UFO Conjecture(s)

Monday, January 16, 2012

Roswell Vets don't own up to being at Roswell (1947)

Anthony Bragalia has interviewed a number of veterans whose military records indicate they were stationed at Roswell in 1947, during the alleged flying disk crash.

However, those veterans continue to say they weren't there, despite the official records indicating otherwise.

Click HERE to read Mr. Bragalia's account and research about this quirk that is endemic to Roswell veterans.

It's a significant element in the Roswell story.


  • While I admire Tony's tenacity, the last sentence could have been excluded;
    "Those such as Robert and Albert who would even deny their time in service to their country because of what happened during that time and at that place are not “honorable” men. The future will not view them with favor."
    Guys who are in their eighties now and are clear headed are more likely than not very aware of the hubris and publicity surrounding Roswell leads to a reasonable response of saying "no thanks"
    Another thought comes from my own father who went through horrific experiences in the South Pacific Theater. How do I know this? I had to research his service record. Why? He refused to talk about it yet it effected the rest of his life and not in a good way. Vets I know from WW2 would rather forget about it, if they are cajoled..you may get a story or two.
    A lot of folks of that age I have talked to think the UFO schtick is the result of "nut cases" Their words, not mine. I think that last sentence of Tony's was unfortunate.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Bruce:

    Coincidentally, I just submitted this comment to Tony's post at his own blog:


    You say in your article: "Those such as Robert and Albert who would even deny their time in service to their country because of what happened during that time and at that place are not 'honorable' men. The future will not view them with favor."

    All of us who are fascinated by Roswell want the answers, and we all encourage people to come forward and tell what they know - on whatever it was that happened back in 47 at the Foster Ranch.

    But, in my view, to cast doubt on the honor of these guys (and to name them too, and cast doubt on their honor in a public forum, no less!) just because they choose not to speak about what they may or may not know, is - in my view - plain wrong and inexcusable.

    Let's say that (hypothetically, of course) 40 years from now you interview some old guy who worked on an op in the 2000s that helped protect the US from a dirty-bomb attack, and there were aspects of the matter still considered classified in 2042.

    If that old guy chose not to discuss that, or deny being involved in the op, would you question his honor? I suspect you would not. You might, quite rightly too, continue to pursue other leads etc in an attempt o unravel the story.

    I suspect that here, however, you are letting your emotion for the Roswell case cloud things, to where you are reacting with emotion about these guys not delivering the goods (because you feel they should), and thus labeling them as "not 'honorable' men."

    As you well know, the Roswell event deeply affected certain players in the story (such as Dee Proctor, notably).

    Fear may be an overriding factor in certain cases of silence - fear of a potential backlash from officialdom even to this day.

    None of us really know what made - and still makes - certain people not want to confirm things they may have seen or done in relation to Roswell.

    And, yes, we find that a pain in the neck, and it's undeniably frustrating etc. But, that doesn't mean these old guys in their 80s are "not 'honorable' men."

    Had you ended this post prior to writing the final paragraph (titled the Honorable and the Dishonorable), all would have been fine, as the references to the 603rd etc are all valuable.

    But, for me anyway, that last paragraph just tarnishes the whole thing and takes it away from investigative research into an emotion-driven attack on the honor of people who won't tell you what you want to hear.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • There's another issue here too: let's say that there may be other old-timers (or wives of) who may know something valuable about Roswell and are looking to speak about it.

    Maybe, they might think twice if a member of the Dream Team questions their honor if they don't say what is wanted to be heard.

    I'd suggest, Tony, your comments might actually close doors on you, when it comes to future witnesses.

    As I said, I would have ended it without that final question. And I would have sent a lengthy letter to the 2 old guys, explaining what I was doing, why, the reasons, the goal etc, and impress upon them that you understand they may have reasons not to talk, but impress upon them that the USAF has effectively stated that nothing extraordinary happened at Roswell, so what's the harm in talking?

    For me, that would have been the most logical approach, and one that might still allow for some answers to come (when the person has had the opportunity to digest the letter and think about it and how to comment).

    But, this attack on their honor may not just lead to these guys not wanting to talk to you ever again, but may well mean that each and every member of their family (which may be large, given their ages), and who might know something will not want to talk to you.

    I think those words were just plain disastrous and guaranteed to close doors with people who - if you carefully cultivated and nurtured further contact in an emotion-free fashion - might have actually been able to help.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Nick
    I could not agree more unless I written your comments myself.
    Most ( to my experience) who research this phenomenon, throw the context out of the window with the bath water, which is a disservice to the pursuit of whatever truth there is to be found.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Bruce and Nick-

    Thanks much for your comments. However, I am still of the mind that these men are not honoring their highest obligation- the obligation that they have to mankind. Truth and History must triumph over oaths and security clearances.

    When these men deny their military service, they are the ones being 'dishonorable.' I am merely calling them out. In the same way that those who 'pretend' to have military medals or honors- these men 'pretend' the very opposite by maintaining that they were not installed at RAAF.

    And what of their compatriots -their fellow soldiers- who did come forward and who have admitted to being there? How is it honoring them that these men would deny that they would have ever known their colleagues because they maintain that they were not even there to have known them? When you deny your very service at a particular base at a particular time- you are disavowing the men that you served with.

    And much harm can come from such denial. I am reminded of the Hankerson family. When I told them that their patriarch Elijah was the Roswell Base Chaplain in 1947 and that he and his wife, their matriarch, Annie, lived in Roswell for years- they did know this. They were stunned and extremely upset and hurt that they were denied this knowledge until I contacted them. Their parents had elected to entirely omit a chapter of their lives and kept it from their own families!

    Such omission and denial cannot ever be seen as honorable.


    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Tony:

    You, me or whoever may not agree with people with Roswell knowledge not wanting to tell us what they know.

    It may frustrate us, annoy us, or anger us, but that doesn't mean the person who refuses to talk lacks honor.

    What it means is that if (if, being an important word here) they do know something of Roswell, then they may have reasons we are not conversant with (in part or in total) for not wanting to speak.

    Yes, I would find that frustrating and yes, I would find it aggravating.

    But, I would not name the person on the Internet and SPECIFICALLY cast doubt on their honor, just because they avoided giving full answers on the phone regarding questions asked about their military experiences decades ago.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Dammit, Nick...

    There is honor and then there is honor.

    Truth supersedes honor to a nation.

    The Nazis were honorable in the context of Germany but for humanity they were cowards and worse.

    You are really wrong here, Nick (and Bruce)...really wrong.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Tony:

    I would also suggest that nothing in life is ever black and white. I would apply that to Roswell too.

    We are dealing with a complex case, with multiple people involved, varying from children, to ranchers, to military personnel etc.

    We are dealing with threats, concerns about breaking oaths, hidden secrets etc.

    Thus, expecting a uniform response to what happened, and criticizing people who may not take the approach you think they should, in relation to something that occurred 65 years ago and which was the subject of great secrecy, is equally ludicrous.

    People are complex animals, and we do things (and sometimes don't do things, in this case) for a whole variety of reasons.

    And, I would say there is a VERY BIG difference between someone not wanting to talk about their military career and some idiot who fabricates a military career.

    The former is being loyal to the service (whether you or I feel its warranted or not), the latter is a stupid Walter Mitty type. Very different.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • No, I'm not. And here's why:

    Tony says: "I am still of the mind that these men are not honoring their highest obligation- the obligation that they have to mankind."

    This "to mankind" statement is clearly based around the fact that Tony's thinks aliens crashed at Roswell.

    Maybe aliens DID crash at Roswell, but until we know, calling these guys out because we THINK aliens crashed at Roswell is massively jumping the gun.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Tony
    This is how Ufology trips over it's own shoelaces.You could have made exactly the same point without the last sentence. It is a value judgement you have made on these men and the fact is they did serve despite the Roswell "imperative" has become skewed in a morality play that where you have placed yourself to judge others lives appearing to be a imperious egotist t the service of "being right"
    A real disappointment in terms of your judgement, in more ways than one.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Rich:

    I am not saying Tony does not have a right to be angry if people "in the know" don't want to talk.

    It frustrates and angers me too.

    But, here's my whole point: being reluctant to talk does NOT - in literal terms - mean that this person, therefore, lacks honor.

    It means that an old man had a reason for not wanting to talk on the phone to another man who was asking questions about his military experiences.

    And, until we know more about the "why" behind the silence, that's ALL we know.

    We certainly cannot gauge anything about the level of the man's honor or character just because he didn't get all chatty with Tony. That was my point.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Nick:

    I get your point and I know you are a man who respects his elders.

    But these guys are being obeisant to a false code of honor, which has nothing to do with ETs or a Roswell flying saucer crash.

    When the government sterilized blacks and others, right up into the late 1970s, a man holding back the truth of that, and many did, is not honorable.

    You place a higher value on honor than on truth.

    That's morally wrong in my world.

    Honor is a shit catgory, a fall-back for men who use the sobriquet to appear decent and significant.

    We have some men in our neck of the woods flying the American flag everyday, and these men are skunks and deviants.

    The old saw about patriotism being the refuge of scoundrels holds true more often than not.

    And these vets seem to fall into that category.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • "The Nazis were honorable in the context of Germany" I think this is both a bad comparison and a sort of magical thinking unless you were there. You take a complex dynamic, make a global statement to justify Tony's blurring of "being right" and being aware of a context.
    My great uncle was a high ranking Nazi in charge of the civilian \ military corps formed to defend Berlin. Prior to this, he led a specialized police force to hunt down Jewish "collaborators" in Poland. He went on to have a successful tenure as a politician.
    He thought he was right and being right was more important than other considerations.
    I very well know the differences between the Nazi's and our servicemen. Apparently you do not.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • BTW..
    I have had correspondence over a period of time with a relation who described living in the Reich. Patriotism for the average German was an object of fear reinforced by the S.S, the Gestapo, and a knock on the door at midnight. Many, many, including those who were inducted into the Nazi machine were ruled by fear. It was not a matter of honor. There was a German underground of resistance which is seldom remarked upon that culminated in Nazi's conspiring to knock off Hitler. The ones who were always right were psychopaths.
    Did our servicemen volunteer for the same reason, fear?
    You see how this approach gets us off topic? The same applies to so called ufology.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Bruce...

    You sure like to take things out of context.

    Read my whole comment for its meaning.

    I'm talking about a moral or categorical imperative: truth.

    Not about honor or Nazis; those are just fodder to make a point.

    Tony is searching for truth. His veterans are holding on to an oath that has nothing to do with truth but has everything to do with their pensions or their obeisance to a code that goes out the window when truth is what's needed or sought.

    Now I'm asking you politely, don't muddy the waters with a lot of asides that have nothing to do with truth or "honor."


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • And Bruce...

    Tony and I know that some of his veterans do have fear in their old, frail hearts, and fears for their families.

    But, again, it's truth that should replace fear, for men of honor anyway.

    Let's not, you and I, get off topic because you want to thrill us with your knowledge about Nazism and I want to score inane points.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • You made the comparison with Nazi's. I did not. Who changed the context Rich? I responded and now you say I took it out of context. Which one context do you chose? Am I stepping a pet corn again? I will refrain from being "out of context". Nick surmised the context well enough.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Rich:

    It's nothing to do with respecting elders. The age of the person is irrelevant.

    You are, I think, missing the entire point, which is this:

    If someone can be proved to have acted in an outrageous, secretive fashion that demonstrates dishonorable actions at an official level (and they continue to do that for years etc), then by all means that person should be hauled over the coals.

    And if a description of being lacking in honor is warranted, then by all means shout it from the rooftops.

    But, what I feel you are failing to note that with these 2 guys we are not in a position to do that.

    And why not? Here's why:

    We have 2 elderly guys in their 80s who don't know Tony and vice-versa.

    He phones them up and asks questions about their military career and Roswell.

    They choose to answer to a fairly limited degree, and in a near none-at-all fashion when it comes to Roswell.

    And that's it. The rest - the idea that the 2 guys know more and are holding it back - is an assumption based on their unwilligness to talk.

    Some may disagree with me, but in my own personal view, if someone phones someone else out of the blue (when neither party is acquainted), asks questions about their military career, and the person receiving the call chooses not to talk with someone they don't know, this is simply not enough evidence to (A) infer they are hiding deep secrets about Roswell; (B) name that person; (C) publish their name on the Internet; and (D) also state they lack honor and say that the future will not view them with favor.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • "Tony and I know that some of his veterans do have fear in their old, frail hearts, and fears for their families."

    Can you substantiate this vague claim in more specific terms?

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Rich:

    You say: "You place a higher value on honor than on truth.'

    That's got nothing to do with it.

    It has to do with calling these 2 guys dishonorable, when all we have in terms of facts are that the 2 guys were reluctant to talk on the phone with someone (Tony) they didn't know, about the military careers.

    That's why I feel Tony is wrong. Truth is of paramount importance. But, no one has proved these guys are lying, obfuscating etc.

    Not wanting to talk about their time in the military is a big jump to being accused of hiding truths of Roswell and lacking honor.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Inane points? here we go again.
    You are determined like Tony to edit anything that falls outside of a rigid purview and you react with typical sarcasms as if you were in some sort of sanctified certainty. Its ludicrous. Who is being inane? I let the readers judge this, yes?
    Or edit me out of this whole inane topic of Roswell.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Nick-

    People who knowingly deny being a serviceman when they were is as 'untruthful' as someone who says that they were a serviceman when they were not.

    And I do not expect a uniform response to my inquiries of course- but I also don't expect wholesale denial either.


    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Bruce...

    My Nazi reference was a point, not the gist of my comment.

    But you, like others here, will fixate on the point and not the gist -- because that's an easier thing to do?

    It's truth vs honor we're discussing, or trying to.

    Tony is after truth -- he is obsessed with it.

    I, on the other hand, don't swell up with a need for truth, and I do see a falsity in the refuge of honor.

    Honor is a meaningless term, not a categorical imperative.

    Honor changes with circumstances; truth doesn't....real truth, anyway.

    I let you get away with sidestepping the gist of my remarks because you need to do that.

    I know why and I allow it.

    But, in this matter, you and Nick don't understand what Tony is after, and how gently he has pursued the matter with the veterans you (and Nick) think he's excoriating.

    He isn't attacking the men's honor in general.

    He's chastising their lack of honor for the truth, which should be paramount for any man or woman.

    I see some jealousy here. Tony does the legwork and we internet spouters sit on our asses and eschew his hard work with a lame attempt to scold him for apparently being harsh on some dissolute old men who were in the military.

    Give me (and him) a break.

    Quit whining about some frail oldsters getting nailed for hiding behind some kind of misplaced honor.

    Please....it's intelectually unworthy of you and Nick. It really is.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • No, Bruce, I have other things to do than engage further in this claptrap about honor,

    It's not a thing worthy of any more of my time as I've outlined earlier here.

    I have socks to sort and underwear to fold.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Rich:

    You say of Tony: "He isn't attacking the men's honor in general. He's chastising their lack of honor for the truth, which should be paramount for any man or woman."

    No, read his last words, in the final sentence of his posts. He speaks of them denying their time in the service and says that's not honorable, but he does NOT differentiate between that and honor in general.

    Rather, he says of them, that they are "not 'honorable' men." PERIOD.

    And, again, Tony's biggest mistake in saying these guys lack honor is because he assumes the silence is related to what they know, and he believes they should tell the truth.

    Nothing wrong with that. But we don't KNOW that's the reason. Tony's "honor" comment is based on an assumption of the guys knowing something, not of proof that they know something.

    And, at the very least, with that area being murky, he should not have made the "honor" comments on the Net, with their names etc, while the reason behind their reluctance to talk remains cloudy.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Nick:

    I'm going to try and wrap this up, if possible...

    These old men lied to Tony. They are denying they were in the service at Roswell, when they were in fact there and in the service.

    That, in itself, is dishonorable.

    Now Bruce, who is an old man, like me, is defending his life-position, not knowing anything at all about the old guys, whereas Tony has some connections, as feeble as those connections may be.

    The old men are liars; they are not honorable men in my world and one can call them out, as Tony has.

    Defending liars is anathema to moral and ethical values.

    That's the gist of his posting.

    To misread it baffles me.

    I expect Bruce to misread it. He has a penchant for doing so...now don't get angry Bruce, it's a truth you have to come to grips with.

    But you, Nick, not getting the nuance I'm trying to clarify, as is Tony, is baffling.

    These old guys are fair game, because they are lying, hiding their time at Roswell.

    Tony has nailed them, and I'm behind him all the way.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Tony:

    "People who knowingly deny being a serviceman when they were is as 'untruthful' as someone who says that they were a serviceman when they were not."

    And people who are placed on the spot with a phone call from someone they don't know, asking probing questions about their military career, may sometimes say something to get the caller off their back - which can apply to whether they are hiding something huge, or something trivial.

    Me and Dana get tele-marketers calling us all the time, usually at annoying times when we are watching TV. Sometimes I tell them to, literally, fuck off. Other times, if they ask for us by name, "I say there's no-one here named Redfern."

    Is that dishonorable if I say "you have the wrong number"? No, it's not. It's a way of trying to stop unwanted calls. It's dealing with an unwanted phone call that comes out of the blue and when you don't want to talk to that person.

    Your 2 guys may know more, or having been based at Roswell - and possibly being fully aware of the pop-culture that has grown up around the Roswell case - they claimed no Roswell backgrounds because they feared being linked to a story they had no actual personal knowledge of, so they chose to deny their military history.

    So, they may have been put on the spot, and didn't want to talk to what they might have perceived as a "UFO nut" (which, I hasten to add you are not, but we ALL are in the eyes of the public), and so they chose to try and end the call as quickly as possible.

    Is that enough reason to name them on the Internet as being dishonrable? In my view, no. Unless, we have substantial data to suggest they were hiding things, rather than just not wanting to talk to you for reasons which are not clear, but in your view are reasons enough to question their honor.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Nick, let's move on...


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Rich:

    Yep, I understand your position, and I understand Tony's position.

    But my position is this: 2 old guys placed on the spot by a voice on the phone they don't know, asking questions about their military careers, may have made them reluctant to talk. And so, placed on the spot, they crossed the line in a way that denied their military careers.

    To then loudly state in a blog-post that this makes them dishonorable is over-the-top.

    Tony's outrage and commentary is not based on the fact that they denied their military careers - period.

    His outrage is based on his belief that this denial means the 2 know more about Roswell than they are letting on. Maybe they do, but...



    Yep, I'm cool too with wrapping this up. I accept you and Tony have your opinions, and I hope you understand mine, even if you don't agree with it. I suspect none of us are going to budge on this one!

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • I will wrap up as well on Nick's common sense approach and that is that.
    "Whereas Tony has some connections, as feeble as those connections may be."
    Until the connections (as Nick and I have said) are substantiated, by anyone's standard..journalistic standard for an example, they cannot be determined to be a fact versus an assumption.
    Further..anyone who has read the piece comes away with simply innuendo. Whether there is substantiation or not seems to treated as if it were beside the point.
    There is a telling discernment here from my point of view, which you probably loath at this point..and it is your repeating that You and Tony are right and Nick and I are wrong. No middle ground. Concurrently we are discussing unsubstantiated guesses. Tony may be right..Tony may be wrong..but if you stand back and reread the dialog we are debating assumptions that can fall either way.
    Speaking for myself, if you re-read my inane comments, all I am saying is when being right is more important than balancing the quest for the truth with some doubt involved, it's problematic if you want the truth.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Yah, Nick, we're at an impasse.

    Just let me say that these guys got an inclination that Tony was a legitimate researcher.

    He (Tony) has credentials for such as part of his business.

    Tony gave these guys information that indicated they were in Roswell in 1947.

    That they denied this was insulting and futile....Tony has the goods!

    They should be called out.

    But you defend their honor. (Your dad was a military man, no?)

    That's a kind thing to do.

    Misapplied here, but kind.

    (Now I see another comment has come in from Bruce, who is surely pissed at me, so I have to decide whether or not to go forward with this....I'm inclined not to.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Rich:

    I don't do it out of kindness at all.

    I said what I said for one very simple reason:

    We DON'T KNOW why they denied things to Tony.

    They might have seen the bodies. They might have recovered the bodies. They might have taken photos of the bodies, or of debris.

    Or...they may have wanted to get someone off their backs who they don't know, and who phones them up, and starts talking about UFOs, Roswell etc.

    My only point is that - right now, with such fragmentary phone converations in hand - it's way too premature to attack them in the fashion Tony did.

    That was, and really is, my chief point. As I said in my first comment on this thread, I actually had no problem with the whole article at all - that last paragraph aside.

    And, no, despite your words, there's absolutely no jealousy on my part. I know Tony is digging and digging, and I very sincerely hope persisence pays off. We all do, and if Tony is the guy who finds it, then more power to him.

    But, I need more than comments of denial on the phone (comments which, incidentally and ironically, prove NOTHING about the Roswell case) before I make a written assault on someone's character and their honor as a person.

    As I said, my approach would have been - after having been faced with the denial - to send a detailed letter to the guys, explaining what I was doing and why, and go into as much detail as possible about the importance of it all, etc etc.

    That would be the journalistic approach - of pushing and probing for more data, info, testimony and trying to cultivate the guys to talk.

    Going off in a loud emotional fashion about their honor is likely to close the doors before they have barely opened, which is a pity.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • And that was definitely my last word on this aspect of Tony's article!

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • As I pointed out in AJB's blog, AJB has arranged things so that he wins either way.

    If the said witnesses tell him they DID see a wrecked craft or bodies, or possibly both, this is powerful evidence for ETs at Roswell.

    However, if a witness refuses to talk about his time at Roswell or to deny any bodies or craft, this too is powerful evidence for ETs at Roswell.

    A case of heads Tony wins, tails the skeptics lose, isn't it?

    But then that has been the problem with the case for the past 32 years.

    Honor? Why not reserve judgment on this until either:
    (i) we have met the witnesses face to face.
    (ii)we hear the full unedited conversation between AJB and these men.

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • @ Tony,

    Just curious :
    I'm interrested to know as how you introduced exactly yourself in the interviews, etc. Then how was your interview "standardized" in essence.
    It is possible to have the exact transcriptions ? Or ?

    Again no offense, but frankly as usual, I have discovered by the past that how to conduct an interview (I mean as done by historians, psychologists, criminologists,...) is not your cup of tea. It seems your team have not recruited specialists of "cognitive interviews" :(

    Secondary, as already evokated here, I think you are "submerged" by your own expectations concerning Roswell and then you have the same hight risk to be victim of confirmation bias.
    Because you believe Roswell is an alien crashed craft, you are waiting some desired answers. If you dont obtain them, you are invokating "no honor things", "blabla", etc".

    In other words, you are, imho, demonstrating here that the Roswell Dream Team is not full of benevolent neutrality, or neutrality in short. That's a problem imho.
    That's a pity too cause your team have pretended and have assured the contrary (Kevin Randle in his very interresting blog). Well, you will change it maybe ;)

    I expect to read more of your re-investigation of the case, but again, I'm guessing nothing new on the sun.

    Regards and Respect,


    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Ohmygawd!

    Now France has checked in.

    The matter is closed here.

    If some would like to continue the "debate," I suggest they go to Tony's blog and have at it.



    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • I think everyone is missing the point about what Mr. Bragalia is using for his source to call these gentlemen liars. He is using the 1947 yearbook as his document that shows they were there in 1947. The gentlemen stated they were there in 1946 and part of 1947. It seems highly probable that they were included in the yearbook because they were there for part of 1947. For those of us, who actually served in the military, transfers are a way of life and during the year, I would not be surprised to see a 20-25% turnover rate in Personnel at RAAF. Calling them liars, worse than nazis, and dishonorable is just not being fair without looking at the possibilites. Until Mr. Bragalia can present an actual document showing they were there in July of 1947 (and not just the 1947 yearbook), then it seems quite plausible they were telling the truth.

    By Blogger Tim Printy, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Some people believe that their souls are redeemed when they confess their 'sins' to a third, perhaps neutral, party. Some, however, believe that Truth is little more than what can be proved.

    Where will the Truth of Roswell 'go' when these old guys finally pass on? Will it stay in the 'mind of God' forever? Or, will it disappear into the abyss -- so as to seemingly never have happened?

    If they did participate in something unconscionable, perhaps they believe that their keeping it a secret will keep it from the history books -- and ultimately, from being proved.

    And if they have no conception of a Transcendent God/Truth, and it cannot be proved, then for all practical purposes, it never happened...at least for them.

    Is there honor in swearing an oath to keep a secret? Are you not condemned to an untruth by doing so?

    If you break the oath, and 'spill the beans', you make your oath into a lie.

    And if you keep to the oath, and deny even the undeniable, you are also lying.

    It seems a clear case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Of course Mr. Printy conveniently omits mention of the serviceman (Robert E.) who said he was never at Roswell period. He admitted to being in the Army Air Force, but not to being at Roswell.

    Again, Tim, these men knew perfectly well why I was calling and what they were going to say or not say.

    And these are but two of many examples of such 'deniers.' And I am not the only one to have experienced a situation where a vet from Roswell denied that he was a vet from Roswell.


    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Tim:

    Here's the premise...

    Anthony Bragalia knows what he's doing. He's a professional and his business, his livelihood, is dependent upon him being professional, with his interviews and gathering of material and information for his clients, who are among some of the most important constructs and organizations in this country.

    (I can say no more about that.)

    To allegate that Tony doesn't know what he's doing is a slur without foundation.

    He's not a run-of-the-mill ufologist and screw-up, as has been the case with most everyone else in the UFO field.

    Let me assure you that the old guys he got hold hold of were treated professionally and kindly by Mr. Bragalia, who operates like a saint, -- something I've chided him about in the past but which he won't change; he's a gentleman in the truest sense of the word.

    The men, old as they were, at the brink of senility as I see it, lied, blatantly and without flinching one whit.

    They think the government will still get them....paranoidal behavior, not exactly faulty thinking however...and some want to preserve pensions for their loved ones.

    Roswell and the idiocy of it have little if anything to do with their holding back the truth.

    The old men are maintaining a stance that isn't honorable, as some of us see it.

    That's all.

    Tony calls them on that and he has my support, for what little it may be worth, and he has the support of our resident ethicist in Ann Arbor.

    Playing footsies with liars who are near death but still can't take a moral stance would be complicit in their moral depravity.

    Tony doesn't play that way.

    He's an upfront guy, with true Christian values.

    I wish I had his values.

    I wish some of you did also.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • I see your response above as a low point for you, Rich.

    Tony has proven in almost everything I have ever read by him that he has no idea how to make conclusions about his research. He ALWAYS overstates his results and shows ZERO introspection in regards to what he writes.

    Take, for instance, his idiotic recent piece about an internet Magic 8 Ball (supposedly you can enter text into it and determine if the speaker is telling he truth). It took mere moments for folks to enter known lies into the thing and get "Truthful" responses. In other words, it was shown CONCLUSIVELY that the whole idea was incredibly stupid and that only very stupid people could possibly take any of that crap seriously.

    Most of Tony's conclusions (as opposed to the very interesting data he sometimes finds) are childish and laughable.

    It has come to the point for me that if Tony makes a conclusion, you can count on it being wrong.

    You are certainly smart enough to see that, which makes your response so disappointing.



    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Lance:

    You're familiar I imagine with the work of Edward de Bono: New Think, The Mechinism of Mind, et cetera.

    He's the guy who coined "thinking outside the box."

    He's a favorite of mine, and why I like Bragalia's work -- Tony thinks outside the box.

    Tony is a theoretical ufologist not a slack-jawed ass like those you usually chastise.

    I support him, just as I support you, CDA, and Gilles Fernandez.

    You guys are thinkers, each with a raft of peccadilloes that one might find wanting, intellectually.

    But I like "new think" and I like Tony's bravado, which is why we've given him a blog venue with us, just as we have with Jose Caravaca.

    These fellows bring new slants to the UFO enigma.

    And I support them wholeheartedly.

    You may not like Tony's bravado or methodology, but I do, and that's all that counts here, at this blog or at our other blog sites.

    You can criticize him in comments and I will try to offset your criticism if warranted.

    I consider Nick Redfern a dear friend, and yet we differ on some issues.

    But Nick knows it's part of the UFO game, and accepts my stances that differ with his.

    Nick takes an academic, intellectual approach.

    You can try and tease me into going against Tony, by feigning shame with my support of him.

    But that won't work with me. I'm a psychological journalist.

    I know all the tricks one can try to get their view(s) adopted or accepted.

    You've made your point about Tony.

    We've allowed it.

    Now lets move away from personal animus to the gist of what he's saying -- his veterans lied, for whatever reason(s).

    That is not honorable.

    And don't drag the idiocies that have encrusted the Roswell story into the mix.

    Those have nothing to do with Tony's posting or position.

    I'm done with this.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 16, 2012  

  • Rich:

    You wrote:

    "The men, old as they were, at the brink of senility as I see it, lied, blatantly and without flinching one whit."

    Please read again the words Bragalia used in his account and check whether these men "lied blatantly..."

    That is not my impression. Have you seen or heard the full transcripts of the conversations?

    You see how easy it is to label someone a liar. Each and everyone does it from time to time. Then people take offense, accusers retract what they said, apologise, claim it was "out of context" and so on.

    But in this case I assume the two ageing 'witnesses' will not be able to respond and claim they were the victim of slurs.

    My impression is that both of them tried to avoid talking about Roswell, not because they knew anything of interest, but because they did not want, at their advanced age, to 'get involved', etc. The idea that they were frightened of revealing some dark secret is purely AJB's interpretation on it, and is not at all obvious from his account.

    AJB can always console himself with one thing: each of them may one day make a deathbed confession.
    Just like a few others did.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, January 17, 2012  

  • Christopher:

    Tony only provided a few examples in his posting.

    I, like him, have been privy to other instances of the denials.

    Tony could provide a slew more but since we input his postings, I think he held back from offering a huge blog post to save us (me) from the laborious task of formatting his post, which I've bitched about in the past.

    But that aside...

    You're quibbling over semantics, which one can and should be discarded here.

    These old, like you and me, men, lied in the face of documentation that showed them being at Roswell in the 1947 flying disk time-frame.

    Why did they lie?

    All they had to do was say, "Yes, I was stationed at Roswell but I don't want to talk about it, with you Mr. Bragalia."

    The old men were disingenuous, at least, and I'm ashamed to be in the same (or nearly so) age category as they are.

    Now if you and others want to get into a belabored discussion about honor and lying and moral imperatives, let me know.

    I'll start a post where those issues will not be cluttered by the idiotic vicissitudes of Roswell.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 17, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home