UFO Conjectures

Friday, July 11, 2014

The Roswell Slides: What’s that smell?

There is, in my mind, a serious question of ethical behavior in the Roswell slides discovery and ongoing story.

When I first heard about the Roswell slides, from Anthony Bragalia, I thought he told me that a woman who was handling an estate sale found, hidden in a trunk, a cache of Kodachrome slides that she passed on to her brother, a Chicago businessman.

Mr. Bragalia wrote later, for this blog, that the woman who found the slides was an estate-cleaner, a cleaning lady, not an estate representative. Either I misunderstood him when he first told me the story or his initial concept of the woman's role was in error when he told me.

Somehow she or her brother ended up in contact with one of the so-called Roswell Dream Team members (Tom Carey?), thinking they had slides of an alien that was recovered in the Roswell crash of 1947. (As to why they thought this was what the slides showed or what their interest was in Roswell or how the Dream Team member came to be involved was never made clear to me,)

Mr. Bragalia passed on the nub of the story to Frank Warren [The UFO Chronicles] and Nick Redfern, and skirted further information to me as I was determined that the slides should be made public, to the UFO community at least.

When I noted the slide story at this blog, Mr. Bragalia and Kevin Randle, who was the originator of the Roswell Dream Team, said I was full of hooey, and that Mr. Randle didn’t know anything about the alleged slides.

After Paul Kimball disclosed that Mr. Randle did know about the slides and what was being pursued relevant to them, Mr. Randle dropped off the Team. Mr. Bragalia, however, tried to stifle my knowledge and effort to get the slide story out in the open.

And just yesterday [7/10], Mr. Bragalia took to comment here to say my view that the slides were inappropriately taken by the woman who discovered them, as she was required by law to disclose her find, was in error. 

Mr. Bragalia then proceeded to provide this comment about my view (which I got from an attorney):

No Rich, completely untrue! Who told you this poppycock? There is no TX Attorney General interest, no litigation, law suit or other legal hindrance of any kind in release of the slides...

The slides were obtained by a clean-out of a deceased owner's home (therefore legally trash) and not obtained from an "estate sale."

And any statute of limitations would have long passed to lay claim to the slides, Also...

Hilda had no children. Bernerd had no children. There are no direct descendants, no one to lay claim or make the claim to the slides.

The whole thing you've written is preposterous on the face of it for these reasons and more. 

And a Roswell team member I have just phoned who is closer to this situation than any of us thinks it ridiculous.


Now it seems the woman who found the slides wasn’t handling an estate sale but, rather, cleaning up the house in which she found the slides; that is, she was part of the crew disposing of the Hilda Ray house.

That makes little sense to me, but that’s Mr. Bragalia’s stance now [July 10th, 2014].

When pressed that his view about the cleaning of the deceased’s house, which our corporate attorney said was “full of shit,’ Mr. Bragalia sent me this:

Well whatever...it is to laugh:

Tell him this: the slides aren't leaving the owner's possession. And exact, ultra-high quality digital images have been made, and too many people have already seen them, and too many scientists have tested them to 'harm' the story.

It would take a court mandated action to take away the original slides. By then they would have already been broadcast (likely from a foreign country as I told you) where they would remain.

And tell you barrister this: I will be calling the TX Unclaimed Property Office and the TX AG's office to see if any kind of investigation of any type has been initiated against the Chicago owner of the slides.

Old slides left in a trunk and left in an attic after the couple is deceased and the RE firm has engaged a company to clean out the property- its trash, sorry. It's like leaving yellowed National Geographics when you die. In the dumper they go. To prove if the slides have any value would require someone to have come forward to say that they do. Who is this person?


It seems that Mr. Bragalia, a friend of this blog (so far) has come to an obsessed position about the slides, and is willing to set aside transparency and ethics in order to make a mark in the UFO community and the world at large, as he sees the slides as absolute proof that an alien body was recovered at Roswell, and the slides confirm that.

From what Larry wrote, after seeing the slides, Mr. Bragalia said Larry is now a believer, a view that I (and others) don’t exactly read into his comment(s) where he (Larry) describes what he sees in the slides.

I and others (who might come forward) don’t see the slides as proving anything. They are circumstantial at best, and acquired in a strange way, promoted just as strangely, by their present owner.

Something has been dicey about this slide story from the get-go.

It’s become a messy affair, surely. And that’s because the Dream Team thinks they have to get all their ducks in a row before they disclose what they think is the Roswell secret.

Instead of being forthcoming and transparent, Mr. Bragalia and his cronies have circumvented ethical behavior as a means to what they see as a monumental end: The Roswell Crash was real and alien bodies were found.

That conclusion is as far from acceptable by anyone with half a sense about what the slides show or can show.

The slides were obtained in a way that doesn’t seem proper to me (and others). They were passed on to a person who is planning to exploit them, and Mr. Bragalia and his team-mates are complicit in that exploitation, ethics and transparency be damned.

This is where we are…



  • Given that authentication of such material is both time consuming and expensive, surely a logical first step would have been to make digital copies of the slides available for public scrutiny. This would have quickly determined if the pictures were prosaic or something worthy of further study.

    Bragalia rather disingenuously talks of the slides having been 'authenticated', which in truth leaves him with all of his work still to do. That Team Dream have a couple of genuine Kodachrome slides from the relevant period is irrelevant, the contention is what they depict.

    Larry's description and his decidedly lukewarm response to the material does not augur well for a positive reaction when it is eventually given a wider audience.

    By Blogger Ross, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • Rich

    mayby Larry can say for himself but i thought from reading the paragraph he wrote, i think hes open to the possibilitie that it could be alien or an underdeveloped human, does the face look human?

    He said it doesnt conclusively prove its Roswell related but cant be proved that it isnt either, i dont recall him giving his personal opinion of what he thinks the humaniod is either.

    It was very much an unbiased account of what he saw i think so you cant say for certain Larrys a believer really.

    By Blogger Al12, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • From the description of the slides even if they can be conclusively dated to 1947 they don't have any definitive link to Roswell.

    Given that the provenance of the slides is somewhat hazy my gut feeling is that not only are they not a smoking gun but that they may not be a gun at all.

    By Blogger Capt Steve, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • I think the number one thing we all must remember is that the "dream team" does not have ownership of these slides. The owner is a man located in Chicago- who may be looking to cash in on the slides. This isn't something the team has control over.

    Tony's reactions to Rich seem like paranoia. Maybe he is afraid all their work will be stifled or will never see the light of day if there are legal issues. Or maybe there is some worry about the government taking them away. It's hard to say.

    I disagree with the need for transparency. Many investigations must preserve evidence (like the slides) in order to maintain a chain of custody and keep the investigation pure. While I would love nothing more than to see the slides- I can understand the need to keep them close to the vest.

    I can also understand how people see this as some hype building technique, and that everyone is possibly looking to cash in on the slides. I hope that isn't the case. I certainly don't think Anthony Bragalia has that agenda.

    I'm going to keep my fingers crossed that they really got something special here and will reveal it soon. Let's hope the owner isn't a hoaxer looking o make a buck. I would hate to see these slides presented in some goofy "mock-u-mentary" on TV.

    By Blogger Daniel Hurd, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • Capt-

    Except that the original owner of the slides was an Oil Exploration Geologist in NM in the 1940s and worked the Permian Basin, which includes the Roswell area.

    And the alien imaged appears very similar to the aliens' appearance as reported at Roswell.


    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • Ross: " a logical first step would have been to make digital copies of the slides available for public scrutiny."

    If the emulsion is Kodachrome, the first logical step is to gather several former Kodak photo chemists who have worked with the emulsion, and who have "institutional memory", to analyze the slides.

    I don't mean the image in the slides but the slides themselves.

    "This would have quickly determined if the pictures were prosaic or something worthy of further study."

    Digital copies and prints would be useless, if Larry is right and the image is not in the range of acceptable focus. They wouldn't be of much use if they were tack sharp, either.

    One of the oddities of ufology is this desire to study copies of photos rather than originals.

    Capt Steve: "From the description of the slides even if they can be conclusively dated to 1947 they don't have any definitive link to Roswell."

    There is another matter, unrelated to whether they are 'Roswell' or even if the critter is real or fake, that may be of interest, especially to ET advocates.

    1 is if the critter is something like a Grey (or any other recognizable alien species) and the slides can be dated (through analysis by the experts) to an era previous to Grey aliens becoming (as the skeptics say) "popular".

    2 is if the slides can be dated to a later era, then one has to ask who would go through the trouble to create such a fake (I don't mean the critter. I mean the slides).

    It would not be trivial to present faked 1947 Kodachromes, perhaps more difficult that non film photographers can imagine.



    By Blogger Don, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • AJB,

    The provenance is doubtful because the origin of the slides has changed.

    The story changed from the slides being obtained from an estate sale to them being obtained during a clean out. That's a red flag.

    You need to establish a clear chain of evidence for the slides, one that does not change and is thoroughly documented.

    Also, most of the Permian Basin is located in western Texas and not New Mexico. That's a huge area. All you can prove from that statement is that the man in question worked in oil exploration in the American Southwest.

    You need to prove that not only was the original owner in Roswell but you also need to prove that the slides were taken at that time...and THEN you need to prove that the images on the slides are what they're claimed.

    The first may be possible (and you may already have done that) but the second strikes me as impossible; the best you can do is pin down the date of manufacture for the film. I don't know how you'd go about proving the third.

    As far as I can tell, you haven't proven anything other than the possibility that the slides show something unusual. Anything above and beyond that is mere conjecture.

    By Blogger Capt Steve, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • I don't recall where, but didn't someone originally describe the bodies from Roswell looking almost mongoloid? Not sure if they meant Chinese/Mongolian or a chromosomal disorder. Can anyone clarify that account?
    I know Larry mentioned that it looked like a possible case of Trisomy 17. One thing I don't believe was mentioned is the color of the beings skin- what color is it? I know Rich had said to throw the "little grey beings" out the window.
    Also, has any progress been made on the placard that appears in the photo? This could lead to possible FOIA documents and more.
    And what about the Rays, had anyone contacted former colleagues and friends? Did they ever relay any information about this strange event to anyone? Is there any way to tell who the man/woman is in the photos?

    There are ways to prove that these are more than just photos, but it really depends on what the photos reveal.

    By Blogger Daniel Hurd, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • Daniel:

    I said to throw out Brazel's debris episode, not the alleged little guys who may have crash-landed near Roswell.

    After all, one should have respect for the dead, whether from here or from a galaxy far, far away.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • Rich

    respect for the dead whether they are from here or the cosmos

    Well not in this case since the aliens collegues presumably left them behind

    An all weve done is prod an study them since.

    Also it would be interesting to know whats written on that placard, i would of thought the Dr would of been able to assist in that area.

    By Blogger Al12, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • And what about that "severed head"?

    That's significant, but few have zeroed in on that.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • Capt Steve: "Also, most of the Permian Basin is located in western Texas and not New Mexico. That's a huge area. All you can prove from that statement is that the man in question worked in oil exploration in the American Southwest."

    It doesn't take much research to learn what Bernerd Ray was doing geology-wise back then, and many others with him.
    I think there can be a solid circumstantial case for Ray (or others associated with him) being in the region in 1947. I think it can be proved (one way or the other).



    By Blogger Don, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • Rich:
    Point well taken! My apologies for the misunderstanding.

    By Blogger Daniel Hurd, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • That's okay, Daniel....I'm as confused as everyone else.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • Don,

    I'm sure that whether or not Ray was in Roswell can be shown; my point is that, as far as we know right now, it hasn't.

    By Blogger Capt Steve, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • Having UFO nuts, including known liars, as part of equation makes this all so deliciously absurd.

    Bragalia demonstrates his bottomless stupidity by declaring "authentication" and "provenance" without any apparent indication that he understands what the terms means. From past experience, anything Bragalia claims stands a great chance of being worthless.

    It is obvious that whoever has control of these slides is really trying hard to get a payday, offering them to many parties (perhaps more than we know--it may be that the Roswell Delusion Team was just the most gullible and other folks passed).

    So far we can only see that bumbling nitwits are working like crazy to support their preconceived religious convictions.



    By Blogger Lance, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • Tony: "Except that the original owner of the slides was an Oil Exploration Geologist in NM in the 1940s and worked the Permian Basin, which includes the Roswell area."

    Do you have proof he was doing oil exploration, or that it was his specialty?

    A few years ago Rich wrote about the "archeologists" and then came the interest in oil exploration. I referred to water exploration as being a more likely source for geologists in the field in 1947...or any time between the late 30s and the late 40s. Water access and rights was a significant issue, politically and economically in the Pecos River Basin which includes eastern New Mexico (including Roswell, but not Lincoln) and west Texas.

    Another possibility is professional, but non-commercial (oil, water) interest, 'just for the geology of it', so to speak.

    Do you really know Ray was doing oil exploration at the time?



    By Blogger Don, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • Remember the alien autopsy film of 1995? That was going to be the great proof of the Roswell affair.

    Except that it wasn't. (surprise!)

    The great slide affair of 2014 will be exactly the same, except that this time it consists of just two slides and not a 30-minute film. But the end result will be the same - i.e. worthless to science and worthless as evidence of ET visits to earth.

    But don't let that deter AJB and his cohorts from their quest for that earth-shaking hard evidence.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • "Sir, we have a dead body from the flying saucer!"

    "Very well, place the little green man in a container and be sure to put a placard on it so we don't forget where it came from! I will see if we can get a civilian Oil Geologist to come in with his wife to photograph the little guy."

    "Very good, sir! "


    By Blogger Lance, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • Don:

    Bernerd Ray was definitely an oil geologist, and he definitely worked under contract within an area which included the alleged Roswell crash site.

    However, that says precisely nothing about the validity of the theory proffered by Team Dream as to what these slides depict.

    Unless the owner of the material was already a Roswell fanatic it seems hard to see how he could have independently arrived at the conclusion that the images depict the aftermath of the alleged E.T crash in 1947. One suspects he had some help in that regard.

    By Blogger Ross, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • For the record, I am neither a “believer” nor a “disbeliever” in the slides. Unlike some people, I can actually hold two mutually inconsistent thoughts in mind at the same time.

    My statements are based on what I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears. Since my thoughts on the matter are an attempt to interpret actual sensory data, they do not constitute beliefs. They could be incorrect—but that is another issue.

    What my observations tell me is that the images are real and that they appear to depict a humanoid body. As I see it, the body could be an actual cadaver (i.e., it was alive at some point) OR it could be a contrived fake of some sort (like a carnival side show prop, for example). I can find problems with either of those interpretations and, for the time being, I suspend judgment.

    If it is an actual cadaver, it may or may not have been a human with a deformity. I personally am not qualified to make that determination, and the slide’s owners freely admit that they have no scientific training or credentials that would allow them to do so, either. My motivation for getting involved in the matter in the first place was to try to put the owner in touch with qualified individuals (MDs and PhDs in medicine and biology) who could make such a determination, and I know the owner was taking steps to do exactly that.

    The intention of the owner (at the time I last talked to him a couple of months ago) was to allow the slides and their story to be presented on a TV special (Discovery Channel, or some such). For better or worse, I figured that that was the likely outcome before I ever met the owner. It has been my experience that when any large media producer gets involved in a production like this, they more or less take over the handling of the material and the telling of the story. If I were the TV producer, I would have my attorneys investigating the provenance of the slides from top to bottom—simply as a matter of due diligence. I suspect that that is the origin of the claims and counter claims regarding whether the slides were stolen or not. If a TV special is ever produced, they will undoubtedly also have their own assortment of experts give an interpretation of what is depicted in the slides.

    By Blogger Larry, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • Thanks Ross. I've found a petroleum link to Ray. Satisfactory.

    Originally, someone digging in the desert and finding ET was an archeologist. Tony made a case here for it, naming the archeologist. The archeologist story goes back well before Tony's article.

    I don't see why whether Ray was a petroleum or water geologist, or any kind of geologist, matters at all for some snaps taken indoors.

    Unless there is more (I'm sure there is more) what does it matter when the Rays might have been in Roswell? Were there dead alien exhibits in Roswell town before Walter Haut's time?

    So what does this remnant spam in a can, if that's what it is, have to do with Roswell?

    At least the archeologist story put us in the field, at the scene, with behaviors.

    I'm skeptical of this story, but it makes me more interested in the older archeologist stories.



    By Blogger Don, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • Hello,

    Sincerly, I have at least two leads where the slides may have been taken (prosaic) due, not to have seen it by myself, but what the others slides are depecting and some researches.
    But well, in before they will be released, I enjoy all the "teasing" and remain "silent".



    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • See my most recent post Gilles...


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • No change in story. There was never an estate sale. It was an estate cleaning service, as Rich now concedes. I wrote this in the slides article appearing some time ago in fact, Captain.


    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • Gilles-

    You are full of it and you know it.

    The jealousy, idiocy and compulsion to insert yourself in this is reminiscent of Lance, Kimball and others.

    None of you have anything to say about this because none of you are privy. Anything you know I've told you...you can add nothing more except derision.


    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • Anthony,

    And one suspects you'd rather it stayed that way.

    You've convinced yourself you are privy to some profound secret, and no evidence to the contrary will convince you otherwise. From your perspective there is nothing to be gained by garnering feedback from a wider audience.

    If it were up to you I am quite sure those slides would never see the light of day

    By Blogger Ross, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • RR -

    ...nice to see you finally come around to a more realistic evaluation of the quality of anything "AJB" touches...

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • Hello, RR,

    I can understand how you might have formed your perspectives of Kevin Randle's statements concerning the slides and AB's related activities. I can also understand why you might have opted to express any such perspectives in the manners you chose in this post. That stated and being the individual who obtained the statements from KR that I suspect you are referencing, I feel a bit of a responsibility to clarify that, while your assessments of KR's statements may not be difficult to understand, they could also be interpreted as not entirely accurate. Please allow me to explain.

    RR wrote, "When I noted the slide story at this blog, Mr. Bragalia and Kevin Randle, who was the originator of the Roswell Dream Team, said I was full of hooey, and that Mr. Randle didn’t know anything about the alleged slides."

    Actually, the post I did on the topic (which, if I recall correctly, was linked from this blog), was titled, 'Kevin Randle: Not involved in investigation of slides':


    So if I am correct that you were alluding to the specific statements I obtained from KR, he did not actually literally state or imply you were misrepresenting the existence of the slides. He stated he was not involved directly in any such investigation. The lead paragraph of the article:

    "UFO researcher and Roswell Dream Team member Kevin Randle told 'Orlando Paranormal Examiner' Wednesday that he has not been involved in the investigation of photographic slides of alleged aliens as recently described by blogger Rich Reynolds. 'I have seen no photographs, slides, or pictures of alien creatures associated with the Roswell crash,' Randle explained. 'I have participated in no investigations of such slides.'"

    While you and others are of course entitled to disagree with the way KR and his peers could have handled the unfolding circumstances, I feel motivated to point out his actual statements, at least to me. As we now know, there were a number of extenuating circumstances and complex dynamics surrounding the researchers' decisions about how to respond to such questions as I posed to KR and you regularly present for consideration on this blog. It is not my desire to dissect those decisions at this time, but help clarify what was actually stated.


    By Blogger Jack Brewer, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • Randle explained. 'I have participated in no investigations of such slides.'"

    The problem is that this statement was at best a weasel-worded shading of the truth (for Randle had indeed conducted his own enquiries, as he revealed to me), and at worst an out-and-out falsehood, depending on how sycophantically generous one chooses to be with one's definition of the word "investigation." That so few people within ufology fail to grasp this basic point doesn't surprise me, but it does disappoint.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • Paul Kimball-

    Folks watch out for this untrustworthy man. He is a petty and pathetic individual.

    He made public private emails from Kevin. Unconscionable.

    And you lie Paul. Repeatedly. Kevin was not part of the investigation and to this day has never seen the slides.

    You know nothing about any of this subject and try to insert yourself and ride off of my coattails.


    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • Tony Bragalia is wrong here.

    E-mails are not sacrosanct.

    There is a long-time literary tradition of presenting mail between notables and not-so-notables for public viewing.

    I happen to have provided some e-mail content from Tony to me, in this posting.

    He didn't note it as private or "For my Eyes Only."

    My e-mails are grist for scutiny; I rarely ask recipients to keep them secret.

    If someone asks me to keep their mail to me private, I will do so, and have.

    But other than that, e-mail is not a matter for secrecy....I hate secrecy.

    Newspapers have done articles on me, some not so flattering. I accept that as part of being a public figure in my venues.

    Kevin Randle is a public figure, in the UFO community surely.

    And Tony Bragalia is also.

    Unless either man asks for their communications to be held privately, they are open to scrutiny and public view.

    Mr. Bragalia has a thing about missives.

    I accept that, but find it restraining in many ways.

    There should be no secrets.

    If one wants to keep their thoughts private, use a phone.

    As for Mr. Kimball, he is a close friend.

    I find him above reproach, ethically, morally, and in every other way.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, July 11, 2014  

  • Mr. Braglia wrote: "And the alien imaged appears very similar to the aliens' appearance as reported at Roswell."

    The alien described in 1947 reports? Or the "alien" described decades later?

    AJB, I would point out this bit of entry-level logic: you can't verify an undemonstrated fact with another undemonstrated fact.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Saturday, July 12, 2014  

  • Paul Kimball riding off of Tony's coat tails? Pray tell...what coat tails?

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Saturday, July 12, 2014  

  • Why is it that whenever anyone uncovers some new Roswell "evidence" their first thought is, "I know! I'll offer this material to a bunch of guys who are desperate to prove that something happened at Roswell and whose default position is that any new Roswell 'evidence' is authentic?"

    By Blogger Mark OC, at Saturday, July 12, 2014  

  • PK,

    I grasp your point. Some agree with you, others do not, and that's what makes a horse race, as they say. You are entitled to your opinion, as well as assigning it as much importance as you choose, and whether or not others agree. But your point is quite different than the point I was making.

    Consider, please, that what you or others may think about KR's statements, or how you may feel about them, is a different issue than accurately identifying what they were. Specifically, I took mild issue with Randle never said that RR was full of hooey or that Randle knew nothing about the slides, at least not as published in my article cited and as he was attributed with stating in this blog post.

    Those were interpretations of the meanings and inferences of the statements, not the actual statements themselves, and there is indeed a difference. I felt motivated to address the circumstances because I am confident that cultivating best practices is an ongoing responsibility, so it seemed the issue itself is potentially of greater long term value than the specifics from one particular circumstance to the next.

    We are of course entitled to interpret statements as disingenuous or questionable, but a competent argument could be made that the statements should still be quoted or framed accurately. I would invite consideration that a constructive approach might be for an individual to accurately quote Randle (or anyone else of whom they wish to write about and challenge) and then explain how they interpret the statements, why they did or did not agree and so on. That might seem more of the overall solution than not to the challenges that chronically plague ufology, as well as a way to set functional examples of how to appropriately support or criticize such statements.

    By Blogger Jack Brewer, at Saturday, July 12, 2014  

  • Jack,

    I'm happy to quote Randle accurately, and have always done so. He told you he was not involved in the investigation of the slides. That was patently untrue (he conducted his own enquiries, which is by any definition an "investigation"), and he was aware of the investigation being conducted by his colleagues and privy to the details. The fact that people see room for debate as to the disingenuousness of his actual statements to you tells me all I need to know about the faulty moral compass of the true believer cult.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Saturday, July 12, 2014  

  • Always nice to have your comments censored for no apparent reason. Thanks for the unopen mind

    By Blogger new illuminati, at Monday, July 14, 2014  

  • New I...

    No censorship of your comments here.

    I do see a comment that won't post for some reason.

    You might send it again.

    (I'll check to see why it won't generate.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, July 14, 2014  

  • It was a scam a money making con. Get over yourselves trying to excuse or deny the reality. They planned it and executed it, and banked it.

    By Blogger Scott Lee, at Thursday, May 14, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home