"Stalked by a UFO Skeptic" [Anthony Bragalia]

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

"Stalked by a UFO Skeptic" [Anthony Bragalia]

Postby Bragalia » Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:10 pm

Hi -

This is Anthony Bragalia. Tim Printy's skeptical analysis of my recent UFO and Roswell related online articles is near-libelous. His egregious errors have been addressed by me in a recent blog. Please visit www.ufoprovo.blogspot.com and the article "Stalked by a UFO Skeptic" to learn more. The truth might surprise you.

Critical thinking is essential. But morbid skepticism is unhealthy. Mr. Printy is well aware of his misrepresentations, omissions and assumptions about my work. I do not feel compelled to defend a doubter such as Printy. But when his "analysis" of my work includes outright lies, I cannot let that go unchecked.

And what I report in my counter to Mr. Printy's SUNlite analysis is not the half of it. Mr. Printy may be going the way of skeptic Kal Korff- off of the deep end. Mr. Printy's recent emails to me have denigrated to name-calling and the use of juvenile phrases.

I appreciate your open-mindedness in reading my reply to Mr. Printy. In doing do, the reality of the matter will be uncovered.
Bragalia
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:36 pm


Re: SUNlite

Postby murnut » Sun Sep 20, 2009 3:05 am

Hello and welcome Anthony

I'm not really qualified to critique your research, so I won't.

I haven't read all of the SUNlite news letter, but what I have read, I like very much.

I did notice your post at Space.com which takes much the same tone as your post above.
http://www.space.com/common/forums/view ... 9&start=40

I know you want to defend your research from attack, I'd probably want to do the same thing.

Maybe you could stick around here so we might discuss your work.

I briefly have read some of your work that I found online, and I found it interesting, but I did not find any conclusive link to Roswell.

This isn't the thread to discuss that on, but I'd love to have a thread here to do just that.
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby Access Denied » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:26 am

Bragalia wrote:I do not feel compelled to defend a doubter such as Printy. But when his "analysis" of my work includes outright lies, I cannot let that go unchecked.

Hi Anthony, welcome to RU and please take a moment to take a look at our board rules. I will give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment and assume this wasn’t a “drive by” posting that essentially amounts to spam and you intend to engage Mr. Printy in an open and honest debate here.

To that end, I read you blog posting and I didn’t see where you show Tim published any “outright lies” about you or your research. Could you please provide some evidence to support this claim?

Tom
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:06 am

This is Tim Printy. I usually use this name in most forums I participate in but it is only a "handle". I do not hide my identity in those forums as I link my webpage in the profiles. Normally, I let Mr. Bragalia go on and on about how great a person he is and how his research should not be questioned. However, because he seems it necessary to make some inaccurate statements about me in his blog posting I feel it necessary to respond.

1. Bragalia calls me a stalker. I have done no such thing. Until this moment, I have not responded to any blog postings he made and I only e-mailed him directly once. All other e-mails have been responses to his various e-mails to me. Painting himself a "victim" is just an effort to gather support from his followers. I have every right to comment in my newsletter about his highly inaccurate research. I DO NOT have to run my articles by him to get authorization to write about it. If he feels that is necessary, then maybe he wants me to review every blog entry he writes before he posts them.

2. According to Bragalia, I was "stunned silent" by his email on September 5, 2009 at 4:06 PM where he sent me the email attachment. However, he is misleading everyone with that comment because I responded at 4:41 PM on the same date. He also is misleading everyone in this blog posting concerning what was Mrs. Grant said in that March 17, 2007 e-mail. Bragalia left off the end of her response. He states she stated,

"By the way, in November of ’47, just four months after Roswell, Allan was sent to Shiprock, NM".

Mr. Bragalia does not want everyone to read the entire statement. She actually 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"."

In my "stunned silent" response, I asked Mr. Bragalia,

"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."

Notice the offer to present any evidence in SUNlite. Mr. Bragalia did not mention the "food for Navajos" story in this blog and he did not answer this question I posed to him. He did not present any further evidence. Instead, he states in his recent blog entry that he had subsequent correspondence (which he never provided to me or in this blog) with the Grants about the Shiprock photograph and they determined that Grant must have gone on a SECOND meteorite hunt instead of the "food for Navajos" story. We are missing the fact that the "Food for Navajo's story" was another case of confusing dates and events. It actually happened a month later in Gallup, NM.

3. Mr. Bragalia states I resorted to lying (which is a libelous statement btw). I have continuously asked him to point out where I lied and he has yet to do so. I made an error in SUNlite 1-2 about him not listing the Wang document but that was all I could get out of him and I admitted the said error. If Mr. Bragalia wants to itemize the lies, I supposedly told, I can address them here and now. Contrast this to his recent blog posting where he states he deliberately misled everyone about the title of the Uri Geller document. Not only did he admit it, he seemed proud of it. If you are so willing to blatantly deceive readers, what stops you from doing it again? The funny thing about it is that nobody apparently would have known if weren't for my article in SUNlite.

4. Mr. Bragalia complains that I don't tell my reader the whole story. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Unlike Mr. Bragalia, I have listed all my sources (with links to those sources) for the reader to read where I got the information. I want my sources to be known and not covertly hidden. Meanwhile, Mr. Bragalia apparently attempts to hide his sources by not listing them or deliberately misidentifying them. He also has misrepresented a lot of what these sources have stated and he does it again here. For those who want to be spoon fed what they want to hear, that is fine. For those who want to look at the information and decide for themselves, it is inadequate.

5. Mr. Bragalia claims I admit the error of Shiprock. I kept looking at my e-mail responses and could not figure out where I stated this. Instead, I told him I would list his complaints with my response in the next issue.

6. As far as the Shiprock story goes, Mr. Bragalia has yet to provide any hard evidence concerning the events of July 1947. I asked him for records that proved this was the case back in July. He responded indignantly in ALL CAPS:

I HOPE YOU ARE NOT SERIOUS, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT YOU ARE BEING UNREASONABLE.
THE LIKELIHOOD OF A LIFE EDITOR'S ASSIGNMENT NOTES FROM 61 YEARS AGO BEING ABLE TO BE RETRIEVED IS SLIM TO NONE.
PERHAPS YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE FACT THAT LIFE IS NO LONGER PUBLISHED. PERHAPS YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE FACT THAT IT CEASED PUBLICATION IN 1972 WITH INTERMITTENT "REVIVAL" FROM 1978-2000.
OR PERHAPS YOU ARE SIMPLY IGNORANT.


However, in the Mrs. Grant e-mail she stated that she felt they did exist in New Jersey.

In order to take a closer look, we'd have to requisition the LIFE archives in NY; photos are stored in some vault somewhere in New Jersey and it takes time and money for them to send someone there to dig "this stuff up".

Did he call her "ignorant" as well? Did he follow up? Why didn't he state to me, "You know Mrs. Grant suggested the same thing but we could not find the records"? No, he was just belligerent. Why would I keep asking him about what he knew when he responded like this? This is why I terminated any further communications with him about this subject.

7. According to another Bragalia e-mail, "As a photographer who lived my the demands of tight schedules...Mr. Grant knew his dates. He lived by the clock for a living. He made a made a website late in life as a chronicle of his long career. He was detail-oriented. You do not seem to get this."

For people, who supposedly kept detailed records of their activities, they apparently have no records that demonstrate the Roswell flight ever happened. Additionally, Mr. Grant incorrectly identified the photograph of Shiprock as having to do with the Roswell story. Is this somebody who was "detail oriented" or is it possible that he was just confusing events and dates?

So, let's examine the facts (things that can not be denied or are on record) here. Mr. Grant sent a letter to the editor where he stated that he was involved with the Roswell event. However, in that letter to the editor, he never gave a date (something Bragalia keeps repeating, which is not accurate) and stated he had a driver with a jeep (implying he was never "alone"). Grant then posted pictures of his escapade on his website, which included the Shiprock NM photograph, which is not near Roswell. Bragalia apparently noticed this and sent this concern to Mrs. Grant. Mrs. Grant responded that Mr. Grant must have been confused and he posted this photo because it resembled the area he remembered as being from his Roswell trip.

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.

Now, the record has some things that have not been presented. This being that it was somehow realized the "food for Navjos" story was not in November 47. To correct the issue there is another undated and unidentified correspondence, where Bragalia fleshed out the details and demonstrated that the photograph was from a meteorite hunt in November 1947.

By my count, we have evidence that the Grants have confused photographs, dates, and events from three different incidents. Two (the food for Navajos story and the November 47 meteorite hunt) we know happened but the witnesses could not get the dates/places quite right. The third (the Roswell story) has no evidence to support it and sounds very much like the November 47 Meteorite hunt. I made the offer in my "stunned silent" response for him to provide the evidence and I would publish it. He did not provide any evidence. He just keeps repeating the memories, which we are supposed to rely on as factual and we now know are not exactly accurate.

The most amusing thing about this is, Bragalia could have presented all this knowledge when he wrote his original story but he did not. I followed the trail where it led and published what I discovered. Now, Bragalia proclaims he knew all along that Grant was involved in the November meteorite hunt and that he knew the Shiprock photo was in error.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby lost_shaman » Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:35 am

Re: Allan Grant in NM during July.

One thing that stuck out to me that it doesn't appear either Tim Printy or Anthony Bragalia seemed to pick up on is the use of "AAF" in the slogan on the side of the Trainer in the photo showing Allan Grant and Major Phillips. Tim suggests in his latest SUNLITE article that Grant was confused about when he was in NM and offers the suggestion that the slogan as seen in the photo reads partially "T IN THE AAF, D THE ORY" possibly says "Grant in the AAF, Read the story" adding that this may have been a publicity stunt. This may be what the slogan says (?) but couldn't be correct in the time frame Tim suggests (November) because the use of AAF ended on Sept. 1, 1947 thereafter USAF would have been used. i.e. The USAF would not use AAF in a slogan in November 1947 nor is it likely that the pride of the New branch of the military would allow for AAF to still exist on it's own planes in November. As Anthony points out in his rebuttal to Tim's SUNLITE article the Grant's distinctly remember the different trips in July and November. This photographic evidence of "AAF" on the side of the plane in the photo with Major Phillips and Allan Grant tends to support the Grants' claim that he was with Major Phillips in NM on July 7th, 1947 rather than confused about a later November trip.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:58 am

This is an interesting point. As best I could tell the CAP (which is what this plane was part of) was not officially with the USAF until 1948 when Congress directed it, There was a two year period between 1947 and 1949, where units were transferred between the Army and the USAF. Exactly what schedule was followed, I did not bother to look up. IMO, the photograph could have been from the November 1947 meteorite hunt or some other time. It does not necessarily indicate was from near Roswell in July of 1947. You have to wonder about the cold weather gear though. For a puddle jump, I don't think the plane would have flown that high (certainly not to the point where they needed oxygen) and the temperatures in July were a bit warm. The lows in NM for Early July 47 were in the 60s with the highs near 100 in the south.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby lost_shaman » Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:39 am

astrophotographer wrote:This is an interesting point.


Hey Tim,

Welcome to RU and thanks, I find it interesting as well.

astrophotographer wrote:IMO, the photograph could have been from the November 1947 meteorite hunt or some other time. It does not necessarily indicate the was near Roswell in July of 1947.


My point I suppose is that I have a hard time imagining that "GRANT IN THE AAF" would be used on a plane in November '47 and in association with Major Phillips. Clearly the photo shows Grant with Phillips and "AAF" is clearly visible so "Grant in the AAF" is wrong if this was done during a November setting. If "Grant in the AAF" is correct then Grant and Major Phillips were associated with eachother before Sept. 1947.


astrophotographer wrote:
You have to wonder about the cold weather gear though. For a puddle jump, I don't think the plane would have flown that high (certainly not to the point where they needed oxygen) and the temperatures in July were a bit warm. The lows in NM for Early July 47 were in the 60s with the highs near 100 in the south.


If they flew above 4-5,000 ft they probably would have wanted those jackets IMO.

Seth
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:23 am

I see your point. However, as I stated, the CAP was part of the AAF and not the USAF until 1948 as best I can tell. Therefore, the logo would be appropriate for a CAP plane in November 1947.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby lost_shaman » Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:53 am

astrophotographer wrote:I see your point. However, as I stated, the CAP was part of the AAF and not the USAF until 1948 as best I can tell. Therefore, the logo would be appropriate for a CAP plane in November 1947.


In 1946 under Public Law 476 CAP became a non-Profit organization (*). Then in 1948 Truman signed Public Law 557 (**) making it the official auxiliary of the USAF. So between '46 and '48 it was not part of either an AAF or USAF. Therefore AAF probably wouldn't have been used on a CAP 1947 Trainer but would be appropriate for an AAF Trainer originating out of Alamogordo during July '47.


( *) On March 1, 1946, the 48 CAP wing commanders held their first congressional dinner, honoring President
Truman, the 79th Congress, and General Hap Arnold, the commanding general of the Army Air Forces. On
July 1, 1946, President Truman signed Public Law 476 incorporating Civil Air Patrol as a benevolent,
nonprofit organization.

( **) Public Law 80-557 (Pub.L. 80-557, 62 Stat. 274, 10 U.S.C. ch.909) was passed by the U.S. Congress on May 26, 1948. It permanently established the Civil Air Patrol as the auxiliary of the United States Air Force.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby murnut » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:27 am

Welcome Astrophotographer

I love the newsletter
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: "Stalked by a UFO Skeptic" [Anthony Bragalia]

Postby Access Denied » Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:29 am

astrophotographer wrote:This is Tim Printy. I usually use this name in most forums I participate in but it is only a "handle". I do not hide my identity in those forums as I link my webpage in the profiles. Normally, I let Mr. Bragalia go on and on about how great a person he is and how his research should not be questioned. However, because he seems it necessary to make some inaccurate statements about me in his blog posting I feel it necessary to respond.

Welcome to the fray Tim. Just so people know, Tim had no intention of posting here and responding to Bragalia’s rant until I encouraged him to defend his research so it would be wrong of anybody to accuse him of “stalking” him in this case.

Looks like Mr. Bragalia has some more explaining to do. I went ahead and split this discussion out from the SUNlite thread to one of it’s own in anticipation of Anthony’s response.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: "Stalked by a UFO Skeptic" [Anthony Bragalia]

Postby Access Denied » Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:55 am

lost_shaman wrote:So between '46 and '48 it was not part of either an AAF or USAF.

Not true...

http://www.caphistory.org/museum_exh_4.html

On July 1, 1946, Public Law 476 established CAP as a patriotic and educational organization and an “instrumentality of the United States,” a unique status similar to that accorded the American Red Cross.

Originally under the Office of Civil Defense, CAP became the auxiliary of the Army Air Forces in 1943.

After the creation of the new, independent U.S. Air Force in 1947, CAP was designated the official USAF auxiliary in 1948.

Public Law 79-476 did not change the CAP’s designation as the auxiliary of the AAF, it merely redefined it’s status as a civilian (non combat) organization...

[in order to permanently retain it due to reduced funding for the military after the war]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Law_476

Public Law 79-476 was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1946. The Civil Air Patrol, the auxiliary of the United States Air Force, was to be "solely of a benevolent character". In other words, the Civil Air Patrol was to never participate in combat operations, nor to carry arms, sink submarines, or fight enemies from then on.

It remains a nonprofit, federally chartered corporation to this day as well as the auxiliary of the AF.

lost_shaman wrote:Therefore AAF probably wouldn't have been used on a CAP 1947 Trainer but would be appropriate for an AAF Trainer originating out of Alamogordo during July '47.

Well, as noted, the first part of that statement is incorrect and it should also be noted that it’s not clear whether or not all AAF airplanes would necessarily have been remarked USAF so soon considering the issue of who would get what wasn’t settled until 1948…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement

The Key West Agreement is the colloquial name for a policy paper entitled Function of the Armed Forces and the Joint Chiefs of Staff drafted by James V. Forrestal, the first United States Secretary of Defense. Its most prominent feature was an outline for the division of air assets between the Army, Navy, and the newly created Air Force which, with modifications, continues to provide the basis for the division of these assets in the US military today.

[snip]

Key points

- The Navy would be allowed to retain its own combat air arm "...to conduct air operations as necessary for the accomplishment of objectives in a naval campaign..."
- The Army would be allowed to retain aviation assets for reconnaissance and medical evacuation purposes.
- The Air Force would have control of all strategic air assets, and most tactical and logistic functions as well.

Bottom line is I think any assertions at this point about the date of the photograph should be considered premature and inconclusive in the absence of any further corroborating evidence. It could be from as early as 1943 as far as we know…

That said, no matter how you look at it, the fact remains that the picture of Shiprock, NM that is claimed to be (evidently in Grant’s own words) the only one he took of Roswell, NM remains on the Allan Grant web site…

Image

http://www.allangrant.com/newsevents4.htm

Evidently somebody is confused.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: "Stalked by a UFO Skeptic" [Anthony Bragalia]

Postby astrophotographer » Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:49 pm

Thanks AD and I want to reemphasize that all references I found in the media from the Sept 1947- May 1948 time period appeared to associate the CAP with the AAF. I will gladly concede this if anyone can show otherwise.

Of course, this brings up a question about the two meteorite hunts. The first in November 1947 was highly publicized and is established as actually happening. However, the July 1947 event was not published anywhere. Yet, they put a slogan on the side of the plane for no apparent reason. If the purpose of this supposed July 1947 event was to prove that nothing was found, why didn't the AAF announce it in a massive press release. "ALLAN GRANT LIFE PHOTOGRAPHER SENT TO NM TO INVESTIGATE ROSWELL 'METEOR'." Followed by "GRANT REPORTS FINDING A WHOLE LOT OF NOTHING". This way the story gets out for all to see. Instead, the story is never told until 1997. There are no records of this trip. As I told Mr. Bragalia in the e-mail I posted, I would gladly publish his story of a meteorite hunt by Grant in July 1947 if we had something more than just the memories that seem to be confused.

I suppose if I found records that showed Grant someplace else on July 7, 1947, Mr. Bragalia would suggest that this was all part of the cover-up or that Grant actually meant July 8 or 9 or 10......
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: "Stalked by a UFO Skeptic" [Anthony Bragalia]

Postby ryguy » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:09 pm

Hey Tim,

I'm very pleased to see you here with us and posting. Your newsletter is great - I've enjoyed each issue very much and it's nice to see such a publication in a field where such sane ramblings are very difficult to find. So keep up the great work.

On this issue, two comments Tim made:

I want my sources to be known and not covertly hidden.


...and this:

He also has misrepresented a lot of what these sources have stated and he does it again here. For those who want to be spoon fed what they want to hear, that is fine. For those who want to look at the information and decide for themselves, it is inadequate.


...both strike me as words from someone who's more interested (passionate) in the truth than they are about simply trying to prove a single belief system - and they are the sign of a good researcher.

I would like to read Bragalia's response to Tim's post above - unless of course the initial post was nothing but a drive-by with the hope of gathering attention to the cause?

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: "Stalked by a UFO Skeptic" [Anthony Bragalia]

Postby astrophotographer » Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:02 pm

To be honest, I want to know the truth. Bragalia states that I am afraid of it. This is not so (and he says I presume too much!). Believe me, I spent my early part of my life eating up all the Ancient astronaut and UFO stories. I am not sure when it exactly happened or why but I began to question them. Perhaps it was because I had attained a large amount of experience looking at the night sky and became frustrated by people's inability to understand they were looking at stars like Sirius and not a UFO.

If you read everything Bragalia writes, he rarely lists where he gets the information. When I wrote my two articles, it gave people his sources and it indicated he was not being entirely honest in his evaluation of these sources or what they stated. His mischaracterization about the Center story is a great example. His source, which he did not list, talked about a person who dated Center's daughter in 1958 while he was in high school. He recalled Center telling him all about examining crashed UFO debris but Center's wife and daughter never heard the story. That should set off alarm bells. However, when Bragalia wrote about this incident, he indicated the person was a close friend or close professional associate of Center's. That lends credibility to the story. After all, it is possible that Center might confide in a close friend instead of his family. However, the TRUTH is that he was some teenager that Center might have known only casually and not for very long. Had Bragalia said that originally, I would not have a problem with it. Instead, he distorted the story to justify his claim about Battelle being involved in researching the Roswell debris.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Next

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 13 guests

cron