UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Lance Moody Speaks!

Our good friend, the erudite Paul Kimball, has provided a link to his The Other Side of Truth podcast with uber-skeptic Lance Moody.

I haven't heard the podcast yet but when Lance Moody is involved you can bet the back-and-forth will be more than interesting.

I'll add something to comments after I access the podcast via this link:




  • Hi Rich,

    Thanks for posting, and I hope you and your readers find it interesting - alas, I left the really controversial stuff out because I didn't want us to get sued. ;-)


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Ah, after a foray into the nooks and crannies of the paranormal, history, and religion (beliefs), Paul and Lance get to Roswell; the Roswell saga of a few years back.

    They don't approach the new controversies about Roswell as instigated by a rumored new Roswell artifact discovered by Kevin Randle's Dream Team.

    The discussion is a little tepid considering the two guys involved.

    It almost gets juicy when Tony Bragalia is brought up (about the Trent photos), but that topic withers away.

    Nonetheless, you'll find asides that are interesting, and you'll get to know a little bit about Lance Moody.

    Give a listen...


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • As you know Rich, I consider the Roswell case closed / solved beyond any reasonable doubt barring some earth-shattering new revelations that simply have not appeared, and any further discussion of it useless, other than as an historical and cultural curio. I believe that Lance holds the same point of view.

    As for "juicy", that kind of stuff is your beat, not mine. ;-)


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Rich, thanks for posting the link.

    Paul, I enjoyed your's and Lance's take on things regardless of the nibbling around the edges at times.

    Getting sued for talking about UFOs and certain personalities involved? One wonders how the "discovery" process would go prepping for trial.:)

    Best Regards,

    Tim H.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Oh, I enjoyed the podcast, Paul. I always come away with something worthwhile; such as the Millerite reference.

    But I thought that fireworks might ensue. Not to be.

    A sober, civil, nice conversation.

    (I like it when Lance gets angry. You rarely get angry, but Lance? He does blow his stack now and then; not this time, but I was hoping.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Actually, Lance was civil throughout - I was the one who got a bit feisty, calling one UFO researcher "crazy" (whose initials may or may not be RS), and then going on a screed about how almost all UFO researchers are "stupid"... and then naming some names. But my better judgment prevailed. :-)


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Tim,

    I suspect that "discovery" would be impossible given that it would surely be classified as Ultra Super Duper Top Secret Restricted Majical Monkeys... or something like that.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • I understand.

    One has to be careful. UFO plebians often threaten to sue (even though they can ill afford to do so).

    While Roswell is dead, for practical reasons, there is a controversy brewing, because of the Dream Team's new venture.

    Will it amount to anything? Or will it die the death it deserves?

    That Lance has removed himself from the brouhaha saddens me.

    He, CDA, and Gilles could hold Kevin's feet to the fire and insist on something really new, not that damnable defunct Mogul detritus.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Hi Rich and Paul,

    I enjoyed the discussion, (even if I didn't get angry!).

    I like debates, too but Paul & I agree on so many things that I don't think there was much room for it between us.

    What do you think about the value of a formal recorded debate between the Roswell gang and skeptics?

    I think that, in a controlled discussion, skeptics could show Roswell as a sham to laypeople even against the hardcore Roswell experts.

    Kevin Randle is doing a debate with Scott Ramsey about Aztec on the Paracast, which is something I'm looking forward to.

    But it is hard to imagine any argument Kevin might make against Ramsey (whose case is supremely ridiculous) that couldn't be made against Roswell as well.

    I would be willing to participate in a well-moderated debate against Roswell but I wonder if there might be any real value in such a thing.


    By Blogger Lance, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Lance:

    A Roswell debate?

    If Randle's blog material (the comment's section) is any indication, chaos -- intellectual chaos -- would reign.

    But if Randle's Dream Team finally discloses its alleged new material, that would provide something debatable.

    However, that old stuff you guys are subjecting us to at his blog at the moment: please, "kill me now."


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • The only thing that would change the trajectory of the Roswell story would be verifiable physical evidence of something extraterrestrial - i.e. an alien body or a wrecked spacecraft - that would, of course, be immediately turned over not to the Roswell "Dream Team" but to the National Academy of Sciences. Anything else, such as new "witnesses", is nothing more than an exercise in reaffirming the preconceived notions of the ever dwindling band of true believers.

    With that in mind, I can't imagine what point there would be in a "debate". If there is amazing new evidence, then the debate that would really matter would be taking place amongst real scientists; if there is no such new evidence (which is, I'm certain, the case), then all you would have is the equivalent of a junior high school drama society staging one of Shakespeare's lesser works, like Pericles. Much ado about nothing at all.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Paul:

    The Randle Dream Team has unearthed some interesting new Roswell-related material.

    That they are closed-mouthed about it stems from the fact they don't have it in their possession.

    But if they did. I have been led to understand it might open the door to new controversy and debate.

    Anything new about Roswell, truly new, would offer relief from the regurgitated stuff being posed again at Mr. Randle's blog and by him via such venues as The Paracast.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • How can you be a skeptic and believe what the government says about UFOs?

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • RRRGroup,

    Seems that if they have not yet secured the material that they are unlikely to ever do so. At this point it's a poor excuse for silence, not least because public disclosure of what they do know could bring other material to the surface.

    The current modus operandi of Team Dream seems to achieve nothing but to grant time to those who wish any material related to this discovery to remain buried.

    By Blogger Ross, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Hey Lance and Kimball-

    How disingenuous and bias you are! The person to blame for the Trent issue is James O'Berg. Lance knows that it is Jim that started this on purpose.

    I am not going to dwell on it again (there is much more to the Ladder Boy story that I am not going to relate here) but let's be truthful w/ listeners to your pathetic podcast.


    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Friday, July 26, 2013  

  • Tony,

    Everyone knows what you did. Rich eggs you on because it amuses him but he knows, too.

    Everyone makes a fool of themselves sometimes but only a full time fool never realizes it.


    By Blogger Lance, at Friday, July 26, 2013  

  • Lance:

    In defense of Tony's Trent conjecture, I think the posed photo of the boy on the ladder by the Life photographer was a subliminal nod by that photographer -- telling us that he (the photographer) thought the Trent photos were contrived and the ladder was part of that contrivance.

    I'm sure the photographer was being circumspect, but wanted to suggest something.

    Otherwise, why the ladder shot? It made no sense (in the context of LIFE's story).

    The Trent photos are iffy for me.

    And Tony's proposal is an hypothetical that I can live with, and liked.

    That said, I do try to provoke and UFO cognoscenti (like you and Paul, and Tony too) know that.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, July 26, 2013  

  • RR is correct.

    And you can excuse Oberg all you want- I will not. "Everybody" knows he is as devious as you are "Moody."

    The Ladder Boy photo -despite the admitted error- speaks volumes and what it really means is intriguing.

    I will put it this way- I learned from someone close to this and LIFE that the photo was taken for a reason. It may well have conveyed what was believed by others at the time: that the photos were hoaxes.


    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Friday, July 26, 2013  

  • No one is excusing Oberg. He posted something on a discussion board that was incorrect. As soon as I asked him about it and told him the same info that we told you, he (since he is not a nut) admitted that he must have been in error.

    You, on the other hand, doubled down and made up some bullshit about how you had someone from Life who had confirmed that the pictures weren't theirs.

    This doesn't even take into account your "research" technique of reading a post on a discussion board and then immediately and breathlessly typing it up (in your typical low grade prose) as though you had made some great discovery.

    You never doubled checked with Oberg, you went right to your, "Look at me! I are a researcher!" stupid and vapid pronouncements. You never did any actual research (apparently this is well outside your wheelhouse).

    Everyone pointed and laughed.

    Again, everyone knows what you did.


    By Blogger Lance, at Friday, July 26, 2013  

  • How people handle having made a mistake says a lot about their character. Good, honest people just admit the mistake, apologize, and learn for it. They don't try to pawn the blame off on other people. In short, they take responsibility for their actions.

    And then there's people like Gene Steinberg and Anthony Bragalia...


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Friday, July 26, 2013  

  • When I make mistake -- a real rarity -- I pretend it didn't even happen in the fist place, one of Machiavelli's maxims.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, July 26, 2013  

  • Having said that, allow me a word on the Trent photos. Part of the episode that I didn't include (again, for timing purposes) was me saying that I have no reasonable doubt that the photos were hoaxed. I didn't need Mr. Bragalia's breathless (and erroneous) speculation to lead me to that conclusion - I made it years ago.

    But on the question of why the photographer would have taken that photo, I am better positioned than anyone else commenting to answer that - because that's what photographers and videographers do. They take as many shots as possible, to cover all possible contingencies, because one never knows what one will use in a film, or what an editor will choose for a magazine article. Throughout my documentary career, I have maintained a shooting ratio of roughly 15 minutes shot for every minute of footage used in a film, and have all sorts of interview footage and questions (the equivalent of photos) that just never get used.

    So, did the photographer think the Trents hoaxed the photo? It doesn't really matter what he thought, but even if it did, it would simply be impossible to say from his having taken a couple of shots of the boy on the ladder.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Friday, July 26, 2013  

  • The boy on the ladder pic, Paul, is a suggestion.

    My work with new photographers when I was reporting for the Detroit NEWS and the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel -- one still a close friend (Dean Orewiler) -- indicated that besides taking as many shots as possible, not knowing what one's editor might want they take shots for their personal files also.

    But in the Trent/Life scenario I see a hint at what the photog was thinking personally, not what he was thinking as a Life photographer.

    That's a conjecture on my part, and comes from what I know and saw the NEWS photographers thought and how they took photos during the 1966 Ann Arbor Mannor/swamp gas fiasco.

    So I see the boy-on-the-ladder pic as something different than you, Lance, or others might.

    It's moot surely, and I think Mr. Bragalia's suggestions in his Trent piece, while controversial (except to The Anomalist and other UFO sites) is not outrageous.

    I'm backing him up on this.

    That doesn't mean I'm shirking your and Lance's pique with him.

    It means he has my support, for whatever that may be worth.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, July 26, 2013  

  • Wait, Rich!

    (Damn you--I am trying to stop commenting!)

    Bragalia's claim was that he ladder photos were taken by Trent. And Bragalia claimed (in his silly childish way) to have confirmed this through an employee of Life.

    Regardless of how much you support him this is not a matter of debate. The photos were taken by Life photog Loomis, just as we suggested to Tony from the get-go.

    I shot and directed TV news as well so I understand your point and agree with it. But Bragalia wasn't making that point--he isn't equipped for that kind of thinking as far as I can tell.


    By Blogger Lance, at Friday, July 26, 2013  

  • Yes, Lance is quite right... The question of what the photographer might have thought is wholly irrelevant, being just his opinion. What was at issue here is Mr. Bragalia's egregious error in claiming that Paul Trent had taken the photo, and his even more egregious failure to accept responsibility for it. Indeed, I just had a look at Mr. Bragalia's original posting at The Bragalia's Files, and he has still neither corrected the error in his December 16th post, which still contains the following:

    "Often an accompanying image can tell a lot about images that are in question. And in this case, it surely does. On the very same roll that the UFO photos were taken we see a picture of a kid up on a ladder next to the very barn-like structure that was found in the UFO pictures."

    Rich, I know you like to stir the pot, but I thought you had better judgment than to continue to support someone like Mr. Bragalia's who continues to demonstrate that he has neither ethics nor competence as a researcher. He is offensive.

    And with that, I withdraw from a "discussion" that isn't worth any more of my time.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Friday, July 26, 2013  

  • I have just listened to the discussion and thoroughly enjoyed it. It sums up Ufology very well and puts forward the idea that Keyhoe was the first real conspiracist.

    I never thought of him in that way when I read his books, but can see now how he 'converted' perhaps hundreds of thousands of readers to his views.

    Keyhoe was a bit lucky in a sense, because his 1st book came out as almost the same time as Scully's book, and his 2nd book at exactly the same time as the Leslie-Adamski book. Yet Keyhoe was very scornful of both these other books, and never got involved with either crashed saucer tales or contactees. Avoided them like the plague.

    I do wonder what Keyhoe would have said about Roswell. He was still alive when the Berlitz-Moore book came out. Did he ever say anything about it?

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, July 27, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home