"The Roswell Dream Team Nightmare"

[Frank Stalter]

It wouldn't surprise me either. But if I found them in my attic, I'd scan them and put them on the USI website free for all to see. Beyond that, if I were offered money, I probably wouldn't trust the buyer with the responsibility for properly managing them, and would prefer to retain ownership and control until all the relevant questions were asked and analyses made. I would probably even end up having to manage that out of my own pocket. Certainly I would be open to offers and terms along the way, but there's no way I'd withhold the evidence in the meantime. There's no reasonable justification for it based on material gain. At least the government has reasons that make a certain amount of sense, like wanting to protect strategically important information, or wrongly or rightly believing that disclosure could hurt people by causing some kind of civil unrest.

And all that takes some time. Chances are pretty good, assuming this is all legit, the finders don't have a UFO research website.

 

[Randall]

And all that takes some time. Chances are pretty good, assuming this is all legit, the finders don't have a UFO research website.

That makes no difference. Any idiot can put a blog up for free in about 10 minutes. Or they could seek the assistance of a ufology interest group with some ethics. I'd be happy to help out for free. So would CUFOS and even lousy MUFON. Plus let's not forget that money can be made by licensing to magazines and such for the reproduction rights to both the scans and the story, possibly even earning more than by withholding the evidence in this manner. I'd be happy to help out with that too without any guarantee that I would make any money from it in the process. So excuses that involve blaming the ufology community and holding out for cash simply don't stand up under scrutiny.

 

[Frank Stalter]

That makes no difference. Any idiot can put a blog up for free in about 10 minutes. Or they could seek the assistance of a ufology interest group with some ethics. I'd be happy to help out for free. So would CUFOS and even lousy MUFON. Plus let's not forget that money can be made by licensing to magazines and such for the reproduction rights to both the scans and the story, possibly even earning more than by withholding the evidence in this manner. I'd be happy to help out with that too without any guarantee that I would make any money from it in the process. So excuses that involve blaming the ufology community and holding out for cash simply don't stand up under scrutiny.

I think you're making a lot of claims about circumstances you don't know anything about. We'll see how things play out.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I sense that you know more than you're telling. Care to enlighten us?

 

[Frank Stalter]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I sense that you know more than you're telling. Care to enlighten us?

Me? No. I've been aware of the talk about the slides/photos for awhile and specifically have not asked Tony about the hubbub. We do correspond on a somewhat regular basis and have for about four years now. I hold him in the highest regard. I expect his recent post is accurate as far as it goes. Time will tell on this one.

 

[Jeff Davis]

If the people have the slides and they are legit, they want to get paid. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Frank, Frank, Frank....whew,...how can you ethically tolerate the associations that you make with respect to that thing called TUFOIs? You're a GREAT nuts n bolts guy Frank. A real studier of the classics, for which I and so many others love along with you. (?)<----That means I just don't get it.

Rich is a UFO side show huckster, an admitted & highly skilled provocateur. A continuous confederate to his own causes, who would be willing to publish nearly anything to revive that suffering thing of his called a blog. A lot of people haven't figured out the associations between he and certain individuals and their publishing associates. Let's just say it's a very small world.

Whoever stated "circus" was 100% RIGHT.

I am just so sad Frank, namely because this fascinating subject of Ufology deserves so much better, but also because in this whirlwind of chaotic media clearance sales that Rich Reynolds routinely promotes, the attention of those centered on what is the latest memo from a clique based rumor mill, find themselves more disillusioned than ever. Scratching their heads as they walk away, repeating over and over to themselves, "iconoclasts"?? I get the UFO part, but all this blog does is promote the same old tired in fighting icons that the dark side have been hustling since day one. Again, (?)

I knew about the time things got slow at TUFOIs a few years ago, and then how Rich resorted to making fun of how people looked, slammed Jerome Clark as being an unethical woman hater because of his participation on the UFO Updates list, repeatedly Ad nauseum, and then started promoting Catholicism, (where the hell is the facepalm when you need it?;-) that this was not a good sign. It didn't take long for me to track that animal, cause this dog will hunt. This was no place for anyone with a sincere and objective interest in UFOs outside the realm of sheer written entertainment. Entertainment that more so equated to the literary equivalent of the World Wrestling Federation than a legitimately interested UFO discussion based blog.

Some of the finest minds I have ever read, including Rich Reynolds', participate from time to time at this desolate, repetitive, and truly tired blog. Why? I find that nearly as anomalous as some of my own paranormal pets.

I wish anyone knew here how disappointed I am right now. Kevin, I thought with every bit of the being I possessed, was the REAL deal, through and through.

Damn the incentive killing drama! ---->In the voice of one W.C. Fields, "don't let it get to you kid, I'm just being dramatic is all."

Kevin, seriously, I (and everyone else) still believe that you are as good as they get with respect to all your FINE efforts up to this point. Chris is STILL correct. Distance yourself from this right now, and publicly declare this matter to be a product of confused associations and not intentional deception. We know, or at very least, "want to believe", that you didn't mean it that way. Please don't be a party to the "drama sells" crowd, the high profile effect of the collateral damage that results isn't worth it. (Your LONG time Fan, Jeff Davis)

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Me? No. I've been aware of the talk about the slides/photos for awhile and specifically have not asked Tony about the hubbub. We do correspond on a somewhat regular basis and have for about four years now. I hold him in the highest regard. I expect his recent post is accurate as far as it goes. Time will tell on this one.

You accept, then, Tony's claim that the Socorro, NM case was a hoax?

 

[Randall]

I think you're making a lot of claims about circumstances you don't know anything about. We'll see how things play out.

I've made no claims about anything I know "nothing about" ( other than possibly the remark about any idiot being able to create a blog in 10 minutes ). That's an unproven supposition, but it still illustrates a perfectly valid point, and I challenge you and @Gene Steinberg ( since he liked your wisecrack ) to cite any other example here that is relevant. On the other hand, other people are making unsubstantiated claims about the existence of some photos that supposedly show alien bodies from the fabled Roswell crash. You're the one who values "solid research". So why would you have a hard time with us wanting to see the evidence?

 

[Frank Stalter]

You accept, then, Tony's claim that the Socorro, NM case was a hoax?

Gene, I found the lead that Tony followed up on. He did what he did and then I backtracked and took a closer look at Lonnie Zamora's account. I'm as convinced as I can be, without actually having been there, that it was a hoax. The whole story is two clicks away.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I'm aware of the story. But it would be interesting for either of you to debate Stanford on the particulars. I know Tony does not appear to be interested.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I'm as convinced as I can be, without actually having been there, that [Soccorro] was a hoax.

Balderdash I say! Wait until you see what Fox and Stanford uncovered at the National Archives. It will put the baby to rest once-and-for-all. Soccoro is a landmark, REAL UFO case. If it was a hoax, where are the hoaxers? Why haven't they come forward? How could they have possibly hoaxed the event and vitrified quartz within the rock samples gathered at the site? Or fogged the photographs by the second cop on the scene, taken minutes after the object left the scene? Basically, you, Bragalia and Colgate are calling Zamora a liar and that in and of itself, is ridiculous. You'll have to do way better than that Frank...

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I'm aware of the story. But it would be interesting for either of you to debate Stanford on the particulars. I know Tony does not appear to be interested.

Of course not Gene, Sanford would have them for breakfast—especially now that they've uncovered sensational (originals—not copies) documentation from principles involved in the original investigation. Let's bring 'em on, if they feel they really have a case! But… they wouldn't dare…

 

[Randall]

Gene, I found the lead that Tony followed up on. He did what he did and then I backtracked and took a closer look at Lonnie Zamora's account. I'm as convinced as I can be, without actually having been there, that it was a hoax. The whole story is two clicks away.

How can you possibly be "convinced" when the bottom line is that there isn't sufficient evidence to prove the case one way or the other. All we can be justified in saying say we know with any certainty about the Socorro UFO Landing incident is that we have an unsolved UFO report. I don't even think we can conclude the object itself ( assuming it was real ) was even a genuine UFO ( alien craft ).

 

[Frank Stalter]

Frank, Frank, Frank....whew,...how can you ethically tolerate the associations that you make with respect to that thing called TUFOIs?

Richie and Tony have both been very good to me. As far as the "What's wrong with Ufology" and "Ufology is dead" material . . . . and lots of people write and dwell on this type of thing . . . . there are two quotes from much, much better men than me I keep close to heart.

“We must become the change we want to see.” - Mahatma Gandhi

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” -Buckminster Fuller

 

[Frank Stalter]

Of course not Gene, Sanford would have them for breakfast—especially now that they've uncovered sensational (originals—not copies) documentation from principles involved in the original investigation. Let's bring 'em on, if they feel they really have a case! But… they wouldn't dare…

Tony doesn't do interviews. I challenged Sanford directly and he chickened out. I repeat the challenge. Make it happen.

 

[Muadib]

The whole Stanford vs. Bragallia thing on Soccoro is a bit ridiculous, tbh. I wasn't at all impressed with Bragallia's article(s) claiming that he solved the Soccoro case once and for all, given the lack of evidence that he presents for his hypothesis. One source from the local college says he knows it was a hoax? BFD. To date he hasn't presented anything conclusive, like the names of those involved or even how it was done. One source says it was a hoax and it's case closed? Sounds like more of the same shoddy UFO research to me.

Ray Stanford isn't any better, though on this particular case I would say he has the upper hand just by virtue of the fact that he was actually on scene when all of this happened. That being said, I don't think anyone is holding their breath in anticipation of him bringing forth new evidence, he has been threatening to do that for years when challenged and to this day we have nothing from him. I still remember going back and reading what Angelo wrote about the emails he received from Ray and how he said Angelo was going to be eating crow when he released his bombshell photographs, 2 years later and not a thing from Ray, looks like Angelo was right on the money.

As far as the Dream Team thing goes, Paul Kimball strikes me as the man with the least to gain from all of this, he lost a dear friend and is in the unpleasant position of trying to present the truth to a group of people who don't seem to be interested in the truth at all.

Edited to remove the designation of the source as anonymous, I was wrong. Thanks to Frank for setting me straight on that one.

 

[Frank Stalter]

The whole Stanford vs. Bragallia thing on Soccoro is a bit ridiculous, tbh. I wasn't at all impressed with Bragallia's article(s) claiming that he solved the Soccoro case once and for all, given the lack of evidence that he presents for his hypothesis. One anonymous source from the local college says he knows it was a hoax? BFD. To date he hasn't presented anything conclusive, like the names of those involved or even how it was done. One anonymous source says it was a hoax and it's case closed? Sounds like more of the same shoddy UFO research to me.

That's not accurate at all.

 

[Muadib]

That's not accurate at all.

Has there been some new information released that I haven't seen? I will admit that I haven't kept up with it lately but from what I remember of the original article, it was one source who he claimed to have talked to, he wasn't willing to name the names of those involved and he had no idea how it was accomplished. It's possible that things have changed or I'm remembering them wrong, time to do some digging I guess...

 

[Frank Stalter]

Has there been some new information released that I haven't seen? I will admit that I haven't kept up with it lately but from what I remember of the original article, it was one source who he claimed to have talked to, he wasn't willing to name the names of those involved and he had no idea how it was accomplished. It's possible that things have changed or I'm remembering them wrong, time to do some digging I guess...

The source wasn't anonymous. Stirling Colgate is a noted scientist and university president. What Colgate said to Tony was consistent with what he wrote in private correspondence to Nobel Prize winning scientist Linus Pauling more than 40 years ago. Maybe a year or so ago, Tony did some follow up and Colgate wrote that the hoaxers did use a balloon for their prank . . . . which is what Zamora said he saw in his original report.

 

[Muadib]

Ok, I see where I went wrong, the source wasn't anonymous, it was a letter from one of the former presidents of the school to a scientist, other than that, my analysis stands. Bragallia's "corroboration" was basically "we do a lot of pranks here, so it could have been a prank" I wasn't able to find anything about the names of those involved or a definitive expose of how it was done.