UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

The Many Slides Stories

Paul Kimball, in a comment for the posting proceeding this one, writes that if the slides story is a concoction – a con like MJ-12 or the Alien Autopsy – that’s the story, and my effort to keep the topic on point -- the body seen in the slides – is not the only story to be aired.

He makes a point, which was exampled years ago in the Piltdown Man hoax, which took in many “brilliant men” (such as Teilhard de Chardin and Clarence Darrow).

But I don’t see a created con with the slides story, even though there are some iffy people involved. (Need I name them?)

Paul Kimball’s position is this (which he provided via an e-mail):

“Like I said, I actually feel sorry for Bragalia. He might be an unpleasant, borderline psychotic true believer, but I don't think he's part of the con. He just happens to be a patsy - the Lee Harvey Oswald, as it were. Just like Friedman was with MJ-12. And you can quote me on that.”

A little harsh maybe but that’s between Tony and Paul; it’s an invigorating back-and-forth, full of the ufological vituperation with which we are all familiar.

Yet, there is a story, besides the possible con job story. And it’s the actual content of the slide(s): the image thereupon.

What is it? Where was it displayed? Who took the photo? Why?

And then there is the alleged Roswell connection. Is that a real story possibility? I’m not so sure, although I think the slide body was the inspiration for the Scully/Aztec fiction. (But that for another time, as I’ve worked that conjecture to death here already, many times.)

There is also the story of the Rays, Hilda and Bernerd, who were supposedly the takers of the slides or holders of the slides, as they were allegedly found in Hilda Ray’s house.

But that’s also a story: who found the slides? Why did they keep them in their garage for ten years or so without a scintilla of interest in what they showed?

Then we have the Roswell guys getting involved. Another story: why and how?

There are a plethora of stories in this slides mess, all inter-related or seemingly so.

And the possibility of a con job -- an Alien Autopsy-like concoction  -- seems to be a stretch , for me, at least as far as Anthony Bragalia is concerned.

I told Tony he is a prisoner of his belief in the slide body depicting an extraterrestrial or Roswell flying disk crash victim, but he stands by his belief. He’s seen the slides in fact and close up, and he has some corroborating “evidence” that allows his belief and/or faith in what the slides depict.

I’m skeptical, and he knows that.

But there are stories here, contrived stories perhaps but real stories too.

And I think we’re really at the preface of those stories, some of which I’ll keep gnawing at here, until my visitors and readers become extremely nauseous, as many are already.


RR

60 Comments:

  • The slides don't have to be fabricated for this to all be a con. Indeed, they may well be real but mundane (i.e. terrestrial)... but certain unscrupulous people have concocted all of this to make a lot of money (the fact that they may not make that money is irrelevant). The involvement of guys like Maussan and Schmitt should be the real clue. Heck, even Kevin Randle believes it is a con (as stated to me in one of those infamous e-mails I published) - he just won't say so publicly, for reasons that are known only to him.

    As for Mr. Bragalia, I think he's as dumb as a sack of really, really dumb stones (as Blackadder might say), but I feel sorry for him because he seems genuine. That makes him pathetic, but not a huckster. But he wants to be a UFO "somebody" and he wants his beliefs confirmed, and guys like Maussan and Schmitt prey on people like that. They'll chew you up and then spit you out.

    That's ufology.

    PK

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

  • Rich,

    I am reminded as I watch this 'grand cavalcade' pass on its way to Mexico of "The Garden of Forking Paths" by Borges.

    The slides story has become somewhat dark and labyrinthine: Are the slides the story or is the whole gamut of various "histories" / "truths" / "Believers" / Unbelievers the story?

    That being said, as long as one does not get too wound up about it, it *is* entertaining.

    By Blogger gishzida, at Wednesday, February 25, 2015  

  • as long as one does not get too wound up about it, it *is* entertaining.

    Bingo. It's entertainment - nothing more, nothing less.

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

  • A quick timeline as I understand it: Hilda died in 1988. Slides discovered when emptying out a garage outside of Sedona (Cottonwood we think) in 1998. Slides were deemed intersting (obviously old color slides) but not fully examined until around 2008. While I think that the home may have belonged to Hilda's lawyer, there is no way to know for sure as the woman who found them didn't keep records of the homes she cleaned out.

    Several of the slides bear Hilda's name stamped on them. Some have her husbands initials. Some are pictures of Hilda or Bernard or known acquaintances. Is it possible that someone mixed in a few random non-Ray slides? Sure it's possible. Although looking at the collection it seems to be a curated selection of Hilda's favorites. It seems unlikely (to me) that this is a random person combining multiple collections. There are many that it seems someone would only keep for sentimental value (poorly exposed, etc).

    What is most incredible in this "con" is that I have attempted to lay out the holes in the story in advance. In many ways, especially in light of the trailer that I put my name on, it's may go down as the most incredible con in human history when you take it all in.

    By Blogger SlideBox Media, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • > an Alien Autopsy-like concoction

    Is it any coincidence that, like the AA film:

    1) the slides were carried away from an alleged military investigation of alien bodies, but no government agency seems ever to have looked for them?
    2) the slides have no verifiable provenance, but were instead "acquired" in a jumble of other film?
    3) the person who acquired the images happens to be a documentary filmmaker?
    4) the slides will be presented publicly for cash considerations before they are scrutinised by outside experts who would be free to publish their findings?
    5) the world premiere of the slides is May 5, 20 years to the day after the AA film was first screened? (Thanks to Robert Sheaffer for this last point, though others may have made it and I'd forgotten.)

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • Dew, not the Dream Team should be the focus of any examination of this joke.
    1. Who provided the slides and where is the proof they came from the Ray home? The Ray connection has been treated as a given while the provider remains anonymous. Dew has refused to provide a verifiable chain of custody.
    2. Dew set up a legal incorporation to handle the income from the slides and as presumably the owner of the slides, he brought the so called Dream Team on board and not vice versa. Who serves this legal entity per the requirements of forming it? What legal papers assign which roles, etc, especially the Dream Team?
    3. The Dream Team has taken the flak for Dew and while Dew plays the role of the babe in the woods.Was this Dew’s design? Forensic pathologists are a dime a dozen...and none have been consulted by….Dew.
    I suspect most have been taken in by Dew and have been the willing victims of a misdirection of attention.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • The centerpiece of the slide story is a childlike fantasy. We are expected to believe that the US government, once in possession of the holy grail of modern science would put in on display in a glass case, slap a handwritten label on it and allow a tourist to photograph it. In the real world, such a thing would be kept in a hermetically sealed refrigerated vault to preserve every last cell. How can anyone actually believe something so potentially dangerous and priceless would be put on display like a shrunken head at a state fair? Common sense tells us what we are seeing in those slides is not the body of an alien in a government lab somewhere.

    By Blogger The Trained Observer, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • A sardonic thought just occurred in my cynical mind. Dew is a documentary film maker who has not made any significant amount of income from his occupation. It would be a coup to have him say the joke is on you by producing a grand slam documentary.."How I fooled most of the so called Ufologists."
    The interviews and the film shot so far would be damning and has entertainment value. He rakes in money from both ends. If so, it would be a brilliant move.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • That's s little cynical, Bruce, even for you.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • Call my cynicism a fiction superimposed on a fiction as a metaphor. Dew has escaped the hard ball questions. All the attention has been on the "confederacy of dunces'..willing shills. No one has really dug into this except by typing words on a keyboard....If I cared enough Dew would be my target.
    Are the legal documents in this business venture obtainable?

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • Yes, a lot of questions still to be answered as I note in my posting and another call for me to curb my attention to this debacle, which I shall address shortly.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • It seems to me that there's a good history of people being chosen as stooges, promoters and useful idiots.

    Len Stringfield was also a lightning rod for these 'sources.' Maybe because he was susceptible to them? Or perhaps because he had an audience?

    These 'alien' images, and supposed crashes they were retrieved from, were often brought to his attention. They were identical in description to those we keep seeing in known hoaxes. They arose from similarly official, military sources and just as lacking in verifiable facts.

    In MUFON Journal July '78, he refers to unnamed military sources who described seeing footage of alien-looking critters. If you read his article, you'll notice it's a mirror of subsequent hoaxes.

    It's like there's a decades-old scheme in play to promote the idea.

    Like you say, it's the same old story being regurgitated and we rarely find out who the proponents really are.

    Is there a seminal group who are/were set on deception or just a collection of chancers looking for attention?

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • Kandinsky,

    The players vary over time, but the motive is always the same - profit, ego, and true belief, either separately or in some combination. Take MJ-12, for example... why did Moore and Doty hoax it (and anyone who doesn't think those two were at the centre of it is just not paying attention)? Trying to gin up interest in the flagging Roswell story, for profit. Plain and simple. No need to go looking for mysterious government disinformation schemes. It was the most basic of human motivations at work. Add in a true believer like Stan to help out (taking advantage of that belief), and off you go. Meier, Adamski, Newton, Santilli, and on and on and on - it's always the same basic story. We'll be able to add the "Dream Team" to the list -Maussan and Schmitt (and maybe others) playing the Moore / Doty roles, and Bragalia and others playing the role of patsy. Simple... effective... Proven to work.

    PK

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • Hello,

    The real (and final) story will be when our promoters of a "mystery" will provide the originals, in full reso, with real colors, out teasing, out promoting...

    Until in the hands of Carey, Schmitt, Bragalia, Maussan, (Drew) it is only (and imho will remain), a "well, that's ufology/business".
    Not Science.

    Well, that's ufology, after all.

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • As I stated earlier in this chain Bruce, I don't think the slides came from Hilda's home. I offered some information as to why I believe the slides belonged to Hilda and why I think they are from the same collection. I'd direct you to that post.

    I must say the level of sanctimony coming from some of the posters here is quite impressive.

    And just so there is no confusion, this is not a con. I've been told my earlier post, made in jest, was taken seriously by some.

    By Blogger SlideBox Media, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • SlideBox Media

    "And just so there is no confusion, this is not a con."

    Maybe not but why get Jaime Maussan a well known promoter of Hoaxes to give the presentation of the slides ?

    And why is the presentation in Mexico and not Roswell ?

    By Blogger ufo research network, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • I was told recently that May 5 is the anniversary of the Alien Autopsy. For what it's worth, there were originally a few other earlier dates in place but the event was pushed back more than once. Jaime says the final date, a Tuesday night, was pushed by the venue as it was an open date in their schedule.

    Terry I've answered many many questions in direct emails with people. I've made the offer to RR to feel free to send me questions when he has them. Anyone can send questions and if I can answer them, I will. However I'm going to take a pass on the public back and forth here for awhile.

    By Blogger SlideBox Media, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • "I don't think the slides came from Hilda's home. I offered some information as to why I believe the slides belonged to Hilda and why I think they are from the same collection."

    Belief of ownership and an actual chain of custody demonstrating ownership are not one and the same thing.You rely on bolstering inferences, not facts. An alleged connection to the Rays? You have no provenance.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • All that exists are slides from 1947 according to the undocumented claim that has been made that they are from 1947.
    There is no provenance, no forensic examination with the exception of an unnamed anthropologist. You say the images were never claimed to be from the unproved Roswell "crash", and you say you are unpaid in your research. No compensation from the Mexico City event?
    These questions are sanctimonious?
    No one forced you to promote this dog and pony show and you are actively promoting it..with exactly what? A resemblance to a creature no one has seen?
    No public discourse..why not?
    Will there be after the tickets have been sold? Were your consultants paid?
    These are unreasonable questions?
    Give me a break.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • Slidebox Media

    "However I'm going to take a pass on the public back and forth here for awhile."

    So in other words you cant or wont answer our questions ?

    I feel there have been some very sensible questions asked here.

    Why you choose to not answer them speaks volumes.

    By Blogger ufo research network, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • Adam Dew said he'd answer questions privately, not in a an open, hostile (my word) forum.

    Send a question and I'll pass it on.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • Rich

    "Adam Dew said he'd answer questions privately, not in a an open, hostile (my word) forum.

    Send a question and I'll pass it on.

    RR"

    Why the privacy ? since they are promoting these slides I feel they should be addressing us in an open forum. What is it they going to tell us in private (IE: You) ? and not open source on the blog ?

    What have they got to hide ?

    Ive got questions but will they be answered ?

    Id like answers to my previous questions so if you wouldn't mind could you pass them on please. ?

    By Blogger ufo research network, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • I'm sure Mr. Dew has seen your questions and if answerable, I will pass them on.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • I'm sure Mr. Dew has seen your questions and if answerable, I will pass them on.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • Rich

    "I'm sure Mr. Dew has seen your questions and if answerable, I will pass them on.

    RR"

    And if he chooses not to answer
    these questions and others questions where does that leave us?


    By Blogger ufo research network, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • If Dew can't stand criticism, he's in the wrong business (and I mean the film part, not the UFO part). ;-)

    PK

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • Paul:

    The Slides topic and atmosphere have become toxic.

    I understand why Mr. Dew and others need to withdraw.

    (The slides are discussed at our private web-site, and the dialogue is civil and restrained; nice.)

    A sane person would get as far away from the slides discussion as possible.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • Way to drive away the main guy with slides, assholes.

    By Blogger monsterBL, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • A sane person would get as far away from the slides discussion as possible.

    A sane person probably would have never gotten involved with them in the first place.

    PK

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • The topic because it has a Roswell connection, allegedly, is like a drug...addictive.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 26, 2015  

  • I'd be curious to know what Drew (or Braglia's)answer is to the earlier question from ufo research network: "Maybe not but why get Jaime Maussan a well known promoter of Hoaxes to give the presentation of the slides ?" Maussan is like Steven Greer without even the sociologically interesting patina of cult leader - a pure huckster, in other words, and denizen of the ufo underbelly at its tackiest.

    I also feel a little sorry for Anthony Braglia. The Trained Observer's comment bears repeating: "The centerpiece of the slide story is a childlike fantasy. We are expected to believe that the US government, once in possession of the holy grail of modern science would put in on display in a glass case, slap a handwritten label on it and allow a tourist to photograph it." Extreme gullibility and the profit motive are the only things which could keep this folly afloat.

    By Blogger Tristan Eldritch, at Friday, February 27, 2015  

  • Mr Dew is naive beyond belief if he thinks shying away from public discourse is a wise move as this has just begun and he began it. He put a stake in the ground as a means to rake in money rather than avoid inferences, a load of lose ends, etc. What did he expect?
    This will go on forever. Why? Simply because it is done for profit. Aside from the big show coming up, he's making a film of it. He's been handled with kid gloves while the Dream Team takes the flak. while he films the whole sodden mess. Shying away from providing direct answers and relying on intermediaries reminds me of the old adage.."be careful what you wish for" He wants to control the dialog on his terms.
    Good luck with that.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, February 27, 2015  

  • "Way to drive away the main guy with slides, assholes."

    What, you haven't seen enough of mummified children?

    http://tinyurl.com/ke4tjo8

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, February 27, 2015  

  • My latest Mysterious Universe article which covers Roswell and touches on the slides:

    http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/02/the-kecksburg-ufo-50th-anniversary/

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, February 27, 2015  

  • "It's like there's a decades-old scheme in play to promote the idea."

    You got it, Kandinsky, as Paul said.

    It's a bit of Scully's 1950 "Behind the Flying Saucers" all over again, crashed saucers and little alien bodies. It was a story told by some con-men to promote their oil prospecting and phony equipment scam during early flying-saucer mania.

    Jerry Clarke claimed it was the plot of an unproduced serial, both Scully and Silas Newton had Hollywood connections, but the story is much older than that. Crashed spaceships and little alien bodies, hieroglyphics, have been part of the "UFO" myth from the very beginning.

    "One of the first incidents occurred in Peru, sometime in 1878. A person who described himself as “A Seraro, Chemist,” told the South Pacific Times of Callao, Peru, that he found a huge aerolite. After digging through several layers of mineral substance he arrived at an inner chamber. Inside this he found the dead body of a 4 1/2-foot tall alien and beside it was a silver plate that was inscribed with hieroglyphics. This writing indicated that the vehicle and its pilot had come from Mars."

    http://magonia.haaan.com/2009/down-to-earth/

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, February 27, 2015  

  • "A similar story, in La Capital, describes the discovery of an egg-shaped rock near the Carcarana River, Santa Fe, on 13 October 1877. Two geologists, Paxton and Davis, drilled into this curiosity and found:

    "some cavities inside the hard rock. In one of them the men saw several objects such as a white, metallic hole-ridden amphora-like jar with many hieroglyphics engraved on its surface. Under the floor of this cavity they discovered another one which contained a 39 inch (1.2 metre) tall mummified body covered with a calciferous mass."

    Geologists, a mummified child-sized body, hieroglyphics???

    I think I saw this one on Shock Theater late one Friday night in 1960! (g)

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, February 27, 2015  

  • I have a question, it may have been suggested already on this page:

    Who first looked at these slides and thought, "alien body?"

    As if evidence of the flying-saucer myth and latent "UFO" delusion wasn't expressed by innumerable reports.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, February 27, 2015  

  • Per MonsterBL: "Way to drive away the main guy with slides, assholes."

    Adam Dew has a hypothesis, though it appears confusing, and the best way to shake the box and defend this hypothesis is to subject it to scrutiny.

    Scientific scrutiny is historically filled with "assholes" as a needed buffer.

    Zoam: "Who first looked at these slides and thought, "alien body?"

    I go even further, since the photos in question were mounted in a slide format, we can infer that the slides were meant to be shown and probably were shown back in the 1950s and 1960s. There is no evidence that a pocket of individuals were screaming "aliens" back then.

    Question to all: What is an "alien" supposed to look like? The only examples given is artistic renderings from pulp fiction books and magazines dating back to the early 1900s.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Friday, February 27, 2015  

  • >> Who first looked at these slides and thought, "alien body?"

    >> As if evidence of the flying-saucer myth and latent "UFO" delusion wasn't expressed by innumerable reports.<<

    Goes to context, Tim. What mind-- entirely predisposed to the "dead alien" bit of the flying-saucer myth--looked at these mundane, entirely earthly child-mummy-looking "found object" slides and thought, "alien body?"

    Was it Adam Dew? Hmmm???

    "There is no evidence that a pocket of individuals were screaming "aliens" back then."

    Only the teenage nephew who read pulp-fiction and comics blurting out, "Hey, that mummy looks like a space alien!" (g)

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, February 27, 2015  

  • I had this link sent to my Twitter account http://bewitness.mx/default.aspx?PK=b1643c7e-a7bb-4c9f-b1f1-548959fc81e9

    They claim the evidence that will be presented on May 5 will change History, A turning point of the UFO phenomenon Research.

    I cant wait till May.

    By Blogger ufo research network, at Friday, February 27, 2015  

  • I watched this pitch..Note the disavowal from Dew that this has anything to do with Roswell and count how many times Roswell is mentioned in this infocommercial.
    This has turned into a cartoon and at least I got a good chuckle while watching this..."Mexico is the UFO Capital of the World!"

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, February 27, 2015  

  • "http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/02/the-kecksburg-ufo-50th-anniversary/"

    To which I posted a link to the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory page at Harvard showing that the Kecksburg 12/9/1965 event was, without doubt, a common fireball meteor and nothing extraordinary--not a mystery of any kind.

    That post was deleted.

    And in the article Nick refers to "close-minded debunkers!"

    I guess some minds are so "open" that scientific facts are not allowed to puncture and befuddle their "mysterious universe." (g)

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, February 27, 2015  

  • Z:

    Whatever...

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, February 27, 2015  

  • what was deleted? The link? From the MU article? Only the site admin people can delete from the MU articles not me.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, February 27, 2015  

  • If you are inferring I removed the post or that I had anything to do with the removal, I definitely, 100 percent did not.

    The first I knew of it was when I read your comment.

    Take it up with the site owners who can be contacted at the site.

    I'm fine with a good argument online. What did you exactly say? If a comment gets personal, they will often pull it.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, February 27, 2015  

  • There's an image of the second slide at this link 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 ufo research network, at Friday, February 27, 2015  

  • Rich I believe the May 5 presentation will be streamed around the world, can you ask Adam Dew how much that is going to cost.

    By Blogger ufo research network, at Friday, February 27, 2015  


  • "Adam Dew has a hypothesis, though it appears confusing, and the best way to shake the box and defend this hypothesis is to subject it to scrutiny.

    Scientific scrutiny is historically filled with "assholes" as a needed buffer."


    Scrutiny is welcomed and we would all like the opportunity to scrutinize Adam Dew, who put all of this together. But when it gets this vile, of course Dew is not going to stick around. Now the man with most info is no longer around for scrutiny. On top of that, this is all pretty much entertainment and the main player has left the stage.

    By Blogger monsterBL, at Friday, February 27, 2015  

  • Zoam,

    Some sites are absolute bastards about deleting links outside their own site.

    It's all about keeping folks on their own site.

    And by the way, Kecksburg is idiotic.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Friday, February 27, 2015  

  • Nick, I was banned from MU a couple years ago after fact-checking some articles. About once a year, I ask the site admin why I was banned. I have never received an answer.

    If I recall correctly, the first time I asked, I got no response. More recently, I got a reply, but the admin said I wasn't banned. So I tried to make a comment with the same email address and handle I used to contact the admin. As usual, a message appeared saying I was banned. I sent that text to the admin -- and got no reply.

    I have to conclude MU doesn't like pesky facts to interfere with their stories.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Friday, February 27, 2015  

  • "If you are inferring I removed the post or that I had anything to do with the removal, I definitely, 100 percent did not."

    That's good to know, Nick! I assumed it was your site, my mistake. You're the writer.

    It was nothing personal, just the title of the Kecksburg study and its link.

    Best wishes!

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Saturday, February 28, 2015  

  • Terry, I have never seen them ban anyone solely for fact-checking issues. I have seen comments deleted when they contain personal comments concerning the writer of the article.

    Lance, regardless of what me, you, or Z thinks of the Kecksburg case, the point I'm making here is that Z publicly implied here, at Rich's blog, that I was responsible for the removal of Z's comment. Which is bullshit. I don't even have the ability to do that.

    I can only log in and write/submit articles.

    It's like asking me to delete your last comment at Rich's blog. I can't, because I don't have access.

    This is not about Kecksburg, or Roswell, it's about me being ID'd as the person who deleted his comment. Nothing to do with me!

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Saturday, February 28, 2015  

  • Z: It may have been removed because you left NO comment. If you just posted a link and that was it, it may have been inferred it was a spam comment.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Saturday, February 28, 2015  

  • Hey Nick,

    No, I don't think you deleted it and didn't mean to imply that.

    I didn't think that Zoam mean that either.


    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Saturday, February 28, 2015  

  • > Terry, I have never seen them ban anyone solely for fact-checking issues.

    But now you are aware that they do so.

    Good talk.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Saturday, February 28, 2015  

  • Nick,

    Terry's post above should give you some pause. Terry (unlike me, for instance) ALWAYS operates with dignity and respect.

    His description of what is happening at MU is sad. And, I have no doubt, true.

    Have see the same hypocritical crap at other sites, sites that usually proclaim how open their minds are!

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Saturday, February 28, 2015  

  • Lance:

    Zoam certainly did imply that. Look at what he said:

    (QUOTE): ...To which I posted a link to the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory page at Harvard showing that the Kecksburg 12/9/1965 event was, without doubt, a common fireball meteor and nothing extraordinary--not a mystery of any kind.

    That post was deleted.

    And in the article Nick refers to "close-minded debunkers!"

    I guess some minds are so "open" that scientific facts are not allowed to puncture and befuddle their "mysterious universe." (g) (END OF QUOTE).

    Then, after that, in his next comment, when I corrected him, he said: "My mistake."

    By saying a mistake was made, Zoam acknowledged his words were in error.

    He also admits he thought Mysterious Universe was MY website. So, as he had that in mind, who else would he think deleted it?

    The odd thing is, if you go to the MU site and look at the articles, you'll see there are loads of people who write for the site, not just me.

    Anyone can see he was implying that I deleted it.

    I am very pleased to correct the situation, which could have been 100 percent avoided had Zoam contacted me personally and privately and I could have explained the situation.

    But, of course, this is Ufology, where even clean laundry is aired. So, I'm not surprised I have had to waste my time correcting things.

    Another example of why I am finding Ufology to be more and more wankish by the day. (A UK term for those who are puzzled).

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Saturday, February 28, 2015  

  • I guess it didn't strike me that way because I know that MU is and that it isn't your site.

    At any rate, perhaps more importantly, the way MU is handling dissenting comments doesn't appear to be altogether unwankish.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Saturday, February 28, 2015  

  • Lance,
    But, it's up to people to contact the site if they have an issue and take it up with them. The thing NOT to do is infer, in a public forum, that I deleted the comment, which is what Zoam did.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Sunday, March 01, 2015  

  • Okay, Nick, it's okay.

    I doubt many are reading these posts so closely or give more than a moment's thought to a bit of friendly snarkiness with a point ...Or really care that the snarkiness was somewhat misplaced or mistaken, or that you imagined some slight. It's all okay.

    I knew nothing of MU; I simply followed a link to your article. Thought I was talking to you. Not the case, my mistake. After a few hours I sometimes get lost in the Internet world of dozens of pages and places, people.... There's a lot of imaginary familiarity, carelessness and haste involved.

    Anyway, no harm, no foul, sir.

    And again, my best wishes to you! ZO

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Sunday, March 01, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home