UFO Conjectures

Tuesday, February 09, 2021

John Greenewald [Black Vault] debunks Tony Bragalia's Pentagon/Debris story?



  • Watched the video, and Greenewald pretty much nails the coffin shut on this latest story, the evidence for which has been oversold and grossly misinterpreted.

    If a journalist out in the real world produced a story that was then thoroughly debunked, his credibility would be shot. If a researcher produced two such stories in UFOlogy, what can he expect? Tenure?

    As for Bigelow, I've heard his interviews and he's pretty much incoherent. I don't know if he's making things up as he goes along so ends up rambling, or in trying to obfuscate he ends up sounding like a dunce -- but between him and Bragalia, they've set UFOlogy back quite a ways.

    The subject deserves something better than this.

    By Blogger Ron, at Wednesday, February 10, 2021  

  • Tony Bragalia says he has a rebuttal coming.

    (He's provided comments at John's YouTube channel)

    Let me know, Ron, if you see anything on Facebook. I caught the UFO Update posting.

    Also, "friend" me there if we're not connected already. Use my FB account where I'm wearing sunglasses....my very old, first account is dormant but still shows up in searches.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 10, 2021  

  • Tony sent me this reply to John Greenewald (at YouTube); no response from John G yet:

    "John- This is Anthony Bragalia. I wished that you had let me know that you were going to do a video critique of my article. I would have been able to respond point by point. You are misleading viewers by having them believe that the DIA was responding to anything other than a very specific, unambiguous request for test results on UAP/UFO material held by Bigelow Aerospace. The reply from the DIA was to provide to me "advanced technical reports" on extraordinary materials. No matter what you are implying, it remains that the context in which I received the documents was in direct response to requests for information derived from recovered UFO debris and the testing of potentially extraterrestrial material. You naively assume that such technical reports would actually reference aliens, Roswell, etc. It does not work that way and your thinking that these technical reports would discuss such things in such a way shows that you do not have a true grasp of materials science and engineering studies. My request for documents were for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). But there is deliberate obfuscation and purposeful confusion coming from the DIA. The program operated earlier under another name, Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Applications program (AAWSA), and the documents are stamped with this program name rather than AATIP. This allows the DIA to claim the studies relate to an advanced military weapons program for defense rather than to an aero-program identifying possible threats from outer space and the associated retrieval of flying saucer material. I have contacted two of the scientist authors and what they say will be reported on in a future article. This was not a "mistake" on the part of the DIA to provide me with reports on advanced defense aerospace materials instead of UAP materials."

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 10, 2021  

  • Bragalia's response only makes sense in the absence of his article, which was misleading at best. What comes next is the long haul of arguments back and forth, with the subject ending up on the scrapheap of UFOlogy, as have so many stories before. The intelligence agencies' disinfo departments must be loving this.

    By Blogger Ron, at Wednesday, February 10, 2021  

  • Yep....

    Those who are trying to control the scenario must be gleeful at the ongoing minor mayhem.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 10, 2021  

  • And Greenewald responds to Braglia's response, and dunks on him again. This is almost cringe-worthy, but TB deserves what he gets. So begins our decent into UFO hell; hopefully it won't last long.

    By Blogger Ron, at Wednesday, February 10, 2021  

  • Ron:

    Tony's getting support from some serious UFOers.

    And much publicity.

    The "brouhaha" may turn out to be worthwhile.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 10, 2021  

  • If you mean the Basterfield blog, yeah. But his concentration focuses on the DIA's release of new files, which should be the story, and the point that Greenewald makes. Then TB went and inflated the findings into something they're not, thereby burying the lead. Since we have little chance in evading the coming fight, yes, let's hope it's worthwhile.

    As an aside, I used to edit JG's column at the old UFO Magazine. He's come a long way since, and apparently has thrived despite my bogus proofreading skills (which includes misspelling "descent" as "decent" in my previous post).

    By Blogger Ron, at Wednesday, February 10, 2021  

  • You've seen, Ron, The Anomalist's Bill Murphy's link comments also, lauding Tony's FOIA effort.

    Tony and I have had our differences, but I know he sees clearings behind the fogs provided by those who control information.

    If he's extrapolated what his FOI requests show, he's seeking the fellow who provided the info to him to see if what was sent to him (Tony) was something extraneous to what he asked for.

    This is far from over. John G has made his point(s). Tony has made his. Let's see where the dust settles.

    I, personally, like you, am outside the fray, enjoying the back-and-forth.

    One can say both guys are approaching the controversy with reserve and gentlemanly conduct.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 10, 2021  

  • Hey, everyone.

    Saw the comments here. Appreciate you posting the video. I also saw there was a comment about me not responding to Anthony. In fact, I did.

    Let me say, I am not interested in a war with anyone, and only focused on the FOIA angle. There were many stretches in that article which do not do this field any favors. I left that alone. I am not here to attack anyway, but rather, put context to records that were provably misinterpreted in my book.

    I wanted to pass on my response to Anthony, should anyone be interested:


    Hello Anthony,

    Actually, I did not feel a need to contact you. You published your FOIA request and the FOIA response, in full. That is all that is needed.

    I specifically addressed your FOIA, and the fact that your line item #5 likely triggered them to have the 5 responsive documents they did. Nothing else. I've worked with the DIA through FOIA for nearly 25 years, and have learned how they respond to requests, which echoes that of many FOIA offices. The reports were close to your item #5, and given they were UNCLASS/FOUO, they released them to address your line item. For you to imply that any of that is connected to UAP debris, is misleading at best.

    In addition, there are many things in your article I did not address, as a courtesy that I wasn't out to attack you. Rather, to address the FOIA material. However, for you to have an entire section about how reports had been released before, and how you were confused on why they would redact the names, yet again is misleading and factually incorrect. You fail to inform your readers those were unauthorized LEAKS of FOUO material. They were never officially released, so your entire section with your accusations is also wrong there. I left that out, as again, I am not trying to pick apart your entire article.

    Plain and simple, not a single page of your release has anything to do with UAPs or UFOs or Aliens or Fairies. They coincide with what AAWSAP was about, and to have a headline, with the content, such as yours - is entirely misleading and does this field zero favors.

    There are other factual errors in your article, which I would recommend you vet again. I am not here to attack you, but rather, put the FOIA documents into proper context. I am sorry to say, your article, did not. You had a solid story with what you got, but tainted the importance as it's now overshadowed by speculation and false claims. That's not my opinion, but rather, a fact that the documents you show do not validate a single claim of your UFO crash debris and analysis result claims.

    I stand by my video...

    By Blogger BlackVault, at Thursday, February 11, 2021  

  • Just to add one thing:

    Anthony's argument is "You naively assume that such technical reports would actually reference aliens, Roswell, etc. It does not work that way and your thinking that these technical reports would discuss such things in such a way shows that you do not have a true grasp of materials science and engineering studies."

    I am not a material scientist or an engineer (nor have I ever claimed to be one), but what I am, is someone who has common sense. The government and military has a history, if they don't want something in the public realm, they classify it. To say these documents are all about UFOs and Aliens, as proven by the fact they don't say UFOs and Aliens, is a silly stance to take. Good for him for trying it, but I am sticking with the historically proven, widely used, system of classification that has been on the books for decades.

    If UFOs and Aliens were what these documents were about - they wouldn't be UNCLASS/FOUO.

    By Blogger BlackVault, at Thursday, February 11, 2021  

  • Tony Bragalia provides comment response to our pal John Greenewald:

    John - You clearly do not understand the concept of “compartmentalization” when it comes to classified technology projects. The authors of these technical papers do not need to be informed about aliens, crashes, etc. They have no need to know. They do not need to know that their contract work may be inspired by a piece of shot-off UAP in a desert in Africa, as an example. It is not relevant to analyzing, for instance, the chemical or elemental composition of a given material. You are also hugely mistaken about the reply letter I received from the DIA FOIA Chief. Your wild theory about it being either mistakenly or lazily “cut and pasted” using a boiler plate reply for defense metals is without any merit or evidence at all. That you did not try to contact me to discuss this before you released your video. It was hardly sufficient to simply read my article and consider you have all the information on this. You do not. There is more to come… Anthony Bragalia

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 11, 2021  

  • This is getting silly.

    I spoke my peace. If Anthony now wants to say he is keeping stuff from us for a future article, I'll be glad to look at it when he decides to indulge us all with all of his knowledge, and not just some of it. I would just think, if you lay a claim such as his, he would put it all out on the table.

    Regardless, as I told Anthony privately and I'll say so here. I am not interested in a "battle," but I am happy to discuss. If he wants to continue to belittle rather than argue with facts, I'm not interested. I made my video because I speak often about embellished headlines and erroneous information. His article had both, and has caught traction on various social media channels. I was asked quite a bit about it, so I made the video using Anthony's own words (not paraphrasing).

    Plain and simple, Anthony's logic is we are dealing with Aliens and UFO debris from extraterrestrial spacecraft, simply because the released documents don't talk about "Aliens and UFO debris from extraterrestrial spacecraft."

    That's silly, and a wild assumption to help fit a preconceived narrative that is based on nothing historical, verifiable or logical.

    By Blogger BlackVault, at Thursday, February 11, 2021  

  • If Anthony's claims were correct, then the idea the DIA / DOD / Pentagon had “crashed UFO Debris” would be a DE or UN classified piece of information. Therefore, a statement confirming that should not have been hard to do.

    However, the Pentagon itself says his claims are “inaccurate” and “misleading.” Here is the statement I was given to be used on the record, by the Pentagon.

    “The testing referred to in the documents released by the Defense Intelligence Agency under the Freedom of Information Act was of known materials, conducted for study purposes pursuant to the Advanced Aerospace Threat and Identification Program’s mission of establishing a center of expertise for advanced aerospace technologies. Any claims that the tests are of debris are inaccurate and misleading.”

    I have a second part to this which I am still following up on. But, for now, here is the statement.

    By Blogger BlackVault, at Thursday, February 11, 2021  

  • "the Advanced Aerospace Threat and Identification Program’s mission of establishing a center of expertise for advanced aerospace technologies."

    That response from Gough is absurd on its' face. How does Greenewald explain other papers commissioned like "Traversable Wormholes, Stargates, and Negative Energy," "High-Frequency Gravitational Wave Communications" or "An Introduction to the Statistical Drake Equation" to name just three? It was a UFO project pure and simple. Every key person involved with the project and has spoken publicly has said as much.

    "If UFOs and Aliens were what these documents were about - they wouldn't be UNCLASS/FOUO."

    At least four of the five papers released cover topics that are absolutely of interest to someone looking into the materials aspect of UFOs. The Metallic Glass paper seems of dubious importance, at least in the reasonable short term. The others? Absolutely . . . if you know what you're reading. Claims to the contrary are silly and clearly uninformed. I cover this in detail in my recent podcast.


    By Blogger Frank, at Monday, February 15, 2021  

Post a Comment

<< Home