Trouble in Paradise with "The Dream Team"

[ward]

Heard the show Don,

and let me say i just don't get it.

What was the burning information that Paul Kimball had to share with the world?

That Kevin Randall was having doubts about the authenticity of the current research going on with the dream team?

Kevin and Paul are both well known researchers in the field. I am sure researches discuss all sorts of things with each other away from the public eye.

Why would Paul go and throw away all the trust he built up in the research community?

Now no one with trust Paul now with holding information in confidence.

I just don't understand what was so vital to share with the public that Paul had to become a "whistle blower"

 

[Decker]

I have known Randle for years. I have always liked and respected Randle but this blind spot with Schmitt simply stumps me. Kevin knows better, and the simple fact that Schmitt has never publicly apologized for his lies or the fact that he cast Randle in a bad light would be enough for me to continue to treat Schmitt like a pariah ... if I were Randle. Like I stated, I just do not understand.

Decker

 

[trainedobserver]

Anyone else flash to the X-files episode where the smoking man gives Fox's dad the lighter with "Trust No One" engraved on the side? In that scene and those three words Carter captured the essence of the ball of snakes that is the subject of UFOs.

 

[Frank Stalter]

Well, it all went down rather quickly and much of the blame can be put on the idiotic posts of Bragalia. Rich Reynolds posted the basic story about the slides....most of it apparently accurate. Bragalia said that Rich was making up the story whole cloth. He wasn't.

Paul basically said that Rich's report was accurate...

Then Kevin make a statement through Clueless Wonder denying any involvement in investigation of the slides.

I think this made it look to Paul as though Kevin was both lying about his involvement AND making it look like Paul was lying.

There was some misunderstanding on both sides. And I am sure that there is some regret on both sides. It was unfortunate.

And in all fairness to Bragalia, he may not even know what "whole cloth" means.

For me the main takeaway (the slides are meaningless) is that Kevin still believes that Schmitt is currently lying about stuff but was STILL willing to be on a team with Schmitt that purports to be searching for the truth.

Lance

Lance, the day you turn up as much compelling original material as Tony has will be the day that ET does land on the White House lawn. Catching Phil Imbrogno making false claims about his education ain't much to crow about.

 

[Decker]

Lance, the day you turn up as much compelling original material as Tony has will be the day that ET does land on the White House lawn. Catching Phil Imbrogno making false claims about his education ain't much to crow about.

I disagree Frank. Lance and I have had our problems over the last few years but his catch on a bull shit artist named Phil Imbrogno was a win in my book. These are the kind of guys that frack it up for anyone who takes this field somewhat seriously. Imbrogno would most likely still be spewing bull shit but for Lance taking the time to send a query to MIT. I for one thank him for that.

Decker

 

[Frank Stalter]

I disagree Frank. Lance and I have had our problems over the last few years but his catch on a bull shit artist named Phil Imbrogno was a win in my book. These are the kind of guys that frack it up for anyone who takes this field somewhat seriously. Imbrogno would most likely still be spewing bull shit but for Lance taking the time to send a query to MIT. I for one thank him for that.

Decker

I'm not saying it wasn't a win Don, but I didn't get into this over personalities and what they might claim about themselves. I'm in this because I think there's something to this UFO stuff and frankly, that's all I care about. And besides all that, I like busting on Lance.

 

[Decker]

I'm not saying it wasn't a win Don, but I didn't get into this over personalities and what they might claim about themselves. I'm in this because I think there's something to this UFO stuff and frankly, that's all I care about. And besides all that, I like busting on Lance.

That was my point Frank. With Imbrogno, along with his bull shit about his education, his degree's, his military service .. much of his schitck about the paranormal was made outta whole cloth. For example his Djinn info was mainly bull shit. One night (and I speculate he was drunk ... and I think it was him btw) a message was left on ATS in a thread about Imbrogno's collapse ... and if it was him ... he admitted that it was bull shit. At anyrate ... if a prominent researcher is going to lie about his background in a big way .. how do we believe anything he says about anything else?

Decker

 

[Frank Stalter]

That was my point Frank. With Imbrogno, along with his bull shit about his education, his degree's, his military service .. much of his schitck about the paranormal was made outta whole cloth. For example his Djinn info was mainly bull shit. One night (and I speculate he was drunk ... and I think it was him btw) a message was left on ATS in a thread about Imbrogno's collapse ... and if it was him ... he admitted that it was bull shit. At anyrate ... if a prominent researcher is going to lie about his background in a big way .. how do we believe anything he says about anything else?

Decker

I understand your position Don, especially as a magazine editor where you not have to only be responsible for what you write but what you print from others. I would qualify your calling Imbrogno a prominent researcher. Quite honestly, there aren't any. I'm in this for me, my own edification and occasionally write up what I find interesting. I really have never relied on what other UFO researchers have written because I've read it and read a lot of original reports, etc, what they've based their writing on and often find it lacking.

I will say this: having read what Tony has written about these slides, he's serious as cancer that they've come up with something. I'd keep an open mind.

 

[DaveM]

Amen Don. You only have your reputation to fall back on. If you lie about yourself, don't feel bad when people question you and your motives.

 

[trainedobserver]

I will say this: having read what Tony has written about these slides, he's serious as cancer that they've come up with something. I'd keep an open mind.

It's hard for me to see how anyone could know from looking at these slides (presuming they exist and are "genuine") today what the images in them actually are. Without a photographer, a chain of evidence, and ideally a witness to the actual photography itself, it seems to me the slides couldn't be anything more than a curiosity and something else to crowd the gray basket. Having said that, I'd love to see them, but do I want to pay my money to get in the tent to see the latest version of "The Dog-faced boy"? Nah.

 

[Decker]

You nailed it on the slides Observer. No photographer, no witness, no (and this is REALLY IMPORTANT) chain of evidence ... you got bupkus! Even if they were the genuine article ... how would you ever know? I already been the route of the "Alien Autopsy" and Kodak "dog and pony show." This IMHO won't even make Alien LIGHT at this point. It's like masturbation ... feels great while it's happening but when you're done what do ya have? Nothing.

(BTW .. jus' my opinion.)
Decker

 

[mike]

One can always hope for a happy ending........


(i'm a very bad man)

 

[mike]

Jokes aside, i would like to see these slides
I agree they have little to no provinance, but i'd still like to see them

I wont ever know if they are real or not, for all the reasons stated above. But if they are then i will have seen with my own eyes an alien

That would be something even if i didnt conciously know if they were real or not

 

[DaveM]

In todays world of Photoshop and video effects you can't trust photos or video. Too bad it has to be that way. Hard physical evidence is needed now.

 

[dyingsun]

"Hard physical evidence" which we (well, most of us I reckon) will never see or touch ourselves. Well...

 

[DaveM]

"Hard physical evidence" which we (well, most of us I reckon) will never see or touch ourselves. Well...

You are probably right. You many never see hard physical evidence. The alternative is debating over grainy photos of dead aliens .

 

[Randall]

In todays world of Photoshop and video effects you can't trust photos or video. Too bad it has to be that way. Hard physical evidence is needed now.

There's perfectly valid evidence other than hard physical evidence. The problem is that it's not as easy to recognize that validity. It takes study and analysis and critical thinking, whereas material evidence is deceptively convincing to begin with.

 

[DaveM]

There's perfectly valid evidence other than hard physical evidence. The problem is that it's not as easy to recognize that validity. It takes study and analysis and critical thinking, whereas material evidence is deceptively convincing to begin with.



What is the 'perfectly valid evidence' you refer to? You say it takes study and analysis and critical thinking. Are we talking about old photos or negatives? You can't go and question who took these or where they came from, regarding this Roswell incident. I don't think hard physical evidence is 'deceptive' at all.

 

[Randall]

What is the 'perfectly valid evidence' you refer to? You say it takes study and analysis and critical thinking. Are we talking about old photos or negatives? You can't go and question who took these or where they came from, regarding this Roswell incident. I don't think hard physical evidence is 'deceptive' at all.

Perfectly valid evidence includes:

• Materials.
• Firsthand experience.
• Firsthand reports based on firsthand experience.
• Firsthand reports based on instrumented detection ( e.g. radar, photo, video ).
• Recordings from instrumented detection devices.
• Trace evidence of interaction between the environment and an object.
• Analytical ( investigative ) reports based on any combination of the above.

An example of material evidence that has a history of being deceptive is the Bob White artifact, allegedly ejected from a UFO:

Here's a skeptical article on the Bob White Artifact: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-10-12/

Another example of deceptive physical evidence are the alleged alien implants. These examples of material evidence prove that material evidence is often far from being conclusive or even worthy of consideration as serious as some non-material evidence. Examples of non-physical evidence that is more convincing than material evidence like implants or the Bob white Artifact is covered in these posts:

• Zimbabwe U.F.O. incident | The Paracast Community Forums
• UFO Documentary - Australia (2009) - Westall 1966: A Suburban UFO Mystery | Page 2 | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[Kieran]

Heard the show Don,

and let me say i just don't get it.

What was the burning information that Paul Kimball had to share with the world?

That Kevin Randall was having doubts about the authenticity of the current research going on with the dream team?

Kevin and Paul are both well known researchers in the field. I am sure researches discuss all sorts of things with each other away from the public eye.

Why would Paul go and throw away all the trust he built up in the research community?

Now no one with trust Paul now with holding information in confidence.

I just don't understand what was so vital to share with the public that Paul had to become a "whistle blower"

Paul, believes Randle was lying when he said he never investigated the slides. Paul uses the private email send to him from Randle to back up his assertions.

Taken from the email i read on Paul Kimball's blog. My view not Paul's here. Randle, is trying to find out what's the story is with those slides.

I’m not sure what the purpose of the Midland trip was, but all it did was put the information out for others to find, including Nick Redfern. I’ve talked to Nick about this. Here’s where the train slips off the rails. I have learned that the man with the photographs is not the man who took them. The man with them got them from his sister who was cleaning out an attic in Sedona, Arizona but the sister was helping her boyfriend in the cleaning who worked for an estate service. (Convoluted enough for you?) The slides were found in a box in a separate envelop taped to an inner box lid, away from other slides. The box apparently belonged to the second wife of the photographer… the other slides in the box contained pictures from that “era” including one of Eisenhower (which is obviously five years too late).
...........

The next bit of information after that is why Paul felt he needed to release the email to the public.

Neither Schmitt nor Carey told me the photographer’s name or the name of the man who allegedly took the pictures (though given the chain of custody, I’m not sure who might have taken the pictures but I had a name of the man who died decades ago and I know the name of the man who allegedly took them), but I have been able to learn all that, and found a telephone number of the man who lives in Chicago. I’m sure that I don’t have to tell you the problem with these slides… oh, and the man who has them now and who has approached a number of media outlets attempting to sell them, is a graphic artist.

You can take from that Randle did indeed privately investigate the slides.
..........


Randle, made comments to a columnist Clueless Wonder. Again here. Paul felt Rande was not been truthful!

"I have seen no photographs, slides, or pictures of alien creatures associated with the Roswell crash," Randle explained. "I have participated in no investigations of such slides."


Paul Kimball also has an issue with Anthony Bragalia ( a member of the Roswell Dream team)

Kimball learned from an unnamed source, , Tom Carey and Don Schmitt were investigating the claims of the slides. So Kimball had information about the slides before it became public knowledge.

From Paul Kimball's blog.
There has been, for several months now, speculation at the UFO Iconoclasts blog about rumoured "new evidence" that could break the Roswell case wide open. Some of the statements have come from Rich Reynolds, the man who runs the blog - others have come from various commenters at the blog, including Anthony Bragalia, one of the members of the self-proclaimed "Dream Team" that came together ostensibly to examine the Roswell case with a fresh outlook.

Anthony Bragalia responded not sure when to the rumoured new evidence been talked about on that site.

Mr. Bragalia responded at the UFO Iconoclasts blog as follows:
Folks... bogus information from Richard Reynolds... and from anonymous. He is threading a tale to create whole cloth... but there are too many holes in Mr. Reynolds tale.

Paul Kimball then asked Bragalia was the rumoured information about the slides true. This was his response it wasn't polite or nice.

"Paul Kimball you must be kidding. I owe you nothing. Come to Jesus? How about go to hell?"

So Paul again felt he had to release the email. Paul issue with Don Schmitt is he's a liar. He lied about his education, work in the past. So why trust him?