UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 23

Re: Brad Sparks' 'Forthcoming' Roswell Revelations?

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:26:08 +0000
Archived: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:34:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Brad Sparks' 'Forthcoming' Roswell Revelations?

>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:37:49 EDT
>Subject: Re: Brad Sparks' 'Forthcoming' Roswell Revelations?

>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:43:31 +0000
>>Subject: Re: Brad Sparks' 'Forthcoming' Roswell Revelations?

>>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 22:19:31 EDT
>>>Subject: Re: Brad Sparks' 'Forthcoming' Roswell Revelations?

>>>>From: Anthony Bragalia <envcol.nul>
>>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>>Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:01:28 -0400
>>>>Subject: Brad Sparks 'Forthcoming' Roswell Revelations?

>>>>Brad Sparks MUFON Symposium Proceedings paper on MJ-12
>>>>hints at tantalizing and potentially very valuable new Roswell
>>>>information. He is very brief in these revelations, which could
>>>>easily go unnoticed without careful reading. Perhaps Brad may
>>>>speak more directly to them here. To my knowledge this
>>>>information has never been mentioned or published by any other

>>>I think that is correct, no other researcher has ever mentioned
>>>or published anything like this. The skeptics will not tolerate
>>>anything but a Mogul balloon. Roswell proponents will not
>>>tolerate anything less than alien bodies and crashed spaceship.
>>>Even something like "possibly extraterrestrial" is not good
>>>enough for them. It can be right in front of their eyes and they
>>>cannot see it.

>>>Anything in between a Mogul balloon and an ET spacecraft is
>>>completely invisible to skeptics and advocates alike, they
>>>cannot see any evidence that falls in between even if they
>>>should happen to come across it (as a few have), they will not
>>>look for such evidence, and with virtually no exceptions they
>>>will not help anyone else (such as me) look for such "in
>>>between" evidence.

>>These gratuitous insulting characterizations of other
>>researchers are so much egocentric nonsense, Brad. You throw out
>>more hints and teases than a...well, choose your own analogy.

>I just answered someone's questions so you don't need to butt in
>if you don't like the answers.

>I suggest that the Roswell methodology of the past 30 years has
>led absolutely nowhere but to dead-ends and you go ballistic
>with name-calling about so-called "insulting" and "egocentric
>nonsense." If you have a better Roswell investigative
>methodology that doesn't lead to dead-ends let's hear it Dick
>and leave the snide ad hominems out of it.

What is more ad hominem than your disparaging remarks about
other Roswell researchers? In fact, I criticized your
methodology which consists of constant hints about special
knowledge and unsupported assertions, plus the strong suggestion
that you and only you know how to winnow out the truth about
Roswell. Listers can see that for themselves above.

>These are facts which you are calling "insulting" and
>"egocentric nonsense" and which has taken me 6 years to overcome
>- see that part of my post about how the refusal to see anything
>in between a Mogul balloon and an ET spaceship also results in
>refusal to help anyone dig up evidence that may _seem_ to fall
>in between Mogul and ET (as say with me the past 6 years when no
>one previously would help).

Just what lies between a Mogul balloon and an ET spacehsip,
Brad? That is the question.

>>First you produce some evidence, then we look at it, then we
>>decide how meaningful it is and how to interpret it. Only Brad
>>Sparks is open-minded and only Brad Sparks has the correct road
>>to truth?

>Only Dick Hall is "open-minded" and has "the correct road to
>truth"? Where has it led us Dick with Roswell the past 30 years?
>If you are so "open-minded" then why can't you comprehend Karl
>Pflock's middle option, a Roswell extraterrestrial "anomaly" in
>between Mogul and ET?

I said "we," Brad. It's known as colleagues and peer review. And
just what the hell are you talking about here? ET but not ET?
What anomaly? What is your superior hypothesis than which the
rest of us are a bunch of blind dummies?

>No I'm sorry but it is a _fact_ that Roswell investigations to
>date are a dead-end. Prove me wrong with a slew of leads
>actually leading somewhere besides Roswell, New Mexico. In the
>extremely rare instance of an air bus-driver who purportedly
>transported a national secret and of course was told all about
>it even though just a transport pilot - got to peek under the
>tarp and all that typical lying Roswell bulls-t I'm so sick of
>reading - even in those few rare instances they lead to dead-
>ends, too.

I would say that the Carey-Schmitt book shows substantial
progress, leading us strongly in the direction of an ET
spacecraft crash. (Note: I did not say proof, and I sincerely
doubt that you have any proof of anything either.) Pursuing all
the witnesses and all the evidence has not resulted in a dead-

>How many years do you get to keep making the same mistake over
>and over again using the same fruitless Roswell methodology
>before someone blows the whistle and says "Hey! This isn't
>working people!"

Until the year that you show us a superior hypothesis.

>And no Dick I won't "produce some evidence" to compromise the
>ongoing investigation - which has taken me 6 years to get under
>way because of the hardened attitudes of those who cannot
>tolerate anything in between a full-fledged ET spaceship with
>alien bodies and a Mogul balloon. I have had only a few months
>finally getting the assistance I've needed. You've had 30 years.

Until you do provide some evidence you shouldn't expect to be
taken seriously. And there you go agin, repeating your mantra
over and over about all of us being intolerant, blind to
alternatives, not open to new evidence. Once again, show us the
evidence. Elaborate your hypothesis. Then it will be peer
reviewed. Authoritative pronouncements without producting the
evidence and disparagement of colleagues is not science.

 - Dick

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast