UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, May 16, 2015

The Insane May 5th Dialectic Continues

At Kevin Randle’s blog one can see examples of ufological “insanity.”

The Kodachrome slides have been stilled, or so some of us thought, by the acceptance on all sides that the body seen in the slides is (or was) a mummified body.

Yet, the matter continues apace at Kevin’s blog, ramping up with a thought by David Rudiak and our friend Tim Hebert that the images should be re-examined by a qualified anthropological forensic look-see.

Why are the slides still being discussed?

Some of us have moved on. (No, this harangue by me isn’t about the slides but about the aftermath insanity that continues to resonate at Kevin’s blog.)

The May 5th gig is still tuned into by those who spent a chintzy $15 or $20 to have the show streamed to their computers.

(Those, in Mexico, who went to the affair and may want their entrance fee returned are outside the purview of the “enthusiasts” for justice preening at Kevin’s blog.)

A retinue of UFO skeptics and ET die-hards are using the May 5th debacle as grist to argue (or debate) the issues that have ensconced them in dialectic delirium for a long time now. (Need I name them?)

The energy, time, and effort wasted on the May 5th farce baffles.

(And my time on the matter, with this post, amounts to a meager ten minutes as I await dinner.)

Fellow UFO enthusiasts, gather your senses and move on or forward.

There are other UFO issues to discuss, such as where is Anthony Bragalia?



  • A question no one has asked yet: why is there such a big push to stop all discussion of the slides? Like it or not, the Roswell Slides affair - from it's tantalizing beginnings in 2013 to it's spectacular implosion a week ago - will long be remembered as an odd but highly notable footnote in the history of UFO lore. Maybe it, and the lessons learned from it, should be discussed for a bit longer, because some big questions remain...what exactly happened here, and why?

    By Blogger CommanderCronus, at Saturday, May 16, 2015  

  • CC:

    It's the nature of the debate.

    It's rehashing bashing and the mummy not the essence of the premise that brought this upon the UFO community.

    Who got hold of the slides and deduced they might be Roswellian and got Tom Carey involved?

    There are no lessons to be learned; such lessons were learned with the Alien Autopsy or the MJ-12 foolishness.

    You ask, "What happened here?"

    Some Roswell ET believers came to think they had discovered proof of their belief: that Roswell was an ET crash and bodies were recovered, which they now had some slides as evidence.

    The discussion as such is allowing David Rudiak to regurgitate his ET bias and skeptics get off going after him and others who so believe.

    This is the germ of Kevin's postings. They allow the same old, same old arguments to flourish, although the arguments are not dialectical in any sense.

    AS for the even being a "notable footnote" in UFO lore, surely you jest.

    I have, online, at one of other blogs, how this came about, who duped whom, and who continues to dupe the UFO community.

    (Even I can't move on, it's a pisser.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, May 16, 2015  

  • I agree with most of what you wrote above.

    As for what I wrote, a better term may have been "infamous footnote" alongside that of the Santilli Alien Autopsy film - although I still consider the Santilli film to be a nice work of art by comparison. Others will disagree, and I must disclose I am not a professional film critic - I only have my own opinion to offer.

    By Blogger CommanderCronus, at Saturday, May 16, 2015  

  • Your opinion CC is as valid, maybe even more so, than opinion by the rest of us.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, May 16, 2015  

  • I'd like to see Anthony Bragalia come back in some way. Perhaps he could get an interview with David Bowie to find out what he knows about UFOs and aliens.

    Now could finally be the right time for this.

    As for the so-called Mummy, I still maintain a sense of doubt.






    By Blogger Daniel Transit, at Saturday, May 16, 2015  

  • RR_- "I have, online, at one of other blogs, how this came about, who duped whom, and who continues to dupe the UFO community."

    Could you please tell us at which blog you've posted your Estimate of the Situation, Roswell Slide-wise?
    (or post a hyperlink)

    I ask this simply as one interested in the trickery and deceit that propped up this non-event...

    By Blogger Loki, at Saturday, May 16, 2015  

  • Loki:

    It's easily found. by smart people like you.

    I won't place a link here as that will allow a pack of quidnuncs to access it and open the door to the stupidity that now afflicts Kevin's blog.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, May 16, 2015  

  • Rich,

    I'd be happy to move forward.

    I don't mind *meaningful* discussions-- I love to ask dumb questions since it makes both me and the person answering the question actually think about what is being said... but as you have seen certain parties only seem to desire nods of agreement and praise for their work rather than actual discussion.

    Both Bragalia and Noam seem to use the same kind of tactics [I've seen the brunt of both of them]-- if you don't agree with their sweeping analysis you are an idiot / alcoholic / evil / stupid / gullible / etc... all of which I may be but that does not prove anything regarding the topic at hand since their arguments fail for lack of real proof.

    That the Slides are still being discussed might indicate that making money or ego building trumps being honest...

    Were a young person to ask me what to "do" to make money I'd tell them "lying".

    Politics, sales, and investment banking have one thing in common: lying. Lying is what makes the world go round... that and people *wanting* to believe lies. So it is not surprising that UFOolery [as Noam called it] and commercial "debunking" is based upon that lucrative / egotistic ability.

    Sadly I can't seem to lie to save my life or reputation. ;-)

    Eventually we can hope this will all die down and we can talk about something that is less based upon lies.


    By Blogger gishzida, at Saturday, May 16, 2015  

  • You get it GZ.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, May 16, 2015  

  • "Sadly I can't seem to lie to save my life or reputation. ;-)"

    By using a pseudonym you are, in a sense, telling a lie. although a permissible lie. This also goes for Zoam, Noam or whoever he is, plus many others who contribute here and at Kevin's blog. In fact it might even be the case with Anthony Bragalia. Has anyone ever met Mr Bragalia face to face? Is this his real name, and what is his profession/occupation? How did he get involved with ufology? Does anyone even know where he resides? As far as I can see, he is very much a mystery man (although he is perfectly entitled to remain so if he wishes).

    I don't expect a reply as he is probably tending to his wounds just now and not ready to re-enter the fray.

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, May 17, 2015  

  • CDA (Christopher):

    Anthony Bragalia showed up several years ago (I forget how) and I plugged his offerings at this blog when it was titled The UFO Iconoclast(s).

    He came to prominence via this blog, then thinking, mistakenly, I was somehow complicit in the hacking of his e-mail account, a few months, back shifted to Frank Warren's site and subsequently to Kevin's blog.

    (He had posted for six or seven years here before that.)

    The other day he asked me to post his apology for his May 5th participation. I did.

    Then I saw that he had also asked Kevin to do the same.

    I pulled his apology (as you may know) and then discovered that the hacker had compromised Bragalia's e-mail again and Tony wrote me a scathing e-mail thinking I was part of that infection again.

    (I forwarded Tony's screed to Nick and Lance; it was a crazy tirade.)

    Tony backed off.

    Then I was contacted by several TV outlets asking Tony (or Mr. "Braglia" -- thinking my e-mail was his e-mail address -- to comment on his part in the May 5th affair.

    I forwarded those requests to Tony but never heard back from him.

    And since the hacker is using his e-mail (and mine) to communicate, I'm not accepting anything that seems to come from Anthony Bragalia, who remains, as I see it, tainted by his part in the slides mess.

    I've never met Tony nor talked with him by phone, although Lance Moody and Nick Redfern have.

    So he exists, but sub rosa.

    That's all I've got.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, May 17, 2015  

  • Yes I now remember that someone said that AJB was a headhunter, a sort of one-man employment agency.

    A perfectly respectable profession, provided the heads he hunts are terrestrial ones!

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, May 17, 2015  

  • Rich,

    My comments concerning an independent anthropological analysis is consistent with my initial assessment of the images on the night of May 5th. All of the perceived oddities were duly noted by me and given to the team along with my thoughts as to why and where from an anatomical aspect. Of course this was prior to the placard deciphering by other members of the group.

    I'll not regurgitate here what was commented on with the exception that if David Rudiak can have access to a forensic anthropologist, he says he will contact, then I feel confident that a professional/scholarly unbiased analysis will settle the anatomy questions to everyone's satisfaction.

    This would also put a stake in a newly developing theme concerning the mummified child being so bizarre that "it has to be non-human in origin, mummy or not."

    Of course this can all be done quietly so as not to offend the sensibilities of others.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Sunday, May 17, 2015  

  • gz says, "I love to ask dumb questions since it makes both me and the person answering the question actually think about what is being said."

    Almost verbatim from the "Crackpot Index." I award you 50 points, Joel.

    Isn't that your name?

    One of the few people I’ve met online who actually "reasons" in logical fallacies,

    AND he appears to be oblivious to that fact!

    Nearly every statement is either tortured upside-down logic or a well-known logical fallacy. This person is obviously not rational whoever it is. And it’s the very same crackpot antiscience act. You’re not fooling anyone.

    Lately he's demanding "negative proof," which is fallacious alone, but this nutter is demanding "negative proof" that "UFOs" do NOT exist--when the idea "UFO" is merely the subject of a myth and delusion. And no more--that anyone can show.

    Geez... How stupid does someone make himself, or make himself appear with his statements, simply to hold on to his belief in a dying popular-culture myth?

    I demand "negative proof" that Unicorns From Outer space are NOT visiting Earth! Or better yet, I demand "negative proof" that Joel is NOT a mental patient!

    And when it's explained to him that the "UFO" myth and social delusion are properly the subjects of social psychology, the irrational one equates scientists and skeptics who espouse the Null and PSH with believers and “UFO” charlatans.

    And when that bit of insanity is shown to be not just obviously wrong but plain stupid, the retort of this uneducated, irrational loonatic is that it’s all a matter of “opinion.”

    Oh, brother, I don’t think I’ve heard that one since junior high. Another entry from the Crackpot Index and the essence of the antiscientific attitude: Facts in the world are matters of "opinion."

    Stupid Again! I award you another 50 Crackpoint points!

    And now he’s comparing me to Tony B and making up crap and attributing it to me. Zoam did or said this or that, but none of it’s true.

    Knock it off, Joel! I’ve seen your mugshot! It ain't pretty.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Sunday, May 17, 2015  

  • It just seems superfluous, Tim, now that everyone agrees it's a mummy and that the Roswell Team misidentified the thing, for whatever reason.

    The mummy's odd configuration doesn't excuse how the Team perceived it.

    There was a bias from the get-go and duplicity too, which I've recounted elsewhere.

    The whole shebang was (and continues to be) fraught with stupidity (or worse).

    Prolonging that stupidity is itself stupid.

    I understand your curiosity, which is authentic apparently but what Rudiak is up to is slightly nefarious I think, as are the apologies of some of those who foisted this thing upon us all.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, May 17, 2015  

  • Zoam:

    You are now being wicked.

    Knock it off; it's beneath you.

    Take the high road.

    (We've been through the witch hunts before a la Anthony Bragalia and I don't want to "Salemize" this blog again.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, May 17, 2015  

  • Honestly, Tim, at this point what does it matter?

    If cranks like Rudiak don't know a picture of a mummy when they see it, who cares?

    What's a picture of a mummy got to do anything UFOish?

    Absolutely Nothing!

    Some idiot looked at the slides and said "Hey, that mummy looks like a space alien!"

    And that should have been the end of it since it's obviously no more than that.

    All the rest has nothing but an utterly uninteresting time-wasting diversion chasing the most pathetic of "found object forced context" sideshow hoaxes.

    What's next, prosecution?

    My suggestion to my fellow skeptics is to drop this nonsense flat!


    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Sunday, May 17, 2015  

  • Yes Rich, I completely understand your point of view. I have to assume that DR is merely sifting through the debris field and trying to piece together what went wrong...a rational response with what appears to be good intentions. I've no reason at this point in time to doubt this.

    I have to disagree with your concept of prolonging stupidity. Looking deeper into the analytics and motivation and the rendering of poor scholarship will guide future investigations.

    And yes, I have my own sense of morbid curiosity, but I hope that all see that my motivations are sincere.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Sunday, May 17, 2015  

  • Thank you, Rich!

    I'm done with it, again.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Sunday, May 17, 2015  

  • Tim, Zoam, and GZ:

    Civility is next to Godliness and the May 5th mummy thing an aberration that should be buried.

    I got snookered into promoting the slides by duplicity, because I trusted persons I thought were honest and truth-seeking.

    That was not the case. and I'm full of chagrin for remaining stuck to the Kodachrome story from beginning to end.

    But live and learn, and your point, Tim, that it's a learning experience sits well with me.

    Zoam continues to rile things up and I'm glad to see he accepts a line that shouldn't be crossed.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, May 17, 2015  

  • Have we been told exactly why Bragalia, Carey, Schmitt or anyone else ever made the connection between the mummy in the slides and an ET from the Roswell crash?

    What I mean is this: why did anyone ever suppose the being depicted in the slides might be a Roswell ET?

    As far as I can tell, this connection was made solely because a supposed 90-year old 'witness' told Bragalia that it resembled the 'being' he saw 60+ years earlier. This plus the fact that the Kodachrome slides were produced in the late 1940s, and the slides taken in the general area of Texas/New Mexico!

    This was the reason for the great excitement over it all. Have I got this right or was there other evidence pointing to a Roswell ET?

    Zoam is right in this respect. The only reason the slides were linked with Roswell at all was that those who came across the slides were so besotted with Roswell that they WANTED it to be the final hard evidence.

    A total shambles. And if their planned book goes ahead (3rd or 4th?) it will merely reinforce the idea that both of them are even more besotted with the case than before the slides entered the fray.

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, May 17, 2015  

  • Yes, CDA, besotted with the Roswell ET meme.

    They wanted to believe but that alone doesn't answer why they went in the Roswell direction at all.

    I have no idea where Roswell entered the equation or how the Team got to that point.

    Why did the holder of the slides contact Tom Carey in the first place, out of all the possible UFO people he might have looked for?

    I now why Mr. Bragalia took to the Roswell explanation for the body.

    And I can guess why Carey and Schmitt headed in that direction.

    (They had a book in mind.)

    But who started the Roswell connection? JB the slide owner, allegedly a Chicago businessman?

    It's a point that hasn't been made clear.

    As I wrote in an early blog post about the slides: Something smells.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, May 17, 2015  

  • Zoam,

    I'd say your ideas are nuts but they're not all they are cracked up to be. Maybe they're gems... but they seem to be too flawed for use except as industrial strength abrasives. I certainly can attest to their abrasiveness.

    You don't need to take my word for it. In the interest of helping you get your ideas into shape I suggest you give this entry at Hayley Steven's blog a read: http://hayleyisaghost.co.uk/humanist-ghost-buster/ She specializes in debunking parapsychology but I think the methodology outlined will help you improve your ability to communicate your ideas much more clearly and effectively, especially since you are not a psychologist.

    One of the skeptics quoted in that post gave a talk at "The Amazing Meeting" in 2010. The title of which tells the best way to get ideas across is, wait for it--- "Don't be a dick."

    regards. ;-)

    By Blogger gishzida, at Sunday, May 17, 2015  


    Nice review of David Clarke's new book "How UFOs Conquered the World: The History of a Modern Myth" over at the Magonia blog.


    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Sunday, May 17, 2015  

  • Thanks, Zoam:

    David Clarke (a "friend") is always erudite and anything he writes should be read.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, May 17, 2015  


    That headline cracked me up.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Sunday, May 17, 2015  

  • I'm listening to George Knapp on Coast to Coast AM tonight, applauding what he says. He points out the speed at which the UFO community, through teamwork, debunked the Roswell Slides in a matter of days after the release of the images.

    Some predicted the Roswell Slides would be a disaster to ufology - but to the contrary, I see it as ufology's finest hour.

    By Blogger CommanderCronus, at Monday, May 18, 2015  

  • The Psychosocial hypothesis:

    There is no "UFO" phenomenon.

    Because there are no REAL "UFOs" (trufos) of any kind and never were.

    There is a much better explanation for "UFO" reports. This is the Null hypothesis.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    Absence of evidence is very good evidence of absence.

    "UFO" REPORTS are not evidence of any extraordinary reality, they are completely human-oriented anecdotes created by culturally supplied themes and motifs.

    The extraterrestrial hypothesis and other exotic theories--UTH, CTH, IDH, ATH--cannot explain why people make "UFO" reports but the Psychosocial hypothesis does.

    "UFO" reports are discrete expressions of the latent mass media-manufactured "UFO" social delusion.

    The idea of a world-wide superconspiracy to hide the truth about UFOs is not merely non-falsifiable but impossible.

    All of ufoology is pseudoscience.

    "UFO" cults and subculture, all of ufoology, the entire "UFO" myth and social delusion are subjects of study by folklorists, sociologists and social psychologists.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, May 20, 2015  

  • There goes Zoam again, answering every post with the same old thing.

    He fails the Turing test.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Wednesday, May 20, 2015  

  • @ Noam:

    Just checking to make sure I understand what you are saying:

    1) What is the "proof" of the statement:
    "there are no REAL "UFOs" (trufos) of any kind and never were."? I'm not sure that statement is actually any more provable than saying ETH is the answer.

    2)You said: "All of ufoology is pseudoscience." Are you saying that Jacques Vallee, J. Allen Hynek and any other credentialed person [including yourself] actually looking at the subject are pseuodo-scientists?

    3) "The extraterrestrial hypothesis and other exotic theories--UTH, CTH, IDH, ATH--cannot explain why people make "UFO" reports but the Psychosocial hypothesis does."

    It appears that you are confusing the issue here. A better statement might be: "The psychosocial hypothesis (attempts) to explain *why* people report seeing "X-Y-Z"(fill in the "XYZ").

    The various "?THs" listed have *nothing to do* with explaining *why* -- they are attempts [rightly or wrongly] to explain *what* the observer thought they saw. That is their greatest weakness because "what" requires you to actually draw a conclusion. Most of the Hypotheses out there are "conclusions" that an attempt to "shoehorn" the "reports / observations" to fit that conclusion.

    There is a great bit of difference between "what" and "why". It is as wide as a quality control inspector measuring a machined part and arriving at a specific measurement. "What" the inspector did to measure the part and "what" he observed as the measurement and "why" he measured it are completely different things. Funny thing is we never question that inspector about those "whats". What is the difference then is there to someone observing something unsual?

    4) >"UFO" reports are discrete expressions of the latent mass media-manufactured "UFO" social delusion."

    Can you offer actual proof of that other than in the context of the sideshows that crop up every few years?

    I am sure that Rich or Nick Redfern have within their trove of reports and notes some observations / reports that are in no way related from those who are attention seekers. Hence the accusation that mass media is manipulating / manufacturing what is being observed is *possibly* incorrect. It is true that in the last 30 years it appears that media / books / music have become manufactured products which might explain Rich's complaint "we don't see the kind of reports we used to see".

    That being said I don't want to leave you with the impression that I am a "believer"... call me an agnostic. I have seen things which I have no explanation for but that does not me that there isn't some mundane explanation on the other hand there may be no explanation at all.

    @ Terry: Do I pass the Turing test? ;-)

    By Blogger gishzida, at Wednesday, May 20, 2015  

  • There Terry goes again, missing the point completely--just as I knew he would.

    Your psychosocial overlords have landed, resistance is futile. (g)

    You want to try again or not? It really doesn't matter to us.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, May 20, 2015  

  • No, Joel, you don't understand a single thing that I said.

    These fundamental, quite obvious propositions exist in the real world outside of the "UFO" myth, they're not questions.

    All of your confused responses are made from inside belief in the myth.

    Take #3 as an example: Hypotheses do not explain reports. Debunking explains reports. The PSH explains WHY people make reports.

    An "agnostic" is a victim of the myth who pretends that he isn't.

    "I have seen things which I have no explanation...."

    The mere failure to identify an ambiguous visual stimulus isn't significant or necessarily interesting. The false belief that it is and is worthy of reporting, is the absurd basis of the idea "UFO" and "UFO" reports.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, May 20, 2015  

  • Zoam, I didn't miss the point -- it is you who are obtuse, as usual.

    This was post was about the Roswell Slides, but, of course, you have decided, as you always do, to drop the atom bomb on every aspect of ufology.

    You show no discrimination. It's tedious.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Wednesday, May 20, 2015  

  • Noam,

    You seem to want people to "unlearn" science as it is and accept your "because I said so" version. You are delusional.

    You know who I am so you also probably are aware of the papers and information which my father wrote and I have given to Rich (he has posted on one of his other blogs).

    My father taught me what I know about science and scientific method. He actually was a scientist-- an engineer with multiple patents for both mechanical and electronic devices... and at least 10 scientific experiment packages he designed and "managed" were launched on various planetary research satellites in the 60's. One of them was still working after 18 years! So yes I am familiar with science, and its methods.

    No, I am not my father: He would have listened for a minute or two and then he would have put you in your place and ignored you because you are acting like an idiot. He wasn't interested in pissing contests like you and some others around here are. Science isn't a pissing contest.

    As I learned it from my father science and scientific method are nothing like what you are describing-- which is the same warped "believe what I tell you to or you must be delusional!" that "believers" of all ilks use to shove stuff [true or not] down people's throats... Like in "The Village" you are so in love with. Funny how you could end up like so like Number 2 (is he your father perhaps?). I hated that series BTW... The Village was run by "bullies" and "liars". Authority figures all bossing around poor Number 6 -- who got exactly what he deserved for acting as their agent in the first place.

    No matter how you slice it your whole tirade is specious and you well know it... This just what you do when you go trolling, right? Ha! Better luck next time.

    Barukh ata Adonai Eloheinu melekh ha’olam shehakol niyah bidvaro.

    Which is the way a Yid [Reform leaning Conservative] such as myself thanks G-d for Rum [and other things]. After reading your tripe I need a shot of half-way decent Barbados.

    Hope you're having a good time.

    By Blogger gishzida, at Wednesday, May 20, 2015  

  • Excellent, Terry!

    So we've exposed your campaign of personal attacks to be unfounded, irrational, and mere juvenile Internet-enabled aggression, eh?

    I very obviously and without doubt stand squarely in both the skeptical and psychosocial camps. David Clarke's propositions are uncanny independently formulated restatements--point by point and nearly verbatim--of my own.

    Rationality and Scholarship Rule!

    Call it "Convergent Skepticism."

    Now what's your problem, sook? The "UFO" myth in tatters? Too bad. It's all but over. We are your psychosocial overlords! (g)

    I addressed the dead "slides" topic and turned to a different one--Clarke's new book. We do that quite a lot here. You are not required to read or respond. So any tedium experienced, before or after, is completely on you.

    Terry, as much as you seem to think otherwise, you are not the Internet police. Please give it a rest!

    And I will continue to drop the "atom bombs" of debunking and the Null and Psychosocial hypotheses on every aspect of the "UFO" myth and delusion as I have for decades--in my style and where it is very graciously allowed. Thank you.

    That's what real "UFO" skeptics do, especially those interested in astronomy.

    ufoolery is history. What's our next topic, blogmeister?

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Thursday, May 21, 2015  

  • > you are not the Internet police

    No, I am the internet judge.

    (Facebook? A crime against humanity!)

    > your campaign of personal attacks

    Descriptions of your behaviour are not personal attacks. But your characterisation of my methods is straight-up crank evasion.

    I'm starting to think David Rudiak fell through a wormhole into an "opposite" universe, where his ideological polarity was reversed, then he got sucked back into his home universe and started calling himself Zoam.

    (That is not a description, just a hypothesis.)

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Thursday, May 21, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home