He bases this on the fact that he himself had served at Wright Patterson in the early 1950's -before going to Holloman AFB to conduct the crash dummy tests. He personally had heard -just a few years after the Roswell event- directly from "others who would have been positioned to know" that there was a "very secure facility" at the base that served as the storage place for the alien bodies that were recovered from a crash sometime before he began employment at Wright. Although he was intrigued by what he had heard about all of this, he told me, "you just didn't ask a whole lot of questions like that in those days." Madson adds, "I believe that the talk was serious, but that the matter was kept highly secret at the time." Madson also feels that it is likely that there is a reverse-engineering program of the recovered technology in place that he says, "is only accessible by those with a Need to Know."

What makes this even more interesting is that Col. Madson met Mrs. Madson -his future wife- while employed at Wright in the early 1950's. Mrs. Madson was employed at the time as a secretary for Wright's base medical laboratory. Astonishingly, she had also been hearing the very same "scuttlebutt" as heard by her soon-to-be husband. She had been told by some of those that she had worked with about child-sized beings "from another world" who had crashed to Earth. Sometime prior to her employment they had been retrieved, brought back to the base and then studied secretly.

Madson says, "we both knew not to say anything much to each other about it at the time. But today, my wife can't stop thinking about it- and neither can I."

16 Comments:

  • Rich,

    I'm surprised that you would use (or allow) such a misleading and hyperbolic headline for this piece. Madson "admits" nothing - one has to know something for certain to "admit" it, and he doesn't know anything for certain about alleged ET.

    I'm a bit disappointed in you here, particularly as the article itself is interesting enough (although far from new - even most debunkers admit the subsequent crash-test dummies report was a lame attempt at explanation overkill).

    Paul

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Friday, April 10, 2009  

  • Paul:

    I offer a mea culpa....

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, April 10, 2009  

  • Anthony Bragalia replies...

    The meaning of "admit," as culled from various dictionaries:

    "To concede as valid"
    "To grant or accept"
    "To acknowledge"

    Madson admitted he believed it to be ET -and not terrestrial- as the AF said. He "grants" or accepts this based on what both he and his wife heard in the years imme-diately following the crash from "people positioned to know" at Wright Patterson - in both the R&D and the base medical lab.

    He further acknowledges the event as ET based on his two-day dis-cussions with the AF lead on the Roswell Report.

    That McAndrew insisted it was his program that caused the alien myth has led Madson to believe just the opposite. It was ET.

    AB

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, April 10, 2009  

  • Hi Rich,

    Bragalia's hair-splitting is typical of what I have seen of his approach so far - a lot of smoke and mirrors, but nothing of any real substance. You know as well as I do, Rich, what the vast majority of people are going to take from that "headline".

    I'm surprised to see you giving this stuff so much play, particularly after you've heavily criticized Kevin Randle and others for their obsession with ET and Roswell.

    Hopefully you'll follow Nick Redfern's upcoming Roswell work, which is far more interesting, with as much zeal.

    Paul

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Friday, April 10, 2009  

  • Paul:

    Tony Bragalia, like Kevin Randle, has his proponents, followers.

    You and I (and Redfern) agree that something happened at Roswell, something that is not ET/alien instigated.

    Tony (and Randle, along with Friedman, among others) see an ET connection, and in Tony Bragalia's case, he's stumbled upon some other things that give credence to the alien view.

    Unfortunately, I'm not at liberty to disclose his findings as they will be part of an upcoming book.

    That said....even if it is "proven" that aliens crashed at Roswell in 1947, that doesn't really resolve the ongoing UFO mystery, as you know.

    Roswell has been botched, totally, by so many getting their fingers into the mix.

    As for Tony Bragalia, he, like Randle and others, have a right to their views, and we provide a forum for Tony since he likes our established connections, as ripe as many of those connections are.

    I've taken Tony's views to task, just as I have done with Randle.

    But both Randle and Bragalia keep the Roswell fire lit, so we just add fuel to the Roswell fire because you know how much I (we) like to cause trouble.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, April 10, 2009  

  • Anthony Bragalia replies (again) to Paul Kimball...

    I have been "taken to task" by RRR and others in the past- and I appreciate it. I hope that it will make me a better researcher. Constructive criticism is valued. Rich has always offered reasoned, unemotional response and guidance. His occasional "devil's advocate" positioning helps to provide balance.

    Mr. Kimball, let's not loose sight of the content of the article and the additional insights that it hopefully provides on the AF's veracity concerning "things Roswell." The information provided by Madson adds substantially to our understanding of truth and history about the event. It helps to set the record straight.

    And yes, I agree: Though credible testimony remains important- other, more "concrete" forms of evidence are needed to confirm the ET nature of the Roswell event. And that evidence is coming. Soon.

    AB

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, April 10, 2009  

  • And here is my problem with the "that evidence is coming... soon" line. Been there, done that, heard it all before. With respect, if someone really had proof positive that ET was here on Earth, why wait for a book to come out? Something that would change the way we look at ourselves as no other event has? And we have to wait for a book to come out?

    I understand the need to make a living, and I don't begrudge people making money off of UFOs - I do it myself. The difference is that I don't claim to have the smoking gun.

    As for Madson's story, I'm not sure it really adds anything of substance to the Roswell case itself. Rather, it merely adds to the already widely accepted conclusion that the USAF erred when it felt obliged to put forward a lousy explanation for the alien bodies aspect of the Roswell tale, an element to the story for which, as yet, there is absolutely no reliable evidence, even anecdotal.

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Friday, April 10, 2009  

  • In Anthony Bragalia's reply he uses the word 'concrete' for the evidence pointing to the ET nature of the Roswell event that he is soon to publish. Notice that the word is in quotes in AB's reply. I do not believe that either Tony or anyone else will ever produce any genuine hard evidence of ETs at Roswell. If such evidence were available it would have been produced decades ago. So we can take the term 'concrete' with a big pinch of salt. (Which reminds me that Jesse Marcel jr once claimed that a concrete patio was built over the debris swept out of his family kitchen that night. Perhaps some of this patio has been dug up!?)

    Phil Klass once told me that the reason the AF brought out their 2nd report was to try and answer the charges that they had not dealt with the 'ET bodies' aspect in their first report, and wanted to word their report to avoid saying any witnesses were liars. Hence the anthropomorphic dummies explanation. Really their 2nd report was redundant. I agree with Paul over Tony Bragalia's forthcoming book, and am certainly not going to expect any earth-shattering revelations from it.

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, April 12, 2009  

  • Paul:

    I don't think Anthony Bragalia is into the Roswell/UFO thing to make money, as is the case with some other UFO "researchers" -- you know whom I mean.

    He has provided, pro bono as it were, much material he has uncovered to other UFO investigators, including our mutual friend, Nick Redfern.

    So it is remiss I think to infer he's work is motivated by a profit motive.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, April 13, 2009  

  • CDA:

    You know my feeling about the Roswell caper.

    But I have to say (write) that Tony Bragalia has uncovered some unique "evidence" that gives viability to the ET scenario that pervades the Roswell episode.

    Let's see if his contributions to a new book about the matter has substance.

    If it doesn't, I, along with you, will give him a scolding, but I don't believe that will be necessary...however....

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, April 13, 2009  

  • CDA,

    You wrote:

    "Phil Klass once told me that the reason the AF brought out their 2nd report was to try and answer the charges that they had not dealt with the 'ET bodies' aspect in their first report, and wanted to word their report to avoid saying any witnesses were liars. Hence the anthropomorphic dummies explanation. Really their 2nd report was redundant."

    I agree completely. I think it was an attempt on their part to tie up what they thought was a loose end as best they could, but they bungled it badly. Better if they had just come out and said - "there is no solid evidence to back up any of the stories about alien bodies, and the people who have told those stories, such as Glenn Dennis, are lying".

    Paul

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, April 13, 2009  

  • I love the "Case Closed" on the cover! Ha ha ha ha...

    By Blogger Cullan Hudson, at Tuesday, April 14, 2009  

  • Although I utterly dismiss the "crash-test dummy" scenario for the Roswell bodies, there is one thing that I always find odd though.

    Nsmely, a reluctance on the part of some to comment on the fact (or maybe just ignorance of the fact) that the dummies were not all 6 ft tall.

    Very ironically indeed, the one in display in the UFO Museum at Roswell, is just such an example.

    I am 6-foot-one, and having been to the Roswell UFO Museum on numerous occasions, I can assure those who have not been there that I TOWER over the crash-test dummy they have on display.

    So, there most assuredly WERE smaller dummies made.

    And I always find it odd that no-one ever really comments on the smaller dummy at the museum.

    It could actually be good ammunition for those who DO accept the dummy theory.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Tuesday, April 14, 2009  

  • As You can see Anthony as you report and they "All Fall down" it will bring out the top UFO NO ETs guns. to try and squash the fires.
    This was the reason June Crain came forward... another nut case who handled the Roswell material. She could not cut it with a pair of scissors.
    By the way she just happened to be there, she work at Wright Patterson for 11 years from 42 to 53 unlike... rrr. nick and paul.

    June love the guys who tested the chutes. She came forward anonymously when the first report come out on Roswell by the Air Force but then became angry and came out publicly when the dummy report came out. She also was instrumental in starting her first home town library...bad charcter that one.
    She remarked that the engineers...what they called the scientist at the base, laughed their heads off at the balloon story. Just keep doing what you are doing Anthony the ghost of those who have died into the shadow of these lies will thank you.
    Joe Capp
    UFO Media Matters
    Non-Commercial Blog

    By Blogger Joseph Capp, at Sunday, April 19, 2009  

  • For those who may be interested:

    http://desertdarkness.blogspot.com/2009/04/roswell-quest-for-truth.html

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, April 29, 2009  

  • Curious if we will have to wait much longer for the new evidence that confirms the ET nature of Roswell?

    Really hoping this isn't (another) carrot on an infinite stick.

    Quote:

    "And yes, I agree: Though credible testimony remains important- other, more "concrete" forms of evidence are needed to confirm the ET nature of the Roswell event. And that evidence is coming. Soon."

    By Blogger Gareth, at Monday, May 25, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home