Saturday, February 28, 2015

The Double Standards of Anthony Bragalia (and Roswell researchers in general)

Below is the text of an e-mail just sent to me from Dream Team member and all around nut-case Anthony Bragalia (I have kept the spelling errors and bolding to show you how it looked). Remember, folks, that all I did was publish the name of a witness to a fantasy tale so that people who are less inclined than Bragalia et al to accept every word uttered from someone who confirms their belief system could, should they want to, check this witness out and not have to rely on the Dream Team to filter the information. But for Bragalia, that goes too far.

" Kimball-
How dare you make public the name and location of an elderly man who was a witness to Roswell?
You have no filter- no care for others. This is an old man who does not need this. A pseudonym was used in the Witness book to shield him from unwanted calls.
If he begins to receive phone calls from strangers or visits to his home by strangers- we are calling the police and providing them your name.
Your actions are reprehensible and I swear that I am going to authorities if this man is harassed. Are you mentally ill? What do you not understand about publishing this man’s name and home? Are you trying to incite him? Harm him?
Why do you want to make this man miserable. He is nearing 90- you are really of-the-chain, and I am going to do something about it.
Tony Bragalia"

Apparently it's just fine for Roswell believers (and I use that term very, very loosely) to contact people, and to question them about their claims (and I use the term "question" very, very loosely as well), but not for skeptics to do the same. It's fine for them to demand to know everything, whether it's from the government that is supposedly hiding the truth, or from witnesses that know the truth, but they wish to keep their own secrets for themselves.

Let's remember that Mr. Benavides agreed to appear on Sci Fi Investigates, a network television show. He agreed to appear in Adam Dew's forthcoming film. His identity was known to these people. But they did not want you to know it. It is not as if the man has been hiding away in his house. He's been on television, for crying out loud.

No, this has nothing to do with them wanting to protect a frail old man from the  harassment of evil skeptics. Instead, it has everything to do with the true believers wanting to control the narrative that they are spinning.

An artist's representation of a typical Roswell "researcher," hoarding their secrets.

I suppose I don't blame them. Every time an independent, objective researcher looks into the witness claims out of Roswell, those claims (from Glenn Dennis to Frank Kaufmann to Jim Ragsdale to Gerald Anderson, and all point in between) fall apart. The claims have never withstood close scrutiny. The same kind of sturm and drang was raised when Robert Todd got access to Jesse Marcel's military records, and found discrepancies in his stories about his background. These "researchers" only want you to know their version of the story - a story that is worth a fair bit of money. The one thing they absolutely don't want you to know is the truth. Mr. Bragalia and his fellow travelers want to stifle dissent, and avoid at all costs having their claims cross-examined. They are the very antithesis of true researchers, and are as far away from being honest seekers of the truth as one can get.

Paul Kimball


Bruce Duensing said...

Did the authors of this quagmire think that the discontinuity of their narrative myth would escape further scrutiny due to it's nature, or consequently, invite it?

If so, in either case, they handed the dagger by the hilt to those they would call adversarial due to their own invitation by omissions.

The naivete of every aspect of this is telling.....I have lost count of the threats Tony has made.

All this is lunacy cubed.

Paul Kimball said...

Bragalia is now threatening Tim Printy as well, simply because he provided the yearbook photo. The man is psychotic, and this episode should make anyone with a functioning brain see that. Deal with him at your own risk, people... you can't say you weren't aware of who and what he is.


Stephen Jackson said...

I'm new to engaging with the ufo community but have always held an interest in the subject. I've been visiting reynolds, randles and your blog for about a month. I've got to see the general commenters but there seems to be so much divide and opinion that I'm struggling to ascertain exactly who is out for the truth and who is out to solely make money.

Paul Kimball said...

Hi Stephen,

It can be hard to sort the players, so here's a quick rule of thumb:

1. In favour of the free and open flow of all information; encourages people to make up their own minds? Good guys.

2. Restricts information access, release selective bits that favour your position, try to get people to accept your point of view and get angry when they don't? Bad guy.

Also, if you're involved in any way with Jaime Maussan or Don Schmitt? Bad guy.

Thanks for popping by!


Stephen Jackson said...

Where would you put David Childress and Giorgio Tsoukalos? I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this one ;-)

Paul Kimball said...

Not a fan of either one, although I had dinner once with DHC and he's a nice enough fellow. They're entertainers, and I have no problem with that. I don't even have a problem with people who make stuff up. It's pretty harmless, and if people want to pay good money for it that's there prerogative. The ones I have a problem with are people like Bragalia, who hold themselves to one standard and everybody else to another, and who can't take criticism. When I was at dinner with DHC I told him that I thought almost all of his stuff was bogus. He took it in stride, said everyone is entitled to an opinion, and then we moved on to talk about other things. He didn't threaten to have me arrested. ;-)

Capt Steve said...

I have a hard time understanding Bragalia's place in this whole "Roswell Slides" circus. If he's meant to be the public face of the Dream Team he's doing a terrible job, what with all the unsubstantiated declarations of "fact" that are at odds with Drew's info...and if he's being played for a stooge whoever is doing the playing is doing a poor job as well.

Terry the Censor said...

If I may add to your list, Paul:

4. Neglect or outright refuse to answer direct questions about specific claims. Unreliable characters.

5. Repeat false claims and invalid arguments even after they have been refuted. Ridiculous zealots.

When I've challenged Braglia and Dew directly at various blogs, they have used these two types of evasion repeatedly.

Here's an ironic look at these tactics:

On May 5, after the sliders do reveal conclusive evidence of alien visitation, thereby altering all of human history, future academics studying this irreversible shift in human consciousness will ask themselves: "But why did the Roswell slides team, though in possessive of the absolute truth, defend it with the tactics of charlatans and liars?"

Terry the Censor said...

> outright refuse

Should be "outright refusal."

Pardon my Freudian "slide":

"outright refuse" == "total garbage"

Paul Kimball said...

Those are excellent additions, Terry. They describe Randle, Schmitt, Carey and Bragalia to a "T".