The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Sunday, February 17, 2013

Anthony Bragalia and the Roswell Quest

ar.jpg

Anthony Bragalia presents a view of where the Roswell quest for new "evidence" lies at his blog:

http://bragalia.blogspot.com

26 Comments:

  • Tony's quote is (re actual alien bodies):

    "But this of course is the very least likely type of evidence that would ever surface into the public domain. Any such pathological evidence is likely held in preservation in guarded, highly secure facilities whose access is extremely restricted."

    This is the very thing we have been told by Roswell ETHers over and over again since the advent of the Berlitz-Moore book in 1980.

    One wonders: What is the overall purpose of space research? Why was NASA set up at all? What is the purpose of SETI? What has fascinated men's minds for centuries? What is it that some scientists would give perhaps ten years of their lives to see and handle?

    Answer: to discover possible intelligent life either in space or on other planets. Or, to put it another way, to see and examine the physical and biological makeup of any alien beings that might perchance have landed on earth.

    Yet this is the very thing we are, supposedly, never going to be allowed to learn about. On the 'UFO Updates' a subscriber seriously suggested that in the event of SETI discovering unmistakable ET radio signals, the authorities would never let us know about it!

    I am totally baffled by Tony and others' assertions over this matter.

    More than 65 years after the event they ought to know better than to constantly repeat this conspiracy twaddle, which is all it is.

    BY all means try and discover some actual physical hardware, if it exists. But don't then pretend that we, the public, can never be told about it.

    Science does not advance in this way. It never has and never will.

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • Christopher:

    Mr. Bragalia provokes.

    He should have written that such evidence, of an alien body, would not surface officially.

    However...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • Tony's article is a good summary of the situation. I'd make two minor criticisms:

    No only oil geologists, but water geologists and especially.

    Not "prints or slides", but 'negatives or slides' because of the ease of faking a print.

    I think cda misses something by his harping on Science, as if that would be the most important thing to the military or the politicians.

    Chris, it is power that matters, not science. Scientists and academics are mere classes of drones working for these folk.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • Don:

    Our friend Christopher [CDA] is an idealist.

    He thinks scientists and people generally (outside of the UFO community) are good at heart, without evil intentions or self-rewarding motivations.

    Scientists, opera singers, doctors, and almost every professional is corrupt, down deep, and would sell their grandmothers for a sou if it gave them fame, money, or a rank up in their jobs.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 17, 2013  

  • Scientists, opera singers, doctors, and almost every professional is corrupt, down deep, and would sell their grandmothers for a sou if it gave them fame, money, or a rank up in their jobs.

    Fortunatly, it is not the case for some members of the DreamTeam who help witness(es?) to redact Affidavit. He/They have just to sign it. So good is the life, there is not?

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, February 18, 2013  

  • Don-
    You are right. Should read: negatives and slides. And yes, water and oil geologists are possibilities (or perhaps more that "possibilities" give a new lead that we are pursuing.

    CDA-
    I am not saying that scientists have not seen the corpses. They most assuredly have. But you and likely never will.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Monday, February 18, 2013  

  • What I read is a seeming forward summary chapter of the spectrum required of a forensic investigation of an alleged event, which, aside from some minor quibbling over terms,essentially repeats what are commonly known as the characteristics of hard evidence. I am not sure what the purpose of this is as it has more to do with what is quantifiable than anything that has been discovered that is. What is more astonishing than the possibility of alien bodies is the rote and repetitious nature of going forward in a neutral gear. I say good luck to Tony and his cohorts but with a qualifier...time is counted.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, February 18, 2013  

  • Tony, in a previous discussion here I mentioned one oil geologist who lived in Artesia, but I found his papers, published in 1947 and 1948, in a bibliography of ground water studies. There I learned about a Department of the Interior project in the Pecos River basin that had been ongoing since the late 1930s. There should be more geologists in the area then one might have thought.

    Reading the papers to learn which of the published studies refer to field work in the summer of 1947, would be the only way I have of narrowing down the list...unless I came across a table listing published papers and date of field work, which I haven't.

    Gilles: "Fortunatly, it is not the case for some members of the DreamTeam who help witness(es?) to redact Affidavit. He/They have just to sign it. So good is the life, there is not?"

    I really wish they'd done that as much as you and CDA imply. Then we'd have this great coherent story and I wouldn't have any questions worth asking of them. Instead, they analogized their work to the courtroom, lowering the bar of coherence down to Loftusian levels and those of the Expert Witness racket (I was a researcher and librarian for 12 years in a corporate law deptartment. It's a racket and a sophistic one, too), when they ought to have had drinks and snacks and comfy chairs and encourage reminiscence in the people, and lead, lead, lead them.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, February 18, 2013  

  • I was wondering if Don might expand upon his last paragraph above? I am not sure that I am understanding it.

    Certainly the abject nonsense procured from Haut shows just how destructive the work of pious (and dull) believers can be in relation to recording past facts?

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, February 18, 2013  

  • Lance wrote: "I am not sure that I am understanding it."

    Lance, That is your routine response to me. It is too much work for too little return to respond to you.

    I have two questions for any Roswell "aficionado", and I must have an answer before discussing Roswell with any of them anymore, skeptic and advocate, alike.

    It concerns this from the United Press on July 9, 1947.

    "The excitement ran through this cycle:
    1. Lt. Warren Haught, public relations officer at the Roswell base, released a statement in the name of Col. William Blanchard, base commander. It said that an object described as a "flying disc" was found on the nearby Foster ranch 3 weeks ago by W.W. Brazel and been sent to "higher officials" for examination."

    Question 1. Is there anything wrong with that statement?

    Question 2. If so, how do you think it came about?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, February 18, 2013  

  • Don,

    LOL okay...and if I try to discuss what I believe you are saying, you will come back by claiming that you didn't mean it that way.


    It's a win-win for you, I suppose.

    I have said that I didn't understand some of your emails to me in the past. You were using some sort of shorthand way of discussing the ideas that are in your head--some of your sentences, didn't seem complete.

    Feel free to believe that this is my shortcoming.

    I will take up your questions:

    1. There might be...we don't know the exact contents of the release.
    2. Numerous possibilities.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, February 18, 2013  

  • Lance wrote: "I will take up your questions:

    1. There might be...we don't know the exact contents of the release.
    2. Numerous possibilities."

    Then you should familiarize yourself with "Haughts statement", which the UP refers to, and which you have an opinion about.

    "It said that an object described as a "flying disc" was found on the nearby Foster ranch 3 weeks ago by W.W. Brazel and been sent to "higher officials" for examination."

    According to the document the UP refers to, the object found on the ranch was not described as a "flying disc", but "a disc". It contained no mention of the Foster Ranch, or W.W. Brazel, said nothing about "higher officials" or that it was sent to them for "examination".

    Question 2 asks how, or why if you prefer, this came about.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Monday, February 18, 2013  

  • Don,

    My answers above cover the questions.

    We don't have the exact wording of any release. Additions to or omissions from the "real" release could have happened anywhere in the chain. Editors and reporters do that all the time.

    I know you place some great importance upon the exact wording in the press reports and I appreciate that.

    But how or why those variations happened is not something that I think you can demonstrate.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, February 18, 2013  

  • Lance: "But how or why those variations happened is not something that I think you can demonstrate."

    Sure, I can, and so could you, if you wanted to.

    My questions had nothing to do with any speculation about a "real" release, but with the statement the UP referred to and what it claimed was in it.

    The UP editor updated "Haught's statement" with Wilcox's statement reported about 50 minutes after Haut's, and with Brazel's statement, made a few hours later, and the almost concurrent Ft Worth statement.

    The editor had it from the horse's mouth (Wilcox, Brazel), and the authoritative source, Commander of the 8th Army Air Force, General Ramey.

    So, of course, he could put together that sentence, even though it is false, because according to the actors in the story and the best authority, it is true.

    And, that's why investigative journalism was invented.

    All narratives are glossed, often unclear as to directionality (or 'cause and effect'). In a word, they can only be anachronistic. Keeping that in mind makes it easier to parse the narrative, helps to know what are the good questions to ask, and where to get the answers. Playing prosecutor at a trial on blogs and objecting to hearsay, contradictions, witness leading and "false memory", may be fun for you, but I find it dull and shallow.

    If what you didn't understand was my distaste for the phony courtroom theatrics the comprise 90% of the debate between skeptics and advocates about Roswell, I don't know what to say -- as if I would naturally have to defend my distaste because it is so outre.

    People like to talk about themselves and tell their stories given a nice relaxed setting and a pleasant atmosphere. You might want to watch the Roswell interviews cataloged at the NARA. They're online.

    Your last comment above this is typical skeptics do nothing, know nothing attitude.

    My suspicion about most skeptics and many advocates is that they don't want to know anything more than they already think they know. They like things just as they are.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, February 19, 2013  

  • Don:

    AMEN!

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, February 19, 2013  

  • Yes, it is rather a drag, being confined to the standard methods for exploring truth.

    Rich, maybe you can help me out.

    What great truth do you think Don has revealed in the discussion above? The fact is that I don't even know if I disagree with him or not. I have no idea what he is going on about.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Tuesday, February 19, 2013  

  • Lance (and Don too):

    Don get irked, I think, by the routine back-and-forths that skeptics and believers engage in, because both don't really engage the facts of their dabate-topic or the subject matter under discussion.

    There's lots of strutting and postering but little in the way of deep fact-checking.

    This is the case at Kevin's blog when all you fellows get immersed in Mr. Rudiak's displays of Roswell or UFO minutiae.

    You, Lance, along with CDA, and Gilles provoke Rudiak and he reciprocates, but little more than heat is generated.

    Don wants less baloney and more fact-checking and actual research instead of the usual bromides (about Roswell, in this case and UFOs generally).

    There's a lot of huffing and puffing but nothing of substance going on is what I read into Don's plaint.

    I agree with him, but am sometimes guilty of doing the same thing: repeating nonsense about Roswell (or Socorro) just to make an obtuse point.

    But Gilles Fernandez has this ongoing insight: That's ufology.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, February 19, 2013  

  • Thanks Rich,

    I agree with that for the most part.

    What I was asking about was the the specific point that Don is trying to make above about the press release.

    I simply don't understand his point.

    Do you? Does anyone else?

    I'm not asking this rhetorically. I'm not saying he doesn't have a point. The problem may lie entirely within my own limitations.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Tuesday, February 19, 2013  

  • Don, I think he'll admit, can be obscure.

    He and Bruce often mislead us dumkoffs with their rhetoric.

    Don has a concern about the Haut press release and how it was handled by the media.

    The AP and Roswell newspapers complicated the Roswell event by accretions or omissions to the press release, which has flummoxed researchers for years.

    Don, and me too, would like to get back to the unencumbered rendering of Haut's statement for the Army: how it was generated, who generated it, what was its purpose, what did flying disc mean, et cetera.

    Don is pointing out that you, Lance, and others (CDA among them) don't deal with things Roswellian from the "pristine" conditions of 1947 but, rather, deal with Roswell in its mythical form, form 1978 onward, with all the blunders, misinformation, and biased additions of UFO ET advocates and skeptics also.

    That's what get from Don's screed.

    He's a stickler for details, too much so sometimes, as I've reminded him online and privately.

    But I'd rather be inundated by his information than that of Rudiak or you fellows who get into it with Rudiak at Kevin's blog.

    You guys merely muddy the waters and make everyone hate Roswell as a topic of discussion.

    Redfern, Kimball, PurrlGurrl, and others run from this blog and others as soon as Roswell pops up.

    The topic has left a bad taste in their mouths -- some people (ahem) have exacerbated that bad taste by inane, unproductive Roswell ramblings.....I'm as much at fault as anyone, but I know it.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, February 19, 2013  

  • Thanks Rich,

    I get the part about getting as close to the original source as possible and I would submit that most anyone on both sides agrees with that.

    What I don't see is what Don thinks he has found,

    The various press reports do differ in detail but those differences could be due to the vagaries of getting a hot story out quickly (something I am sure you are familiar with) and are not reliable as a sign of some vast conspiracy, etc,

    It doesn't appear that you know exactly what he is getting at, either? Am I right?

    I have made the mistake of asking him to clarify it but that is apparently the wrong tack.

    Oh well...I guess you can fault a guy for trying.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Tuesday, February 19, 2013  

  • I'm sure, Lance, that Don is seeing this and I bet/hope that he enlightens us.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, February 19, 2013  

  • Lance: "What I was asking about was the the specific point that Don is trying to make above about the press release.

    I simply don't understand his point.

    Do you? Does anyone else?"

    I was making no point about the press release, but about how narratives are told or written, and how we read them, and how they can appear both 'true' and 'false', and how, in some sense, can be both at once.

    The second point was how or why that happens.

    It is not limited to the news story genre where it is the accepted and approved method, but in the narratives in the "affidavits" and interviews of "witnesses". And it is true of the authors of the books in which those appear.

    I believe "reading for comprehension" covers it. But in your case, you would have start with reading in the first place. And that is why you don't understand me, not because I'm being obscure, but because you are obviously unacquainted with the material.

    As for the press release, it doesn't have Brazel, it doesn't have Foster Ranch, it doesn't have Wilcox notifying Marcel, it doesn't have Marcel going to the ranch and retrieving it, it doesn't have Marcel inspecting the disc at the RAAF. It doesn't even have the RAAF or the IO in possession of the rumored flying disk, but a "disc" which somehow is the reality (of? behind?) the rumored flying disk.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Tuesday, February 19, 2013  

  • Rich: "That's what get from Don's screed."

    I am shocked. Your comment is the only feedback I've ever gotten that understands what I am doing re Roswell (and the 47 Wave).

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013  

  • Of course, Don...

    Only a few of us understand your brilliant exegesis of Roswell's press release and the 1947 UFO scene.

    As Gilles says, insightfully, "That's ufology."

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013  

  • ..so am I following your hypothesis correctly that 'Roswell' Haut press release was an attempt at a subtly finessed US intel distraction from something not to be discussed?.. ....somewhat similar to 'Chernoble' "stay away" brute-force coverup of something else???

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Thursday, February 21, 2013  

  • Kurt, are you asking me?

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Thursday, February 21, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home