.
The Roswell corner
.
Dr. Linus Pauling associated with Nitinol and Roswell?
.
This is another one of Anthony Bragalia’s shock pieces. I can go on for pages but let’s hit the high points:
Bragalia claims that Pauling had a 1. “massive” UFO library. Looking at the on-line catalogue of his personal library, he had only five books that directly discussed UFOs (out of over 4000 books), which is far from “massive”.
Even the author of the Pauling
Blog described his collection as “small”. When I asked about this, Bragalia
stated that he was told by Dr. Robert Paradowski that Pauling had the entire collection of Bluebook reports.
Those are not listed in his personal
library and I have to wonder if what we are talking about are the special reports, which combined are not that large (#14 had many pages but the others were only about 30 pages in length). When I e-mailed Dr. Paradowski on the subject, he stated that he DID NOT have a massive
collection and his interest in the subject was “mild”. Most of the books listed are from 1966 or 1968. There are no books/Manuscripts by Keyhoe, NICAP, or APRO. It appears
that Pauling was intrigued and was trying to learn about the subject. One of the UFO proponent books had lots of skeptical remarks about checking facts and questioning
what was written. According to the author of the Pauling Blog, “As can be expected, claims that defied conventional science readily drew Pauling’s criticism.” Dr. Paradowski also stated Pauling was skeptical, at times, about UFOs. The most worn book appeared to be the Condon Study, which was not marked by Pauling. Did this mean Pauling felt the Condon study was an adequate evaluation of the UFO issue? One would think he would have marked up the book heavily (the same way he marked up the other UFO book) if he disagreed with its conclusions.
Bragalia implies that Pauling may 2. have been involved in UFO research for the US government. A two page outline for a scientific study of UFOs, dated July 16, 1966 is the evidence presented. Pauling had typed in “Confidential” on the top. During the summer of 1966, the USAF was looking for a top level scientist independent
of the UFO question and a high profile University to study the UFO problem. This would eventually fall on Dr. Edward Condon and the Colorado University. Pauling was located in California at the time but not teaching at any University. It is possible he might have been contacted
about heading the study by another university or heard about it “through the grapevine”. This document
is probably his ideas on the subject and how he would approach the problem.
Pauling had inserted a letter from 3. 1968 to the NM institute of Mining and Technology president Stirling Colgate in the pages of the UFO book Flying Saucers: Serious Business
by Frank Edwards. Pauling was asking about the Zamora incident (see page. 16). Bragalia states the letter was found in the pages, which mention the Roswell story. However, we have no evidence if this is true. If it was, we have to wonder if Pauling
put it there because of Roswell or just because the page is the first page in the chapter that talks about physical evidence? This is one of the links Bragalia makes to Pauling with Roswell.
The final link is a letter sent to Paul4.
ing by Dr. Clyde Williams of the Battelle
Memorial Institute. This is Bragalia’s
centerpiece. According to Bragalia, it implies that Dr. Williams was an old friend and it indicates ties to Battelle and Shape Memory Alloy (SMA) research. Actually, the letter talks about Pauling visiting old friends and not specifically that Williams was an old friend. The reason
Pauling went to Battelle was to give a single lecture and nothing more. Pauling spent less than a day at Battelle on February 7, 1951. He rarely had any communications with Williams or anybody at Battelle after that. There are no indications he ever spent any significant time communicating
with Center, Craig, Fawn, or Eastwood, who are Bragalia’s key scientists
for SMAs and Roswell. His research
notebooks seem to be blank regarding SMAs as well. There is little to indicate that Pauling was involved with Battelle in any significant way. There are certainly no indications he knew anything about a crashed spaceship.
Bragalia told me that Pauling “died UFO/ET obsessed” but you won’t find any evidence of this in his papers and Dr. Paradowski denies this was the case. His involvement with Battelle and UFOs was minimal. Dr. Pauling, who was very opinionated on everything controversial,
was not the kind of individual who would keep this secret. Suggesting he was involved in such a conspiracy based on some vague connections is not giving the man the respect he deserves.
Ramey Memo exposed???
Barry Greenwod has his UFO historical review back on line and his latest issue has a lot to do with the infamous “Ramey Memo”. Through some interesting research,
which including using some old 3D glasses, he has come to the conclusion
that the document is nothing more than a news wire. This was his conclusion before but it was dismissed as inconsistent
with what people were reading in the “memo”. He now has discovered that one line mentions what appears to be the words “Warren Haught Public relations officer”. The misspelling of Haut’s name existed in several news stories from the time period. Additionally, Walter Haut’s name would probably not be misspelled in a classified memo and definitely not the same way the media misspelled it. If this is accurate, then the whole Ramey memo secret message story is closed.
To throw gasoline on the fire, Kevin Randle
posted the story on his blog. If you recall, when he discussed the memo before
it gathered a great many comments pro and con. Nothing has changed. The lines were still drawn as the defenders of the memo made the same claims about people not looking at the photograph
and characters correctly. David Rudiak, in his typical fashion, posted an extensive rebuttal in the comments section. His commentary was also laced with some barbed words towards skeptics and proponents
who have not accepted his interpretation
of the memo. To him, they are “logically challenged”. It is my observation
that both groups are trying to decipher
the document from different points of view. There is nothing wrong or “illogical”
about doing this. One might even consider it “scientific” to look at it from a different perspective. After all, what has looking at it from the conspiracy point of view accomplished?
For the most part, I think Mr. Greenwood has done a commendable job at presenting
a new interpretation of the squiggly lines in the photograph. This interpretation
may not be correct but seems more consistent with what we might expect from a General, who is holding a press conference. Of course, one might be able to resolve the issue if UFOlogists flipped the bill for that study Randle/Houran proposed
some time ago. Then again, maybe
UFOlogists don’t want the problem resolved at all.
James Bond Johnson interviews on-line.
Kevin Randle decided to post the lengthy interviews and contradictions associated with James Bond Johnson. This is really nothing new but it gives some details into all those stories being told over the past few years. I am not even sure what to make of Mr. Johnson’s stories in later years. One can probably expect the initial
interviews being closest to what he tried to accurately recall before contamination
became an issue.
Marcel story redux
Kevin Randle also went over the changing
testimony of Jesse Marcel Sr. over the years. In early interviews and in the film, “UFOs are real”, Marcel stated that some of the debris was seen in the photographs.
When it was pointed out to him it was standard balloon debris, Marcel
then started stating that it was not the debris he picked up. Most interesting
is the interview Marcel gave to Linda Corely, where he stated, the debris was in the photographs but it was underneath the balloon debris and brown wrapping paper.
When “Lance” asked Kevin Randle if the Marcel photo ever appeared in the Roswell
Daily Record, Randle replied it was on the front page of the July 10 edition. Lance then pointed out that at the time of the early interviews, Marcel probably recalled his appearance in the paper and remembered this as the real debris. One can then take this to the next step where Marcel decided to change his story once he saw the photographs and they did not show any spaceship debris. Of course, you won’t hear Randle or others suggest
this possibility. Instead, they choose to take the later statements as accurate and the earlier statements as misquotes or foggy memories by Marcel. Like most things associated with Roswell, the truth will never be known and there is always some sort of wiggle room for those trying to push the crashed spaceship scenario.
Roswell Chaplain added to crashed spaceship mix.
Anthony Bragalia’s new revelation has to do with a Baptist Chaplain stationed at Roswell in early July 1947. According to Bragalia, the chaplain was relieved by a Catholic Chaplain on 10 July 1947 and then sent to the Pacific somewhere. He states it was sudden and without warning but provides no evidence to confirm this. I am curious as to how long the Chaplain had been stationed at Roswell before this. Could it be that it was just a normal transfer?
It seems unlikely that just a few days after the debris was supposedly recovered that a Catholic Chaplain would magically materialize all the way from New Jersey without some prior planning. However, it is Roswell and anything is considered possible no matter how unlikely. I think I would want to see some better evidence than Bragalia’s say so since my past experience has been that he tends to leave important details out. Maybe in his next expose on me, he can scan the documents and present them for all to examine.
.
Shiprock NM and the Allan Grant meteorite hunt of 1947
.
I originally wanted to put this in the Roswell corner. However, Mr. Bragalia’s expose about being “stalked” forced me to write an article so I can lay out my case and present some issues he chose not to tell.
Last issue, I described how I determined that the Allan Grant story probably had more to do with a meteorite hunt in early November 1947 than a meteorite hunt in July 1947. I had laid out the evidence
as I saw it and stated that as far as I was concerned the case was closed. Now Anthony Bragalia states that I am wrong and this was all addressed long ago between
him and the Grants.
Some background
I think it is important to understand how communications between Mr. Bragalia and I transpired. Mr. Bragalia tends to e-mail me directly arguing his case about Nitinol and such. He also likes to e-mail me with challenges/opinions for every blog entry he makes. I often question what he writes simply because he does not often explain himself or list his source material. When he begins to run on and make little sense, I will tire and make a comment asking if he really has anything new or to keep trying. This usually ends the exchange as he makes some retort about his abilities as an investigator and that he is always ten steps ahead of me. I can only think of one instance, where I initiated any communication between Mr. Bragalia and myself. That had to do with the origin of the Shiprock photograph and questions about Mr. Grant’s story. I had seen Bragalia’s article but he did not include all the photographs that were available. Somebody directed me towards
the Above Top Secret forum where additional photographs were posted. Mr. Bragalia informed me they were from Mr. Grant’s website on the subject. He never mentioned any discussions that he made with the Grants over problems with the photographs being posted on the site. He also never mentioned this in his blog entry or in response to any comments made by others. When I asked Mr. Bragalia
if he had anything other than the photograph
and testimony of the witnesses, he became rather indignant. He typed in all caps that he could not believe I doubted
the Grants story. I then asked if there were any records from Life magazine that he was aware of that might confirm the story. He stated I was ignorant because I should know that Life magazine no longer
publishes and there would be no records
to search. With this kind of cooperation,
I terminated the exchange. I had already become aware of an issue with the photograph showing Shiprock, N.M. but I chose not to bring it up because of his attitude.
Bragalia’s e-mail response
A few days after SUNlite was placed on the web, I received an e-mail titled “Shiprock – you lose” from Mr. Bragalia. Bragalia demanded I retract the story because he had discussed the Shiprock photograph long ago with Mrs. Grant. He then produced the text from an e-mail he had received from her in March of 2007. In the text, Mrs. Grant acknowledged that the photograph could not be from the July 1947 meteor hunt and stated:
By the way, in November of ’47, just four months after Roswell, Allan was sent to Shiprock, NM do a story on “Food for the Navajos”. My suspicion is that when Allan
did his website he looked for a photo
that showed an area that resembled what he remembered and perhaps the photo he picked was from the “Navajo” take rather than from the Roswell one (my emphasis). 1
I responded to this e-mail less than one hour after I received it and responded:
How did a trip to go look for a “meteorite” in November 1947 turn into “Food for Navajos”?
Sorry, you have yet to provide any evidence to suggest that his story about July 1947 is factual. All we have is memories
that sound so similar to the November 1947 meteorite hunt it is hard to dismiss. As I stated, provide some real evidence (other than these faded memories) to alter my conclusion and I will gladly publish it.2
My offer was a genuine gesture for Bragalia
to once again present evidence that supported the claim of the Grants.
Mr. Bragalia’s response was not to answer this question or present any evidence. He did go into a very long-winded diatribe about how reliable the Grants were and they knew what happened when because they were “detail oriented” and “lived by the clock”. In that e-mail exchange, Bragalia
also brought up three points he felt my readers should know3.
The issue of Shiprock was specifi1.
cally and directly addressed over two and a half years ago by Mr. Bragalia with the Grants. This was a private e-mail which was never published or mentioned to me in previous exchanges. The idea it was a “Food for Navajos” story is just more evidence that there is confusion about dates and places.
You are required to let readers 2. know that the Grants mentioned both events and distinguished between them in emails to Mr. Bragalia- and that they offered an explanation for any confusion. As I have constantly stated, the confusion
appears to be on Grant’s part. Mr. Grant published a photograph that had to do with a meteorite hunt at Shiprock and it was presented as an image from his Roswell hunt. They have since changed the story about the photograph twice according to Bragalia! For people who were so “detail oriented”, they seemed to get confused about the details of when the photographs were taken.
You must make it clear that in 1997 3. Allan published in the LA Times about his recollection of the specific
date of July 7, 1947- that he was alone, and that he maintains he was provided a gun- and that this is distinctly different than the Shiprock details that you have provided. From the story posted on the UFOMIND website (which supposedly
came from the LA times), Grant never gave a specific date of July 7 and he stated he had a driver with a jeep. This means he was not “alone”. For the meteorite search to be conducted efficiently, it would require
everyone to break up into small groups. This would mean he would have been “alone” (with one other person - the driver) to search his area of the grid. This is evident in the photograph
he took of a wide expanse with one searcher in the foreground. Giving him a pistol is not that big a deal either. He probably was provided some form of personal protection
just in case he ran into some wildlife that might harm him. There is nothing
about his story, as presented in the LA Times, that is “distinctly different”
from the November 1947 meteorite
hunt explanation.
Food for Navajos
Intrigued by Mrs. Grant mention of the “food for Navajos” story, I did another newspaper archive search and discovered that there was such a story that happened in 1947. The event was in December of 1947 and was called the “Navajo Brotherhood
caravan” (or the “mile of trucks”) and ran supplies from Albuquerque to Gallup, NM. (roughly 90 miles south of Shiprock) where the Indians took possession of the supplies. The Navajos were having a tough time of it and people throughout the state were helping out. I then told Mr. Bragalia that the “food for Navajos” story did not happen in November 1947. This all transpired before his article was published
on the UFO Iconoclasts website.
Bragalia’s rebuttal
A few weeks later, Mr. Bragalia posted his article about being the victim of a “stalking” skeptic. This apparently was written because I had the nerve to write articles that disagreed with his conclusions
and demonstrated his reasoning/research was flawed.
According to Mr. Bragalia’s version of our e-mail exchange, I was “stunned silent” by the revelation that Mrs. Grant had discussed
the Shiprock photograph. I found it odd that Mr. Bragalia did not mention my prompt response. Another strange item was how he presented Mrs. Grant’s e-mail:
The Grants clearly state in that email: “Just four months after Roswell, Allan was sent to Shiprock, N.M.” . 4
Completely missing is the rest of the sentence
about the “food for Navajos” explanation.
He also added that I admitted an error but I could not find this statement in my e-mail so I am not sure what he is talking about.
Bragalia now tells us the third version of the photograph’s origin:
In follow-up correspondence I asked the Grants if there was any way possible that they were confusing the Shiprock, NM meteor hunt in November with Allan’s flight to the Roswell area in July of 1947.... In the Shiprock visit in November, Grant explained that he was not alone- he was met by Dr. Lincoln LaPaz and Boyd Wettlauffer.
5
I was somewhat surprised because Bragalia
did not mention this “correspondence” in our exchange. He even seemed to think that the “food for Navajos” story was adequate to explain the photograph because
he never mentioned or presented the “follow-up correspondence”.
In a later exchange initiated by Bragalia, I brought up some of these issues with him regarding this “rebuttal”. I asked how he figured I was “stunned silent” even though I responded with a query less than one hour later and if he could provide me evidence of this correspondence where the November 1947 meteor hunt was revealed.
I also stated that I would no longer
keep any e-mail exchanges between us private because of things he had been saying and misrepresenting. With that news he proclaimed he would not answer
any questions because I would not discuss them in private. I could only assume
that what he was going to say could not be stated in public. Still missing was the evidence that Bragalia discussed the meteor hunt in November 1947 with the Grants before I published my article or an explanation of how I was “stunned silent”.
Hitting the campaign trail
In addition to his article regarding my “stalking”, Mr. Bragalia told me he was going to various forums to tell everybody about the falsehoods I have been spreading.
He posted in the Space.com forum, which is pretty open and there are those sympathetic to his cause. Bagalia told me he was going to post in the Bad Astronomy
and Universe Today (BAUT) forum but didn’t appear to do so. Instead, he chose to post in the Reality Uncovered forum. I knew the moderator and informed him of his “guest” . I added that I would not participate
because of my personal bias on the matter. The moderator disagreed and invited me to join into a debate that he would moderate closely. I made my post raising many points about the Shiprock photograph and how Mr. Bragalia seems to have omitted some information in his article. Mr. Bragalia did not answer any of these points and, instead, chose to attack
me stating I was unprofessional and was trying to “mine” him for information. Mr. Bragalia had his chance to present his case under conditions which would be closely moderated. Instead of presenting
his evidence, he chose not to answer any questions and left the forum.
Case is still closed unless…..
The bottom line in all of this is that the trip in November 1947 that produced the Shiprock photograph had everything to do with a meteorite hunt and nothing to do with “feeding the Navajos”. Bragalia
is now stating that there were TWO 1947 meteorite hunts in New Mexico that Grant attended but did not publish. One was highly publicized. The other was never mentioned in the press but had a publicity logo on the side of the plane. Looking at this information, it still seems very likely that the November 1947 event is the source for this story told by Grant.
As I stated in my original article, As far as I am concerned, the case is closed unless real proof is presented showing the Roswell version
is true.6 Without Bragalia presenting some real evidence and not just memories,
the case still remains closed.
Notes and references
1. Bragalia, Anthony. E-mail to the author. 5 September, 2009.
2. Printy, Timothy. E-mail to Anthony Bragalia.
5 September 2009.
3. Bragalia, Anthony. E-mail to the author. 5 September, 2009.
4. Bragalia, Anthony.
.
Quelle: SUNlite $/2009
.
Foster Ranch off limits to hideevidence?
.
There is not much going on with Roswell except Mr. Bragalia keeps coming up with all sorts of stories to link to
Roswell. There is nothing new with his latest “revelations”. He seems to imply there is a cover-up in the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). Apparently, the BLM did not want any development occurring on the Foster Ranch area. This is
probably not that big a deal and I would not be surprised if other land was under similar restrictions.
What Bragalia seems to ignore is that UFOlogists and the SCI-FI channel performed two scientific “digs” at the crash
site identified by Bill Brazel. The result was that nothing “alien” was ever discovered.
The BLM did not seem to stand in the way then and probably would not stand in the way of any examination
of the land. Others have walked/ surveyed the area with no luck as well. Aerial photographs taken of the area
from 1946 and 1954 revealed no noticeable changes that would have been left by a huge gouge and massive military
involvement (i.e. large tractor trailers, trucks, etc). So where is the actual evidence of the crash?
Those who think the Army was able to sanitize the site and remove any trace from aerial photographs, should talk
to Peter Merlin. He has been able to identify a classified SR-71 crash site that was supposedly sanitized using photographs
taken by the US Geological Survey (USGS) five years after the crash. The idea that the record of such a massive
operation described could be physically wiped clean is just unrealistic. It wouldn’t hold any air Those were the words of Jesse Marcel
Sr. when describing some of the debris he discovered at the Foster ranch. Karl Pflock suggested he was describing the
paper parachutes that may have been used on the NYU flight. It seemed reasonable explanation and I pretty much
figured this was the case.
However, this last summer, I conducted a little experiment with neoprene balloon materials. I could not go to New Mexico
for this, but I decided to try anyway by placing my balloon materials on some wood and exposed it for about a month.
Unfortunately, the NH weather this past summer was rather wet and sun was hard to come by. Still, I was surprised to
see what I got after a month or so.
I expected to see blackened balloon material but the material was only discolored. It had a brownish tint to it but
nothing blackened the way I expected. I suspect if the weather had been sunnier and hotter, the results would have been
somewhat different. I also am not sure if my neoprene weather balloon (purchased from Edmund Scientific company)
was the same type used back in 1947. Many factors could have prevented the blackened features that Professor
Moore used to demonstrate. However, there was a characteristic that I did not expect.
The neoprene was no longer elastic. It was sort of had a cloth or paper feel to it and it ripped easily when I attempted to
stretch it. If I were told this material came from a balloon, I would have doubted it.
It just could not expand in any way and did not feel like a balloon.
Does this explain what Marcel was describing? Marcel described that he could blow air through it and that it looked
like metallic cloth. The material I have does not exactly match this description but it did have the characteristic that “It wouldn’t hold any air”.
.
Quelle: SUNlite 1/2010
4522 Views