Brandon Fugal

But is either interested in such a weird, hard to categorize subject? The ranch is a giant mixed bag of ill-defined, marginally documented phenomena, laced with local mythology & misinformation. The collected evidence defies reason. Where does a mainstream broadcaster even start?

Where do they start? They start where I did: as an open-minded skeptic, focused on the facts and observational science.

Well, you weren't just a little open minded. You must have been fairly convinced to have bought the property. You're right to think most broadcast entities won't be that open. But do you need them?

I was convinced that there were enough reports/claims by enough people to warrant a disciplined scientific investigation/study of the property. I don’t need any broadcast entities. It would have served me much better financially & professionally to avoid this.

I read the article @mjbanias wrote where it was briefly explained how you acquired the property. But one thing missing is the reason Bigelow was interested in selling it. Surely a billionaire would be able to keep a ranch in Utah as a pet project in case the phenomenon came back?

Good question. Based on my experience, Bigelow was NOT interested in selling it. This was more of a transfer of stewardship...

This is a fascinating statement among the many you made. If it wasn't Bigelow creating a "transfer of stewardship," then who? Could Bigelow not have held on to the property if he had wanted to? Was there a legal issue, maybe? A liability claim? Or an issue with the title?

The ranch was bought by NIDS, so maybe it was not solely under Bigelow's control? Was it their board who voted to get rid of the property, or was the land a liquidated asset when NIDS folded?