By Anthony Bragalia
UFO Iconoclast(s)
1-5-10
Though I enjoyed reading Dennis Balthaser's critique of my recent Foster Ranch/Roswell article, I am left wondering precisely what point he is trying to make. Though it goes on paragraph after paragraph, I still do not know it's purpose.UFO Iconoclast(s)
1-5-10
Mr. Balthaser apparently wishes to advise readers that he made the find of the BLM document on the Foster Ranch development restrictions (and its mention of an alleged UFO crash at the site near Roswell) a decade ago. This is very interesting, however I had no prior knowledge of this. My discovery of the document was independent of this and was resultant from an examination of BLM records to see if the Foster's were ever favored with property rights in the time period after the Roswell crash of July 1947. There are in fact transfers to the Fosters whose details remain unclear in examining BLM online records.
And the fact remains that subsurface and rights-of-way development is forbidden on that allotment. This is not a joke or "throw away" line within the BLM document, and the restriction remains in force to this day.
This is a public document -available to all to read- so I am entirely uncertain what Mr. Balthaser means by saying that I am implying that there is a "coverup" of the document. Though the significance of the document is open to interpretation, he admits that the BLM sees the site as historically significant, and therefore they wish to preserve its integrity. That is precisely my point. And no matter what Mr. Balthaser is trying to imply, development involving drilling for oil, gas or minerals is forbidden on the allotment- as is the installation of roadways, powerlines or similar land transgressions. This is a binding determination by the federal government, not an insiders's spoof or some individual's offhand remark.
Additionally, Mr. Balthaser ignores the greater part of my Foster Ranch article. Foster Great Grandson Cody Derek -as well as Foster daughter Joann Purdie- both believe that their family knew that the crashed object was extraterrestrial in nature. Derek believes that JB Foster and HS Foster may have been granted land rights in exchange for their silence. He relates telling testimony from his family about the event that leads him to the conclusion that a piloted flying saucer did crash on family land. JB Foster's daughter Joann believes that her father was threatened and intimidated by the government to keep his silence. She too feels that the Foster Ranch story has never been fully told and that the role her father and uncle played in the saga was significant.
.png)
As I mentioned to Tony via email, I wonder if the land was set aside simply because it was thought to possibly have some value towards future tourism or historical interest in the site?
ReplyDeleteWhile neither Tony nor Mr. Balthaser have posted the document in full, the heading "Recreation" (not mentioned in Mr. Bragalia story) seems to support my guess.
It would make sense to me that someone might set aside the land if they were thinking it might have some future use as a historical (even if fictionally historical as with the Roswell case) or tourism spot.
In looking over Tony's original piece, I am once again amused how he manages to take an interesting piece of information and, through unsupported supposition, inflate its value well beyond what any objective conclusion would allow. He does this in every single thing I have ever read by him and this tendency to oversell is a fatal flaw in any aspirations he may have to be taken seriously.
Except in this field, of course.
While I am complaining, let me say that the document excerpt scans accompanying the Balthaser piece are perhaps the smallest and worst scans ever (!), almost completely unreadable and practically worthless. In this day and age, a readable scan of the entire page (or preferably the entire document) probably won't overload the internet! :)
Lance