• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, seven years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Use the coupon code ufo20 to receive a 20% discount on five-year or lifetime subscriptions. And PayPal now accepts cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, in payment. We also offer a second payment method for major credit or debit cards (which also includes Apple Pay and Google Pay), so act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

"The Roswell Dream Team Nightmare"



Christopher O'Brien

Back in the Saddle Aginn
Staff member
[Many of you may have heard the rumor that newly revealed photographs of a Roswell alien have surfaced. Well, maybe so, but it has stirred up a hornet's nest of controversy amongst the Roswell investigative community, as you will see—chris]

by Paul Kimball Complete Post HERE:

On August 28th, I received an unsolicited e-mail from my friend Kevin Randle, in response to a note I had sent him thanking him for appearing on my podcast and offering my condolences on the death of Jesse Marcel, Jr. I am publishing it here in full, with no additions or alterations of any kind. I do so with great regret, because I value confidence highly and I had agreed after receiving it to keep this communication between Kevin and I private, even though I had not asked to receive the information and was therefore under no obligation to do so. But now, when to keep that confidence requires me to stand by and say nothing about subsequent statements that I know to be untrue, then the ethical balance as I see it has shifted, and I have a duty to set the record straight, even on a matter as inconsequential to me in the grand scheme of things as the Roswell Incident.

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. That "team" also includes Kevin, his former research partner Donald Schmitt, Schmitt's current partner Tom Carey, longtime Roswell-as-ET proponent David Rudiak, and Canadian UFO researcher Chris Rutkowski, whom I had recommended to Kevin for the spot as "team skeptic" when I turned down his invitation to join. For the full history of all this, I recommend readers go to the UFO Iconoclasts blog and look through the archives.

Things reached a head this week when Mr. Reynolds published an article titled "The Rumored 'New Roswell Evidence' by Anonymous", the central claim of which centered on the question of whether or not that "new evidence" which is the focus of the investigation by the "Dream Team" was these purported slides (there were other peripheral claims made, but those are beside the point). Previously, Mr. Reynolds had published claims that the slides existed but were subject to a non-disclosure agreement, among other things.

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.
I knew this to be false, at least with respect to the central point of the existence of the slides and the Dream Team's interest in them, because of what I had been told by Kevin in the e-mail of August 28th. I asked Mr. Bragalia a simple question - was the central claim by Anonymous about the slides true? As I wrote in a comment at the UFO Iconoclasts blog:
How about Mr. Bragalia answer one simple question then that goes to the heart of the matter - are there slides, or not, that the "Dream Team" have access to and which purport to be from the Roswell "crash" in 1947?

If the answer is "yes" then the story as reported by Rich is, in it's most fundamental aspect, correct. If not, then Mr. Bragalia should say so, clearly and unambiguously, and in a public venue.
This is one of those "come to Jesus" moments where people have to make a choice. Admittedly, it's penny ante stuff in the grand scheme of things, so it's more like a "come to Jebus" moment, but still... within the context of the world in which Mr. Bragalia and the Dream Teamers live, it's the moment of truth. Is the basic story true... or not? Is Anonymous a liar (and Rich one too by implication), or is his / her account accurate in its core claim?

Mr. Bragalia's response? "Paul Kimball you must be kidding. I owe you nothing. Come to Jesus? How about go to hell?"

And that is where it would have ended for me, if not for comments that Kevin made to columnist Clueless Wonder yesterday.

"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."
That was the straw that shifted the balance for me, because the truth, as readers will see from the text of the e-mail below, is markedly different. There are slides. There is a non-disclosure agreement (which has clearly been breached, because the information made its way to me via a "Dream Team" member), and Kevin has investigated the claims of the slides.

In follow-up e-mails after August 28th I pleaded with Kevin to release this information himself, or at the very least disassociate himself from the "Dream Team" for reasons that should be clear from reading his e-mail (especially as they relate to Schmitt). He told me he was going to do so, and then several weeks later sent a note apologizing for "dilly-dallying". Last night he sent me a note saying that he could not do so now that Mr. Reynolds had published what is clearly substantially correct information, and because I had commented on it at the UFO Iconoclasts blog. "Now is no longer the proper moment to bail. If Reynolds had waited a week or two, I would have been long gone." I am afraid that given how the past month has unfolded, I simply do not believe that, but the point is moot.

My response? The proper time to bail was at the latest at the end of August, given what the e-mail published below contains... a point Kevin made to me twelve years ago when I first met him.

For the rest of this salacious story go to Paul's Blog HERE:
 

Frank Stalter

Paranormal Maven
This is why the UFO field can be toxic to many people.

I don't know Gene, I can't think of too many fields that don't have some heated back and forth. If they turn up anything close to what's being discussed, it will blow the bickering out of the water and if they don't, the whole thing will be quickly forgotten. Just another lead that didn't pan out. It happens. But if it's the former . . . . :)
 

Frank Stalter

Paranormal Maven
Well, can't we all get along? Yes, vigorous debate is good, but if you check the chatter at Kimball's blog, the debate is going beyond simply vigorous.

I looked at it earlier, but am not keeping up with the comments. It's unfortunate. To an extent, I do think Richie is somewhat responsible for that, even though I like him a lot too and Tony writes at Richie's blog. He's created an atmosphere where this sort of thing happens which I have brought up to him directly. The crap Tony takes is ridiculous. He's one of the top researchers out there.
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
His "beef" with The Paracast is basically over a non-existent issue. It's all over something we did about a wacky member when he was a forum admin (and thus knew about), which suddenly upset him the following year, when he wasn't a forum admin. As you see, it's a rabbit hole and I have better things to do with my life than worry about it.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Many of you may have heard the rumor that newly revealed photographs of a Roswell alien have surfaced. Well, maybe so, but it has stirred up a hornet's nest of controversy amongst the Roswell investigative community ...
Our Friend Nick Redfern said:
So, in other words, while I certainly don’t know all the ins and outs of this, I do know that, regardless of the truth or provenance (or otherwise) of the slides, the story itself most definitely does have substance.

Source: The UFO Iconoclast(s): The Roswell Slides: My Perspective by Nick Redfern
 

Christopher O'Brien

Back in the Saddle Aginn
Staff member
He's created an atmosphere where this sort of thing happens which I have brought up to him directly. The crap Tony takes is ridiculous. He's one of the top researchers out there.
When it comes to his outlandish assertions and confabulations relating to the Soccoro case, he deserved all "the crap" flung at him for making unsubstantiated claims that he cannot back up. And, he refused to debate his questionable revisionist history with the top expert on the case here at the paracast.
 

Frank Stalter

Paranormal Maven
When it comes to his outlandish assertions and confabulations relating to the Soccoro case, he deserved all "the crap" flung at him for making unsubstantiated claims that he cannot back up. And, he refused to debate his questionable revisionist history with the top expert on the case here at the paracast.

I turned up the lead that led Tony to taking a closer look at and solving the Socorro case, but I'm more interested in Roswell right now.

Lonnie Zamora said:
It looks like a balloon.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Good research:
I would agree, and thanks for the link. Unfortunately there's nothing of substance there. Slides alone aren't sufficient evidence, let alone claims of slides based on hearsay. And once more we get this kind of retort as to why we don't get to see the evidence:
Bragalia's Blog said:
WHY YOU WILL NOT SEE THE PHOTOS

The owner of the slides certainly sees from afar the puerile and unprofessional behavior of some people. And he sees judgment cast even before the evidence is shown. He is likely repulsed by such “UFO people” and has no desire to enter such a hellish lion’s den. And he will not use the underbelly of the internet to ever release something of such enormity and cosmic import.
I see the above as insubstantial and given the comments made elsewhere about the owner trying to sell them, think it has more to do with self interest than some pretentious principles based on a myopic view of the ufology community. I wonder if either of them have bothered approaching CUFOs? Let me guess. No. Why not? No TV cameras or potential payouts perhaps?
 
Last edited:

Frank Stalter

Paranormal Maven
I would agree, and thanks for the link. Unfortunately there's nothing of substance there. Slides alone aren't sufficient evidence, let alone claims of slides based on hearsay. And once more we get this kind of retort as to why we don't get to see the evidence:

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

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
If the people have the slides and they are legit, they want to get paid. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to get paid. But there's something wrong with withholding important evidence unless you get paid. It's holding truth for ransom, and when the truth is as potentially profound as alien visitation, withholding it for money is worthy of contempt. What's more, failing to recognize this and instead blaming the very people it matters the most to speaks to this person's character, and leads me to question the authenticity of the claim more than I otherwise would.
 
Last edited:

Frank Stalter

Paranormal Maven
There's nothing wrong with wanting to get paid. But there's something wrong with withholding important evidence unless you get paid. It's holding truth for ransom, and when the truth is as potentially profound as alien visitation, withholding it for money is worthy of contempt.

If I found them in my attic and thought there was a good chance they were legit, I would want to get paid. You could hold me in as much contempt as you like. I might cry about that and blow my nose with a $100 bill. It's a world of financial realities, for better or worse. If that's the hold up, and I don't have any inside dope on the matter because I haven't asked, it would not surprise me in the least.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
If I found them in my attic and thought there was a good chance they were legit, I would want to get paid. You could hold me in as much contempt as you like. I might cry about that and blow my nose with a $100 bill. It's a world of financial realities, for better or worse. If that's the hold up, and I don't have any inside dope on the matter because I haven't asked, it would not surprise me in the least.
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 ( not necessarily copy freely ). Beyond that, if I were offered money to sell them, 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 licensing reproduction rights and entertain 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.
 
Last edited:
Top