.
The Roswell Corner
Slides continue to generate rumors but no actual images....yet
Anthony Bragalia posted more about the infamous Roswell slide story. The funny thing about it is that Bragalia pretty much recounted the story told by “Anonymous” at Rich Reynolds blog. How the slides were found and reached the Roswell dream team is very similar to the way “Anonymous” stated on September 24th. To that story, Bragalia had previously commented that this was all “bogus information” and the story was full of holes.
Apparently, the information provided by “Anonymous” was not so bogus after all. About the only thing new that Bragalia enters in this recent entry is that he confirmed the name of the geologist as being Bernerd Ray but this had already been mentioned by others.
Bragalia speculates about Ray’s travels throughout New Mexico and Texas but he does not provide a single bit of evidence that Ray was even near the town of Roswell in July 1947. About the only thing that can be confirmed is that Ray was the president of West Texas Geological Society in 1946 (see news clipping to right). However, this society was located in Midland, Texas and not Roswell, New Mexico. The only organized “field trip” by the society in mid-1947 occurred late in May of 1947. It went to various locations in Texas and the Carlsbad area in extreme southeastern
New Mexico (see Abilene Texas report of May 18, 1947 to the right). There was no trip to the Roswell area, which supposedly fascinated Ray so much that he was there in July of 1947.
One would think that there would have been a large amount of personal records, which could be used to trace his whereabouts for the time frame in question. The lack of any information indicates there are no records or the records that do exist paint a different picture than what Bragalia has portrayed.
Another item Bragalia mentions in his article is that the West Texas Geological society led research teams into the state of New Mexico because, in 1946, there was no New Mexico Geological Society. What he did not tell the readers is that on April 12, 1947 (over two months before Roswell), 89 geologists met at the University of New Mexico to form the Geological Society of New Mexico. It seems that the West Texas Geological Society was not the only group of geologists exploring the New Mexican desert.
Bragalia’s article mentioned that the Geology teams would always carry cameras and film. He specifically mentioned that Kodachrome would be a choice film for this kind of work. I find it unlikely that a team of geologists would use a slow speed slide film for their field work. Not only is the development of slides difficult, prints from slides are just as problematic. Black and white is far easier to work with, can be developed quickly, and produce prints of high quality. A simple dark room could be used for all this work instead of sending off the slides to Kodak for developing and waiting weeks for the results. Additionally, black and white negatives tend to have a better resolution than slide film. While Kodachrome is a very good film, it was better suited for photography using bright lighting.
Of course, we can’t forget the provenance of these “slides”. According to the story as presently told, they were put away in a special location without one note indicating why they were special or when/where they were taken. One would think that if they were so special, they would be marked and have a note of some kind stating their history. Instead, they mysteriously appeared and quickly found their way to Roswell investigators. We have no idea of when or where, these photographs were taken and, apparently, neither does the “dream team”. They have been available for examination for over a year and they still have yet to produce anything to demonstrate these slides show what they claim! Until they can prove that the photographs were taken of an alien body from the Roswell crash, then this is all guesswork. One thing is certain. In order to give these slides credibility, the “dream team” (or whatever they want to call themselves), needs to have an expert, independent of the UFO field, actually examine the slides to determine if they were shot in the 1947 time frame. Having a UFO expert perform this task is not going to be very convincing to those outside the UFO community.
I would not be shocked (assuming the slides exist as described) if they might be a photograph of a dead airman, who was disfigured/burned in an airplane crash. There were several military crashes in the New Mexico and Texas region in the late 1940s and early 1950s. I found ten incidents between 1946 and 1951:
3/7/46 - B-29 crash near Los Lunas, NM. Ten fatalities.1.
1/27/47 - B-29 crash Kirtland AFB. Twelve fatalities.2.
8/12/48 - B-29 crash four miles south of RAAF. Thirteen fatalities3.
5/16/49 - C-47 crash six miles northeast of RAAF. Six fatalities4.
5/25/49 - B-29 crashes 35 miles NE of El Paso, Texas. One fatality5.
9/15/49 - B-36 crashes into Lake Worth, Texas. Five fatalities.6.
12/15/49 - B-29 crash 2 miles northwest of RAAF. Seven fatalities.7.
4/11/50 - B-29 crash near Kirtland AFB involving nuclear weapons. Thirteen fatalities.8.
1/11/51 - B-29 crash 10 miles southwest of Sequin, Texas. Six fatalities9.
5/6/51 - B-36 crash at Kirtland AFB. Twenty-three fatalities10.
If these slides do show a deceased airman, I think it is important for the Roswell “dream team” to tread very carefully here. The 1997 USAF report felt that such behavior was loathsome:
Any attempt to misrepresent or capitalize on tragic incidents in which Air Force members died or were injured in service to their country significantly alters what would otherwise be viewed as simple misinterpretations or honest mistakes
If it was discovered that this is a disfigured body of a deceased soldier/airman, would they publicly apologize and admit their error or would they continue to promote it as a potential alien body?
In addition to a potential disfigured air man being the subject, we also have the possibility that it might have been a dead ape/chimpanzee used for testing at White Sands. The instant we are told that the subject in the slides appear to be humanoid, one begins to suspect these possibilities first before declaring the subject is an alien from another planet as Bragalia has done.
Until the slides are released, most of this is all speculation. Paul Kimball’s interpretation is probably correct in that this hoopla is all about drumming up interest for a potential payday of some kind. Bragalia hinted that this might be the case when he stated that we would have to wait until “next year” (2014) to see the slides. Does this mean a “big reveal” date is being, or has been, set?
General Nathan Twining confirms Roswell was an ET event.......sort of
Tony Bragalia continued to demonstrate that he is gullible enough to believe just about anything regarding Roswell as long as it confirms his belief that it was an alien spaceship crash. This time we are given a story by a woman, who visited General Twining’s son. According to her, Twining’s son stated his father gave him a deathbed confession about Roswell involving an ET crash. Of course, none of this is documented or recorded anywhere. Both of the Twinings failed to write this down in a journal or some other document to “clear their conscience” publicly for all to see. Instead, Twining’s son felt it was safe to tell some stranger he only knew for a short time period even though he appeared to fear repercussions from the evil government! According to Tom Carey, he had also talked to Twining Jr. and stated that he never repeated such a tale to him or Schmitt even though they specifically asked him. I find this all more in line with story telling and, unless one can talk to the primary source, the actual statements can be, and often are, diluted/distorted. Any one of the links in this chain could have misinterpreted what the other stated, fabricated the story, or exaggerated.
This is another one of those Roswell hearsay stories that mean absolutely nothing without something more substantial to confirm it. Bragalia’s “research” is nothing more than repeating rumors as facts. Where have I heard that complaint before?
Another weak argument against MOGUL by Kevin Randle
After my lengthy rebuttal in SUNlite 5-5, Kevin Randle has altered his original argument about balloon launches not being allowed at night or under cloudy conditions. His new argument states that because the July balloon arrays were shorter, the CAA allowed them to launch them at night and under less than clear conditions. Even if a balloon flight was only one-third or one-fourth the size of a June flight it still offered a similar hazard to aircraft so this argument is not as compelling as he makes it appear. What Randle refuses to acknowledge is the one thing that significantly changed after the CAA rules were created for balloon launches in the northeast was the location for these launches. As I pointed out in SUNlite 5-5, it was probably the move to New Mexico, where the airways were not so congested and control of the flights were by a different subcommittee, that the rules were relaxed or ignored.
Like his NOTAM argument, Randle’s claim that rules were relaxed between June and July is not supported by any documentation.
He only makes this interpretation because he is trying to convince himself, and his audience, that he has falsified the MOGUL hypothesis. Speculation is not the same thing as hard evidence. Mr. Randle hasn’t proven anything.
Quelle: SUNlite 1/2014
4105 Views