The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Anthony Bragalia finds unique Roswell reference(s)


Anthony Bragalia, outside his "Dream Team" cachet, has a new post at his blog, about some scientists talking about bodies and crashed saucers in the 1940s.

Was their colloquy about Roswell? Bragalia thinks so.

Click HERE to read his latest Roswell find.

47 Comments:

  • This almost certainly ties in with the famous FBI memo of March 22, 1950 (only 12 days later) that talks about 3 saucer crashes in New Mexico with small bodies.

    This is less than 2 weeks after the March 10 letter, and also references the USAF.

    Here's the link:

    http://vault.fbi.gov/hottel_guy

    Nick

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Tuesday, February 14, 2012  

  • Greetings,
    Agreed with Mister Redfern : when I readed Tony's article, It comes me immediatly in mind that it sounded more in connection with SAC Guy Hottel FBI memo than with "Roswell".

    "In time" (march 1950) and in place (mentionning N.M.) as in contents (Flying saucers and bodies).
    It is a pity. Next time maybe ;)

    Regards.

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Tuesday, February 14, 2012  

  • Nick/Gilles-

    Gentlemen, the Hottel Memo was written nearly two weeks after, not before, the Blount-Evans letter.

    I am not certain how this ties in at all.

    And why would Blount -who was with the Surgeon General's office of the AF- be cognizant of developing information from the FBI's Guy Hottel? I simply do not see the association whatsoever. Two different agencies. Show me where Blount knew Hottel.

    And Gilles, could we temper the snide remarks? No need to say "maybe next time."

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Tuesday, February 14, 2012  

  • nuclear medicine scientists?
    it's a great "assist" (soccer slang!) to nick redfern's theory!

    By Blogger ilfakiro, at Tuesday, February 14, 2012  

  • I have Robley Evans' FBI file here somewhere. I'll dig it out for anyone who may be interested,

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Tuesday, February 14, 2012  

  • Tony:

    The reason why I suspect the connection is for several reasons: the date is close, the USAF link is there, and Hottel says the info came from "an Air Force investigator."

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Tuesday, February 14, 2012  

  • Nick/Gilles-

    I hope that you both realize that it is impossible for the Hottel Memo to be referring to the hoax Scully/Aztec saucer. They are absolutely not referring to the same thing:

    - In Scully’s story, the size of the crashed discs are reported specifically as 99.9 feet, 72 feet and 36 feet in diameter. In the FBI Memo, the discs are instead reported as being “about 50 feet in diameter.”

    - In Scully’s story, there were 34 men that were found in the discs. In the FBI Memo, there were only 9 beings found (three within each craft)

    - In Scully’s story, the crash victims were dressed in a style that was reminiscent of the “style of the 1890s.” In the FBI Memo, the occupants were wearing tight flight suits.

    - In Scully’s story, the crash victims are referred to as “men.” In the FBI Memo the crash victims are referred to only as being “of human shape.”

    So it is evident that the size of the discs do not remotely match, the number of crash victims reported differs by over three and a half times, and the description of their appearance is markedly different.

    So it Blount is indeed referring to Guy Hottel, Hottel is definitely not referring to Aztec or Scully.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Tuesday, February 14, 2012  

  • Greetings Tony,

    I "well" know the memo is dated 22 march 1950, but the Silas Newton affair dates JANUARY 1950, at least and already in the USAF files.
    Proof here :

    http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/69f93bd9fe34.jpg

    (Credits Isaac Koi)

    More, the affair was in newspapers in january 1950 and have public echoes then, for example in the 6 January 1950 edition of the "Wyandotte Echo", in Kansas City.

    You probably know and can verify here that the affair/hoax made sufficient sounds that the USAF and FBI made an "investigation". I'm not surprised your "guys" here have had sounds of the rumor too. It is for me the purpose and the matter they are refering, not Roswell.

    As Nick Redfern previously stated the USAF link is here, as many other things point to the Silas Newton story, not Roswell. It is probably the same "USAF investigator" link/connection, stated by Hottel, here in the USAF file exhumed, or by your guys.
    In essence, the link is probably with this Newton story/hoax, not with Roswell.

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Tuesday, February 14, 2012  

  • Tony,
    We are crossing our posts ^^ (will stop for today)
    You wrote :
    "So it Blount is indeed referring to Guy Hottel, Hottel is definitely not referring to Aztec or Scully."

    Hum? The Guy Hottel memo is referring to the Silas Newton affair/hoax.
    It was the purpose and the links I saw here (as probably Nick Redfern did too, cant say for Him)
    You know that story?
    If not, read it, it is the "file"s accumulated by Isaac Koy when the memo surfaced again :
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread689049/pg1
    For me, it is the story/hoax your "letter" is connected with, not with Roswell.
    Regards,
    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Tuesday, February 14, 2012  

  • Gilles-

    You have failed utterly to comment on the many, many differences that I have outlined quite clearly between the Hottel Memo and the Scully crash. There are most certainly not the same! Again, read! I have enumerated several key differences. You (and CDA when I first brought this up in my FBI/Hoover article) consistently choose to not address these differences.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Tuesday, February 14, 2012  

  • Tony Bragalia, Sir,

    The failure is imho in your claim to have found/exhumed UNIQUE Roswell reference(s). It was the topic.
    THE point was that your reference(s) are probably and only referencing/pointing for "us" to the Silas Newton Hoax/story ;)
    That was the point and the faillure imho here. If you dont care, well...
    That's Roswell and Ufology.

    Regards,
    Gilles.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Tuesday, February 14, 2012  

  • Gilles...

    I used the tern "unique" as I see that it is.

    Tony Bragalia will clarify the matter.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, February 14, 2012  

  • It's clear to me that Tony's letters have no noticeable connection to the Guy Hottel memo. Maybe Nick can elaborate on the ties.

    What to make of the use of "Mexico" vs. that of "New Mexico"? Easily could have been an oversight. Would the US Government have any interest in a UFO incident in Mexico? Or, was it a passing interest between two individuals?

    Tony, what was the personal relationship between Blount and Evans? It appears that Blount wrote his letter on Official AF stationary, thus requiring his referring to Evans as "Dr." This was formal protocol back in the day when I composed letters on official AF letter head stationary.

    Finally, with all due respect, Tony's conclusions concerning the meaning of the letters falls fully in the area of speculation. Whether the two where referring to Roswell is almost impossible to tell, since Roswell is not mentioned in the letters...Tony is either assuming or guessing out loud. I assume that Tony will develop his theory further in the future as his "letters" are interesting by themselves.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, February 15, 2012  

  • Re friends,
    Concerning the Mexico mention in the text of the letter, and not New Mexico then, my friend, Nablator, proposed me that the letter could be related to the Roy L. Dimmick's story. The following is a quote in the Scully book :

    "Then on March 9, Roy L. Dimmick, Los Angeles sales manager for the Apache Powder Company, the sort of man who would be welcome on almost any jury, started a veritable stampede of disk jitters when he reported the wreckage of a flying saucer picked up near Mexico City. It had a dead pilot on board. The space ship measured 46 feet across, he said, and the pilot measured 23 inches.
    "American military men have viewed the strange object," Dimmick testified, "but for military security reasons the entire matter has been kept very hush-hush."
    The next day Dimmick dropped back to what the military call "a previously prepared position" and said he hadn't actually seen the space ship personally but had talked to two important men-one from Mexico and the other from Ecuador-who had. One had given him a strip of metal from the saucer. It looked like aluminum, but wasn't of a metal known to this earth, he added. This had a familiar ring. I've handled some of that stuff, too.
    "I think the government ought to make its position clear," Dimmick complained. "If it doesn't want to discuss these things for reasons of security, why not say so?" But the Air Force was not saying anything of the sort. The saucers were "a mild form of mass hysteria." (Except in cases like Dimmick's. He would fall, I suppose, according to their rigid classifications, into either the group suffering from hallucinations or the perpetrators of hoaxes.)"

    End of the quote. This story was published march 1950 the 9th in newspaper it seems.
    In essence, there is this possibility to examine by you friends too + the the Silas Newton link too, before to invoke the Roswell myth connexion.

    Regards,
    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Wednesday, February 15, 2012  

  • Hi Tim-

    Thanks for the comments. I am trying to determine if Blount was also a personal friend of Evans, in addition to being a professional associate. I do think that this is a very important point.

    If the two were not personal friends, than the mention of "crashed saucers" is all the more interesting. If they were friends, perhaps Blount felt comfortable relating 'idle gossip.' But the fact that he addresses him in the way that he does -and the 'feel' of the letter- indicates to me that they were simply professional associates.

    I hope to find out what the relationship was and report on it.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Wednesday, February 15, 2012  

  • Gilles-

    The earliest mention of the Dimmick UFO crash of which I am aware is in The Washington Herald (with a March 10 publication.)

    In the first sentence of the second paragraph of the article the Herald disparages the whole thing: "But there was no confirmation of the account."

    The Herald says that Dimmick says that the Mexico City crash was told to him by two businessman, one a Chilean, whom Dimmick would not identify.

    Now a little bit about Mr. Ray Dimmick:

    He was a salesman for an AZ fertilizer company called Apache Powder Company. The company had a horrid reputation and folded. Its property is so contaminated that today it is a Superfund site.

    I find it highly unlikely that Blount found second-hand gossip from a fertilizer salesman in AZ employed by a small, disreputable company to be a credible enough source that he would relate it to Dr. Evans or himself consider it credible!

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Wednesday, February 15, 2012  

  • So we have a fertilizer salesman,connected to a extraterrestrial dressed in the “style of the 1890s",with Mexico being confused with New Mexico, Superfund sites and the "Wyandotte Echo", ( whatever that is)
    Fascinating.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, February 15, 2012  

  • Hi Bruce-

    You have just reminded me of Gilles' original post (following Nick Redfern's.) Gilles says that he agrees with Nick that the letter refers to the Hottel/Aztec/Scully 'angle.'

    Then Gilles completely reverses himself and later comments here that he believes is to be fertilizer salesman Dimmick to whom the Blount document refers.

    This shows that Gilles (and people like him on his French skeptics website) will reach for any explanation no matter how ludicrous to 'counter' me. When one explanation falls out of favor- they go for another one.

    And I would add this:

    Mrs. Ray Madson told me (as I detail in the article) that she worked at the Wright Aero Medical Lab (including in 1950) and heard the same rumors. But she said the saucer crash occurred in the Southwest US some years prior. New Mexico is certainly the Southwest.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Wednesday, February 15, 2012  

  • "This shows that Gilles (and people like him on his French skeptics website) will reach for any explanation no matter how ludicrous to 'counter' me. When one explanation falls out of favor- they go for another one."
    "later comments here that he believes is to be fertilizer salesman Dimmick to whom the Blount document refers."

    loled: Where do you found in my text I BELIEVED now this? I just signaled what a friend proposed me (a possible Dimmick's story connexion). That's all. That's forbidden to have several pists in competition in a discussion? Or? When you evoke several pists and hypothesis (btw, me one, and my friend another one), it is meaning for you "I" reverse?

    I have not reversed my mind, but if you cant understand it is possible to take on the table and to discusse several hypothesis, or to say: hey UFO-iconoclast guys, a friend mentionned me the Dimmick's story must be examined too as connected or not with the letter...

    When I readed your article, I have immediatly in mind the Newton's story related in the Hottel's memo because it was in the time line (january to march 1950) of your letter, as USAF evokated.
    After, a friend remembered me the Dimmick's story where "Mexico" (and not New Mexico) and a saucer more or less 50 feets across (46 feets) seem "matched". That's all.

    I reverse nothing, I signaled what a friend proposed plus my own possibility to see it related to the Newton/Hottel "story"/"rumor" in time your letter. Period.

    BTW, they are at least a mention of Dimmick's story prior march 10 and the Washington Herald article you exhumed (the 9).

    March 9, 1950: Denver Post
    "Yank Claims He Saw Wrecked Flying Disk"
    Los Angeles (INS) -- Ray L. Dimmick -- sales manager for the Apache Powder Co. -- states that he saw a disk land near Mexico City, killing its pilot who was 25 inches tall with a big head and small body. The object was 46-feet in diameter and powered by 2 motors. The disk appeared to be constructed of aluminum.
    ...
    March 10, 1950: Denver Post
    "Is Your Saucer View Dim Or Dimmick's?"
    Los Angeles (AP) -- Ray L. Dimmick -- a dynamite salesman -- backtracked today. He said the flying saucer was related to him by 2 business associates. All that Dimmick actually saw -- according to a revised version -- was a strip of metal about 6-feet long, 8-inches wide, and ¾-inches thick. Dr. Vallarta -- Mexico's leading nuclear scientist -- stated that the saucer-seers were viewing balloons released by the U.S. weather stations along the border.
    http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Scully_01.pdf

    There is no one mention of Roswell in your letter, Tony. All is again speculation of your part.
    In time of the letter, there are at least such two "rumors" or "stories" too. If it is forbidden to examine such "pists" or any other possible sources than your Roswell? Or some of us are only allowed to say "amen" when you propose a Roswell connexion to anything your found speacking about Flying Saucers in the past decades, memory alloys, etc. even if Roswell is not mentionned, the link only a total speculation of your part?

    Regards,

    Gilles.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Thursday, February 16, 2012  

  • In other words, Gilles, you will agree with one who offers a prosaic explanation, then you offer the explanation of a French skeptic friend about Dimmick. In America we call this: "Throwing a lot of sh_t against the wall to see what sticks."

    And relative to Dimmick:

    It occurred to me that if his story appeared in newspapers throughout the US then why did Blount feel compelled to repeat to Evans what was already then being reported in papers nationally? It makes no sense.

    The tenor of the letter (and the mention of a crash in context with official UFO study) is far different matter than Dimmick.

    And I have noticed you have purposely dodged the Wright Aero witness information from the Madson family. Unlike Dimmick's fantasy aliens, Mrs. Madson had heard that such corpses had actually been brought into Wright Aero in the late 40s from the SW. And you ignore the information on Dr. Fitts, who is mentioned in the letter (though not by name)who was connected to Battelle.

    AJB

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Thursday, February 16, 2012  

  • Tony

    One of the reasons why I think that, ultimately, this is going to be shown to be linked to the Hottel/Aztec players issues eventually is that the third and final paragraph of the letter begins as follows:

    "It has recently been rumored..."

    Well, yes, it was a rumor. There's nothing in this letter about a crashed UFO definitely having been found, or it being the subject of a Top Secret report (by the letter's own admission the content of the Top Secret report is unknown).

    We have the letter writer explicitly saying there is a rumor of a crashed UFO.

    So, I don't see (1) how this impacts on Roswell when the country is wrong for a start; and (2) it's specifically classed as a recent rumor.

    Now, it may NOT be directly connected to the Aztec players or the Hottel document, but the fact is that there were a LOT of rumors flying around in the 1950/1951 period about crashed saucers, as a result of the Scully book.

    Now, don't get me wrong - I think it's highly valuable to do further research into this, as it could open doors.

    All I'm saying is that - RIGHT NOW - all we have is a story that is classed as a rumor, and an event rumored to have occurred in Mexico not New Mexico.

    Also, the title of your blog post is: "CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT CONFIRMS: FATHER OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE & AIR FORCE’S MEDICAL CHIEF DISCUSSED 1940’s FLYING SAUCER CRASH."

    That title is actually wrong on 2 counts.

    First, the pair did not dicsuss a crashed flying saucer story. Go back and read the exchange.

    Blount brought up the issue with Evans, but in his reply Evans made NO comment about the crashed saucer story AT ALL.

    All Evans essentially said was that he hoped they could chat about that new report which Blount mnentioned, and that he is sending back the other report to Blount.

    That does not amount to a discussion on both parties about crashed UFOs.

    You might think that's splitting hairs, but the fact is - as far as this exchange is concerned - they did not discuss a crashed Saucer. One brought the matter up, and the other made no comment on it.

    Second, the title of your blog post on this includes the words "...DISCUSSED 1940’s FLYING SAUCER CRASH."

    The letter is dated 10 March 1950, so how do we know this relates to something that occurred in the 1940s?

    Blount makes it clear this was a recent rumor, and the year of 1950 wasd already 2 months and 10 days old when he wrote the letter, so why do you make the leap that this is anything to do with something that happened in the 1940s (particularly and specifically given the "recently been rumored" statement Blount makes)?

    In your post, you say: "Col. Blount refers to the crash in the past tense, as in ‘sometime prior’ to 1950. He is most certainly referring to an event that occurred in the late 1940s."

    Why do you assume it's late 40s when - 3 months into 1950 - Blount actually uses the word "recently" regarding the crash?

    We DO have an interesting letter here, but there's actually no discussion between the 2 on crashed saucers (just a mention from one party and no comment on the crash from the other), and no evidence of a 1940s link.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, February 16, 2012  

  • One more time, Tony I signaled the Dimmick story, because a friend proposed me cause in time line and concerning Mexico.

    I have reversed nothing and privilegiate(d) the Silas Newton story/rumor/hoax connexion.

    Your Blount's letter mentions AT HER END in a § "It is recently RUMORED that one of the so-called flying saucers crashed in Mexico". (emphazed by me).


    In the time-line of the letter, at least from January 1950 (
    http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/69f93bd9fe34.jpg) to march 1950, AF investigated such a rumor : the Silas Newton Story.

    I'm sorry to have the feeling it could be connected and to privilegiate such possibility before your Roswell one.

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Thursday, February 16, 2012  

  • Hi Nick-

    Given that in the letter Blount refers to 'Restricted' and 'Top Secret' studies it is likely that any further substantial exchange between Blount and Evans about the confirmation of the crash was not done by letter, but rather by other channels such as a secure phone line or by in-person dialog in a secure facility. That is how such things are done. And often recordings, transcriptions or mentions in schedules are not permitted.

    And I will ask that you re-read the section of the piece entitled "Corroboration for the ET Crash & Bodies?" and the information on the Madsons and on Fitts that is provided as well my earlier reply to Gilles about this in the Comments section.

    Relative to your concerns about the words "rumors" and "recent":

    Rumor: A report; Information passed around verbally.

    Recent: Not long past (as in "recent years"); Of or belonging to a time not long past.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Thursday, February 16, 2012  

  • Some time ago I was intrigued by the Dyatov Pass Incident, and when I looked into the "paranormal" aspects of this incident, I found there was not enough information to conclude anything. The questions are many, too many to list here, but what I did find is there was little evidence of strange activity. Yet, it has been blown up to a tale ( once again) of "aliens." The situation here and in that incident of 1959, is that what does exist as documentation are like turkey bones and an entire meal of theoretical postulates is attempted to be extracted from them.This documentation is poor even by a stretch by labeling it circumstantial An inference based on a long ago exchange of rumors. There is no meat on the bone. Just left overs. Quibbling over this or that seems to be "pushing the river" as it were toward a loss of perspective, as if this could be valuated in any meaningful, useful sense.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, February 16, 2012  

  • Bruce-

    I appreciate your comments. However I have always believed that who says something is as important as what is said.

    Why Blount would mention in an official and classified letter such 'crash talk' with an illustrious MIT PhD is hard to fathom unless he assigned it some possible truth. This is how such scientists think.

    I am not 'picking on bones'

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Thursday, February 16, 2012  

  • Tony,
    As two friends commented me, if we focuse about semantic, Blount's letter mentionned:

    "HOWEVER, the details are somewhat BIZARRE at the moment".

    If correct, "bizarre" have another semantic in english than the "exotic" or extraordinary/fantastic, one.

    A meaning something closed to "Grotesque", "ridiculous", "ludicrous"?
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bizarre
    So, it is possible Blount expressed that HOWEVER the details of this rumor were "grotesque" by the use of "Bizarre".

    To finish, I modestly considerate that such two possible sources (the Dimmick and the Newton stories) are 2 good candidates to explain what Blount is referring: the two are in the time line of the letter, and were in newpapers.
    As I have not the impression Blount gived many "credits" of this "rumor" in the paragraphe, whatever it was and he considered the details as bizarre probably in this second meaning of the english word. He seems just to make an allusion to a rumor he read or heard recently that however he find the details as bizarre (in the sens of grotesque?).

    In essence, you find the Dimmick and/or the "Aztec" connections and pists "ludicrous" to explain Blount little paragraphe, but "I" dont think so and that you should not eliminate such two possible candidats so fastly...

    Sincerly,

    Gilles.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Thursday, February 16, 2012  

  • Gilles-

    Not to belabor (as you are) but:

    How much longerGilles before you "modestly consider" three of four crash explanations for the letter? The US Government is now up to three or four explanations for Roswell! You first gravitate to Nick's solution- then to you friend's. You are confused.

    And I have read the comments (on Google Translate) on the French skeptics site that you are on. Now, be fair in reporting on that site what we say on this site, Gilles, it does not appear that you always do.

    Finally, I do not believe that men like Evans and Blount would talk of things in such a letter that were "ridiculous" or "ludicrous." As I have stated before, they had not the time for the "ridiculous" nor would Blount waste the time and space in a serious letter to Evans on the "ludicrous." In the context of the way learned men in the 1950s spoke, "bizarre" meant "extraordinary" as in "extraterrestrial" !

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Thursday, February 16, 2012  

  • "Why Blount would mention in an official and classified letter such 'crash talk' with an illustrious MIT PhD is hard to fathom unless he assigned it some possible truth. This is how such scientists think."

    In answer to your question, a PHD or someone "illustrious "has nothing to do" with exchanging interesting gossip despite your stereotyping scientists (who do have a good sense of the ironic )that may or may not have had any validity whatsoever. It's not hard to fathom for me. There was nothing whatsoever there aside from the characterization of a rumor. I don't think that's a difficult assessment. Rumors are a nickle a dozen and this one in this context is way over played and distorted by your inclination toward innuendo and inference as "proofs"of a non existent dialog..you have not demonstrated except by innuendo. There are no "proofs" of a substantive discussion. I think you have jumped the shark.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, February 16, 2012  

  • Semantics...always an ass-kicker when we look at the old cases. I tend to agree for the most part with Giles' take on the term "bizarre" but, myself, targeting "odd" or "strange."

    Given that Tony's two esteemed scientist were discussing some event at the beginning of the "saucer" craze, and the news media was constantly reporting on any hint of a UFO story (be it fact or fiction), then its not unreasonable for both Blount and Evans to discuss the "new" phenomena both privately and officially.

    Was it a passing fancy? It would appear likely since Roswell and others remained dormant until the 1970s, meaning that most appeared to have agreed with whatever conclusions were drawn by the military/government's then investigations.

    Whether Evans and Blount conformed to the ET/UFO hypothesis is unclear in the letters, but we know that they had some interests in the phenomena, at least on an official level.

    I see no conclusive evidence that "bizarre" equals ET at this point.

    As most research papers tend to point out in conclusion: "More research is needed in this area of study."

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Thursday, February 16, 2012  

  • What an extraordinary discussion.

    The letter from Blount to Dr Evans has NOTHING to do with Roswell, period.

    If it had, why is there no mention of it, and why is it only referred to as a "rumor". The Roswell case was not a rumor, it was fact. A fact in that something actually happened. Also, it was NOT a crash, not until 1978 anyway; it was the landing and recovery of a light instrument (as the press reported at the time). The term 'crash' never appeared in those early newspaper reports.

    Furthermore, why would either Blount or Evans have the special Top Secret (or above) security that all Roswell ET proponents insist was necessary for knowing about the true nature of the case?

    The 'Roswell connection' in this brief exchange of letters (and in the accompanying 'restricted' report) is about as clear as the connection between the sinking of the Titanic and the Stockholm Olympics of that year.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, February 16, 2012  

  • Confused, belabor, unfair...
    In the case you dont accept any critic or comments (and founded imho), write a diary journal?

    If it impossible for you to admit and to examine there existed at least two recent rumors (and Blount mentioned RECENTLY & RUMORED) at this march 1950 period, before to invoke the Roswell Magic card, it is your right.

    If "recently" is closer 1947 for you than these two 1950 rumors, it is your right.

    If "bizarre" here meant "extraordinary/extraterrestrial" definitively, and not the other meaning of "bizarre", it is your right too.

    If you think it exists in this world a sofware in which you can input 50 words and it will detect if a guy is lying or not, if you think an USAF B-2 promotionnal video shows "morphing" and prooves Roswell debris retro-ingeneering by the USAF, etc, it is your rights too.

    But I have the right to think differently. As I find a little "light" for an auto-proclamed Roswell DreamTeam member to eliminate such you did two potential pists (Dimmick and Aztec connexions), as to "speculate" as you do.

    I expect(ed) a non biased new investigation by your auto-proclamed Roswell DreamTeam, but sorry, I saw (from you and for now) only "confirmation bias", naïvity, speculations, but more disturbing, the deny of any other possibilities than "Roswell".

    For you, an investigator cant present several hypothesis "in competition". For the letter, "I" presented two others, but for you, to present two possibilities/hypothesis is the sign "I'm confused".

    No comment : there exist no one scientific papers where several H1 are tested/proposed or possible explanations are proposed/discussed. The scientists who done this each day are "confused" men.

    Where is the Roswell reference in Blount's letter? Nowhere.

    For you, a rumor about a flying saucer crash in MEXICO (as in the letter), in newpapers the 9 march 1950 CANT BE part of the equation of this 10 march 1950 Blount's letter, it is a ludicrous argument ; or the rumor of the Aztec/Newton story at this period too. It cant be what Blount's letter is referring.
    It is Roswell related only... Roswell, Roswell...

    Regarding your Sceptic OVNI forum remarks, you are free to post (in english if you want). I always give the sources of the texts/articles I comment (your blog or ufo-iconoclast in this case, so people cant verify and read the comments, etc) as I write some comments, or share skeptic community comments, for example the "Roswell Corner" of Tim Printy SUNlite newsletter. That's forbidden too?

    I'm sorry to not be convinced by your version of the Roswell affair, your ruminations and speculations, and to give my own opinion or own findings.

    Gilles.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Thursday, February 16, 2012  

  • Gilles (and all)-

    None of the material in this article has to do with 'dream team' efforts. This is my own personal piece.

    I wanted to make that very clear to everyone.

    When we are ready to introduce our findings publicly as a team we will do so.

    And CDA:

    I do know that Evans had security clearance as he was engaged in classified nuclear study with nuclear material during wartime.

    And Blount most certainly had security clearance given his rank and station. And they may have wanted to enlist his assistance (and thus he acquired a 'need to know') to determine just how ET perished in flight.

    It certainly would have been with in his expertise- as he did this very work on human pilots!

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Thursday, February 16, 2012  

  • Just to further hammer the nail into the Roswell coffin,

    1. Mexico is not New Mexico (as Nick has said)

    2. The term "recently" when mentioned in March 1950 about the UFO phenomenon certainly does NOT refer to an event of July 1947, which would then be history.

    3. No Tony, you do not know what clearances the two had. You assume it would have been 'above top secret' or whatever supposed security clearances they needed to be 'in the know' about Roswell. But again, this is pure speculation.

    4. To sum up, despite all your research you have NOT ONCE shown, with proper documentation, that anyone, whether in the military or otherwise, ever had the slightest interest in or indeed had even heard of the Roswell case, between July '47 and 1978. Not the nitinol scientists, not the Battelle Institute, and not one of your latest guys. NOT ONCE.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, February 16, 2012  

  • I think Gilles has actually pointed out something valuable with regard to the wording. If you say "I've heard a rumor" followed by "however" or "but": "the details are a little bizarre", it's almost certainly a way of saying that the story doesn't sound to plausible for the moment. If bizarre meant "extraterrestrial" but still plausible, there would be some kind of qualifier, ie "sounds bizarre but still seems to be true." The "however" is what's important in determining the meaning - however always expresses a caution, or a hesitancy.

    By Blogger Tristan Eldritch, at Thursday, February 16, 2012  

  • Greetings,

    Thank you Mister Tristan Eldritch to help to clarify this "wording" point.

    I wanted just to had that it was the 8 March 1950 if I'm correct that Silas Newton gived his lecture to the University of Denver, regarding this first pist (The Aztec/Newton connexion).

    As, regarding the second pist, Lt Col Blount could have read the 9 March the story of Dimmick in the newspaper too or heard about.

    BTW the two stories (the lecture and the Dimmick story) were sometimes in the same newspaper the same day: For example, the Denver Post of the 9 March wrote lines regarding the TWO stories (you can verify by yourself in the pdf link I gived before).

    What it is in the newspapers where Blount was located? Dunno, but you guys can easy verify.

    When you read the two stories, in particular their details, it makes sens that Blount made a "bemol" and positionned him as "cautious" regarding the RECENTLY RUMORED, writing HOWEVER the details are somewhat BIZARRE at the moment".

    To finish, Tony, you found BIZARRE to have two hypothesis in competition as "I" do, synonym for you "I'm confused". But for my part, I think it is a very normal and common (saint) processing in Sciences or in Investigation to have several possibilities in competition, to examine them step by step, and eliminate or not this pist or the other, and to decide what is the most plausible. To be frank, when an investigator doesn't present alternatives in a thesis, I have a red flag for my part.

    For my part again, I'm sorry to think such two pists are fare away more plausible than your Roswell connexion, and to believe sincerly they merit to be pursued, and not eliminated as you did, taking into account what we commented here, including of course or in first Nick Redfern, CDA and others remarks too.

    Regards,

    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Friday, February 17, 2012  

  • I have jumped into the proverbial "lions den" with this by dialoging with a UK skeptic, a French skeptic, etc...

    And CDA: I suggest that you do some reading on security classifications in the United States before you rattle about them. Top Secret is the highest such classification. But beyond that are considerations of "access" called SCI (or Specialized Compartmented Information) and SAP (Special Access Programs.) In order to be granted such access, one is administered a full Lifestyle Polygraph. That Evans was a Colonel in aero-flight research he was 100% positively exposed to bleeding-edge experimental craft and therefore had to have had Top Secret clearance with and also cleared with many SCIs and SAPs.

    So! We now have several saying many different things about the 'true' crash to which Blount refers:

    * It was the Scully hoax reported by Hottel

    * It was Roy Dimmick's Ecuadoran source

    * It was tied to the Sci-Fi magazine 'Space Warp' of the late 1940s (as Bob Koford believes and comments on the Bragalia Files site)

    I'll stick with the only 'true' saucer crash. Roswell. Learned men discuss things true or likely to be true.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Friday, February 17, 2012  

  • Tony:

    We can discuss until we are blue in the face what "recent" means.

    But, I don't think most people would agree that if you use the word "recent" in the second week of March 1950, you would be referring to anything that occurred in the first week of July 1947, close on 3 years earlier...

    You also say the following, in relation to my observation that Evans made no comment about the crash (so, technically, speaking they didn't have a conversation about it):

    YOUR QUOTE: "Given that in the letter Blount refers to 'Restricted' and 'Top Secret' studies it is likely that any further substantial exchange between Blount and Evans about the confirmation of the crash was not done by letter, but rather by other channels such as a secure phone line or by in-person dialog in a secure facility."

    But that's just your opinion. All we know for SURE is that Blount made mention of the crash, but Evans - in his reply - made no referral to the crash, at all.

    To make such comments about a "secure phone line" is not unreasonable. But it's a theory on your part to explain why Evans didn't (in his letter at least) take the bait.

    And, it should be recognized as a theory to offer an explanation as to why Evans never mentioned crashed saucers.

    That Evans didn't make mention of a crashed saucer in his reply is simply not enough reason to make the leap of faith that this means they had a conversation about it via more secure, secret means.

    They MAY have. But you can't use Evans' lack of comment as proof, or even likelihood, that they did!

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, February 17, 2012  

  • Stop kidding yourself Tony.

    Roswell was NOT a true saucer crash. It wasn't in 1947, it wasn't in March 1950, and it isn't today, and never will be.

    Please, stop kidding yourself. Then, when you can, get a grip on reality.

    Perhaps you have already begun a trip into reality by putting the word 'crash' into quotation marks.
    Let us be grateful for this.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, February 17, 2012  

  • Correction (sorry). It was the word 'true' in quotes, not 'crash'. There is still hope for you Tony; keep it up!

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, February 17, 2012  

  • Back in 2001, I obtained a copy of Robley Evans' FBI file.

    When I'm feeling fully recovered (as some of you know, I have been borderline pneumonia the past week), I will write a summary of the FBI file on Robley, if you may want to post it, Rich.

    If you prefer not, no problem, and I'll post it at my Roswell blog, and you can link from there.

    It's not the most exciting FBI file and only runs to 108 pages.

    But, it does contain a lot of background on Evans, his work, history, friends, work colleagues, work history etc.

    I'll scan some of the pages for inclusion in the post too.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, February 17, 2012  

  • Nick-

    You mentioned that in Evans reply he makes no mention of the crashed saucer in his reply letter to Blount. Well, he does indeed reply to Blount that he looks forward to the "opportunity to discuss" UFO study with Evans to which Blount is obviously privy, including forthcoming Top Secret reports. So, my earlier comment that Blount would likely discuss such matters one-on-one with Evans (most certainly in a secure facility) rings true, no?

    Additionally, in terms of "timeliness" of the crash talk and UFO talk I will add this:

    Note in the Blount letter to Evans that he refers to a psychological analysis UFO study from a year prior, but he was just then updating Evans about it! So why is it inconceivable that the crash talk could be referring to a late 40s event? And they were only two months and nine days into 1950...

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Friday, February 17, 2012  

  • Nick...

    We'd be delighted to post the Robley files and include links to whatever sites of yours you add it to.

    (The plot thickens.)

    Get well, also, fast. We can't do this UFO stuff all by ourselves.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 17, 2012  

  • Tony:

    In your latest comment to my latest comment you said: "...in the Blount letter to Evans that he refers to a psychological analysis UFO study from a year prior, but he was just then updating Evans about it! So why is it inconceivable that the crash talk could be referring to a late 40s event? And they were only two months and nine days into 1950..."

    Well, yes, as it was only a couple of months into 1950, it COULD have referred to something that occurred in, let's say, late 1949.

    But, need I remind you, you put the Roswell spin on this, pushing the barriers back to 1947, and as I have noted it is this issue which for me doesn't sit well with the "recent" wording.

    And to demonstrate this, here's the quote in your article where you bring Roswell into the story:

    QUOTE FROM YOUR ARTICLE: "The letter was composed about 70 days into the year 1950. Col. Blount refers to the crash in the past tense, as in ‘sometime prior’ to 1950. He is most certainly referring to an event that occurred in the late 1940s. Could he have been referring to the Roswell crash in New Mexico two and a half years before and that credible “rumors” of the event were just then reaching Col. Blount?" END OF QUOTE.

    Had you left it at, say, a December 1949 event, I probably would not have even commented, as that would have been prefectly within reasonable boundaries re the "recent" wording.

    But, by raising the question/specter of Roswell in the context of this letter, you are - in my opinion - massively over-reaching in your quest to vindicate Roswell.

    You also say (QUOTE):

    "...You mentioned that in Evans reply he makes no mention of the crashed saucer in his reply letter to Blount. Well, he does indeed reply to Blount that he looks forward to the "opportunity to discuss" UFO study with Evans to which Blount is obviously privy, including forthcoming Top Secret reports. So, my earlier comment that Blount would likely discuss such matters one-on-one with Evans (most certainly in a secure facility) rings true, no?" END OF QUOTE.

    Why is "likely" they discussed it? Since Evans never brought it up in his letter of reply, I would have suggested they "may" have discussed it, or we can ponder on the possibility that they did, or we can even conclude that because Evans never mentioned it, that it was never again discussed!

    It's semantics, but there's no "likely" here at all, without the benefit of more to go on - and we don't have that right now, and we don't have anything linking this to Roswell, only to something that in March 1950 had (at rumor level, in Blount's own words, remember) happened then-recently.

    It doesn't mean this letter/story is without any merit. But it does mean that what we have to go on so far does not come anywhere near to equating to a smoking-gun - Roswell-themed, or otherwise.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, February 17, 2012  

  • Nick-

    We can both agree that this is no "smoking gun." I most definitely do not consider it to be one. But I do consider it to be of extreme interest for many reasons.

    My sainted grandfather always said "consider the source." He meant by this to evaluate the credibility of the person that relates something to you and why they do so.

    Well, he is right. And Blount was a highly trustworthy source who listened to those whom he considered to be well-intentioned and credible sources.

    I simply cannot believe that he was repeating UFO crash talk from pulp books or third-hand sources in a short, official, classified letter to the Father of Nuclear Medicine unless Blount suspected that 'where there is smoke there is fire.'

    I will agree that rather than titling the section that troubles you "The Letter Likely Refers to Roswell" perhaps I should have titled it "Did the Letter Refer to Roswell?" {RR titled the "Anthony Bragalia Finds Unique Roswell References" on Iconoclasts, not me.}

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Friday, February 17, 2012  

  • And Bragalia throws me under the bus!

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 17, 2012  

  • But Tony...!

    You say of Blount:

    "I simply cannot believe that he was repeating UFO crash talk from pulp books or third-hand sources in a short, official, classified letter to the Father of Nuclear Medicine unless Blount suspected that 'where there is smoke there is fire.'"

    But, you have to remember that Blount did not word his reference to the event as being from highly regarded sources, or something of a hush-hush nature, nor did he even imply that.

    Instead, he openly admitted to Evans that the story was "bizarre" and was, at that stage, merely at rumor level.

    Why can you not, to quote you, "...believe that he was repeating UFO crash talk from pulp books or third-hand sources" when he openly admitted it was a rumor?

    Pulp saucer books and third-hand sources have been full of rumors for years!

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, February 17, 2012  

  • Let us say are under the impression that nothing could possibly fly, and you have never seen a balloon before, let alone a red one, and you are extremely busy at the moment. Someone comes running up to you and says, "look, a red balloon is floating in the park down the street. Come with me and see for yourself."

    Well, you are very busy, and you have no reason at all to ponder going with them since you have no reason to believe it is even possible fo a balloon to exist, or even fly. So you say, "nah, no thanks, I'm kinda busy right now." If you had actually seen a balloon floating, some years prior then things would be different. You would then have some type of foundation to legitamize going with the person to see this red balloon...because you already know its possible. Where there is one balloon, there could be more.

    The same can be said about crash talk at higher levels, and the several crash location/recovery attempts themselves.

    The BB files show several attempts to locate "reported" impact sites. Why? Why not laugh and why didn't they just shrug their shoulders instead? I view the conversation in the letter through this lens.

    By Blogger Bob Koford, at Saturday, February 18, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home