UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 24

Re: Brad Sparks' 'Forthcoming' Roswell Revelations?

From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 22:53:52 EDT
Archived: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:17:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Brad Sparks' 'Forthcoming' Roswell Revelations?

>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:26:08 +0000
>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?

You resorted to the name-calling, Dick, not I. You are the one
calling my citicism "insulting ... egocentric nonsense." You
apparently cannot stand criticism of failed methodologies such
as the Roswell investigations that have yielded nothing but
dead-ends after 30 years.

You apparently are happy to read about 100 more anecdotal
accounts of Roswell that are exactly like the first 100 Roswell
accounts in the 1980's, and any slightly different or 'new' data
still does not result in anything but a dead-end, no documents,
no physical evidence, no uncovering of the repository holding
the alleged alien ship and pickled crew members. I am not
satisfied with such disappointing results and am surprised that
you would be.

>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.

This is pure disengenuousness. You know perfectly well that my
Roswell methodology involves searching for US Government policy
response to Roswell, and that no one else is pursuing it. It's
'special' (meaning unique to me) because no one else wants to do
anything but look around the town of Roswell for another
'witness' to ET bodies and spacecraft, and evidently cannot
conceive of there being anything else to do or any other way of
doing it.

You never discuss that fact or the methodology involved, as
apparently you are more interested in sniping, personal attacks
on my efforts to exercise due caution in protecting my ongoing

>>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.

Why don't you read ahead a few paragraphs first before asking
questions that are answered further on? Surely you read the
whole post first then went back and replied? I cited Karl Pflock
but you ignored that completely here and below.

Another reason Roswell methodology has been such a failure is
the failure to do one's homework first or to have a sense of
history, a history of the UFO field and of the surrounding
world. Instead world events all happen in a Roswell UFO vacuum.
All we get is an obligatory reference here or there to the "Cold
War", and then the Roswell researcher's unhappy duty is

Forget about trying to place the Roswell event in the broader
context of US national and global history - and I don't mean
those BS sociological hogwash essays either, but a meaningful
context for national policymakers' actions and policies on
Roswell if a major ET event actually happened.

Again the late Karl Pflock, a former policymaker himself as an
Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense, explained all this, in
his 2001 book, but reached a skeptical conclusion. Still his
policy reasoning is sound and yields startling results, as I
discovered before I read the book, when I was not even looking
for it in 2000, and again afterward.

For another example, Roswell researchers seem to violate Hynek's
multiple-witness rule with impunity, and they make no reference.
They simply are unaware of it because they haven't done their
homework on basic principles of UFO research. Single witness
cases are not favored under Hynek's rules because the
possibility of hoax and strange personal motives can be
unacceptably high, and they are greatly reduced by insisting on
at least 2 witnesses.

Not even one person observed a spaceship impact the ground in
the Roswell incident. No two people at exactly the same location
report the same thing about ET ship or bodies. At best you have
several people reporting variant descriptions of the Brazel
Debris Field, variant descriptions of its linear dimensions or
area, variant descriptions of the amount and nature of the
debris, variant accounts of how long the material had been out
there (June 14? early July?), variant accounts who took what
debris and when, etc.

No one asks if the rule should be that witness accounts that
fail to meet certain minimum criteria (such as Hynek's multiple-
witness rule) will be discarded right from the outset. Instead
the de factor rule of Roswell investigation is 'accept
everything unless it is absolutely proven to be false.' Yet
Hynek also insisted that the UFO investigator has the burden of
eliminating all conventional investigations first, by
technically or scientifically competent investigation, before
accepting a case as a 'UFO'.

>>>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 where is the so-called "peer review" of any of the Roswell
books published to date? Where is the "peer review" criticism of
the Roswell methodology of interviewing more and more Roswell
base personnel and townspeople with the interviewing undertaken
to what end??

What is the purpose of doing more of the same that hasn't worked
in 30 years? Is there a learning curve here at all? Doesn't 30
years of failure, 30 years of dead-ends tell us something?
Something like 'We're doing this all wrong let's go back to the
drawingboard!' No one is doing that, so that doesn't say much
about the Roswell "peer review" process.

>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?

Surely you read Karl Pflock's Roswell In Perspective (1994). ET
ship crashes into Mogul balloon, but leaves no crashed ship or
bodies. Maybe some physical evidence, maybe not. The evidence
might be ambiguous to government investigators, or it might not.
_All_ options need to be _investigated_, not just the tiresome
stories of the alien bodies under the tarp. And that is just one
of many possible alternatives in between the Roswll advocates'
rigid fixation on 'alien ship and bodies or else nothing' and
the debunker-skeptics' Mogul balloon.

Many times when I tell people it may be an ambiguous situation
or only an anomaly in the desert, just as soon as they hear
nothing about 'alien bodies or craft' they lose all interest.
This has happened many times in the past 6 years or so. I have
the right to criticize that kind of myopic response and how it
has delayed things.

>>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-

Oh really, no dead-end? Where is the physical evidence then?
Where are the ET ship and bodies stored? Where are the documents
and lab reports on it all? Did Carey-Schmitt find any such
things? All they have is more of the same kind of anecdotes
published back in 1980. It still stops cold in Roswell, New
Mexico, the graveyard of investigative leads. Exactly where the
AF wants it to dead-end. You are happy with that??

As if Roswell consists entirely of stories, nothing else, and
Roswell investigation consists of nothing more than uncovering
the US Government's investigations and coverup of Roswell. Like
the US Government's entire interest in Roswell begins and ends
with only investigating it, as if to satisfy some personal
curiosity, and the USG didn't really take it seriously enough or
believe in it enough to formulate a secret national policy of
response to the ET event of monumental historic importance that
supposedly occurred.

That sounds pretty short-sighted for an investigative
methodology but it accounts for why Roswell investigations to
date can uncover nothing more than what happened at Roswell, New
Mexico. Nothing more than what the USG investigated at Roswell.
A cold and dead trail.

A few feeble attempts to follow some kind of evidence 'trail' on
a few flights elsewhere also lead to absolutely dead dead-ends.
And as I say I don't believe those kinds of hearsay war-story
tall tales anyway. They sound like convenient stories planted
because they tell Roswell researchers exactly what they want to
hear and calculated to lead to dead-ends, it keeps Roswell
researchers stuck in Roswell forever.

And you then come along and defend this hopeless and futile
practice of Roswell investigators continuing to do as they have
always done despite its complete failure in 30 years to break
through the coverup or to turn up radically new areas beyond
what Moore and Friedman scoped out in 1979-80.

Few dare to question the validity of soliciting anecdotal
stories often with leading questions 30-60 years after the fact
for fear of incurring wrath - like you've unleashed on me for my
rather mild criticism of methodology. Any criticism of Roswell
and you go ballistic and attack the messenger for delivering the
unhappy message, instead of dealing with the issue of the wrong
approach that hasn't worked.

The few who do question 30-60-year-old stories don't pursue
or even ask if there is a better way. You don't.

>>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.

I wasn't talking about a Roswell "hypothesis". I was talking
about Roswell investigative methodology. You would rather just
demand that everything be handed to you on a silver platter or
you won't budge. You have made it clear that you won't lift a
finger to help and haven't in the last 6 years, thus proving my
original point which you jumped on, which is that rigid
insistence on doing it your way (the same way of all Roswell
investigators) results in no real progress, no help for other
strategies, and no ability even to see evidence that doesn't
quite fit this reigning Roswell paradigm which will tolerate
nothing less than ET bodies and spacecraft or it is pointedly
not the hell interested!

>>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.

Until you or the Roswell investigators produce something
different after 30 years of total failure to get past dead-ends
then you and they shouldn't be taken seriously. Here again you
belittle what you don't know and do your best to stymie the
effort with flak. As usual you expect me to foolishly blab
everything on UFO UpDates, compromising the ongoing

>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.

You've proven your absolute intolerance of even the slightest
criticism of the failed Roswell approach of the past 30 years
right here in this post. And you've shown how you can weasel-
word things to obfuscate the real issue, such as above where
again you posture that it is all about what "new evidence"
someone else has to bring to _your_ attention instead of the
real issue of you and Roswell investigators seeking out new
methods. Surely you can tell the difference between evidence and
methodology of gathering evidence. Two different things.
Ontology and epistemology.

>Once again, show us the
>evidence. Elaborate your hypothesis. Then it will be peer

You mean like Carey-Schmitt's book was 'peer reviewed' before
publication, a book you approved of here in this post? Who did
that 'peer review' and where are their 'reviews'?

>Authoritative pronouncements without producting the
>evidence and disparagement of colleagues is not science.

Pursuing a failed methodology year after year is what is not
science. You are the one who resorted to name-calling by calling
my mild criticism of Roswellology "insulting... egocentric
nonsense." I simply explained why I got little or no co-operation
from either the skeptics or the Roswell proponents - they are
not about to help undermine their pet theories and have made
that clear over the past 6 years in which I sought out
assistance. Those are the facts, and they explain the 6 years of
delay in not getting the vital assistance I needed on this


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