"Stalked by a UFO Skeptic" [Anthony Bragalia]

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

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

Postby ryguy » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:32 pm

lost_shaman wrote:Ryan, if your Commanding General AAF was sworn in as the Chief of Staff of the USAF and the law stated that you were under his command then would you still consider yourself an 'AAF' officer if the transfer order 1 stated you were a USAF officer?


Until I heard the news that the swearing in took place and that it was now "USAF" and not "AAF" I would likely continue calling myself "AAF" until I heard that the switch took place. It would make sense if there was such a period of confusion a few months after the official switchover. I know from personal experience that news from higher up at a corporation takes days, if not weeks, to filter down through the ranks. I assume in the military it's an even worse bureaucracy.

Does the fact that no-one replaced Gen. Spaatz as Commanding General AAF not prove the 'AAF' no longer existed?


Well, it's hard to prove something doesn't exist. So something not happening can't really prove something doesn't exist....if I understand your sentence correctly?

I still think that calling the error a serious one is unfair - this discussion proves that the mistake (if it is a mistake) is a very easy one to make for the period from Sept through Dec of 1947.

The office of Commanding General AAF didn't exist after Sept. 26, 1947.


Officially, but not necessarily through the rank-and-file military. And as I'm sure the guys in the military today will testify - things in the military don't happen overnight. I'm sure it was even worse back in 1947 before the Internet, and email, and other communication technologies of today. Back then - news spread through snail-mail. Is a month (or longer) delay before officers start using USAF surprising? Not at all.

-Ryan
---
"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 Access Denied » Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:09 pm

Thread Summary:

Just because I ordered a hamburger, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s already been cooked.
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 » Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:53 pm

lost_shaman wrote:Tim's argument now is that use of 'Air Corps' is the same as considering oneself a member of the 'AAF'. This simply is not true. Transfer order 1 specifically transferred the 'Air Corps' to the USAF on Sept. 26, 1947.


That is not my argument. My argument continues to be there was a state of transition before the officers were referring to themselves as being in the USAF. Otherwise, all the documents would have been signed by them as being USAF and not "air corps". I also pointed out the air bases were still referred to as Army Air Fields. I believe AD pointed out that the Army had in its possession it's own aircraft for some time and took an accord to resolve what aircraft belonged to the USAF and the army. As a result, this all MIGHT (and I emphasize this word) explain why a photograph could be taken in November 1947 with the words AAF being painted on the side. If you want to keep arguing for the sake of arguing, we can waste more time. I am just offerring one possibility for why the words AAF appear on the plane. I also offerred the other possibility of it being a photograph from aviation week in late July 1947. In either case, the photograph in itself does not prove that Grant was near Roswell looking for a meteorite.
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 lost_shaman » Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:24 am

astrophotographer wrote:That is not my argument. My argument continues to be there was a state of transition before the officers were referring to themselves as being in the USAF. Otherwise, all the documents would have been signed by them as being USAF and not "air corps".


Not true at all. I've repeatedly pointed out to you on this thread that the 'Air Corps' was established by act of congress (the 'Air Corps act of 1926') and as such it could only be disestablished by act of congress and was therefore simply transferred to the newly formed USAF on Sept. 26, 1947 by transfer order 1 because SECDEF Forrestal's transfer orders were not 'acts of congress' and he as SECDEF had no authority to disestablish the 'Air Corps' but did have the authority to transfer the 'Air Corps' to the USAF.

My point that I believe you are ignoring is that the 'Air Corps' was itself an organ of the USAF after Sept. 26, 1947. Simply referring to themselves as 'Air Corps' after that date is not evidence that these personnel did not know or were confused about being in the new USAF as transfer order 1 specifically stated that the 'Air Corps' was transferred to the USAF.

Let me repeat by quoting again what I've already quoted in this thread (pp3.)... Note references to the 'Air Corps' in particular that I will highlight below from my post Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:06 am.

Planning and Organizing the Postwar Air Force, 1943-1947 pp.207-208

In 1947 the first major orders transferred personnel and some primary functions from the Army to the Air Force. The first transfer order was signed by Forestall on September 26, 1947. It stipulated that functions of the Secretary of the Army and Department of the Army, which were assigned to or under the control of the Commanding General, AAF, would be transferred to the Secretary of the Air Force and the Department of the Air Force. Also, most units under AAF control were transferred to the United States Air Force.* The initial order stated that the functions of the Commanding General, General Headquarters Air Force (Air Force Combat Command); of the Chief of Air Corps; and the Commanding General, AAF, were transferred to the Chief of Staff, USAF.

All officers commissioned in the Army Air Corps and officers holding commissions in the Air Corps Reserve were transferred to the Department of the Air Force.
All warrant officers and enlisted men under the Commanding General, AAF (with some few exceptions) were transferred to the Department of the Air Force. Officer and enlisted members of the Women's Army Corps, on duty with the AAF, would remain assigned with the Army until enactment of legislation establishing procedures for the appointment and enlistment of women in the United States Air Force. In addition, the property, records, installations, agencies, activities, projects, and civilian personnel under the jurisdiction, control, or command of the Commanding General, AAF, would be continued under the jurisdiction, control, or command of the Chief of Staff, USAF.


As far as I'm concerned your argument that "all the documents would have been signed by them as being USAF and not "air corps" is false and that after Sept. 26, 1947 'Air Corps' is literally a reference to the USAF as the 'Air Corps' was transferred to the USAF on that date by SECDEF Forestall.


astrophotographer wrote: I believe AD pointed out that the Army had in its possession it's own aircraft for some time and took an accord to resolve what aircraft belonged to the USAF and the army.


The Army never stopped using it's own Aircraft but these were never referred to as 'Army Air Force' after the Sept. 26, 1947 transfer of powers to the USAF.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

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

Postby Access Denied » Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:20 am

FYI…

[ETA: The reason I reposted this is to show that the paragraph quoted above is misleading. It gives the mistaken impression that Transfer Order 1 immediately accomplished the transfer of all active duty and reserve officers and enlisted personnel and all “property, records, installations, agencies, activities, projects, and civilian personnel” to the Air Force on September 26, 1947 when we know, for example, that the “rank and file” of the Air Corp Reserve wasn’t actually transferred to the Air Force until April 27, 1948 by Transfer Order 10. What Transfer Order 1 did was transfer “jurisdiction, control, or command” of all these things to the Air Force first. The other 39 orders issued after this over a period of two years are what accomplished the actual transfers of all these things now under the “jurisdiction, control, or command” of the Air Force. It’s a subtle but important distinction... one that’s borne out by the material evidence that Tim has presented here.]

Citizen Airmen: A History Of The Air Force Reserve, 1946-1994
Gerald T. Cantwell, Air Force History and Museums Program (U.S.)
http://books.google.com/books?id=8Y3tmhPrl44C&pg=PA84

[note that the first paragraph below is cited from the same official source (c. 1955) I cited earlier -AD]

”On September 26, Secretary Forestall signed Transfer Order 1 which brought into the Department Of the Air Force and the United States Air Force the greater part [not all parts, so obviously the AAF still existed after Septemper 26, 1947 -AD] of the military personnel, bases, and equipment of the Army Air Forces, thus comprising the first substantive act in establishing the new branch of service. This placed the Air Force on an operating basis, but much remained to be done. Progress seemed slow, but in the end the task was completed on schedule. Within the next two years, Secretary Forestall promulgated thirty-nine more orders. All inclusive as well as well as final, Transfer Order 40 on July 22, 1949, consigned to the Air Force what were regarded as the remaining necessary and appropriate powers, functions, and duties.[82]

The act of establishing the Air Force Reserve occurred on April 14, 1948, when a joint Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force directive established the U.S. Air Force Reserve and the U.S. Air Force Honorary Reserve. The directive ordered the transfer of all officers and enlisted men of the Air Corps Reserve and it abolished the Air Corps Reserve Section of the Army of the Untied States.[83]

The instrument that effectively transferred the Air Reserve to the Air Force was Transfer Order 10 which became effective at noon on April 27, 1948. The order transferred to the Air Force those functions, power, and duties of the Secretary of the Army and the Department of the Army pertaining to the air activities of the National Guard of the United States, the National Guard, the Officers' Reserve Corps, the Reserve Officers Training Corps, and the Enlisted Reserve Corps. It also transferred to the Air Force the air units of the National Guard of the United States, of the National Guard while in the service of the Untied States, and of the Organized Reserve of the Untied States.[84]”


ryguy wrote:Let's finally clarify this point as briefly as possible so we can all move on...

That was three pages ago, time to move on.

I think we all know where everybody stands on this issue by now so at the risk of everybody repeating themselves another three or four times, I'm closing this thread. If anybody has anything new to add, PM one of us and we’ll reopen it.

Clearly the OP [Anthony Bragalia] is either unwilling or unable to respond to Tim’s thorough rebuttal of his "Stalked by a UFO Skeptic" article…
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 » Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:13 am

Roswell bunker Bragalia, who's just now discovering "It's a Small World" (after all), is still at it with even more second hand “witnesses” and this hilarious gem…

THE MEANING OF THE METAL

The Universe is not carved in stone. Existence can be shaped. The morph requires composite construction. It needs something to "morph with." It also requires the introduction of energy. Matter then has the potential to change state. The lesson of the ET metal - and the morphing UFO - is that our world is less rigid than we know. Things like space, time and matter are infinitely more flexible than we can yet imagine.

There is a "plasticity" to reality that shows that matter is not immutable. This is necessary for interstellar flight. The Morphing Metals demonstrate this fluidity. And the psychic experiments that were performed by the Navy on Nitinol show that there is also a relationship to be discovered about the mind and its interface with such adaptable, intelligent material. What Roswell's "changing metal" means is that we must change our understanding of energy and the states of matter.

WTF?

Let’s see, thanks to the aliens, we now have many exciting applications of this amazing metal such as…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_tit ... plications

  • It is used in some novelty products, such as self-bending spoons which can be used by amateur and stage magicians to demonstrate "psychic" powers or as a practical joke, as the spoon will bend itself when used to stir tea, coffee, or any other warm liquid.
  • Nickel titanium can be used to make the underwires for underwire bras.
Or better yet, balls…

Nitinol - Nitinol 60: The Magical Material DeMystified
http://www.abbottball.com/nitinol/

[note the Roswell reference]

No doubt Tim is breaking out in tears… :)
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 Aug 10, 2010 1:16 am

Oh, I had a great laugh when Bragalia e-mailed me to alert me of his latest gem. He stated that my analysis was "weak" and "ill-informed". Hmmm....reading his article and comparing them to what I wrote in SUNlite, I think the INFORMED and INTELLIGENT reader will be able to tell what is "weak" and "ill-informed".

I love how he states that tests on Titanium that measured "elongation" and "minimum bend radius" were designed to look for Shape Memory Alloys. Anybody with a clue about metals would recognize that these are all standard tests conducted on all metals/alloys to determine their characteristics. They are not designed to look for SMAs and suggesting such indicates Bragalia is a) not very bright or b) is purposefully misrepresenting facts.

I thought of writing a rebuttal about his article in the upcoming issue but it would basically be the same as the article in SUNlite 1-3 because he addressed nothing that was presented there! Instead, i will make a comment in the Roswell corner.
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 Bragalia » Tue Aug 10, 2010 7:28 pm

You are a funny man, Tim Printy. You post your half-reply to the article on the RU forum site, but you fail to even acknowledge my email to you about the new information. Instead, you refuse to dialog with my privately first, but choose to spew your venom publicly in your little-read Klass-wanna-be e-newsletter.

And you misinform in your last post on this forum. I will refrain from saying that you are telling lies. I address your comments about Elroy Center, the history of shape recovery and clues learned from the Titanium Symposium, etc. Re-read the article and you will see that I try to specifically answer all of your "objections."

I am well-aware that elongation and minimum bend radius are sometimes "standard" alloy tests. The point was that these types of tests were spoken of by Wright's General Exon, relative to the Roswell debris.
Bragalia
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:36 pm

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

Postby astrophotographer » Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:38 am

Bragalia wrote:You are a funny man, Tim Printy. You post your half-reply to the article on the RU forum site, but you fail to even acknowledge my email to you about the new information. Instead, you refuse to dialog with my privately first, but choose to spew your venom publicly in your little-read Klass-wanna-be e-newsletter.


Well, enough people read it to understand how mistaken you are. Additionally, you seem to read it so it is not so "little read" (BTW, you have any statistics to back it up?). You have a forum here to defend your research. Feel free to present your case.


Bragalia wrote:And you misinform in your last post on this forum. I will refrain from saying that you are telling lies. I address your comments about Elroy Center, the history of shape recovery and clues learned from the Titanium Symposium, etc. Re-read the article and you will see that I try to specifically answer all of your "objections."


Nope, your arguments are completely false and you misrepresent a great deal of what you wrote regarding the titanium symposium and the two progress reports. Just because the readers who pat you on the back have problems looking beyond what you wrote does not make you correct. Feel free to present your article to a magazine concerned with metallurgy. I am sure they would find your article far from compelling.


Bragalia wrote:I am well-aware that elongation and minimum bend radius are sometimes "standard" alloy tests. The point was that these types of tests were spoken of by Wright's General Exon, relative to the Roswell debris.


It is NOT "sometimes". This is another exaggeration on your part as if it is not done all of the time. In order to create a stress-strain graph on an alloy you need to measure elongation. It is a standard test that is done every time the alloy is tested. Stating it was used to look only for SMAs indicates you don't know what you are talking about OR you do know and you want to mislead your readers.

Can you show exactly where Exon states they tested the Roswell debris for "elongation" and "minimum bend radius"?
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 Tim Hebert » Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:11 pm

Bragalia to Astrophotographer, "...I will refrain from saying you are telling lies."

Come now Mr. Bragalia, is that not what you are really saying?

Tim
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

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

Postby James Carlson » Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:21 am

I've been doing a little jumping around the various RU pages , because it suddenly occurred to me that maybe I'd come across someone who may have read Colin Wilson's "Alien Dawn". I realize I could have just used a search engine, but since I'm not doing anything very pressing at the moment for the first time in a couple of years (it seems), just jumping around a bit seems a lot more enjoyable. Upon reading all of this, however, I'm just angry. I don't know about anybody else, but I am just sick to death of people who who insist they're just trying to be open and honest, and yet at they same time, they "neglect" to mention or discuss any number of details relevant to their claims that could actually throw some light on the subject. Doing so consciously is no better than lying. For God's sake, just give people all of the information they need to decide for themselves whether or not you're full of B.S or have an intelligent argument to raise. For the most part, people are bright enough to do so if they have the information. And I've got to tell you, when your propensity for not discussing such relevant matters is noted by someone else, it tends to make you look like a fool, and a liar. Unfortunately for UFOlogy, to a great extent that seems to happen an awful lot and it's NOT happening on the skeptical side of the issues. Just throwing in my 2 cents worth.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

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

Postby lost_shaman » Tue Aug 09, 2011 11:40 am

Since this thread was re-opened, I'm going to point out in the open what I pointed out to Ryan in PM after the thread was closed.

AD posted when he closed the thread... "The directive ordered the transfer of all officers and enlisted men of the Air Corps Reserve and it abolished the Air Corps Reserve Section of the Army of the Untied States.[83]"


The actual source states... "The directive ordered the transfer of all officers and enlisted men of the Air Corps Reserve to the U.S. Air Force Reserve and it abolished the Air Corps Reserve Section of the Army of the Untied States.[83]"

Please note here that the phrase Tom (AD) omitted (in BOLD) changes the entire meaning of the sentence in the context of the paragraph it was written. Not only did transfer order 1 indeed transfer the Air Corps Reserve to the Dept. of the USAF as it stated on Sept. 26, 1947, but the directive discussed by the source simply created the U.S. Air Force Reserve and simply transferred the Air Corps Reserve to the newly created U.S. Air Force Reserve. An interdepartmental transfer not a Service to Service transfer that only the SECDEF had authority to authorize.

This is important because the "Air Corps" itself was created by "act of Congress" and despite regular Officers having been technically been transferred to the USAF in Sept. 1947 the "Reserves" remained 'legally' attached to the Army by that original 'act of Congress' simply because until this "Directive" no USAF 'Reserve'" existed.

This was simply a matter of Legal "limbo" rather than PROOF the ARMY AIR FORCE (AAF) continued to exist. This was simply a Technicality because the SECDEF had not established the USAF Reserve with Transfer order No. 1. It took a later "act of Congress" then to disestablish the "Air Corps" which had been transferred to the USAF because the SECDEF didn't have the Authority to do so, but that the "Air Corps" was transferred to the USAF in Sept. 1947 is without question.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Previous

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

cron