The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Another domain of life -- the fourth!

Our friend, Dawson College's [Montreal] Bryan Sentes, a true intellectual, provided a link, at Facebook, to an article that offers the suggestion that there might be a fourth domain of life, which bespeaks that life is more diverse and odd than we might imagine:

Why aircraft never evolved from alleged UFO design

UFOs: The Unread Crowd

I’ve harped on this before, so forgive me for being redundant, but this is an issue that needs to be redressed.

I see from comments and e-mails that many readers here haven’t read Scully's Behind the Flying Saucers but presume to speak about the book and its contents.

And among the books I cite for my speculations, few, if any, have read or have them but they, too, presume to comment on my citations.

And what about those of you who haven’t bought Nick Redfern’s book, Close Encounters of the Fatal Kind, or any of Kevin Randle’s offerings?

Yet you quidnuncs continue to pontificate about their content.

This is the height of hubris, ignorant hubris.

That UFO people don’t support those who author credible, worthwhile tomes about the UFO topic is more than disappointing; it’s disgusting, you bastards!

I’m sure many of you buy cigarettes and beer, but opt not to support those who grind away at the UFO mystery, using their personal funds and time to enlighten the ufological masses.

That some of you deign to comment on esoteric books and postings about them that I bring to this venue makes me intellectually sick.

You oafs are not respected nor esteemed, but I allow your comments out of a sense of courtesy, for the mentally challenged.

Go forth, buy Nick’s books and Mr. Randle’s, and anyone else who has credible cachet in the UFO community.

And if you choose to comment on my fantasy offerings, do so with the background of knowledge you’ve garnered by reading and understanding the material proffered.

The UFO clan is awash in dolts. Let’s keep them far from this blog.


Tuesday, July 22, 2014

The insertion of alien faces in ancient imagery?

Again, in this book, there are images, from old art-works, that contain what appear to be faces of those damnable little gray beings that UFO witnesses keep seeing.

This is The Wheel of Becoming (19th Century Tibet) [Page 400];
 The “alien faces”?
This is Yama and Yami, The Lord Death and his Shakti (19th Century Tibet) [Page 409]:
The “alien faces”?
This is Chakra-Samvararaja and His Shakti, Vajra-Yogini (18th Century, Tibet) [Page 404]:
The “alien faces”?
Did the creators of these works see little gray beings? Or did they have a neurological epiphany?

N.B. No, they're not impressions of skulls; they have the flame of life on their tops


The Electrical Connection to UFOs and the Other World(s)

In the book pictured here [Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1974] resides images that derive from various cultures over many years, millennia sometimes.

Some of the images seem, to me, to be similar to electrical schematics, too nearly so to be discounted as something imagined from thin air.

Here are two, this first comes from a sand painting of the Navaho people, early 20th Century [Page 188]
Another -- from the Aztec civilization, 15th century, A.D. [Page 189]
 This is an IBM computer chip diagram:

This is an electrical circuit:

This is Quetzalcoatl’s Heart of the Underworld (Aztec/Pre-Columbian) [Page 176]

This is computer wafer chip:

The [speculative] point I’m trying to make is that there appears to be a metal intrusion on ancient and current artists [Jackson Pollack], a mental intrusion that has similarities to electricity or electrical circuitry.

While early man, in its cave paintings, produced “realistic” images of their surroundings, some cultures -- Indian, in the sub-continent, Indian, in middle America – appear to have been affected by mental images that have co-incidental similarities to electrical design and circuitry. Why?

That UFOs are often reported to affect electrical circuitry in automobiles, atomic or military weaponry circuits, and power plants indicates that UFOs may have an integral electrical component or essence. [See my previous posting about electrical alien beings.]

Do UFOs affect witness brains, the electrical aspect of the brain?

A matter for research or investigation?


Saturday, July 19, 2014

Jonathan E. Caldwell was the creator of flying saucers (UFOs)?

These two New York TIMES clippings from August 20/21, 1949, reproduced in Flying Saucers Over Los Angeles: The UFO Craze of the 50’s by Dewayne B. Johnson and Kenn Thomas [Adventures Unlimited Press, Kempton, Illinois, 1998, Page 272] …
…tells of two flying saucers [Flying Disk “prototypes”] found in a barn near Glen  Burnie, Maryland, which is about eleven miles south of Baltimore.

It was determined that the constructs had been invented by a man named Jonathan E. Caldwell, who disappeared in the winter of 1940/1941.

The Air Force initially issued a Roswell-like statement: “…'some flying disks had been located  in Maryland,' and that Army special agents made an investigation.”

The Air Force then decided “that the two experimental aircraft … 'have absolutely no connection with the reported phenomena [sic] of flying saucers.'”

The TIMES continues “Less than  twenty-four hours earlier, however, and Air Force spokesman had said there was a 'a good chance' that the two weird devices … might be prototypes or forerunners of the flying saucers or discs.”

Roswell dé-jà vu surely.

But, more intriguing, who was Jonathan E. Caldwell and what happened to him?


Friday, July 18, 2014

UFOs and Electric Beings?

Bryan Sentes, a Facebook friend who teaches at Dawson College in Montreal, provided this link to his FB followers:

It allows speculation that, perhaps, somewhere in the Universe, a race of beings has evolved, beings who live off pure energy and may be energy beings themselves.


The Stupidity of UFO Mavens

My god....what's wrong with UFO-interested people?

Are they totally ignorant or insane?

My ideas about speculation have raised havoc with a few readers here, David Rudiak among them.

The consternation comes from persons who, apparently, think that UFO accounts and reports bespeak a reality, that flying saucers and UFOs contain extraterrestrial visitors from outer space.

They think the Aztec and Roswell tales contain actual, real accounts of dead alien bodies and an ET presence.

That I suggest those tales are speculation really irks these people. They have come to believe those two tales (and others) are true or real.

It's a matter of fanatic faith for them, like the existence of God.

No wonder that skeptics get berserk with these folks.

No UFO report or event has ever proved anything, except that something odd was seen in the air or on the ground.

Again, Roswell generated the Aztec story. Aztec is a fiction. Roswell was an odd event, far from settled as a flying disk crash.

One can only speculate about both: why Aztec was created and what really happened near Roswell.

To think there are facts or data proving either was a real ET event is insane, intellectually.

The thought processes expressed here, in comments, show delusional thinking at its worst.

I'm embarrased to have allowed such comments, and I'm chagrinned to think I've quartered here a raft of ravings that normal people can see are stupidity in the extreme.


Thursday, July 17, 2014

Ufology’s Academic Mistake(s)

David Rudiak is irked by my approach to the Aztec and Roswell stories.

Let me explain so that even he understands what I’m doing…

Aztec is, for me, a fiction. I tackle it as a fiction.

Roswell has become mythic. One should deal with the 1947 event as a myth, using the academic methodologies for mythology.

George Adamski’s tales are a contrivance (created for reasons not quite clear, but concocted surely). One should treat Adamski and his contacts as part of a self-generated creation.

Many of the UFO accounts provided here and at his blog-site by Jose Antonio Caravaca are delusions, and should be treated with psychological methodologies.

Mr. Rudiak sees Roswell as a substantive 1947 event and treats it forensically, which is admirable, in an odd way.

French UFO skeptic Gilles Fernandez, Lance Moody, and CDA (perhaps) see Roswell as a myth, developed by Stanton Friedman’s 1978 intrusion and developing as a mythos until today (2104).

To deal or treat Roswell as something other than a mythos grates the skeptics.

Treating Aztec as a real event, with real chronologies, data, and facts, when it is a fiction, created by Silas Newton and exacerbated, unknowingly as a real event, by Frank Scully, would be foolish.

To try and obtain factual material for a fictive event or story would be stupid on the face of it.

One can gather supportive materials that underlie a fiction, but to take that supportive material into a realm of reportage and fact would be a nonsensical activity.

Mr. Rudiak doesn’t get what premises my speculation, even though I gave him and readers here a heads up with the two New Yorker excerpts in the posting preceding this one.

I like Mr. Rudiak. I think he has accumulated much about Roswell and UFOs generally that is valuable.

But he isn’t academic in his approach. He misses the nuances of speculation. He’s a tyro when it comes to how writers work, what they are trying to do, what truths they are trying to determine using something other than concrete facts or data.

When I say Aztec derives from Roswell, that seems, to me, to follow from the time-line, the persons involved, and the details that intersect between Aztec and Roswell: downed flying saucers, with bodies and a military cover-up.

Mr. Rudiak wants more. He wants me to concretize a fiction.

I’d like to accommodate him, but his obsession is not mine and I’m not going to chase that dog’s tail, just to assuage his obsession with the ETH.


A Doorway to Shaver's "Inner Earth"?

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Ufological Speculation

The current issue of The New Yorker magazine [7/21/14], in Briefly Noted [Page 81] has this about writers who’ve written books, one about Freud and one about The Beat Generation.

In the paragraph about Becoming Freud by Adam Phillips (Yale), is this:

“Talking [Freud’s] admonishments about writing biographies, Phillips, a psychoanalyst himself,  attempts ‘a Freudian life of the young Freud.” The result is anti-biography. Phillips eschews scene setting, character sketches, and chronology, in favor of a string of musings on the first fifty or so years of Freud’s life.”

And this from the notation of American Smoke by Iain Sinclair (Faber) “ … the result is beguiling, full of sparkling prose and odd, unexpected detours … his trip is mostly a journey of the imagination.” [Italics mine]

This is what writers do. The conjure up the truth from associations and connections that spur their imaginations, causing a fictive work that approaches truth often more truthfully than a factual rendition of data and information that is gathered from disparate and controversial sources.

Great writing – Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, Joyce, et al. – is a product of imaginative speculation that harbors truths that facts often miss.

David Rudiak gathers facts and tries to allow those facts to bespeak truths that aren’t exactly there but seem to be – his Ramey speculations, for example. (His Ramey thesis is interesting and imaginative but shorn of proof. However, had he allowed his views to be speculative rather than a presentation of reality, his observations would have been more readily accepted by UFO cognoscenti.)

David bludgeons his followers with a treasure trove of information, but while less is more, for him, more is more and he provides a cascade of information that doesn’t gel in the imagination of his readers.

David writes, a lot, but he isn’t a writer.

He now is taking me to task for my speculative views on Bernerd Ray, Silas Newton, Roswell, and Aztec, pressing for proofs and “facts” that are just not available at this late date.

I’m left to speculate on what may be a truth that I imagine – Silas Newton was presented some photos of a Roswell incident that Bernerd Ray had captured on film; Silas Newton taking the story as a ploy for nefarious activity, creating an Aztec scenario, that he got Frank Scully, a writer/reporter, to see as an actual account – Skully’s imaginative faculties filling in the blanks that Newton’s tale were fraught with, and so we have Behind the Flying Saucers.

Speculation can get one in trouble sometimes and particularly when it comes to criminal investigations, if one isn’t careful.

But in ufology or cosmology or anything else, imaginative speculation is a doorway to truths, as Einstein found out as well as and, in particular, quantum physicists who discovered that when dealing with the evanescent aspects of quantum mechanics.

Theoretical physicists are prime examples of speculative thinkers (and writers).

One has to take what exists in the way of information and mold it to portray a truth that they see as possible – not true perhaps, in the factual sense, but true in another way: encompassing possibilities that could be real.

David Rudiak did this with his Ramey hypothesis, but his presentation is hammered too hard, causing readers of his foray to shy away. Mr. Rudiak is proselytizing, on behalf of his bias, that extraterrestrials exist, fly in UFOs or saucers, and crashed near Roswell in 1947.

It’s an acceptable view – to me.

But when I conjecture that Bernerd Ray and Silas Newton were in contact (or more), derived from their similar professions, locale, and circumstantial employment situation, Mr. Rudiak questions my speculation, as do Frank Warren and Scott Ramsey, all of whom think Aztec happened as Frank Scully told it.

But Aztec did not happen as Frank Scully had it. He was, unknown to him at the time, regurgitating the Roswell tale as reconfigured by Silas Newton (for the reasons I have enumerated earlier here).

David Rudiak can’t accept my speculation which has more grist than the vague blotches in his enlarged Ramey memo.

That’s okay with me. After all, as French UFO skeptic Gilles Fernandez often remind us, “That’s ufology.

UFOs and its pseudo-science are too silly or ephemeral to get worked up about.

Even the so-called Roswell slides are nothing to get worked up about: they will end up proving nothing, except that someone took photos of a strange thing, in an unknown place, at an unknown time.

But speculative writing about UFOs and its mimesis will continue here, and elsewhere I hope. It’s entertaining, and I would hope approaches truths that facts can’t emulate.


Despicable Ufology

An often complaint by UFO aficionados is that science, scholastics, and/or academics don’t study or examine the alleged “good UFO cases.”

And why don’t they?

One reason is the inherent lunacy of most UFO mavens.

But another reason is that the UFO crowd is adorned heavily with unethical people. Persons who steal material online, posting it as their finds or even original thoughts and writings, not providing attribution of citation(s).

Many plagiarize material and pass it off as their own.

Writings of ours, input here, can be found all over the internet, at UFO web-sites and blogs, without a link or sourcing notification.

Such scummy activity is eschewed by academics and scientists – anathema, for them, of a high order.

There is no way to correct the unethical, immoral behavior of the sleazy pirates; they are immune to decency and elegant, legal behavior.

Some even ignore copyright notices – although we have won a few copyright infringement “suits” over the past few years.

(Hosting platforms and other internet venues, wishing not to be sued, will readily stop or remove copyrighted material being exploited by their customers or users.)

But the stealing goes on apace.

We’ll start posting those sites that have taken material wholesale from this venue and presented as their own. (And we’ll sue some of the practitioners.)

But that won’t correct “ufology” in the mind of science or academia. They will remain wary and aloof.

And we don’t blame them.


Tuesday, July 15, 2014

SAGE Publishing/Peer Review Scandal

NASA says we will find aliens in 20 years, but...

... they've already shown up, or so the Roswell slides tell us:

Monday, July 14, 2014

Today [7/14/2014] is Anthony Bragalia's birthday....Happy Birthday, AJB

Saturday, July 12, 2014

The Aztec/Roswell Bodies? (Support for the Roswell slides?)

As many of you know, we spent much of 2013 presenting our view that Frank Scully’s book, Behind the Flying Saucers was really about Roswell, not Aztec, and we presented our supporting view(s) here, at this blog, which you can find via Google.

What interests me, currently, amidst the Roswell slides imbroglio, is the descriptions of the alleged bodies discovered in the Aztec (actually Rowell) flying saucer crashes as enumerated by Scully.

These comments are from Scientist X, given to students and media at The University of Denver according to Scully:

“ … men [were found], ranging in ages … from thirty-five to forty years old … Their bodies had been charred to a dark brown color.” [Page 28 of the 1950 Popular Library Edition, paperback]

“ … dead men … found in the second craft … had not suffered from burns …and were all of fair complexion … of small stature. No different from us, except for height, and lack of beards. [Page 28, ibid.]

Scully’s protagonists said:

“We took the little bodies out, and laid them on the ground … They were normal from every standpoint and had no appearance of being what we would call on this planet ‘midgets.’ They were small in stature but well proportioned. The only trouble was that their skin seemed to be charred a very dark chocolate … [apparently] burned as a result of air rushing through that broken porthole window or something going wrong with the means by which the shipped was propelled and the cabin pressurized.” [Page 116, ibid]

“ … they were dead, from either burns or the bends.” [Page 117, ibid]

“What has been done with the people that were on the ship? … some of them had been dissected, and studied by the medical division of the Air Force and that from the meager reports … received, they had found that these little fellows were in all respects perfectly normal human beings [sic], except for their teeth … Their teeth were prefect. [Page 119, ibid]

As contended by me, earlier here, Bernerd Ray who worked for Scully’s Silas Newton [see 2013 blog posts], seems to have taken photos of the beings now known as the Roswell slides, and shown them to Newton.

And they are, indeed from Roswell, not Aztec, which was a cover story devised by Newton at the behest of the Army Air Force with whom he maintained oil contracts.

Frank Scully’s wife saw and reported upon the Ray photos, which are still extant, and may be the slides that The Roswell Team is touting.

There is much that has not been investigated about the conjunction of Aztec and Roswell for many reasons, some stemming from the contention that Aztec is a viable, real story of a flying saucer crash, and strongly defended as such by Frank Warren and chief defenders Scott and Suzanne Ramsey, along with authors/researchers William Steinman, Wendelle Stevens, and Richard Thomas, all of whom believe that Aztec is a singular event when, in reality, it was a fictive cover story, promulgated by Silas Newton, as noted.


From Jose Antonio Caravaca -- an Impression


 The study of slides authenticated to be from 1947 depicting a deceased humanoid creature have been subject to recent allegations and to rank speculation. Articles and comments on this blog have to be addressed:


We are all familiar with images of mummies. Many of us have been fortunate enough to view such  wonders in-person at museums. I have personally viewed many types of mummies when I lived in Boston and visited the Ancient Egypt Collections at the Museum of Fine Arts. A mummy is a dead body (human or animal) that has been ceremonial preserved using a variety of processes, often involving removal of internal organs and treatment with natron and resin. Such mummies can be viewed “bandaged” as well as without such wrapping. Though mummies can be made deliberately by people in various civilizations, they can also be created accidentally by nature through freezing or other natural processes.

Of the many scientists, PhDs, photography experts and other researchers who are among the very fortunate to have viewed the ‘alien slides’- not one has ever at any time mentioned that the 3 foot thing depicted in the 1947 photographs resembles a mummy.  This includes KODAK experts, a NASA scientist of international standing who has left comments on his impressions of the creature on this blog and several UFOlogists.

The creature depicted in the slides (owned by an Oil Exploration Geologist in NM in the 1940s) in no way even remotely appears like any creature known on Earth.  The contrast is as strikingly evident as the two images above of an alien head schematic and of a ‘raw’ mummy. Mummies can be dry, shriveled, withered and shrunken. Features can become distorted.  But no matter how ‘alien’ these former living people can appear when mummified, they still appear unmistakably human. 

                                                             A Hydrocephalic

                                                            An Atom Bomb Victim

                                                            A Progeric

People with extreme deformities (such as hydrocephaly) or those who were victims of the drop of the Atom Bomb, or those suffering progeria aging are still people. Though they are grossly physically deformed, they are easily seen for what they are: Human.  The graphic images above are meant to bring home this essential point: Though horrible things can happen to make people appear horrible- they are still homo sapiens. No burns, radiation, mutilation or indeed even mummification can change that truth. 

Nick Redfern fails miserable in his thesis (outlined in his book Body Snatchers in the Desert) because of this very reason. He believes that those who were witness to the Roswell crash bodies were actually viewing deformed, small Japanese who had crashed to the New Mexico desert in a bizarre experimental flight.  No matter how hard these skeptics try, they cannot get around the fact that people can recognize other people.  Humans recognize other humans no matter how unfortunate the physical circumstance or challenge.

The three-foot formerly living thing is not a diseased nor deformed human, it is not a simian, it is not a mummy and it is not a dead airman (as skeptic Tim Printy inanely speculates.) The slides depict something that is bi-pedal and not known to Earth. Period.


It is nothing short of remarkable that learned individuals such as skeptics Lance Moody and Gilles Fernandez have seen fit to proffer their opinions on the veracity of the images. For supposed men of science, their words reveal that they really are not.  Neither man has ever even seen the slides or even a digital copy of them! They go on ranting for pages over weeks about this. Yet they can add nothing to the dialog for they have not viewed or examined what is being discussed! It is almost a psychological freak show. Those who have not seen somehow know the most.  Those who are not even close to the investigation in any way at all  insert themselves anyway. 

The causes for this are legion. Jealousy, a feeling of exclusion, a mistrust of motives, being burned in the past (i.e. with the Santilli Alien Autopsy hoax) all must enter into it.  The behavior of many who have heard or read -but have not seen- is almost infantile. Some seem to have suffered conniption fits and mini-strokes over this investigation.

They are frustrated that the slides have not been made public. Number one, the owner of the slides is under no obligation to do so. What has been lost is that he has been gracious in granting scientists and other experts access. And such investigation could take not weeks or months, but far longer.  Many of you have asked some great questions:

1)      How did geologist Bernerd Ray acquire these 1947 alien slides?
2)      Where were the photos of the creature taken?
3)      Who are the two people (the legs of a male and of a female are shown) that are seen in the slides?
4)      Who else may have seen this? (i.e. friends and associates of the Rays)
5)      Why did Ray hide the two slides, only to be found years later by a stranger?
6)      Are there other, similar slides?

Authentication of the slides as originating from 1947 is only one piece of the process. Very fortunately, advanced testing by multiple independent parties affirms 1947 as the year of exposure. However the harder part, finding out the Who, What, When, Where and Why, is something that may take a very long time.  Without a complete back story, without a thorough and provable narrative, skeptics will question and condemn the slides. Yet, the shrieking demands for release continue. Journalists doing a story, doctors doing clinicals, novelists writing books- none are required or expected to release anything until all of the proverbial i’s are dotted at t’s are crossed.  Why should this type of endeavor be any different? Why should something still in-process, still ongoing, be prematurely published?


A recent article on this site suggests that the slides were taken illicitly away from the house in which they were found. There is simple no validity to this whatsoever…

The slides were found by a woman who was a cleaning lady working for an estate cleaning service. When houses are vacated to be sold, services are called to perform a final ‘clean-out’ of the premises to ready for sale.  Any remaining materials (i.e. trash, items affixed to walls, chests and containers, magazines, and yes, even old slides) are considered rubbish and to be removed. The woman had permission to take the chest. The couple who had the slides is deceased and had no children, no heirs, no claimants. And any statute of limitations has passed. Any there was never any ‘estate sale’ involving the slides. This misinformation perhaps comes from a misreading of ‘estate cleaning.’

A check with the Texas AG Office and the TX Office of Unclaimed Property confirms that there is no investigation or inquiry on this matter and that the current owner is unknown to them.


Friday, July 11, 2014

Is this the source of the Roswell slides?

Did Bernerd and Hilda Ray snap their photos from a display of mummies:


The Roswell Slides: What’s that smell?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Well is to laugh:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is where we are…