UFO Conjectures

Monday, September 30, 2013

The Journalistic/Research Milieu (2013)

The Journalistic/Research Milieu (2013)

Our friend and colleague Tony Bragalia keeps pressing the old saw that research or journalistic reportage requires the answers to Who, What, When, Where, Why or How.

Those reportorial requirements went out of practice several years ago, after the advent of social media took hold of the “news cycles.’’
Newspapers (in particular), TV news, and such entities as the UPI all succumbed to the immediacy that the internet or web imposed on the rendering of news.

Research too has been altered by the ubiquity of items that impact, sometimes inadvertently, what researchers are working on; information that seems arcane and unique to the researchers’ investigation(s) is often blown out of the water by a concomitant effort somewhere else in the world, diminishing or even eliminating the researchers’ long effort and investigatory bravado.

News and research entities no longer can afford to hold their cards or news close to the vest. Someone else will, invariably, beat them to the punch.

So news operations and research teams (like those I noted in my post of a few days ago about Skeletons of the Sahara, presented by PBS for The National Geographic) have to put forth their material(s) fast and furiously, or else lose their cachet as the “first with the most.”

The internet, and Twitter particularly, have imposed an anxiety on news (and research) which eliminates the Who, What, When, etc. stipulations.

News operations have been forced to present news items before they have been fully vetted, correcting errant information, after the fact.

This is the practice of news organizations, despite the crowing of media types that it hasn’t really come to that. It has.

(We deal with media at the inner sanctum level and know of what we speak.)

As for research, Wikileaks and Anonymous (the group, not the sole person or persons who upset the Roswell Dream Team applecart), have made the secretive findings moot or void: Wikileaks and other outing operations no longer abide secrets.

That irks Tony Bragalia, who is a nostalgic kind of guy, seeing the world through rose-colored glasses, where decorum and civility reign.

That is no longer the case in society, and especially in internet/web society.

We (and I) mostly adhere to the practice that what we know you should know.

If we have information that impacts you, as a UFO maven, or in any other way, we’ll let you have what we have or what we think we have.

That makes Mr. Bragalia nervous or irritated. He, like his Dream Team brethren, want to give you their Roswell findings in a final package, wrapped up with bows and goo-gaws from which they can accrue fame or fortune.

We don’t begrudge them either of those things.

But if truth is the goal of the Dream Team, about Roswell, then showing or telling what they have, now, is paramount to the purpose of truth, which should wait for no man or for time to fester.

Truth is truth, and it should even be forthcoming when it isn’t complete or total.

We have no idea, for instance, who Jesus was. Research goes on about that personage, in such books as Killing Jesus or Zealot.

Both books have no final proofs or explanation about Jesus, but both have presented their hypotheses, not waiting for a final accumulation of proof or facts.

That should be so with something less significant, such as Roswell.

If the Dream Team has stumbled upon some things new or unusual, that team should share it with others, if truth is what they are really seeking.

What harm comes from sharing truths?

But if the Dream Team has another agenda – one that benefits them in ways not as pristine as truth, their efforts are fair game even more so for scrutiny, before the fact of their “research finality.”

The Who, What, When, et cetera mantra is no longer practiced in our world. And it can’t be used as an excuse to hold back information that might be endemic to mysteries or a mystery that others have conjured with for years.

If the Roswell Dream Team were composed of experts and researchers of renown and credibility, one might allow them to do their work in their own time and way.

Since that is not the case, what they’ve gathered is fair game, if it’s been leaked or hinted at outside the Dream Team laboratory.

To hell with Who, What, When, Where, Why….The news is now. The Dream Team has to deal with that truth.



  • "If the Dream Team has stumbled upon some things new or unusual, that team should share it with others, if truth is what they are really seeking."

    Here's the thing about the slides, and why I find it so amazing that anyone would go to such lengths to investigate slides of alleged "aliens".

    1) Even if the slides date to 1947 (which is not confirmable in the absolute, as film companies recycle their serial system) this is no sign that the images themselves are from 1947. Slide film could have lasted and been exposed far, far later. Like yesterday. The slides would date, possibly, but not the images.

    2)To lay *any* claim on "alien" images is to fall into the category of complete lunacy. One cannot determine if the images show a biological entity or a prop figure - because there is NO benchmark for analysis. The same goes for UFO photos - without a benchmark, all one can say is "I cannot identify this" or explain demonstrably what is being capture on film.

    Personalities, betrayals and bad form all around aside - I for one can't believe anyone would consider slides of an "alien" being a "smoking gun", or even what would pass for any sort of definable evidence. It's absurd on the face of it.


    By Blogger JR, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • "It's absurd on the face of it."

    That sums it up nicely.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • Some UFO proponents are considering "slides" as an hard EVIDENCE (aka scientific). That's how is the paradigm of evidence in ufology. They have a very, so very little level of evidence to support their extraordinary claims/hypothesis.

    Tony wrote something like "the investigation about the slides is still ongoing".
    But if you read his post(s), he have already concluded about the slides: they are picturing Aliens.
    What a paradoxe! Forget: that's ufology!

    Tony embrassed a forensic/Scientific costum of an agnostic scientific/investigators (in disguise). But he have already "concluded" if you read him, and without a peer-review processing (aka a publication in a scientific review, their feed-backs, etc.)in favor of Aliens.
    But tony made the lesson against the "skpetics". It is pathetical imho. Very sorry.

    That's ufology again: some ufologist are validing their findings between them, or claim "it is validated by Kodak professionals, etc). We will see..

    JR pointing imho very good points about slides and forensic things. I guess we will/would discusse it when the DT will present us how they analysed the slides, or the cardboard marks on the slides, etc.

    And then how they concluded it was ET bodies and slides of 1947. I guess they used few methodological standards to conclude it. We will see, just and only a prediction.

    For example, Tony wrote that the slides showed Einsenhower in 1947, but Kevin reported "the other slides in the box contained pictures from that “era” including one of Eisenhower (which is obviously five years too late)."

    Stay tunned.. ^^


    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • Frankly, I deserve a big thank you from Mr. Bragalia et al, as do the others who have helped expose the DT shenanigans, because we have provided, at least in their skewed worldview of believerism, absolute un-falsifiability to the slides story. When they don't surface (and I suspect that they never will), the believers will be able to say at every conference and in every article that things would have been different if only those evil betrayers hadn't ruined it for everyone. Indeed, Mr. Bragalia is already singing that tune.

    You're welcome!


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • As I recall, Kodak initially verified the Santilli film as dating from 1947.

    Let's face it: if these slides truly date from 1947 and truly depict an ET (or a being that was strongly suspected of being an ET by expert scientific analysis), it would have been made public at the time, not 65 years later.

    Oh I forgot - it was all 'top secret', of course.....

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • From Paul's correspondence verified by Tony's behavior the Dream Team is not what is considered a multidisciplinary research group.

    This team is a loose confederation of authors who have a history of publishing their material to the public piecemeal.

    There has been little secrecy or proprietary methodology that has been applied to anything they have done to date, by scattering it piecemeal themselves,and again, they are a confederation not a research team as the term is normally applied.

    Consider..all this over a dubious slide in terms of it's import which typically has been so exaggerated, Tony will likely and unfortunately fall on his face again due to his own hyperbole, despite the fact he wants to have it both ways and he himself appears to be unaware of this.
    What does this tell us?
    Frankly the whole thing has been varnished with this respectability lurking behind a non existent expertise in even managing their own work.
    Another day in woo-hoo land.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • Continued

    Here we have one member who his own team member has called a sociopathic liar, another one whose own research by his own admission was deeply flawed and one who uses hyperbole, and the other an indelible believer.

    My mind is blown away by this joke they played on themselves.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • CDA- the dating is irrelevant. If memory serves the numbers are recycled every 20 years. So they could have been 1947, or 1967, or...

    Either way, as I said it's irrelevant. The film could have been exposed three years ago, no matter how old it is.

    And, well, it's visuals of "aliens", which in and of itself, no one can verify in any meaningful way whatsoever.

    So, there was never any big deal to begin with.

    By Blogger JR, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • My mind is blown away by this joke they played on themselves.

    If there really had been a crash of an alien spacecraft in 1947, and the government really did want to cover it up, how best to go about it?

    Easy - make the entire story a laughing stock a la the Robertson Panel. Pay cointelpro-type operatives to conduct a campaign of such investigative incompetence so as to make the topic toxic to any but the truest of believers.

    That would explain the Dream Team, and its predecessors.

    Now, as I am convinced that the "Roswell Incident" had nothing to do with alien spacecraft, this is all moot.

    But for those who do think it was an alien spacecraft and a cover-up, perhaps they should be looking at Bragalia et al and ask them who they are really working for.

    After all, in Roswell conspiracy land, up is down, and left is right... so who knows? ;-)


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • "The film could have been exposed three years ago, no matter how old it is." --JR

    It would've had to have been kept in a cool place like a refrigerator, or it would degrade significantly over time. But since we can't see them, we can't see if they're degraded. It's like a psychological ink-blot test, MINUS THE INK BLOT!!

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • Assuming there is a film of course.

    By Blogger Red Eye View, at Monday, September 30, 2013  

  • > I for one can't believe anyone would consider slides of an "alien" being a "smoking gun", or even what would pass for any sort of definable evidence.

    In a previous post, Braglia called the slides "physical evidence."

    That is completely absurd. It's like claiming you can lift fingerprints from a shadow.

    (But I defer to Paul Kimball and his legal training, if he says I'm wrong. Or perhaps Braglia is invoking the Notwithstanding Clause to overrule the rules of evidence? I thought only we Canadians could do that!)

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Tuesday, October 01, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home