UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Ufological censorship and envy

I see that Paul Kimball is over at Kevin Randle’s blog railing against Anthony Bragalia.

Why not here, Paul?

And Lance Moody has slid into the anti-Bragalia mode there also…probably because I won’t let him get a foothold here.

Paul and Lance are guys who would censor weird UFO ideas and methodologies that offend them.

This is a topic, UFOs, where there is no core, no moral or scientific rectitude, about which one (or many) can revolve, intellectually.

The UFO enigma eludes ratiocination. The very unknown nature of UFOs prevents sensible reasoning.

And since Mr, Bragalia engages in hyperbole and obtuse, but interesting to me, research, we, the RRRGroup, give him an open forum.

Mr. Moody is a reactionary, a debunker and skeptic. I like his skepticism.

But he would censor and censure the likes of Mr. Bragalia but never dare to go after the UFO UpDate quidnuncs who give reason and commons sense a bad name.

Mr. Moody, as far as I know, doesn’t theorize about UFOs. He just attacks those who do.

Now don’t get me wrong, I like, as I said, Lance Moody, and when he comes here to comment, I’ll engage him in counter-argument if need be….to no avail, but at least face-to-face as it were.

Paul Kimball is a “friend” of mine or so I believe.

He has a thing about Mr. Bragalia, and Scott Ramsey – the Aztec crash promoter.

I’m not privy to why he “hates” these men or, rather, their ideas.

But to lump Mr. Bragalia in with the likes of Kal Korff and other UFO reprobates is shameful and unreasoned.

That Lance and Paul go to great lengths to besmirch Mr. Bragalia offends me.

I know how hard Mr. Bragalia works to get at what he thinks are important UFO issues.

We, Tony and I, are not on the same page about many things.

I don’t think the Zamora/Socorro event was a prank, but Tony has mustered some intriguing circumstantial evidence for his view that it was.

And I think the Wanaque UFO beam photo is a hoax, but Tony, again, has gathered information that belies my hoax opinion.

As for Roswell, the story is so screwed up now that one can’t have a sensible opinion about it, although Kevin Randle’s “Dream Team” is going to try to clear away the dross and get back to the facts and/or the reality of the “incident.”

I say let them have at it, cold-case style.

Mr. Bragalia has hovered around Roswell for some time, with memory metal follow-ups and his latest probe that has caused a ruckus: Veterans who say they weren’t at Roswell during the 1947 episode but whose military records indicate otherwise.

Tony calls their denials of service dishonorable, which make Paul and Lance, and others (CDA and Gilles Fernandez) to cringe.

Now the cringers haven’t talked with the veterans. Mr. Bragalia has.

He is competent, in my mind, to ascertain whether these old men are lying or holding back information, and Mr. Bragalia is better suited to pass judgement on their positions than anyone else….he (Tony) has made a connection with them.

That Lance, CDA, Paul, Tim Printy, et al. don’t like how Mr. Bragalia has defined these veterans’ responses is fair game.

But to attack Mr. Bragalia’s conclusions because they – the cringers – have some misplaced affection for old guys who were in the military and now refuse to admit to such is intellectual insanity.

It’s an attempt to control the UFO debate, which is a sin of UFO UpDaters, like UFO compiler, Jerry Clark and his lackey Don Ledger who try to do that with obtuse views at Errol Bruce-Knapp’s forum.

I won’t allow a censoring of Anthony Bragalia, or my own oblique views, or anyone else’s that we choose to highlight here.

That they have carte blanche to use Kevin Randle’s blog to vent their spleens is fine with me.

But they won’t get an easy path to show their envy or unreasoning personal attacks here without a fight from me.

That’s all….now back to the UFO phenomenon, which is what we all should be trying to explain.

RR

43 Comments:

  • Hi Rich,

    Gosh, I thought I did send you my comment here, too! And I see that you published it!

    I'm not in disagreement with you in the idea that Tony has found interesting facts, etc. He has. This is (for me) about the false, misleading, and stupid claims he then makes using that data.

    I certainly would expect you to be able to make that distinction but alas, you don't. Or maybe you are just having a laugh? I would find that awesome!

    As I mentioned previously, Tony's recent Magic 8 Ball CONFIRMATION of Roswell testimony delivers a new low in Roswell "research"

    As for the new piffle, I don't know anything about the men Tony interviewed but I do know something about recollections from long ago.

    In my one real foray into amateur research (the Otis T. Carr case from the 1950's), I interviewed many many folks about the case. I am quite convinced that I am the foremost expert on this obscure topic (which no one cares about, I realize).

    This research did open my eyes to one inescapable fact: I was getting diametrically opposed testimony from folks who were all at the same place together viewing the same unusual event.

    I could choose the testimony of one of those folks and run with it, proclaiming it to be the truth. This is often what happens in UFO writing. And the cheesy authors always go with the testimony that has the most OOGA BOOGA!

    But operating like this is dishonest and I think it should be avoided.

    The story that Tony wrote only shows dishonesty from one person, I you ask me.

    But I would never ask anyone to censor anyone else.

    I just appreciate the idea that you allow some of us to point and laugh and that's enough for me.

    "One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms."
    -Mencken

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Tuesday, January 17, 2012  

  • You know, Lance, I give you much leeway here.

    (I actually don't publish some comments -- those that are incendiary and/or just really off topic or stupid.)

    There are contingencies and information that Tony hasn't disclosed, for reasons of his duty to his Dream Team members I think.

    And he hasn't been totally forthcoming with me, but I have seen a few interactions that should he present would make him less sensationlized in appearance.

    But he has an ego, like the rest of us, and does hype his stuff with CAPS and self-promoting inserts.

    I like that, as one needs to publicize one's efforts to get notice in the maelstrom of UFO detritus.

    Paul Kimball is a great self-promoter and explained to me why that is so when I scoffed at his promotions in Stuart Miller's Alien Worlds magazine.

    Tony Bragalia isn't a run-of-the-mill UFO guy.

    He has a business that runs in tandem, somewhat, with UFOs and related issues.

    Ans he's successful at it.

    As for the Magic 8-Ball thing, I'm all for it.

    Any attempt to dredge up something hitherto hidden is fine with me.

    UFOs are, for me, a curiosity, as you well know.

    One can do with them what you want.

    But being mean just to be mean, as is the case at UpDates by Ledger and Clark, and a few others is irritating.

    If someone is stupid or presents stupid comments here, I'll engage them, or ignore them.

    As the great anthropologist Ashley Montagu told us in his book, The Cultured Man, the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference.

    You fellows aren't indifferent when it comes to Bragalia, you actually....well, you know.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 17, 2012  

  • Rich:

    No-one - I think - is criticizing Tony for having an opinion of these guys, even a negative opinion per se.

    If criticism is warranted, then by all means criticize!

    But, look at the reality - one of the guys admitted to having been at Roswell, but thought it was 1946, not 1947!

    He's in his 80s!

    And yes, Tony did the interview, not me.

    But, criticizing in such a fashion an old guy who admitted being at Roswell, who is in his 80s, who was off by only one year etc...well, an argument could be made we should give the guy some slack - UNTIL we can say for sure his statement was a lie, or an attempt to keep Tony away from what he, the guy, knew about Roswell...rather than a very old man being off by 1-year on when he was stationed at Roswell more than 60 years ago!

    Criticism of the guys is fine (even public criticism), if it's warranted and if it can be PROVED to be warranted.

    That is when Tony should have made that statement - when he could have proved that the statements were not made in error, but were made in relation to an attempt to keep the Roswell affair buried.

    Tony made an outrageous statement about their honor, because he concluded - without evidence or proof - that the 1946 issue etc were attempts to not talk with him about what they knew about Roswell.

    That was his big mistake - going off on these guys based on his BELIEF they were holding back for reasons specfically related to what they knew about the Roswell case.

    Making the type of statement he did based on belief and opinion, not fact or evidence, is plain wrong - anyone should be able to see that.

    Maybe they were hiding something. Maybe they weren't and it's all due to old age.

    We'll surely never know, though, because I'm sure this emotional approach of Tony's will forever close the doors on these guys and their families ever wanting to talk to anyone ever again in the Roswell research community.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Tuesday, January 17, 2012  

  • Nick:

    You and others are grossly misreading -- surprisingly (to me) -- Tony's last paragraph.

    He's not impugning these veterans because they won't admit to Roswell.

    He's impugning their honor for denying their service record and duty at Roswell.

    The Roswell incident isn't the gist of Tony's ire.

    I think Tony's position is clear.

    That you and others do not, has me scratching my head.

    There's some kind of mental block you fellows have developed about this.

    And one could analyze that block, but I prefer not to, although I'm hinting at what I think in the posting here.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 17, 2012  

  • "As for Roswell, the story is so screwed up now that one can’t have a sensible opinion about it, although Kevin Randle’s “Dream Team” is going to try to clear away the dross and get back to the facts and/or the reality of the “incident.”

    Best part of your article. I've been reluctant to even step into this "self-made" version of quick sand owing to the blurring of any relevant facts that may still remain.

    And for what it's worth, after reading Mr. Bragalia's article, as a former Air Force officer I too "cringed" regarding his final conclusions.

    Yet, ironically, after working on the 1967 Malmstrom AFB case,I was accused of questioning the "honor" and "integrity" of my fellow officers.

    It appears that such things are in the eye of the beholder.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, January 17, 2012  

  • Rich:

    Ok, so you are saying the ENTIRE and SOLE point of Tony's blast against these guys was ONLY because of the issue concerning (a) where and when they were based and (b) the denial?

    You are wrong.

    Here's why: Go back and read what Tony said in the last 4 lines of his post.

    He makes it clear that he's not just criticzing the guys for denying where they were satation etc.

    In his own words, Tony says that he is criticizing the guys for denying their service (QUOTE) "...because of what happened during that time and at that place."

    This makes it VERY clear that Tony's stance, statement, etc is not just based around their denial of military service at Roswell, but also because of, in Tony's own words, specifically what happened there.

    Anyone can see that Tony's "honor" comment in the last section of his post covers both issues.

    Unless you might want to interpret "what happened there" as daily stuff like changing the tires on an aircraft, which I know you surely don't.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Tuesday, January 17, 2012  

  • Nick:

    I've never seen you so worked up about such a "minor" issue.

    I've made my position clear:

    Tony's ire and judgment that the veterans were not being honorable by denying their service at Roswell in 1947 is a legitimate assessment as I see it.

    You, Lance, CDA, et al. differ with my view and, obviously, Tony's.

    I get that.

    As I keep stressing, we are at an impasse about this.

    It's time to move on.

    We've all made our points, and no one is about to change their minds.

    I'm tired of the "debate." Tony has made his post.

    We've placed it online.

    And I'm not overwrought by his conclusion.

    Veterans, while deserving of our appreciation and thanks for their service, if they went to war, are not sacred cows, nor are they above reproach.

    The Marines who urinated on Taliban bodies show how despicable military men can be.

    The My Lai episode in Viet Nam is another example of dishonorable behavior.

    While Tony's veteran's aren't evil in their disavowal of service, they are being disingenuous, and why?

    That's the question.

    They aren't just shirking a stranger's inquiry.

    They are out-and-out lying.

    Over and out....

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 17, 2012  

  • I'm hoping this will be my final comment/observation on this matter:

    Here's where I stand, and how I perceive things:

    Tony contacted two old guys, who were stationed at Roswell.

    They denied or preferred not to comment on some things.

    Tony concluded - but without proof - that this runaround on their part was connected with the Roswell affair.

    Not getting what he wanted, Tony wrote an emotion-driven commentary about them on the Net that focused on both their denial of being at Roswell and the Roswell event.

    What he should have done - when faced with people reluctant to talk is to have further tried to contact them, using different tactics (letters etc), try to assure the guys that he was doing something for a cause that was important, and carefully noting to them that the USAF denied anything unusual or national security-based happened at Roswell, which means - basically - there's no harm in anyone talking about it.

    When a researcher gets the door shut in their face, they should find other ways to get that door open again.

    Tony, by his comments, effcetively placed several extra locks and chains on that door all by himself, and has now made the job even harder of trying to forge some sort of exchange with these guys!

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Tuesday, January 17, 2012  

  • Rich

    I just posted a comment, saying I hoped it would be my last on this topic. I hope this one will now be my last!

    I don't view it as minor, because it's calling someone dishonorable when, basically all they did, was to demonstrate very clearly they didn't want to talk to someone they didn't know (Tony) - and that's all we can say for sure.

    We can go on and on about whether there was some conspiratorial reason for that, or if it was due to the ravages of old age.

    But, UNTIL WE KNOW FOR SURE, now is surely not the time to label 2 old guys on the Net as dishonorable.

    So, that's why, for me, it's not a minor issue. The gun was massively jumped, so to speak.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Tuesday, January 17, 2012  

  • Nick..

    Let it go...

    I'm begging you.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 17, 2012  

  • I will, I have said what I think, and I'm cool with closing it there on this issue.

    Although I do look forward to the next chapter in the Roswell saga!

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Tuesday, January 17, 2012  

  • Hahaha, well this UFO business makes for strange bedfellows. It wasn't so long ago Lance was killing Paul over his Top 10 UFO documentary.

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Tuesday, January 17, 2012  

  • What he should have done - when faced with people reluctant to talk is to have further tried to contact them, using different tactics (letters etc)

    Nick,

    Do you honestly believe that those veterans, and/or their wives, will make it onto the net and actually read Tony's conclusion?

    Let's suppose that what they said was entirely truthful. If that's the case, then isn't it true that they SHOULD have simply dismissed the call and went about their lives as they normally would?

    It seems to me that the most likely way they'd actually stumble upon Tony's conclusion is if they were lying, and wanted to find out what the 'investigator' was able to piece together. And if that's the case, then don't they deserve to find his conclusion -- since it would certainly apply?

    I just don't see how it is likely that they'd find his conclusion on this vast internet, unless they specifically went digging for it. And I don't see a scenario (that makes sense) where they'd simultaneously retain their 'honorable' status, while digging around on the topic.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Tuesday, January 17, 2012  

  • And maybe these "old guys" simply didn't want to get dragged into the whole Roswell garbage dump, where statements are misinterpreted, over-interpreted, taken out of context, and subtly altered to suit a pre-existing belief. Or maybe they didn't want to be hounded in their twilight years by a lot a follow up crazies badgering them with leading questions about something they only dimly remember if at all. Hell, some of them probably can't remember their kid's names.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Tuesday, January 17, 2012  

  • PG...

    I think you may have something there.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 17, 2012  

  • Parakletos:

    When you say will they "make it onto the net," that sounds almost like you're saying people in their 80s are dumb fucks who can't use the Net.

    My dad is in his 80th year and (amazing!) he knows how to use Google!!!! He knows what email is! He even opens attachments! He actually searches the Net! Yes, amazing that he's in his 80s and can even do this, huh?!

    My wife's grandmother is 92 and - goodness me - she has an email address! Whatever next? Oldies being able to eat for themselves without being spoon-fed? Surely not?!

    Yes, that is sarcasm.

    Look, Tony told them his name, and what he was doing etc, and told them it was in the context of the Roswell story.

    They have his first and last name (which is not an overly common last name), and his blog is called "The Bragalia Files"!!

    I would say typing "Bragalia" and "Roswell" into Google (even for someone in their 80s!) would soon find the story.

    Of course, they may choose not to do that.

    But, my point when I said the following words you quoted: "What he should have done - when faced with people reluctant to talk is to have further tried to contact them, using different tactics (letters etc)" is that this response of Tony's will surely close the door on these guys ever saying anything again about Roswell.

    Maybe they do know something, and maybe under the right circumstance - such as careful cultivation, and trying to nurture a working relationship - would have revealed something significant.

    I doubt that blasting them as lacking in honor will want either of them to particularly chat with anyone again about Roswell - at least from within the UFO community.

    That's what I see the fall-out from this - an emotional repsonse relative to the characters of these guys has effectively shut down 2 leads that may (or indeed may not) be important, given they are among the last few people stationed at Roswell in the era who are still alive and MAY know something.

    And that's not a positive step forwards at all. The stakes are so high (potentially) that these interviews (with the last survivors) should be handled with incredible care - and that goes for the response too (publicly on the Net, privately or otherwise).

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, January 18, 2012  

  • PG:

    You are correct - this gets to the crux of this whole debate. We don't know WHY they chose to hold back, deny etc.

    Look at this way: we all know what the general opinion of UFO researchers is from the public and the media (or the stereotypical image) - slightly odd, socially inept people who see CIA agents watching them and the FBI tapping their phones.

    The reality is that most UFO researchers are normal people, with regular lives, families, friends etc, but they have a hobby or a passion that some people find odd.

    If I was not exposed to the UFO phenomenon, but had been stationed at a military base years earlier, regardless of if I knew anything about the case, I'm not sure i would want to talk to someone who phones out the blue, asking about a UFO event and wanting answers from me. Not just because I might or might not have known something, but because of the general perception of what a "UFO researcher" is!

    As I noted in a previous comment on the first post on all this controversy, Tony is not a crazy Ufologist, but in the minds of many outside of our field, ALL UFO people are crazy as loons.

    People in our field should remember this final point as it's very important - the press and the public do not view us as we view us. And, sometimes, that is demonstrated by the way they react when dealing with us.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, January 18, 2012  

  • These interviews were phone calls - nothing more. They are just more distant memory testimony. We already have more than enough of this. We need something far more substantial as I have said often before, but we never get this substantial evidence, and the dream team will likewise never find it.

    It ain't there, that's why.

    But again we hear of people (i.e. those ageing witnesses who saw nothing at all) allegedly covering up their involvement, even their presence, and being labelled as liars for doing so.

    Tony expunged their surnames. I wonder: would he have published their names if they had provided him with the evidence he so desperately wanted? In which case they would have been the exact opposite of liars, namely honest and truthful ex-military guys anxious to get the 'truth' revealed before their time on earth expired.

    Would you have done this, Tony?

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, January 18, 2012  

  • CDA:

    To an extent, the name deletion is irrelevant.

    Finding all the people in Lincoln, Nebraska who have the first name of Albert and a fairly distinctive middle initial of "O" is not difficult.

    As you may know, there are a lot of good sites you csn sign up to that allow access to an astonishing body of data on private citizens, if you want to go looking and are willing to pay...

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, January 18, 2012  

  • CDA-

    If someone who gives testimony agrees to have there name used- I will. In these cases, these servicemen would not even acknowledge their service at Roswell, so I elected not to use their full names.

    Of course, when testimony is given anonymously, CDA, you fault us. If they give testimony favorable to Roswell as ET, you fault us. If I list only part of their name, you fault us. I really do not know if you are capable of ever being 'satisfied' in any way ever with any kind of testimony- no matter from whom, when given, or what they say or do not say or how I ask the questions!

    And I will sum up again:

    If I had a son who was convicted of a heinous crime and a reporter called me about it, I would not say that he is not my son! I may say 'no comment' or that I do not wish to speak about it, or that I feel him to be innocent or guilty. But I would in no way ever deny him as my blood! In the same way, these servicemen could just as easily hung up or offered nothing. They played a game that they did not need to play.

    And CDA, its kind of a "you had to be there." The nuances and flow of such conversations are difficult to reflect in print. I made the damn calls and I know when someone is lying and artfully evasive for no reason. I can tell when someone is purposefully obfuscating. Until you start making such interview calls, you have some gall faulting how I do it! I may "push" - but CDA- if we do not get them to comment now, they will be dead before we ever can again. Should I just 'leave it alone' and not try to contact them? I really do not know where you are coming from on this at all.

    I will add that in the past day I have talked with two far more forthcoming servicemen who have affirmed that the two mentioned in the article were indeed at RAAF in July of '47. So we have the Yearbook confirmation and the confirmation of their comrades!

    Nick-

    These guys are not researching this on the Net- some are near blind!

    Lance-

    True to your last name "Moody" you run hot and cold. Nothing false, misleading or stupid about my claims. Name-call all you want. You know what they say about sticks and stones...

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Wednesday, January 18, 2012  

  • that sounds almost like you're saying people in their 80s are dumb fucks who can't use the Net.


    You must have missed that conjunctive 'and' which I used...

    What would motivate them to actually do the search in the first place?

    I never said, nor meant to imply, that an 80 year old couldn't effectively search the internet. I simply question why they would, given their limited 'testimony' over the phone.

    If what they said was all true, then it seems to me that they would soon forget about the phone call -- since they provided such little information.

    I would also stress that, in my experience, the vast majority of 80+ year olds don't care much about the internet.

    I don't think any doors were necessarily closed here.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Wednesday, January 18, 2012  

  • P:

    So what if in your experience most 80 year olds don't use the Net?

    SO WHAT??

    My father does, my wife's grandmother on her father's side is in her 90s and does, and her late grandmother on her mother's side of the family did until her death in her 80s.

    In 2 years, Stan Friedman will be 80. I am sure Stan will still be using the Net then, and will not suddenly develop an aversion to it because of a change from 70s to 80s.

    That most people you know don't use the Net is utterly irrelevant, and is an absolutely absurd thing to say to support your stance.

    I don't know anyone who spends their weekends playing dress-up in Civil War outfits. But people do!

    I don't know anyone who has a wooden leg or a glass-eye. But people do!

    You say: "What would motivate them to actually do the search in the first place?"

    Well, maybe, if someone calls someone else up out the blue, and asks questions about their military service (and provides their name, as Tony did to the two guys), after hanging up they might think, "What the hell was that all about?"

    They might well surf around looking for more data on Tony to see who he was, or they may get a family member to do so.

    If someone phoned me out the blue and asked about in-depth info concerning which school I went to, who my classmates were etc, and they gave a name, I'm pretty sure I would look them up on the Net to see who they were and why they were asking me those questions!

    But, then, I'm not in my 80s...and we can't expect people of that age who you say "don't care much about the internet" to take any further interest, can we?

    Actually, maybe we can.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, January 18, 2012  

  • Tony:

    You say: "Nick-These guys are not researching this on the Net- some are near blind!"

    Fair enough, I accept that.

    But, is it implausible that after getting off the phone (as per my comment to Parakletos, just now) they may have asked family members to further research YOU?

    Not by intensive digging, but by merely using the tools that most people use - namely typing your name into a search engine?

    If they do, and if they find what you said, and if they get pissed off by it, and if they really do know something of Roswell, you have shot yourself in the foot, and closed a door to data that could have possibly been of massive value.

    I actually hope they don't read what you said, and don't learn of it, because that might allow you and the Dream Team further access to the two guys, and allow you to take things further.

    I applaud you for tracking the guys down, finding them, interviewing them etc.

    But, when faced with denial and obfuscation, blasting them on the Net is not the right approach to take immediately after.

    The right approach is to think carefully on another avenue of approach, and keep on pushing and pushing them to talk in a fashion that doesn't drive them away - hence my "send them a letter" comment.

    I just don't understand, when you're dealing with a few of the very last survivors who may know something, you reacted the way you did, instead of thinking of other ways and means to cultivate their trust etc, and encourage them to speak.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, January 18, 2012  

  • That most people you know don't use the Net is utterly irrelevant, and is an absolutely absurd thing to say to support your stance.


    You are showing yourself to be quite the black and white thinker here...

    What exactly do you suppose my 'stance' is here? It's exactly what I said -- "I don't think any doors were necessarily closed here."

    Furthermore, it is not absurd for me to point out that MOST 80+ year olds do not use the internet. This is a matter of probabilities, is it not? Sure, you can point to plenty of cases where 80+ year olds do use the net, but what does that prove other than that there are some who break the norm?

    Furthermore, let's suppose you are correct -- let's assume that they do find the blog entry in question. Would you not expect them to write a reply to the posting defending their 'honor'? And in lieu of that reply, isn't it MORE LIKELY THAN NOT that they have not seen it?

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Wednesday, January 18, 2012  

  • I'm sure this emotional approach of Tony's will forever close the doors on these guys and their families ever wanting to talk to anyone ever again in the Roswell research community.


    Nick,

    You do not have enough data to make such a statement. You're not sure of any such thing.

    Again -- they'd have to be motivated to search. And assuming them to be so motivated, they'd then have to find. And after finding, they'd then have to be so incensed that they'd slam those doors shut.

    There are too many assumptions in that process for you to have any such certainty. Which is why you simply cannot draw the conclusion that you did. Is it possible? Yes. Likely? Probably not. Yet you are 'sure'... Hmmm....

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Wednesday, January 18, 2012  

  • P:

    You say:

    "What exactly do you suppose my 'stance' is here? It's exactly what I said -- 'I don't think any doors were necessarily closed here."

    They will be closed if the guys find out!! They will only stay open if the guys don't find out! Anyone should realize that!

    You also say:

    "Furthermore, it is not absurd for me to point out that MOST 80+ year olds do not use the internet. This is a matter of probabilities, is it not? Sure, you can point to plenty of cases where 80+ year olds do use the net, but what does that prove other than that there are some who break the norm?"

    "Break the norm?" I noted 3 people in my immediate family alone!!

    I'm 48 this year, and I can list 3 of my school friends whose parents use the Net, and not one is below 80. And that's just coming from me!

    You may be surprised how many do use the Net. Remember, the Net is not new anymore.

    Someone who uses the Net today and who is, say, 82, may have been using the Net since they were 69. In other words, an 80-plus person can, today in 2012, have had years of experience on the Net.

    You also say: "Furthermore, let's suppose you are correct -- let's assume that they do find the blog entry in question. Would you not expect them to write a reply to the posting defending their 'honor'?"

    No, I would not. What I would expect (although this doesn't help those of us who want the truth of Roswell to come out), is that all thanks to the comments that Tony made, they will likely tell the next person who phones up about Roswell to go to hell!

    You also say: "And in lieu of that reply, isn't it MORE LIKELY THAN NOT that they have not seen it?"

    Why? Tony gave them his name. His last name is not overly common. Typing "Anthony Bragalia + Roswell" into Google will find the post in mere minutes.

    That's all they, or a family member, needs to do. It's not quantum physics.

    And if they find out what Tony wrote about them re honor (or lack of) they will surely be pissed, and will surely not want anything to do with Ufology or ufologists! That's my point.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, January 18, 2012  

  • P:

    Yes, I am sure that if they read that someone had partially named them on the Net and cast a slur on their honor they will not want to talk with the UFO community again.

    I'm as sure as sure can be!

    You say: "Again -- they'd have to be motivated to search. And assuming them to be so motivated, they'd then have to find. And after finding, they'd then have to be so incensed that they'd slam those doors shut."

    Jesus Christ! Are you serious?

    You say: "They'd then have to find?" And you use the words "too many assumptions."

    Type Anthony Bragalia + Roswell into Google, and you will find it in no time!

    It's not like a quest to find the Ark of the Covenant, or life on Mars!

    Those guys have Tony's name, mere seconds of digging will find Tony's "The Bragalia Files" blog, and mere seconds after that will find the article and the comments.

    As I said though, I sincerely hope they remain unaware of the post.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, January 18, 2012  

  • I am sure that if they read that
    ...
    As I said though, I sincerely hope they remain unaware of the post.


    Now you're coming around to reason. Notice how you have changed from being CERTAIN that doors have been closed, to using a conditional 'if'.

    they will not want to talk with the UFO community again.

    Do you not see the hasty generalization you are making, and then transferring to these old people? Granted, your personality might be of the type to blame the group for the actions of only one of its members, but you have no reason to assume or expect that these veterans also reason in such a fallacious way.

    I noted 3 people in my immediate family alone!!

    And I can name 4 people in my immediate family who don't use the internet. It isn't important for me to prove that most do not. It is sufficient for me to show that some do not. You're the one who began with the certainty that doors were closed. I'm merely trying to demonstrate to you that you have no such certainty...logically speaking.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Wednesday, January 18, 2012  

  • Parakletos:

    You have your views, I have mine. We won't agree re who uses the Net and at what age they start or stop. And you think that Tony's words may not have an adverse effect. I, meanwhile, do!

    I'd suggest the next step is "wait and see."

    Maybe we will see these guys shut the door on Tony and all other Roswell researchers - in which case, a valuable but very costly lesson can be learned.

    If the 2 guys remain blissfully ignorant of what Tony said about them, and someone else calls them up, well...time may tell or it may not tell.

    But, I will say this: I think in terms of getting more people who may know something of Roswell to confide in us, Tony's public words on these guys did the Roswell research field no favors, in terms of nurturing and cultivating leads.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, January 18, 2012  

  • "Tony calls their denials of service dishonorable, which make Paul and Lance, and others (CDA and Gilles Fernandez) to cringe."

    Greetings,
    That's not "to cringe".
    Tony ones or the Roswell Dream Team must face a sort of "peer-review".
    Between the ones of us, skeptics or not, the last Tony blog post didn't reach such a "peer reviewed" agreement or a consensus. He received a zero by sereral of us.
    I imagine how it will if Tony or the Roswell Dream Team have the pretention to send or will to send such "works" to academical fields.
    ZERO too.

    I'm sorry, even if you congratulate Tony abnegation or the Roswell Dream Team interventions, Efforts, etc.
    That's again a zero pointed for what "we" have as standards in the Academic Fields.
    Sorry to be "rude", but well...
    Gilles, From France ^^

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Wednesday, January 18, 2012  

  • Gilles, mon ami...

    I appreciate your academic fervor, as you know, and apply the same at our Ann Arbor originated blogs.

    But when it comes to UFOs and Roswell, well, all's fair as I see it.

    Peer review for UFOs and/or Roswell? Ha ha!

    Tony nailed the old guys -- the veterans.

    Just as some of us have nailed the Roswell "witnesses."

    Tony seems harsh but he wasn't that way with the men on the telephone -- far from it.

    He was just harsh in his posting, for the UFO quidnuncs who read our stuff, his stuff.

    The veterans are near death, bless them.

    If they want to lie, before God and a stranger who called them, so be it.

    But they become fair game by lying as I see it, and as Tony sees it.

    So that's it.

    You and our UFO "colleagues" will just have to suffer through Tony's and my boorishness about this.

    We are not budging!

    Vous avez un bon nuit.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 18, 2012  

  • Forget ufology 59 seconds.
    Do you think really Tony's 2 Vets interviews + Tony use of this lie detector software, + the USAF B2 vidéo, have a serious value for Science?
    Or it can becoming elements or evidences an ET craft crashed in Roswell in 1947?
    You cant invoke a complot here. Despite my respect to Tony, I'm asking you if you think or not, such elements have a scientific value or an impact.
    Gilles.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Wednesday, January 18, 2012  

  • Gilles...

    I'm not so sure that UFOs or Roswell are amenable to scientific methodology.

    The enigma of UFOs and the mythos that is Roswell needs a discipline that lies outside science and certainly outside "ufology."

    Something else is needed to examine and explain UFOs, Roswell, and other paranormal (Fortean) phenomena.

    Tony Braglia's approach is applicable to the topics noted here.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 18, 2012  

  • Gilles has a valid point.
    What is the purpose of Tony's investigations? I assume it is all part of the Dream Team's final assessment of Roswell, which will, with luck, be published one day.

    Now, is the publication of their conclusions purely for the UFO fraternity, or is it to go forth and be a serious contribution to science and to the realisation of intelligent life elsewhere? Is it to be a serious look at the extraterrestrial life conundrum?

    If it ends up as just another Roswell book it will be a pointless waste of time and effort. We have enough, too many, of these right now. Science is not interested in yet another Roswell enquiry on the lines of those that went before.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, January 19, 2012  

  • Well, Christopher, Gilles, and Lance....you Roswell-obsessed skeptics will, at least, have Roswell to kick around some more.

    That should make you fellows happy.

    After all, I don't see any other UFO topic from you guys that gets the attention and vituperation that Roswell gets.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 19, 2012  

  • That is because it is such a huge can of worms. Is there any other UFO case that has had such a lot written about it?

    Articles, books, movies, TV shows, videos, museums,...ad nauseam. Any more?

    Certainly I shall kick this can (of worms) around until it is a crumpled heap of garbage. But then that is all it was in the first place. But what magnificent garbage!

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, January 19, 2012  

  • Christopher...

    I don't find Roswell that intriguing, although Paul Kimball thinks I do.

    It's gotten so much misbegotten attention I find it to be banal.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 19, 2012  

  • On a related point:
    You did know, I expect, that the father of astronautics (in the US anyway) was Robert H. Goddard, who during a long period in the 1930s and early 40s established a rocket workshop and base on a ranch near Roswell. Here was some real science and what's more it was science related to space travel.

    I do not believe one single book, magazine or movie, etc. that has appeared on the Roswell BS has ever once mentioned this fact, but I could be mistaken. Does the infamous Roswell UFO museum mention it, for instance?

    Perhaps Nick Redfern has referred to it; I don't know.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, January 19, 2012  

  • CDA:

    I know this is going to be a shock, and will undoubtedly send your blood pressure through the roof, but....

    THERE'S A NEW BOOK OUT ON ROSWELL, RIGHT NOW, YES, ANOTHER!!

    http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Guide-Roswell-UFO-Crash/dp/1467973939/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326990981&sr=1-2

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, January 19, 2012  

  • I should have clarified it's a revised edition, not totally brand new. But does apparently contain a lot of new data not in the original.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, January 19, 2012  

  • Christopher...

    I went looking for Dr. Goddard's name in some magazines here that have segments devoted to flying saucers.

    Lloyd Mallan's "Secrets of Space Flight" [Fawcett, 1956, Page 120 ff.] refers to the "great" Dr. Goddard and shows his wife awarding medals to space pioneers.

    His venue is New Mexico, as you note, and his work place as White Sands.

    What I also found in Mallan's mag and companion magazine "The Mystery of Other Worlds Revealed" [Fawcett 1952] was how much the Navy was involved in space travel and technology, which causes me, again, to advise ufologists to look at the Navy not the Air Force for clues to the UFO mystery, including Roswell.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 19, 2012  

  • There's an interestng story (documented) about Goddard visiting Fort Stanton, NM. I will write this up for this blog one of the days.

    Fort Stanton is where Japanese internees were held during the war, along with handicapped people, as well as the latter for years.

    Have a look at a map and see how close the Foster Ranch is to Fort Stanton.

    Also, see this at my blog for my "Body Snatchers" book:

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

    There is much, much more on Fort Stanton that I intend publishing in the near future. Stanton has a major, but little know involvement, in Roswell.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, January 19, 2012  

  • Also re the Goddard comments: my 2010 book, "Final Events," references an alleged official, U.S. Intel document titled "Parsons, von Karman and Goddard: A Door Unlocked."

    "Parsons" is Jack Parsons, and "von Karman" is Theodore von Karman - both legendary characters in their own rights when it came to rocketry and - in the case of Parsons - occultism, sex with the family dog and much more of a fun and entertaing nature.

    I have not, admittedly, been able to confirm the existence of this "Door Unlocked" report, but it is said to be linked with Roswell.

    The story/document ties in with the Roswell bodies supposedly being faked biological "jackalope" type entities, rather than beings that ever lived in the literal sense.

    Interestingly, von Karman had a relative who is said to have created a Golem, and on the day he died in 1952, Parsons was said to be trying to create a Homunculus.

    Meanwhile, I continue to dig...

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, January 19, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home