"Stalked by a UFO Skeptic" [Anthony Bragalia]

[Zep Tepi]

Hi Tim and welcome to RU, I've long been a fan of your work so it's great to see you posting here!
Like you, I started off with a quite different view than that which I now hold. It was only when I started delving a little deeper into the phenomenon that I began to realise I had been more than just a little naive in trusting what was being claimed or reported.

I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome Anthony to the site, I look forward to reading your response to what has been said so far.

Cheers,
Steve

[lost_shaman]

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...

You are right in that PL 79-476 didn't directly change CAP's designation as Auxiliary of the AAF. It was Gen. Spaatz that originally ordered the change in status effective March 31, 1946 and then he later extended this to cover "the interim period between 31 March 1946 and the time of issuance of Federal charter." (*) So the Auxiliary status of CAP was slated to end by order of Gen. Spaatz and the passage of PL 79-476 as a Federal Charter incorporating CAP would have ended the Auxiliary status of CAP in the AAF.

Furthermore, I assume I'm correct in that Major Phillips was AAF in July '47 assigned as Liaison Officer to CAP which probably means he would be using an AAF plane to fly Allan Grant around NM and not a CAP owned plane. As the reference above (*) states that the AAF transferred property to CAP beginning in Jan. 1946 with the exception of flyable aircraft. So the argument over CAP being part of the AAF via Auxiliary status or not in 1947 is most likely a moot point to begin with as Major Phillips would likely be flying an AAF plane as an AAF Liaison Officer to CAP and not a CAP owned plane in the first place. Therefore my point that the photograph shows Allan Grant and Maj. Phillips with a plane that has "AAF" on its side likely predates any November NM trip is still valid as far as I can tell as Maj. Phillips would have been USAF in November and using a USAF plane to fly around in NM in his capacity as USAF Liaison Officer to CAP at that time.

[Access Denied]

Sorry LS but you’re still wrong. From the link you cited…

“…the Civil Air Patrol was transferred from the Department of the Army to the Department of the Air Force effective noon EST 21 May 1948”

Tim is correct, it’s entirely possible the photograph was taken in November of 1947… several months after the Roswell “incident”. In fact, given that we now know thanks to Tim’s research that the Grant’s have got the date (and location) of at least one other picture wrong, I’d even goes so far as to say it’s probable.

That is of course unless Anthony has some other evidence to share with us?

[Edit to add]

LS, I see you added another paragraph to your post before I posted this and then modified it again afterwards. Please provide some evidence to support you latest conjecture. Words like "assume" and “likely” don’t cut it around here and I'm not going to go around in circles with you again.

[lost_shaman]

Sorry LS but you’re still wrong. From the link you cited…

“…the Civil Air Patrol was transferred from the Department of the Army to the Department of the Air Force effective noon EST 21 May 1948”

AD, I read the same; considering it was My link that I cited. I didn't specifically address it simply because I didn't consider it relevant to what I was saying in my previous post. As far as I'm concerned the above sentence is simply a paraphrased legal clarification of Jurisdiction as it concerns the different branches of Military and CAP as CAP was established as an Auxiliary of the USAF on 26 May 1948 by PL . 80-557, 62.

[Access Denied]

Not relevant? It entirely demolishes your claim. The CAP was the auxiliary of the AAF (under it's command) from 1943 until 1948 without interruption. Please acknowledge this fact.

[lost_shaman]

Not relevant? It entirely demolishes your claim. The CAP was the auxiliary of the AAF (under it's command) from 1943 until 1948 without interruption. Please acknowledge this fact.

AD, I qouted a link above that said I'm paraphrasing Gen. Spaatz only extended the "Auxiliary" status of CAP to the AAF until the "issuance of a Federal Charter"! That "issuance" came on 1 July 1946 as stated by the reference I provided did it not?

[Access Denied]

LS, you claimed...

"So between '46 and '48 it [the CAP] was not part of either an AAF or USAF."

You’re wrong… no ifs, ands, or buts about it. For the last time, please acknowledge this fact.

[lost_shaman]

LS, you claimed...

"So between '46 and '48 it [the CAP] was not part of either an AAF or USAF."

You’re wrong… no ifs, ands, or buts about it. For the last time, please acknowledge this fact.

For one thing that is called a SENTENCE. I tend to use them in my posts. Normally these are considered as proper speech etiquette and not claims unless specifically reverenced as Scientific claims. Typically as per accepted practice Historians tend to offer opinions based on the interpretation of evidence rather than making 'CLAIMS' and I'm simply following in that tradition here with opinions based on what I've been able to discover and interpret.

On that basis alone...

I contend that I'm not wrong on this considering I've provided the most detailed account of CAP history on this thread to-date via a reference and other than one vague sentence that has to do with the official appointment of CAP as an "Auxiliary" of the USAF and it's technical and jurisdictional transfer from the Army to the USAF on this basis I've evidenced my opinion.

I admit that you or others might disagree with me or even have a different opinion than I do based on the evidence thus presented, but I will not agree to acknowledge something as a FACT when I've personally not been convinced such a thing is indeed a FACT. PERIOD. If you can convince me using FACTs fine otherwise I'm not convinced. It's my right to decline to admit something as a FACT when I've provided evidence to the contrary.

You are asking me to "acknowledge" a historical matter that I've seen no evidence for and have provided evidence against. Show me that I'm wrong with evidence and I'll happily retract any historically inaccurate statements. Otherwise you are NOT allowed per the "RU Rules" to ORDER me to publically agree with you over something I don't agree with!

Seth

[edit to add punctuation]
[edit to delete extra "if"]

[Access Denied]

1) Per our board rules, the evidence you cited does NOT support your assertion of a fact…

“4. Posters are encouraged to cite supporting evidence when providing facts. If no evidence is provided, posters are encouraged to preface their statement with acknowledgement that the post is a statement of opinion only.”

You can’t claim it was only a matter opinion now because you in fact cited evidence.

2) One of the sources you cited as evidence in fact refutes your claim of fact…

“…the Civil Air Patrol was transferred from the Department of the Army to the Department of the Air Force effective noon EST 21 May 1948”

If the CAP was not in fact a part of the Army prior to 1948 as you claimed it couldn’t have been transferred to the Air Force from the Army in 1948 per your own source.

As result of your failure to cite supporting evidence and your refusal to acknowledge this despite repeated requests, I’m suspending your account for 3 days. Perhaps you can use that time to your advantage and improve your knowledge of history.

Please do some more thorough research before you post next time. Otherwise this thread is at risk of becoming just another convoluted mess… that is assuming it hasn’t already.

Thank you,

AD


[edit to add]

I see I left one of your questions unanswered so hopefully this will help in case you still don’t understand…

AD, I qouted a link above that said I'm paraphrasing Gen. Spaatz only extended the "Auxiliary" status of CAP to the AAF until the "issuance of a Federal Charter"! That "issuance" came on 1 July 1946 as stated by the reference I provided did it not?

Right, but then after that occurred an actual date for the termination of their status as the AAF Auxiliary was never set. Read the rest of the material at link you gave and you’ll see, as it turned out, the CAP continued to receive support from key Army leadership until eventually they were transferred to the Air Force. Like I said earlier, the purpose for obtaining the charter is because the Army could no longer afford to fund it on their own due to deep budget cuts after the war…

[ryguy]

That's true - the statement as cited:

"So between '46 and '48 it [the CAP] was not part of either an AAF or USAF."

...can not be an opinion because there are clear organizations and dates - obviously verifiable by data. The simple fact that needed verification is whether or not the CAP was part of either the AAF or USAF.

You can’t claim it was only a matter opinion now because you in fact cited evidence.

2) One of the sources you cited as evidence in fact refutes your claim of fact…

“…the Civil Air Patrol was transferred from the Department of the Army to the Department of the Air Force effective noon EST 21 May 1948”

If the CAP was not in fact a part of the Army prior to 1948 as you claimed it couldn’t have been transferred to the Air Force from the Army in 1948 per your own source.

That's true. This particular case isn't so much about opinion or interpretation - the above source cited as evidence proves that the CAP was part of the Dept of the Army in 1948, which clearly disproves the first verifiable statement.

All of this aside, again, I hope Anthony Bragalia graces us with a response to Tim's post above - I'm very curious about his claims and would love to see them discussed here in the light of day.

-Ry

[astrophotographer]

Hmmm.....this seems to have resulted in the usual death spiral about the status of the CAP and Major Phillips in November 1947. Based on the evidence so far presented, it seems that the CAP was associated with Army at the time and therefore the term "AAF" does not invalidate the hypothesis the photograph is from November 1947 and not July 1947. Major Phillips being a liason officer to the CAP probably would not have been transferred to the USAF in September 1947 because his assignment would have been associated with the Army.

As I have previously stated,it took some two years for the USAF to complete transfer of personnel and equipment from the Army. Most likely the first units involved in the transfer probably had to do with Strategic Air Command (SAC) and Tactical Air Command (TAC), which were very large organizations of the AAF. Things like CAP liason officers would probably have been put at the bottom of the priority list and they would have to wait their turn. It is unrealistic to think that the transfer of personnel and equipment happened overnight.

[Bragalia]

I am not going to engage in a "tit for tat" public debate with Tim Printy. This is because he refuses to discuss any of this with me privately, he has informed me today. Ask him why.

[astrophotographer]

I think Mr. Bragalia is once again stretching things a bit here. In an exchange today, I warned him that I will no longer keep things private in our communications for several reasons:

1. Mr. Bragalia said some unprofessional things about an individual and demanded I keep it confidential because it could result in a lawsuit. I saw no evidence to prove this claim true and it was based again on rumor and memories. It was not nice and he should not be repeating such stories.

2. More important, Mr. Bragalia has stated certain things about our e-mail exchanges in his blog entries that are less than accurate (I have presented some of this here). As a result, I felt it necessary to warn him not expect any further "confidentiality" privileges regarding our e-mail exchanges so I could present the details if necessary.

If Mr. Bragalia does not want to discuss his work here I am not sure why he posted in the first place. Are there things he wants to say in private that he does not want made public? It is his choice. I am sure he will find another venue where he can explain himself that is more receptive to his interpretations.

[Bragalia]

Tim- I have devoted far too much time to you as it is. Re-read my article "Stalked by a Saucer Skeptic" - I spent many hours responding to your "analysis."

But since we are airing laundry here- I will tell everyone what I have avoided telling anyone about you thusfar. I did not include this information on Tim in my blog article, but I fear that Tim is going the way of former skeptic Kal Korff:

I began emailing Tim in the spirit of balanced reporting. I told him about many of these very stories before they were even published. I genuinely wanted the benefit of his thinking. Instead, he connived to get as much out of me has he could. Then -instead of pointing out these issues with my work to me- he published them in his e-newsletter before giving me a chance to even respond to his "accusations." Tim is disingenuous. He never really wanted an honest and open dialog. This is how he really operates.

Tim then began "baiting" me by implying that I do this research from a fame or profit motive. But I have never received -nor sought- a dime from anyone. And for years I gave my research leads to others, seeking no credit. His personal insinuations are something that I simply do not need to deal with.

And he continues to "bait" me. His recent emails to be have now degenerated into juvenile discourse. He began one recent email to me with the opening phrase, "Blah, blah, blah." In other emails he simply says, "Try again." I am an extremely busy professional and do not have time for such "high school" behavior.

As ever, I stand ready to address any specific questions or concerns about anything that I write. Please note, I am balanced on "things UFO." See my latest (skeptical) article "The Socorro UFO Hoax Exposed" on the UFO Iconoclasts site or several other sites carrying the story. I am a critical thinker. Tim simply has a will to disbelieve.

[Access Denied]

Anthony, fist of all, I want to thank you for coming back here to at least try and establish some kind of dialog. As I said earlier, I don’t think Tim would be here unless he truly wanted to establish an open and honest dialog with you so hopefully something interesting will come out of this for those who are interested in hearing both your points of view.

For better or worse, I think the controversy between you two is one of the “hottest” things going on in UFOlogy right now so I think people are curious to see how this goes.

If I may make a suggestion, I think it would be best to focus on the evidence as opposed to your obvious personality differences. To that end, would it be possible for you to address some of the evidentiary concerns Tim raised in his rebuttal to your article posted earlier in this thread? There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the Grant’s and who said what and when for example. Any clarification you could give would be greatly appreciated.

Also, I just want to say I can’t think of any skeptics or debunkers that I know of, including myself, who didn’t start out with a strong will to believe in ET visitation… and I think all would agree they’re still open to the possibility. It’s just that when you really start to dig down into the most famous cases they all start to fall apart… disappointing to say the least.

By the way, about your current avatar Tim, is that one you took of Mars?