November 27, 2016 — Paul Kimball

[Paul Kimball]

A person who I won't name here, told me that he suspected that "Anthony Braglia" was a fictitious person, made up by the perpetrators of the Hoax.

Just out of interest had you been aware of "Anthony/Tony Braglia" before the slides fiasco?

Yes, for several years. The idea that Bragalia is a fictitious character is as loony as the idea that the slides represent a dead alien. That hasn't stopped a few people like George Wingfield from spreading it around, however. And so it goes in ufology.

 

[Han]

And what do you make of the claims that it was a "dummy" rather than a "Mummy"?

Personally I am convinced that it was a real human child, and was at one point on display in a Museum, as it said in the NPS documents.

Like i said before, I actually learned a lot from the whole debacle, but I do resent that it got so much attention, there are plenty of more worthy "events" that would benefit from such media exposure.

 

[SRL+]

Anything with Don Schmitt's name attached should similarly raise giant red flags.

Yes, the slides caper was merely the tip of the iceberg with Schmitt & his ridiculous musings. You've got to give the man credit though, as he’s still out there pedaling his crap to the faithful.

Yes, for several years. The idea that Bragalia is a fictitious character is as loony as the idea that the slides represent a dead alien. That hasn't stopped a few people like George Wingfield from spreading it around, however. And so it goes in ufology.

George Wingfield's marriage to a theory that the mummy was actually a dummy created by John Lundberg & Rob Irving is, well.. another story*.

George is quoted as writing ...
"No, I am 100% sure that John Lundberg & Rob Irving were the main protagonists of this hoax/ fraud/ sting operation --call it what you will! I have a huge amount of evidence to back this up and will --if you like-- speak to you directly by phone or Skype if you send me your number/Skype Id via Gene."

Even if the mummy were to be a dummy I suppose nowhere in his evidence a direct link could be established in-between John Lundberg & Adam Dew.


* Absurd & I'm glad it's over.., although, for others it will live on, and on, and on.

 

[Randall]

A Forum user drew this to my attention, so I'll answer it. Yes, this is a reasonably accurate summation of the thought experiment (I wouldn't call it a "theory") that I put forward in my book The Other Side of Truth back in 2012, and which I've discussed on various radio programs (particularly Radio Misterioso) and at conferences since. But if I was a Wikipedia editor, I would amend the first sentence to read: "Kimball posits that the paranormal may be our interaction with an advanced non-human intelligence who may be pulling things out of our own minds and presenting it back to us in ways that we will understand."

Thanks for the reply ( and to whomever nudged you ). I was mentioning in a post to Christopher O'Brien ( here ) that my personal pet theory is sort of similar sounding on the surface to yours. BTW I'm referring to these ideas as theories in the most casual sense for the sake of informal discussion, which according to the Encarta definition of "theory" is just fine so long as it's clear we're not doing science ( which we're not ), so no worries about accusations of pseudoscience here. I don't have your book ( yet ) but will certainly try to get a copy.

In the meantime I was wondering if we could compare a few things in a little more detail. Maybe something will unlock in the process. You say a "non-human intelligence" so that leaves a rather wide remainder of possibilities including the possibility of a machine intelligence. In my theory I use the word "alien", but that doesn't necessitate ET. So for me the aliens could even be humans from someplace terrestrial, but outside of civilization as we know it. So the first questions that come to mind are:

1. Are you ruling out the possibility of the intelligence being human ( like it sounds you are )?
2. Could this intelligence be purely machine-like, without consciousness?
3. Or if you have a specific idea, can you elaborate on what you think this intelligence is without having to relay the whole book?

 

[Paul Kimball]

Thanks for the reply ( and to whomever nudged you ). I was mentioning in a post to Christopher O'Brien ( here ) that my personal pet theory is sort of similar sounding on the surface to yours. BTW I'm referring to these ideas as theories in the most casual sense for the sake of informal discussion, which according to the Encarta definition of "theory" is just fine so long as it's clear we're not doing science ( which we're not ), so no worries about accusations of pseudoscience here. I don't have your book ( yet ) but will certainly try to get a copy.

In the meantime I was wondering if we could compare a few things in a little more detail. Maybe something will unlock in the process. You say a "non-human intelligence" so that leaves a rather wide remainder of possibilities including the possibility of a machine intelligence. In my theory I use the word "alien", but that doesn't necessitate ET. So for me the aliens could even be humans from someplace terrestrial, but outside of civilization as we know it. So the first questions that come to mind are:

1. Are you ruling out the possibility of the intelligence being human ( like it sounds you are )?
2. Could this intelligence be purely machine-like, without consciousness?
3. Or if you have a specific idea, can you elaborate on what you think this intelligence is without having to relay the whole book?

Here is the short answer: I don't know what the intelligence could be, nor do I care. To me, that's both unknowable (unless they tell us, and even then they might be playing with us), and irrelevant in the end. The important thing is the effect it has on us, and what we might be able to learn from it.

And I stress again that this is just a thought experiment, derived by looking at the reported behaviour of encounters throughout human history (and drawing upon my graduate studies in religious history as much as anything else). I don't rule out anything, including the possibility that ever single paranormal event, from UFOs to ghosts, might be explainable in prosaic ways without reference to any non-human intelligence at all.

 

[Paul Kimball]

I've uploaded chapter 1 of my book, which covers my thought experiment.

You can read and / or download here. Chapter 1 TOSOT excerpt.pdf

 

[Randall]

Here is the short answer: I don't know what the intelligence could be, nor do I care. To me, that's both unknowable (unless they tell us, and even then they might be playing with us), and irrelevant in the end. The important thing is the effect it has on us, and what we might be able to learn from it.

And I stress again that this is just a thought experiment, derived by looking at the reported behaviour of encounters throughout human history (and drawing upon my graduate studies in religious history as much as anything else). I don't rule out anything, including the possibility that ever single paranormal event, from UFOs to ghosts, might be explainable in prosaic ways without reference to any non-human intelligence at all.

OK thanks for that. Some good stuff for reflection there. Those kinds of thought experiments are IMO very useful in analysis because they can help define parameters, eliminate possibilities, and even open the door to new ones. From this snapshot of yours, I can see where our respective approaches diverge. Both have value within their own context, but unless one sees both contexts, serious differences of opinion would probably arise.

Sometimes I wonder if part of the challenge these influences behind the scenes presents to us is to understand how different contexts can make two seemingly disparate viewpoints both valid. I run into this time and time again and it's very Tricksterish in nature. If things don't happen just right, then inaccurate assumptions lead to divisiveness and the search for truth gets sidelined by emotional reactions. In the context of your theory, this could also be interpreted more than one way. It's all very Babylon 5 ish ( if you're familiar with the series ).

Anyway, I won't press you into further exploration of this because you seem to be a bit on edge and I'm not sure how to proceed with you to maintain course. If there is any maxim to this effect, it seems that the higher the stakes, the more Tricksterish the effect. In fact I think I'm going to dub this the Christopher O'Brien Effect ( COBE for short ), alluding of course to @Christopher O'Brien who penned such excellent works as Stalking The Tricksters, and with whom I've experienced this particular effect more than once, though I think we're both finally starting to get the idea of how it works.

I probably shouldn't do this, but I'll leave off by saying that in addition to the above, sometimes what seems like nonsense really is just plain nonsense ... .

 

[Paul Kimball]

you seem to be a bit on edge

There are times when I just have to roll my eyes and laugh.

 

[Randall]

There are times when I just have to roll my eyes and laugh.

That's it! You correctly identified the focal point of the COB effect there ... lol. You had said that someone had alerted you to my post, so I wondered if you had me on ignore, and you said you "don't care" to know what the intelligence behind this might be, so because I asked what you think it was, that comes across to me as dismissive of my interest in the question, which makes me wonder what the problem is there, and together with the way a recent discussion with Bishop went, maybe I'm the one on edge and just projecting that onto you. How much of that is true I dunno, but now I get the "rolling eyes" ... lo ... what exactly is that about?

 

[Han]

It's all very Babylon 5 ish ( if you're familiar with the series ).

Do you mean like ambassador Kósh? (spelling)

 

[Randall]

Do you mean like ambassador Kósh? (spelling)

Yes