UFO Conjecture(s)

Monday, February 23, 2015

A Clarification about the Kodak “alien” and its nakedness

A few fellows commented that my observation about the Kodak "alien" was not pertinent, but Loki gets it.

First off, if this were a secret exhibit, for scientists and/or the military, and the Ray’s or someone stumbled upon it or were invited to a viewing, one would not expect the genital area to be covered, unless Hilda Ray was considered too sensitive to see sexual parts of an extraterrestrial.

But if it were an open exhibit, we might expect the genital area to be hidden to assuage public sensibilities.

Then if the “being” was on display as an example of something special, one would see accompanying elements – clothing, uniform, and other noteworthy accoutrements: The Tutankhamun exhibit of that famous pharaoh or Lenin’s tomb and showing in Moscow, where artifacts associated with such dignitaries were (and are) included.

If the Kodak “being” was a body from the alleged Roswell crash, but only displayed for medical or scientific reasons, one might understand that only the eviscerated body would be displayed, but not with the genitalia covered. (Forensic professionals, the military, or scientists from various disciplines would not be prohibited from viewing sensitive areas of the body,)

If the “being” is a display of a being in final distress and displayed for others to view, such as the Elephant Man was, then the genitalia would, very likely, be hidden or covered.

The detail of the missing outer garments of the being is pertinent, just as it was for the caveman found in the Alps, 1991:

"Ötzi's clothes were sophisticated. He wore a cloak made of woven grass and a coat, a belt, a pair of leggings, a loincloth and shoes, all made of leather of different skins. He also wore a bearskin cap with a leather chin strap. The shoes were waterproof and wide, seemingly designed for walking across the snow; they were constructed using bearskin for the soles, deer hide for the top panels, and a netting made of tree bark. Soft grass went around the foot and in the shoe and functioned like modern socks. The coat, belt, leggings and loincloth were constructed of vertical strips of leather sewn together with sinew. His belt had a pouch sewn to it that contained a cache of useful items: a scraper, drill, flint flake, bone awl and a dried fungus.
The shoes have since been reproduced by a Czech academic, who said that "because the shoes are actually quite complex, I'm convinced that even 5,300 years ago, people had the equivalent of a cobbler who made shoes for other people". The reproductions were found to constitute such excellent footwear that it was reported that a Czech company offered to purchase the rights to sell them.
However, a more recent hypothesis by British archaeologist Jacqui Wood says that Ötzi's "shoes" were actually the upper part of snowshoes. According to this theory, the item currently interpreted as part of a "backpack" is actually the wood frame and netting of one snowshoe and animal hide to cover the face." [Wikipedia]


  • I thought ,it was a misinfo, that the genital area of this creature is covered.

    By Blogger Zak McKracken, at Monday, February 23, 2015  

  • Zak:

    The genitalia thing is a side-bar; I'm concentrating on the lack of other elements not displayed, as noted.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, February 23, 2015  

  • Loki:

    I'm getting your pleas to see Adam Dew's college diploma and I'm ignoring those pleas, as I've indicated before.

    Paul Kimball has a history and/or legal degree but those have little to do with his film-making.

    A documentary auteur doesn't need formal training, although that helps those who need such training.

    I've offered that one look at Mr. Dew's work and judge that alone.

    Pressing him to provide a college diploma is irrelevant in the extreme and mean-spirited.

    Read Paul Johnson's book, Intellectuals, for my reasoning.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, February 23, 2015  

  • This has been discussed before. In that time and place, you couldn't turn in photographic negatives for processing that showed genatalia without a serious risk of being prosecuted for violating pornography laws. So, whoever took the photos had a motive for making sure the offending members (if any) were not visible.

    By Blogger Larry, at Monday, February 23, 2015  

  • I am sorry if my clumsy attempt at irony has failed.

    After reading about the history of Roswell Crash Mania from two decades ago, I saw that at the peak of their popularity, the Randle-Schmitt team broke apart after Schmitt's public claim to college degrees that he never provided.

    Now their new BFF, Dew, made a public college degree claim/offer on Randle's blog, yet to be demonstrated.

    I simply have this sense of deja vu.

    And like the whale in "the Hitchhiker's Guide", as I fall though the bowl of Roswell petunias,I think: "Oh no, not again!"

    By Blogger Loki, at Monday, February 23, 2015  

  • I understand your need and Paul KImball's to verify credentials, and I agree, but not when it comes to art or film-making.

    The creative process doesn't require a raft of college instruction.

    That Adam Dew says he has a degree may need to be verified to augment his statements about what he knows and is documenting, but as for his documentary, that can be merited on its own as all films are.

    If a documentary film-maker asserts facts in his or her film, one can challenge those facts if the film-maker has lied about his or her credentials.

    In this instance, Dew's college credentials are irrelevant insofar as the subject matter is concerned: Has Dew made an accurate film of what is involved?

    That will be a matter for discussion, as it has already, college credentials aside.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, February 23, 2015  

  • Do we know for a fact if the genitals are actually covered up? The pics I have seen so far are of terrible quality, making it difficult to tell one way or the other.
    And if I am not mistaken the torso was also removed?
    I understand that if this was a public display the genitals would most likely be covered up. Also any relics found with the body like tools, clothing, and other objects would probably be displayed with it. Which supposedly there isn't- other than a green blanket, and possibly some sort of debri towards the feet.
    What could any of this indicate? The photos are of an exhibit, but not one for public display?
    This still does not mean ET. I wish it did somehow, but it just doesn't.

    By Blogger Daniel Hurd, at Monday, February 23, 2015  

  • -this assumes that such beings wear clothes

    -if clothed, they would be removed for separate study by materials scientists and engineers

    -if clothed, they would be removed to perform dissection and preservation


    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Monday, February 23, 2015  

  • All true, Anthony...

    But where are those clothes, if they wear clothes. and I'm using the Aztec model in my assumption that they wear uniforms.

    Do you think that a recovered body from outer space would be devoid of artifacts from their civilization?

    And wouldn't such artifacts be as important (or more so) as a body?

    I've provided examples of how bodies of significant beings are exhibited by we humans.

    That the source of my speculation and query.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, February 23, 2015  

  • I do have to agree with Tony, that if it was alien, any artifacts such as clothing, tools, or other materials probably wouldn't be thrown into a glass container which houses a biological specimen.
    This still doesn't scream alien. Granted the creature does not exactly look human either, but where is the linkage to Roswell, Aztec, or anything alien?
    I really wish there was something more here. Something that could help us fill in that giant gap. I hope there is much more to be revealed come May 5th.

    By Blogger Daniel Hurd, at Monday, February 23, 2015  

  • No other living thing on this planet wears clothing. We do, mainly for protection, but also because we have deemed it socially unacceptable to walk around in our natural state. There isn't a reason to expect another species to follow suit and deem clothing necessary. Hell, for all we know they are that advanced they have personal force fields to protect them from the elements. They would be highly advanced after all.

    This is one image anyway and for all we know all of the related artifacts found with the being could be next to it in another case.

    By Blogger Stephen Jackson, at Monday, February 23, 2015  

  • You guys keep missing my point:

    This is a display, and when we humans display something like this, we add adornments.

    If this is only a medical display, for insiders, why hide the sexual area?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, February 23, 2015  

  • I understood your point Rich.
    My question was is the genitalia actually hidden? Has this been said as fact? Is the placard just by chance obscuring it?
    The images we have seen so far are of poor quality, making it difficult to say without a doubt what is and isn't being shown.

    By Blogger Daniel Hurd, at Monday, February 23, 2015  

  • Daniel...

    The genitalia is not pertinent.

    I'm merely using it to determine if the display is public or private.

    Either way, public or private, I would expect there to be a display of accessories that belonged to the creature displayed.

    That's my point, which you guys keep missing, really.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, February 23, 2015  

  • another point that has me wondering, is WHY the "pure as the driven snow journalist "Adam Dew"" has seemingly stopped posting, on all the Roswellesque blogs where he previously strutted his balding psuedo-macho Media-Testosterone???

    By Blogger Loki, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • Any sane person, Loki, would pull back from the slides dialogue.

    You have got to get over your obsession with Mr. Dew.

    It's not healthy or meaningful.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • Rich,

    While I agree with you on most of the points you have made bear with me for a moment while I play devil's advocate if only to draw out more specific criticisms of the "display" and it's implications.

    Since we're speculating wildly about the display of whatever it is inside the cases, a question arises: what if the "display case" serves a different purpose than "display"?

    The automatic assumption seems to be "This is an exhibit"-- But what if it is not an exhibit but a clear glass case intended to keep the odor decaying flesh to a minimum... or some other "scientific" rather than "side show" purpose?

    As for the "display placard", in the absence of the actual wording on the placard it seems to be a bit of an over reach to say it is for "side show display" purposes. For all we know it could say:

    "Dead Alien, Exhibit B.
    Eyes only
    U.S. Government property
    Not for public display"

    As for whether the "genital area" was hidden for modesty purposes that might be an "over broad" assumption (I have to agree that it is most likely...). Yet how do we know the body did not have anatomical features that were in fact disturbing to even those who put the corpse in the case?

    As for clothing or other artifacts: what if the clothing other items were in the hands of "technical experts" that dealt with technology / engineering leaving only the body for the "medical / biologist / forensics team"? The assumption that everything will be kept together is not necessarily valid. Look at the example you provided of the "ice man". The body and clothing were tested and analyzed separately.

    Generally modern handling of "bodies" and artifacts usually take years and only after all of the scientific papers have been wrung out of a thing does that thing go on display. It is a bit of a stretch that a body found in 1947 would be "put on display" with all of its associated artifacts in the very same month or even in the same year (one can look at the "Dead Sea Scrolls" as an example of how things can be hidden away and not shown).

    Understand that I am not a believer of either ETH or the validity of the slides as actual evidence concerning Roswell but "assumptions" can upon occasion come around and make a fools of even the most rational of investigators (or scientists). Better to ask the questions and then look at what evidence is available than not to have covered the ground thouroughly... and have well reasoned answers.

    By Blogger gishzida, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • Your blog, RR.

    I will not further trouble you with what I consider the Roswell DewVinci Code, OK?

    By Blogger Loki, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • gishzida:

    Superb points.

    But even The Anomalist people see my angst about the missing "gear" or other accoutrements.

    Yes, we do not know what the "being" is housed in -- a display case or a protective enclosure.

    But it is on display, for someone or some group of people, scientists. doctors, the military, or friends of higher-ups (The Rays).

    There is much to be answered and I'm hoping my questions and those of others will be picked up by the event-masters and addressed. They have enough time to do so.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • Loki:

    You are free to comment about anything here but your obsession with Adam Dew has become annoying, even if it's a legitimate query.

    My stance, about looking at his "documentary" only, is a position that I'm going to hold to.

    You want to nail Mr. Dew, which is fine if you think that's worthy of your time and everyone else's.

    I'm just not interested.

    And, yes, it is my blog.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • RR-

    Please don't misunderstand me.

    I respect you and your blog, and will tamp down my natural smartassery.

    (PLUS, I will refrain from quoting Galileo after his heresy conviction, OK?)

    By Blogger Loki, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • Grazie, Loki..

    Your comments, aside from then Dew inserts, remain an intellectual brightspot here and elsewhere, so keep 'em coming.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • A. Bragalia and his typical anthropomorphism/centrism! What a lack of creativity (well, that's ufology and its anthropomorphism/centrism as a modern myth)...

    When reading Tony (and his team mate Carey - Anthropologist??? lol -), we have learned in 2015 that museum placards CANT be handwritten when exhibiting biological beings!

    It seems our friend Tony never posed a feet in a Museum in all his life...

    Well, that's ufology, after all!

    A tribute for Tony he merits: http://i38.servimg.com/u/f38/19/01/83/59/brgali10.jpg



    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • RR wrote: Then if the “being” was on display as an example of something special, one would see accompanying elements – clothing, uniform, and other noteworthy accoutrements

    Our uf(ooooooo)ologists, tony, Tom and Don, have already explained to you and me there was an ARMY blanket depicted in the slide following the forensic analysis they made?!!!!!!!

    Hooo, what do you are expecting more as (forensic) EVIDENCE they have already offered to U and me? The Army blanket they have forensically analysed/identified will ONE evidence amonf the plenty they have... ;)



    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • Rich, as luck would have it, this afternoon I was in Bolzano, Italy and took the opportunity to stop by the Anthropological Museum to see the Otzi display. The naked body is displayed entirely by itself in a solitary display case. All of his accoutrements (bow and arrows, axe, clothes, backpack, etc.) are in separate display cases, distributed around the museum. The idea that the " Roswell" body and everything that was found with it should be visible in the same photo is nonsense.

    By Blogger Larry, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • Larry:

    I gave some examples of displays where the adornments were in the same spot as the body, but that said, how about this?

    Why wouldn't a person take photos of some exotic gear or clothing if it were in the same vicinity as the alleged "alien" body?

    Or was there no exotic gear or uniform belonging to the body?

    You see the question is nuanced.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • Otzi's body is on public display. He is completely naked. His genitals are not covered.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • 'Dr' Fernandes-

    It is you who anthropomorphizes. You say it must be a human infant mummy.

    But the facts are these about the being:

    -it is not an infant as it is at least 3.5 feet tall

    -it has four digits

    -the head is rather largish, larger than a normal human but not as large as a hydrocephalic

    -its face is 'frog-like/insect-like' in a way that is simply nonhuman. The facial features (which are not at all clearly visible in the screen grab)are extra-ordinary in every sense

    -its legs are disproportionately long to the rest of its body

    -its arms are disproportionately long to the rest of its body

    -the limbs are exceedingly thin and frail/fragile

    -the ears (such as they are)appear 'emedded' to the sides of the skull and are rather 'pointed'

    -the chin is inhumanly pointed in the extreme

    -the eyes are larger than any humans and are wide set apart from one another

    The Rays have no other such pictures of 'museum displays' and they hid these two slides separate from the rest as if to assign special meaning or significance to them.

    That it is 'Roswell-connected' is evidenced by the facts that

    -these are 1947 slides - the very year of the crash.

    -Bernerd worked the Roswell region as an oil exploration geologist in the '40s and after 1947 became a 'ghost' professionally.

    -The being matches the description of humanoids found at Roswell and a still-living witness to the bodies, when shown the slides, confirmed it was exactly what he saw.

    All of this taken in total leads one to an inescapable, unearthly conclusion.

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • Yeah, blablabla by an UFO myth-maker like you, Tony...

    Provide the full size and resolution slide, or "shut up" and stop teasing and your: "I dunno what is depicted in this slide, therefore alien".

    humanoids found at Roswell There were humanoids found at Roswell? Please, send me a scientific paper about such a finding?

    Send your slide to Academics and not in Jaime Maussan show!

    Rendez-vous when full size and resolution, dear Roswell mythmaker...



    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • Perhaps Professor Bragalia would care to enlighten us on this tidbit from a recent interview with his esteemed fellow traveler, Jaime Maussan:

    Jaime Maussan not know him personally. I do not know how much he, Carey and Schmitt are still friends, but among them there were some misunderstandings and frictions because Bragalia revealed the information on the slides that had promised to keep confidential.

    Source: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.altrogiornale.org%2Falieni-roswell-maussan-intervista-maurizio-baiata%2F&prev=search

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • That is precisely Gilles, why I put your 'PhD' Dr title in quotes-

    Real scientists do not name call (as in saying bla bla bla)and issue personal attacks and ad hominem arguments.

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • Let me take Tony Bragalia off the hook.

    He provided (me) some limited information about the slides, early on; information that wasn't anywhere near accurate it turns out but with a patina of information that I exploited in my fervor to emulate Edward Snowden, a person greatly admire.

    Tony expected me to keep my mouth shut, which I didn't, as Mr. Kimball knows.

    Carey and Schmitt, I assume, may have told others about their findings but those people remained circumspect, not like me, who blabbed about what was to have been confidential.

    I apologize to Mr. Bragalia and want others to know that he asked me to keep private the information proffered. I didn't.

    So, Senor Maussan, Carey and Schmitt are wrong to excoriate Mr. Bragalia for my wrong-doing.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • That's kind of you, Rich, but it doesn't let Bragalia off the hook for any objective observer. As you know, loose lips sink ships - tell one person and you run the risk that you're telling everyone. Randle did the same thing with me. If they really did all agree to not discuss things, then telling even one person was wrong. To now claim that they were somehow hard done by is ridiculous. On this one point (and only this one point), Maussan is correct.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • I should add that I have actually come to feel sorry for Mr. Bragalia, who is more a victim in all of this than anything else. His will to believe is so strong that it has led him to climb into bed with con-men and hucksters like Maussan and Schmitt. I don't think Mr. Bragalia is in it for the money, although there is undoubtedly some ego gratification involved... I accept that he genuinely believes what he's saying. He's become ufology's Tony Blair.

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • > All of this taken in total leads one to an inescapable, unearthly conclusion.

    That Tony Braglia is pronouncing on things he cannot possibly demonstrate, stating with unattainable certainty his own inexpert opinion about what is a diseased human and what is not, what is a human being and what is non-human, that he knows the figure is organic rather than a doll -- all from a photo! He peddles hearsay evidence from his anonymous Roswell "witness" (who even Kevin Randle doesn't recognise), and somehow doesn't realise this is circular evidence in a pure form. He asserts that experts have viewed the body and ruled out human explanations, even though Adam Dew said on TV a few days later that he is still looking for experts in hopes of making that determination.

    Tony Braglia is not a reliable source of analysis.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • Curious...the photos where mounted on slides with the intent to show them either in public or private (among friend's and family)...

    We've all, in the past, had to sit respectfully, while a family member subjected us to a "slide" show.

    Anyone remember those days?

    Which means that sometime in the distant past, the slides had to have been shown...to someone or a gathering of people.

    Which further may mean, we are all seeing this show for the first time...presently...where as this slide show may have been shown to many individuals in the 1950s and 1960s until the passing of Bernard and Hilda.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • > this slide show may have been shown to many individuals in the 1950s and 1960s

    You could be right. At the very least, it's a legitimate avenue of research, to see if the UFO literature contains stories of alien slide shows.

    Will Tony assure us that Carey and Schmitt have done such a literature search? Finding an old-timey mention of such a slide party would help the sliders' case.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • The conversation sure has meandered. So what are we saying, Hilda kept the pictures hidden because it was of a little naked guy?

    I'm not sure I understood the part about Tony Bragalia being fired from the team for leaking data. His comments suggest he's still involved. Or that he believes he is.

    By Blogger Curt Collins, at Tuesday, February 24, 2015  

  • Curt-

    Jaime is correct that there was 'friction' amongst us during the course of all of this.

    When people like Paul Kimball commit reprehensible acts like making public private emails to purposely insert himself in the story; when people like Ross Evans work with a hacker to release information gleaned from my stolen emails; when people like Lance Moody calls an involved photo-scientist at his home to demand confirmation of his involvement, then 'friction' was bound to occur.

    But that is now well behind us, and I remain in regular communication with Tom and Don and in fact just spoke with Tom a few days ago. And Kevin was kind enough to let me put a piece on his blog recently.

    And this talk of 'dream team' bothers. I loathe the appellation. It is simply a loosely-knit group of people who are contributing research and resources. An informal arrangement of sharing information and working towards answers about the slides and about Roswell.

    The whole talk of such a 'team' seems silly. There is no hierarchy, pay, policies, hiring/firing, - everyone has made such a big deal of this 'team' it almost makes me laugh. I don't use the 'dream team' term, do not know where the name comes from, and just continue to communicate findings with people that care about them.

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Wednesday, February 25, 2015  

  • Its very simple. No scientist in his right mind would let a sample of another species, an extremely rare one, a once in several lifetimes opportunity, one that any scientist knows could be examined in more detail in the future with advances in technology..allow this specimen to mummify. All this nonsense about petty details is silly and has an air of "belief" in suspension attached to it. It's ridiculous.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, February 25, 2015  

  • And there you have it; AJB has, via his own words, confirmed that the concept of lying is not too uncomfortable to him:

    " I don't use the 'dream team' term, do not know where the name comes from, and just continue to communicate findings with people that care about them."

    From Randle's blog:

    "The response to the announcement of the creation of a “Dream Team” has been met with nearly unanimous approval. There have been the detractors, but there will always be detractors... Nothing can be done about that, other than to say, we haven’t completed the team, and why not wait for the results before you condemn the research.

    Tony Bragalia, who is known to many of us as a tireless researcher and who has an interest in a wide range of topics inside Ufology, has agreed to come on board as a consulting researcher. He’ll be working with us as we begin our new research into the Roswell case."


    By Blogger Loki, at Wednesday, February 25, 2015  

  • Tony keep harping on me calling the photo expert.

    I called the gentleman after seeing a name that was posted on someone's blog (the post is still there) without knowing if he was part of their project or not. If the name got leaked, I wasn't the one who leaked it. But I must say that Tony's own crowing about the slides makes it very easy to find the name--Tony practically identified him with his own words. Just Google, "the book on Kodak film" and check out your results.

    I spoke with the expert for about a half hour or so (maybe longer). At the beginning of the conversation (and several times during) I told him that I understood if he didn't want to talk about this stuff and I was happy to end the call. He indicated that he was happy to talk.

    We talked about many things and the conversation was quite pleasant. I never demanded anything.

    Notice how Tony mischaracterizes my conversation---a conversation that he never heard. I, too, feel sorry for Tony and his paranoid delusions.

    At the end I asked the expert if I might call again...he suggested that I use his email address, which he gave me.

    Such silly overblown nonsense.


    By Blogger Lance, at Wednesday, February 25, 2015  

  • A question for Tony. Do you think you jumped the gun by writing the initial blog post on Kevin Randle's site?

    Was the initial blog post approved beforehand by the rest of the "team", or you decided on your own to do so?

    Further, do you regret linking the photos as absolutely related to Roswell?

    Just curious as to your's (and other's) motive(s).

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, February 25, 2015  

  • I was never told that I was part of a 'dream team' when I began working with these researchers.

    And the term was never used in any email or conversation to me by them and it was only later that I saw it being referred to on the net as such.

    As I said, the term means little to me and your pointing out a reference of it by Kevin from some time ago is hardly 'incriminating' and your use of the term 'lying' in reference to me would be laughable if it were not near-libelous.

    And not to elevate your 'point,' but Kevin's statement 'reaction to the announcement of the creation of a dream team' is imprecise. I read that it means something was said by someone prior about such a team, using that term. And certainly before I 'came on board' such as it was. I really could care less who or when the term was first used.

    I just got off of the phone with Tom Carey who agrees that it is a waste of time to try to discuss the slides with types like you because that is not what you really want to do. Rather than address the hard facts of the case, you want to dwell on the politics and personalities surrounding it. That is troubling and you, like the untrustworthy Paul Kimball, are uncivil, mean-spirited and really having nothing to offer but vitriol.

    Your continual goading and snarkiness grows wearisome. Your obsession about me is strange and you give me the creeps frankly.

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Wednesday, February 25, 2015  

  • Tim-

    If you more carefully read what Kevin wrote in preface to the re-post, you would learn that he addresses that very point by saying that he had not paid attention closely enough in monitoring dialogue when the piece was first posted, and that the comments had degenerated into nastiness.

    I do not regret anything about any of my Roswell-related research.

    I am motivated by a sense of obligation to truth and to history. Some believe i do this for money but have never sought nor received any. Some believe I do this for 'fame' yet being known for this research has only made me wish I used a pseudonym. I have never attended a forum or conference, given a broadcast interview, had my image or voice transmitted publicly.

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Wednesday, February 25, 2015  

  • That is troubling and you, like the untrustworthy Paul Kimball, are uncivil, mean-spirited and really having nothing to offer but vitriol.

    Watch your back, Tony. You never know who is feeding us information.

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Wednesday, February 25, 2015  

  • And in Mr. Kimball's latest sick rant he falsely accuses researchers involved in the slide study of perhaps 'inventing' the hacker story to lend mystery and intrigue to the slide story.

    Tell that to your friend Nick Redfern -who was a victim himself- and who takes offense at your suggestion, finding it crazy.

    And tell it to Tom Carey who had his documents under 'crypto lock' ransom.

    You just make shit up and even your friends recognize it as the shit it is. You have no conscious, and you have no filter.

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Wednesday, February 25, 2015  

  • Nick and I have been having a pleasant discussion about how he was probably duped. He disagrees. That's what friends do.

    And you meant conscience, I presume. You should try to avoid typing when angry, Tony. Of course, given the mess you've made of this, and all the falsehoods you've spun, perhaps it would be best if you just stopped typing altogether. You would get in less trouble that way.



    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Wednesday, February 25, 2015  

  • Rich,

    This discussion seems to have drifted into "shooting the messenger" so the "messenger is shooting back" rather than it being a discussion of the "facts" of the matter as they have been presented.

    I am rather surprised that Mr. Bragalia can so easily jump to the conclusion:

    "That it is 'Roswell-connected' is evidenced by the facts that

    -these are 1947 slides - the very year of the crash.
    -Bernerd worked the Roswell region as an oil exploration geologist in the '40s and after 1947 became a 'ghost' professionally.
    -The being matches the description of humanoids found at Roswell and a still-living witness to the bodies, when shown the slides, confirmed it was exactly what he saw."

    Sorry but to me it seems that these "facts" do not prove that "Mr. Ray shot the Aliens with the Kodachrome in Roswell."

    How do (or can) we know that the slides are not from a different location / crash / event during the same time frame? As presented so far none of these assumptions are actually proof nor is it (with the currently available information) provable that these slides are the "aliens" claimed to have been recovered.

    Saying that the above "facts" prove the Roswell story is like saying that because you found a dent in your fender when you come out of the grocery store and the car parked two spots over from yours has a paint smudge the same color as your car, and therefore "Must be" that the driver of that car hit yours when you were in the store. That assumption without actual witnesses or forensic proof means nothing at all.

    So far the "presenters" of the slide story have failed to provide a factual "chain of evidence" which takes Mr. Bragalia's beliefs and given them a provable, factual basis.

    Unfortunately I don't see that kind of evidence being presented now or in Mexico.

    By Blogger gishzida, at Wednesday, February 25, 2015  

  • GZ:

    Yes, we're off topic, as usual. far from the slides content and into personalities.

    But that's the nature of ufology.

    You present observations that strike me as extremely valid.

    The jump from an odd body to crashed extraterrestrials near Roswell is circumstantial at his point.

    But we'll see.....eventually...or not.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 25, 2015  

  • You dwell on a misspelling made, because, as you point out, I was not focused on proofreading, but instead distracted by your nonsense.

    You are compelled to distract like that by pointing out inconsequential, minor things. You name call. You even make up sick stories. This is what people do who have nothing real or substantive to offer.

    And how you can excuse your outrageous behavior is beyond me.

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Wednesday, February 25, 2015  

  • If this is all a con from the get-go, as I suspect, then the personalities involved are the story, not the slides... just as the people involved with MJ-12 and the Alien Autopsy film were the story.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Wednesday, February 25, 2015  

  • "The being matches the description of humanoids found at Roswell and a still-living witness to the bodies, when shown the slides, confirmed it was exactly what he saw."

    This bit bothers me. Surely u would show witnesses a bunch of images and ask them to identify what they saw. If the vast majority choose the slide image then it gets interesting.

    "Here's a picture of an "alien". Is that what u saw at Roswell?" "Yes". Mind = unblown.

    By Blogger Stephen Jackson, at Wednesday, February 25, 2015  

  • It's more correct to say me and Paul significantly disagree on the hacker issue. My view is that it's just a hacker who wanted to be the "first with the most" and get the slides before anyone else had chance to release them. I don't think, at all, that the DT was involved. And the idea it's "the government" is ridiculous. Nor do I think it's a publicity scam. But me and Paul have debated this fairly extensively and still are - today. We agree to disagree.

    I'm not an expert on hacking, but given that we have the hacker's email address, even though it's now closed down, I'm guessing there must be some way to trace it???

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, February 25, 2015  

  • Tony, as I see it, the best way to lay this to rest (in terms of the claims it's an inside job) would be to copy-paste here the submission complaint sent to the FBI.

    That would surely demonstrate to people that it's not the Dream Team and would put matters to rest.

    After all, the Dream Team is not going to set the FBI on the trail of the Dream Team itself!

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, February 25, 2015  

  • I have the hacker's responses to e-mails I sent to others, where he inserted comments that only someone with access to my outgoing mail could know by "hacking" my accounts, all of them!

    I'll post them online sometime with my thesis as to whom the "hacker" was -- or one of them anyway.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 25, 2015  

  • @ Paul:

    If this *is* a con job, you won't get the actual story by fighting with the perpetrators or with those who have been led to believe" something that isn't so is "the truth". The real story is proving "it just ain't so."

    "A wise man who argues with fools is not wise."

    I don't particularly like the "methods" that Mr. Bragalia has used in the past to suppress or harass others when he gets angry... *but* until his actions cross the line into actual criminal behavior, he is entitled to his opinions-- even if they are factually incorrect or logically flawed. If Rich wants to give him a soap box to share those opinions it is Rich's right to do so.

    The problem I see with this "conversation about the slides" is that every time serious questions get asked, out come the vitriolic phrases and the ad hominum attacks (from all quarters) and we get steered into the toilet. To me that is an indication that no "truth" is to be found here, no lessons to be learned, no critical questions formed and asked--

    Given these things I can speculate that most likely the truth will not be found at the Mexico event.

    By Blogger gishzida, at Wednesday, February 25, 2015  

  • Tony, I appreciate the work you do, and I believe your purposes behind it are altruistic in nature.
    However you have to admit the evidence linking these slides to roswell are purely circumstantial and coincidental. That doesn't mean that they aren't related to Roswell, but what it does mean is that it's not iron clad either. Which is why I believe some folks are being rather skeptical of the whole thing. And rightly so, as history shows us with past claims of "the smoking gun". Add in the non-sense of Maussan and the trickle of info, it feels like a sideshow attraction meant to exploit the naive and gullible.
    I think big claims demand big evidence. Which so far there hasn't been a lot of.
    I'm saying all these things out of love, I respect the work you do, and have enjoyed many of your articles/postings.
    I think everyone here and elsewhere are just demanding something more definite with the slides.

    By Blogger Daniel Hurd, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • Stephen Jackson-

    I agree with you. A 'line up' of images from which the Roswell vet was asked to choose one would have been ideal. That is how I would have done it. That said, I would not discount the man's ID of the creature found at Roswell as the one depicted in the slide. The man became very emotional when shown the image. His story is told in Witness to Roswell under a pseudonym. He did not contact researchers, he was found. And for some time, he did not wish to say anything, telling his story only reluctantly. He remains as sharp as a tack and appears very with it in the Kodachrome trailer video.

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home