PDA

View Full Version : The Roswell Slides



Lee
09-27-2013, 12:12 AM
According to rumors currently circulating the internet, key Roswell researchers may be in possession of a series of slides depicting cadavers recovered by the US military during the 1947 era. Below is an excerpt from the most recent article on this topic:


The Rumored “New Roswell Evidence” by Anonymous

We have received the following account of what Kevin Randle’s Dream Team has discovered, and which has been rumored for a while here and elsewhere.






The sender is a credible, reliable source, but that said, I can’t vouch for all that is indicated but do know that some of it is what I’ve heard also.






I’ve emended [sic] where needed:






Kevin Randle’s sidekicks heard that a woman, while handling an estate deal in Texas, came across some Kodachrome slides stashed in the lid of an old trunk at the home of the deceased woman whose estate she was closing.






Passing the slides on to her brother, a businessman in Chicago, got the attention of Tom Carey of the Roswell Dream Team.







Mr. Carey notified his fellow team-members and they set out to determine if what the slides showed were in fact what they assumed them to be: bodies lying on gurneys, covered midway by army blankets, from the Roswell area in
1947.







The bodies were not quite human but not quite unearthly either ..."

Read full article: http://ufocon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-rumored-new-roswell-evidence-by.html?showComment=1380051703117

Lee
09-27-2013, 06:24 PM
Here is an example of what 1940s era Kodachrome slides might actually look like:

http://i40.tinypic.com/qxuexk.jpg

It seems that the cardboard borders vary by decade if not more frequently, so it should be quite easy to determine a rough age for these slides. No doubt experts at Kodak can be more precise, although that may require a sample and possible damage.

Lee
09-27-2013, 07:19 PM
Message removed as per third party request.

CasperParks
09-27-2013, 08:42 PM
At what point does something become declassified? There was a time frame for it. Freedom of Information Act.

If that event is ongoing after 50 years, does it fall under that rule or does Freedom of Information Act kick-in?

Tom having signed a non-discloser agreement does put him in a bind. It is a difficult dilemma.

calikid
09-27-2013, 09:33 PM
At what point does something become declassified? There was a time frame for it. Freedom of Information Act.

If that event is ongoing after 50 years, does it fall under that rule or does Freedom of Information Act kick-in?

Tom having signed a non-discloser agreement does put him in a bind. It is a difficult dilemma.

I seem to recall President Clinton signed a law stating "Classified" has an expiration date.
At the end of a certain period of time (50 years?) either an item must be reclassified, or it is automatically released to the public.
Guessing SOME items are exempt... like nuke designs, etc.

Garuda
09-29-2013, 07:54 PM
Anthony Bragalia posted another article on this:

http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2013/09/authentic-alien-images-from-roswell.html

He confirms that there are two slides, in color, which have been shown to be genuine Kodak slides from that time, which show what appears to be a small humanoid alien.

The investigation is ongoing.

Read the article for more information.

norenrad
09-29-2013, 10:51 PM
I have access to alien fingerprints, but no one is aloud to see them. Maybe they'll trade for them?

Garuda
09-30-2013, 05:50 PM
About a week ago, AMMACH published this video which also is relevant to the Roswell case:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOQAPWFMOXc

It's information from an English lady, Jo Walters, about her meeting with Nath. Twining Jnr, and his disclosure to her about his father's death bed confession, which she kept secret for 15 years.

Lee
10-01-2013, 09:59 AM
Nick Redfern also has an article describing his (limited) involvement in this story:

http://ufocon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-roswell-slides-my-perspective-by.html?m=1

Interesting he provides the name of a Geologist who is presumably the photographer, a gentleman named "Bernard Ray".

majicbar
10-01-2013, 10:50 AM
Nick Redfern also has an article describing his (limited) involvement in this story:

http://ufocon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-roswell-slides-my-perspective-by.html?m=1

Interesting he provides the name of a Geologist who is presumably the photographer, a gentleman named "Bernard Ray".The story fits the site of the crash of the third element of the Roswell crash, the crash at the "Plains of San Agustin". In that story an Archeologist stumbles on the site with a summer field class, photographs and gets to inspecting the craft and occupants before the Army shows up and takes control of the site.

Unexplained-mysteries did an investigation of the claims, the video link in the story is broken because of copyright issues, but it should be available somewhere.

majicbar
10-01-2013, 10:57 AM
The story fits the site of the crash of the third element of the Roswell crash, the crash at the "Plains of San Agustin". In that story an Archeologist stumbles on the site with a summer field class, photographs and gets to inspecting the craft and occupants before the Army shows up and takes control of the site.

Unexplained-mysteries did an investigation of the claims, the video link in the story is broken because of copyright issues, but it should be available somewhere.Also see on this site the link:

http://www.theoutpostforum.com/tof/showthread.php?626-Chuck-Wade-UFO-Crash-Plains-of-San-Augustin-N-M-July-2-1947-what-he-found

calikid
10-01-2013, 01:46 PM
The story fits the site of the crash of the third element of the Roswell crash, the crash at the "Plains of San Agustin". In that story an Archeologist stumbles on the site with a summer field class, photographs and gets to inspecting the craft and occupants before the Army shows up and takes control of the site.

Unexplained-mysteries did an investigation of the claims, the video link in the story is broken because of copyright issues, but it should be available somewhere.



Also see on this site the link:

http://www.theoutpostforum.com/tof/showthread.php?626-Chuck-Wade-UFO-Crash-Plains-of-San-Augustin-N-M-July-2-1947-what-he-found

Now that you mention it, think I own that show/episode on DVD. Have to watch again to see if any reference to photos is made.

Lee
10-01-2013, 01:55 PM
It is a similar story, yes. In this case though we are told that Mr Bernard A. Ray was a Petroluem Geologist with very high level connections, whether he stumbled onto the scene, or was invited, is not quite clear at the moment.

tl2
10-02-2013, 01:40 PM
http://ufocon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/authentic-alien-images-from-roswell.html

hmmmmm

calikid
10-03-2013, 07:51 AM
My DVD set, Unsolved Mysteries, referenced an engineer from the soil conservation service named Barney Barnett of Soccoro New Mexico (died 1969) discovered 2nd Roswell crash site with 4 bodies. Joined by a group of archeology students. Military arrived shortly and moved them out. No mention of camera/photos.

Lee
10-07-2013, 02:07 AM
Don Ecker of Dark Matters Radio has a recent interview with Kevin Randle. The slides are featured heavily and the accusations from Paul Kimble are addressed. Well worth a listen:

http://www.dqrm.com/shows/DMR/2013/wk40/dmr-40-t.mp3

Lee
10-09-2013, 08:48 PM
Here is an excellent guide for dating Kodachrome slides:

http://www.historicphotoarchive.com/f2/kodachrome.html

According to the info above, a slide from the 1940s should be very easy to verify from a single glance. Between 1939 and 1949 Kodak used a simple cardboard mount with a red border and the word "Kodachrome" across the top and reversed across the bottom. After that time they changed the words to "Kodachrome Transparency".

Even more significant is the fact that before 1954 Kodak were the only company developing these slides, given that a slide is not a negative but a transparency, it should be possible to accurately and precisely date these particular slides.

Lee
10-09-2013, 09:18 PM
Here is an easy visual reference guide:

http://i44.tinypic.com/2dqrlgk.jpg

Source: http://trainutz.com/rcMOUNT.shtml

Doc
10-19-2013, 11:21 PM
People are sending me "Roswell Slide" links, mostly the same ones posted here. I am including these two in order to keep the record relatively complete and for possible future reference. There is no startling new information in these, just slightly different takes on the information with some variance in the details:

1) http://www.unknowncountry.com/out-there/new-roswell-evidence-rumor-true


New Roswell Evidence? The Rumor is true.



Friday, September 27, 2013
There have been rumors floating around among UFO investigators for some time that there is some new Roswell evidence. Unknowncountry has confirmed that the substance of the report in the blog linked here is correct, with one exception: CNN has not been contacted about this material. There is reason to hope that this new evidence will provide strong corroboration of the claims made by other Roswell witnesses, and will finally reveal the actual appearance of the bodies that were recovered from the crash.


Story Source:
http://ufocon.blogspot.ca/2013/09/the-rumored-new-roswell-evidence-by.html



Read the original source: http://www.unknowncountry.com/out-there/new-roswell-evidence-rumor-true#ixzz2iCkUlCqj



2) http://ufocon.blogspot.ca/2013/09/the-rumored-new-roswell-evidence-by.html

The UFO Iconoclast(s) (http://ufocon.blogspot.ca/)


Tuesday, September 24, 2013

The Rumored “New Roswell Evidence” by Anonymous



(The article at this link is copyrighted. Read at the link and do notice the source.)

Lee
11-11-2013, 11:50 AM
Anthony Bragalia has just posted a new article on this topic, additional information has been provided including the name of the Geologist - who it is presumed took the pictures - the name of his wife, who recently passed away and left the box of slides within her estate. According to the article these potentialy earth shattering images will soon be released to the public.

http://ufocon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/do-slides-from-1947-show-roswell.html?m=1

(Note: This article contains a strong copyright, please do not repost without permission. )

calikid
11-11-2013, 01:29 PM
Anthony Bragalia has just posted a new article on this topic, additional information has been provided including the name of the Geologist - who it is presumed took the pictures - the name of his wife, who recently passed away and left the box of slides within her estate. According to the article these potentialy earth shattering images will soon be released to the public.

http://ufocon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/do-slides-from-1947-show-roswell.html?m=1

(Note: This article contains a strong copyright, please do not repost without permission. )

@Lee. Thanks for the link.
Nice reply/comments you posted up on their website.

Lee
11-12-2013, 12:57 AM
Thanks, Cali! Some of the comments on there are very cynical and negative in their scepticism.

In the interest of independent verification, I found the following:

Articles from Bernerd A. Ray:

1.Developments in West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico in 1942
http://archives.datapages.com/data/bulletns/1938-43/data/pg/0027/0006/0700/0747.htm?q=%2BauthorStrip%3Abernerd+authorStrip%3A ray

2. West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico Development in 1941: ABSTRACT
http://archives.datapages.com/data/bulletns/1938-43/data/pg/0026/0005/0900/0912.htm?q=%2BauthorStrip%3Abernerd+authorStrip%3A ray

Obituary for Mrs Hilda Blair Ray, 14th June, 1989: (unfortunately, this link does not contain the actual Obituary just a reference).
http://www.genealogybuff.com/ucd/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/195

Also several references for Mrs Hilda Blair Ray and her spouse Bernerd A. Ray:
http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gl=allgs&gsfn=Hilda%20Blair&gsln=Ray&gss=seo&ghc=20

So, we can at least say with confidence that the alleged photographer and his wife were indeed real people, that Bernerd Ray may well have been in the New Mexico area in 1947 and that they left an estate without any heirs.

Combine this with the existance of dateable kodachrome slides and this story becomes more plausible by the day. The question now is, when will we see these images and what exactly do they depict? With luck, time will tell.

Lee
11-12-2013, 01:36 AM
From the SOM1-01:

http://i40.tinypic.com/i5dkds.jpg

Could this be the entity type depicted in the kodachrome slides...?

CasperParks
11-12-2013, 05:39 AM
From the SOM1-01:

http://i40.tinypic.com/i5dkds.jpg

Could this be the entity type depicted in the kodachrome slides...?

Perhaps a Grey out of uniform / protective body wear.

Loengard
11-12-2013, 07:35 PM
From the SOM1-01:

http://i40.tinypic.com/i5dkds.jpg

Could this be the entity type depicted in the kodachrome slides...?


Maybe the same beings like this one, on this photo:

1099

Source of the photo is: http://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/history-roswell-incident2.htm


Note: But this is not the Marina Popowich Puppet from Montreal, Kanada - Photos: http://www.universonline.it/_misteri/articoli_u/articoli/00_03_17.php and http://www.slimeworld.org/strange/graphics/alien21.jpg

Its similar but look at the differences at the mouth and the right eye (on "my" the eye on the left side) It seems as if were the eye damaged on "my" photo.

Lee
11-12-2013, 10:52 PM
Perhaps a Grey out of uniform / protective body wear.
Actually if you read the SOM1-01 there are two distinct EBE types described. EBE-2 is a classic grey whereas the type above is more consistant with Roswell witness testimony.

Lee
11-12-2013, 11:01 PM
Maybe the same beings like this one, on this photo:

1099

Source of the photo is: http://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/history-roswell-incident2.htm


Note: But this is not the Marina Popowich Puppet from Montreal, Kanada - Photos: http://www.universonline.it/_misteri/articoli_u/articoli/00_03_17.php and http://www.slimeworld.org/strange/graphics/alien21.jpg

Its similar but look at the differences at the mouth and the right eye (on "my" the eye on the left side) It seems as if were the eye damaged on "my" photo.
Welcome to the forum, Loengard!

I don't know much about the picture you posted, but I agree that it is consistant with the description from SOM1-01. It does also look different from the puppet you mention, most noticeably the mouth.

majicbar
11-12-2013, 11:15 PM
Actually if you read the SOM1-01 there are two distinct EBE types described. EBE-2 is a classic grey whereas the type above is more consistant with Roswell witness testimony.Don't forget that SOM-1 is dated April of 1954. Two primary types in 1954 were likely supplanted by a broader range of alien types, but from what I recall of close encounter type 4 reports these two seem to be those most commonly encountered up though today. Given the stress of witnesses in such encounters, we might be lumping together distinctly separate species, and even then some of them may be androids of various types.

Lee
11-12-2013, 11:42 PM
Don't forget that SOM-1 is dated April of 1954. Two primary types in 1954 were likely supplanted by a broader range of alien types, but from what I recall of close encounter type 4 reports these two seem to be those most commonly encountered up though today. Given the stress of witnesses in such encounters, we might be lumping together distinctly separate species, and even then some of them may be androids of various types.
I wouldn't disagree, just pointing out to Casper that there are two EBE types in the SOM in case he hadn't read it.

Any thoughts on the slides? Or at least the back story as we haven't seen them yet.

Doc
11-13-2013, 04:43 AM
Nice work, Lee!

Majicbar, I think you are correct that the 1954 typology was probably superseded by newer information, I've always had a sense that the 1954 information might be closer to the truth than later information that has been distorted or diluted by some disinformation agenda. A lot of different bits of information go into that "sense" and I freely admit it is nothing more than informed speculation on my part.

Doc
11-13-2013, 04:47 AM
Maybe the same beings like this one, on this photo:

1099

Source of the photo is: http://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/history-roswell-incident2.htm


Note: But this is not the Marina Popowich Puppet from Montreal, Kanada - Photos: http://www.universonline.it/_misteri/articoli_u/articoli/00_03_17.php and http://www.slimeworld.org/strange/graphics/alien21.jpg

Its similar but look at the differences at the mouth and the right eye (on "my" the eye on the left side) It seems as if were the eye damaged on "my" photo.

Welcome to the OutPost, Loengard.

CasperParks
11-13-2013, 05:45 AM
Actually if you read the SOM1-01 there are two distinct EBE types described. EBE-2 is a classic grey whereas the type above is more consistant with Roswell witness testimony.

I haven't read it in its entirety, having only read what was posted in the thread. I just did a search engine on SOM1-01, and will glimpse it over. Seems very familiar. It was rumored there are three types of grey alien races.

Doc
11-13-2013, 08:41 AM
Via email from Robert Morningstar, some related information including descriptions of the aliens from the same period:



Dr. Robert Wood and son, Ryan Wood, expound in detail on their books and research into the Majestic 12 Documents and the US Government's recovery of Alien UFO Craft at Cape Girardeaux, Missouri in 1941, a UFO off Catalina Island after "The Battle lof L.A." and the UFO Recovery at Roswell.


They go into great detail on the nature of the Grey Aliens and their physiology, as well as, secret government research into alien retro-viri, which the military viewed, given future research and development, as possibly "the ultimate weapon"

M*



lhttp:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=BftmIe4Wo3Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BftmIe4Wo3Y) (Preview)

CasperParks
11-15-2013, 09:26 PM
Via email from Robert Morningstar, some related information including descriptions of the aliens from the same period:

Dr. Robert Wood and son, Ryan Wood, expound in detail on their books and research into the Majestic 12 Documents and the US Government's recovery of Alien UFO Craft at Cape Girardeaux, Missouri in 1941, a UFO off Catalina Island after "The Battle lof L.A." and the UFO Recovery at Roswell.


They go into great detail on the nature of the Grey Aliens and their physiology, as well as, secret government research into alien retro-viri, which the military viewed, given future research and development, as possibly "the ultimate weapon"

M*

lhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BftmIe4Wo3Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BftmIe4Wo3Y)(Preview)

He has a great radio voice.

Doc
11-16-2013, 12:55 AM
He has a great radio voice.

Yes, he does. He also has those old-fashioned radio skills from the days when radio was the primary medium for live or recorded interviews. :o

Lee
11-21-2013, 01:52 PM
Anthony Bragalia wrote the following in response to questions under his recent article today:

"... And I am aware that two 1947 slides of a dead alien do not equate to tissue slides/samples or the actual cadaver itself. But given the confirmed authenticity and provenance of the slides- it is as close as we will ever come that kind of physical evidence.

Finally, it is enough to know that scientists, some team members and several outside the team, have seen and evaluated the slides. I am simply not going to name those names. It is not relevant to the story as next year you will all see the slides when revealed publicly.

AJB"

So it would seem that we won't be seeing these images this side of Christmas. On the plus side, plans are clearly progressing towards a public release.

Dragonfire
11-21-2013, 03:59 PM
Another....wait and see. Why does does this seem familiar?

Lee
01-20-2014, 10:12 AM
There is a new article on this topic at the UFO Iconoclast blog:

http://ufocon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-roswell-slides-or-aztec-slides.html?m=1

Nick Redfern also reveals some potentially important (if accurate) information in the comments section.

- The body was photographed in a building and not in a Tent or on a vehicle. Meaning the photograher did not stumble upon the recovery site.

- Earlier information claiming that the body's genital region was covered by a cloth is inaccurate. According to Nick (Or his source), the body is partially obscured by a sign which contains words that are difficult to decipher.

Lee
03-19-2014, 11:42 AM
Kevin Randle has posted a new article on his blog once again clarifying his involvement (or lack of) in the Roswell Slides investigation. He doesn't really add anything new to the story but the piece is worth reading and adding here for reference purposes.

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/the-roswell-slides-once-again.html?m=1

Pandora'sParadox
03-19-2014, 11:59 AM
...Do we really need more "unattainable" proof of Roswell? We know it happened...we know we took their tech...and we know we recovered some bodies. Even if you were to receive these photos, they would still be "debunked" as fakes and given no real validity.

If you were to bring a dead E.T., some parts of its craft, and a picture of its home world, "we" as a society would still want a living E.T., the full working craft, and some relatives to introduce themselves..."We" will never be satisfied with what we have, and will always want more. It's going to take some sort of cosmic emissary to show up on the white house lawn demanding "their" technology back, before we connect the dots.

Before you know it, we will have privatized disk crafts with outer limit armies. How long before going into orbit is just another trip to the mall? Interstellar plaza outlets with "out of this world" savings. Like fight club said, "When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks."

:nono:

Lee
03-19-2014, 01:46 PM
...Do we really need more "unattainable" proof of Roswell? We know it happened...we know we took their tech...and we know we recovered some bodies. Even if you were to receive these photos, they would still be "debunked" as fakes and given no real validity.

If you were to bring a dead E.T., some parts of its craft, and a picture of its home world, "we" as a society would still want a living E.T., the full working craft, and some relatives to introduce themselves..."We" will never be satisfied with what we have, and will always want more. It's going to take some sort of cosmic emissary to show up on the white house lawn demanding "their" technology back, before we connect the dots.

Before you know it, we will have privatized disk crafts with outer limit armies. How long before going into orbit is just another trip to the mall? Interstellar plaza outlets with "out of this world" savings. Like fight club said, "When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks."

:nono:
You might be right and I don't see these slides providing a smoking gun, their provenance has already been called into question, but I do remain hopeful that it might be possible to demostrate they are genuine slides from the 1940.

Beyond that, I really do want to see them for myself, compare them with witness testimony and documents. Maybe identify the location or the recently discussed sign. Who knows, they might just be the genuine article.

Pandora'sParadox
03-19-2014, 06:08 PM
You might be right and I don't see these slides providing a smoking gun, their provenance has already been called into question, but I do remain hopeful that it might be possible to demostrate they are genuine slides from the 1940.

Beyond that, I really do want to see them for myself, compare them with witness testimony and documents. Maybe identify the location or the recently discussed sign. Who knows, they might just be the genuine article.

They would be interesting to look through...Heck, I still can't come to terms that skinny bob was a fake. He was my last hope for something cool. LoL

Lee
07-13-2014, 03:22 PM
There have been a few developments to this story over the past few days. Several new articles have been posted at The UFO Iconoclast blog, along with some very interesting comments. First up, a short piece from blog owner Rich Reynolds which suggests that there may be legal issues regarding ownership of the slides:

"The Roswell slides may not see the light of day… " - http://ufocon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/the-roswell-slides-may-not-see-light-of.html

This article generated a very important post from Larry (Surname unknown at this time), who has viewed the slides and provides a detailed description:

"Rich, FWIW:

Early in March, 2014, I met with the owner of the slides, viewed them, and talked to him about his plans. (Actually, I viewed digital reproductions of the slides.) Here’s a brief status report.
The owner repeated the basic story as described in Anthony Bragalia’s article, with more specific detail, such as dates and locations. The owner affirmed that it is his intent to present the slides and their story to the public in a non-sensationialistic forum, after he has satisfied himself as to their authenticity. He feels he is nearing the end of that phase. At least one of the slides has had the cardboard sleeve sliced open to read the film edge code. The 2 subject photos appear to be a small subset of a large collection of photos of personal interest to Bernerd Ray and his wife. The larger collection of photos (perhaps 50 or more) appear to show places and events the couple visited in the time frame approximately 1945 to 1952. The owner is convinced that when analysis is complete, the slides will be shown to have originated sometime before 1949.

What do the slides show?

1. There are 2 photos, taken in an indoor setting.
2. The photos are of poor quality (focus, exposure) compared to virtually all the other photos in the same collection. For this reason, edge detection, contrast enhancement and other photoanalysis techniques are warranted and are being used.
3. The photos appear to have been taken about 4 or 5 feet from the humanoid, from a position slightly above it.
4. To my eye, the humanoid is lying on a clear glass shelf and is surrounded by either clear glass walls and/or a full glass enclosure. The enclosure appears to be more like a rectangular box than like a bottle.
5. In one of the photos, a woman is standing behind the glass case (visible from approximately the waist down). In the other photo a man is visible in the same location, leading to speculation that the man and the woman traded places and took turns taking pictures.
6. The humanoid is not immersed in a fluid; it appears to be open to the air (at least if the lid were off).
7. The glass shelf/ box that the humanoid is on/in appears to be supported on shelf brackets that are connected to vertical, metal supports. The vertical supports are perforated at regular intervals (nominally, 1 inch spacing) by drilled holes. The shelf arrangement gives the appearance of a laboratory apparatus rack.
8. The humanoid is lying on its back, with its head to the camera’s left and feet to the right.
9. There is some type of placard on the front of the glass case, with (currently undecipherable, out-of-focus) writing on it. (Shades of the Ramey memo!) It is my suspicion that this placard is the source of the idea that the genital area of the humanoid was deliberately covered up in order to escape the wrath of the censors when the slides were developed. I don’t think that is the case. From what I could see, the genital area was not visible to the camera due to the view angle of the camera. I suspect that the placard simply serves to identify the contents of the glass case.
10. The proportions of the humanoid appear to be slightly different than a “normal” human, but probably, no single dimension of the body is outside the range of naturally occurring sizes. The length of the head (crown to chin) is approximately the same length as the torso (neck to crotch). The arm length (shoulder to wrist) is approximately the length of the torso (i.e., the wrist joint is approximately aligned with the hip bone). The leg bones are long, compared to the arms.
11. Given that the body is about 3 feet long, if it is human, then it must be either a child or an adult with a developmental disorder. (Human Trisomy 17 has been suggested as a candidate.)
12. I could not see digits on either the hands or feet, and so could not count them.
13. The mouth is open and no teeth are visible.
14. The skin of the humanoid is smooth and appears to have shrunk taut against the bones (ribs, legs, arms, cranium). Whether this is due to natural effects of death (saponification, dessication, etc.) or is the result of some post-mortem treatment (embalming, freezing, etc.) is not clear.
15. The head appears to have been severed from the top of the spinal column and then replaced, lying at an unnatural angle relative to the torso.
16. There is nothing in the photo that would either definitively connect this to the Roswell event or definitively disconnect it. Any connection is coincidental (it appears to have been taken at about the right time)."

Anthony Bragalia also responded to the article and refuted claims that ownership of the slides was in dispute. He further posted his own article on the topic:

"ROSWELL, THE SLIDES AND THE TRUTH" - http://ufocon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/roswell-slides-and-truth-by-anthony_12.html

Garuda
08-13-2014, 05:41 PM
New article today: "The Roswell Slides Team is a bit too zealous and non-objective or scientific"

http://ufocon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/the-roswell-slides-team-is-bit-too.html

Lee
11-24-2014, 08:47 PM
There have been some interesting developments in the Roswell slides saga in the past few days, beginning with Tom Carey speaking at a University conference and revealing some new details about the slides.

Here is a video from Open Minds Productions: (begins at 4:44)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5rYX9x8IsI#t=311

In a new twist to the tale, a poster at the UFO Conjecture(s) blog (formerly UFO Iconoclasts) has made some extraordinary claims regarding email and telephone hacking. Along with claims that a three letter agency has offered money for cooperation.

We have yet to hear from Tom Carey regarding these allegations and will contact him shortly. In the mean time again here is a link to the full article along with key excerpts:


"The 'hacking' thing involved Tony Bragalia, Rich Reynolds, Nick Redfern and myself," Ross wrote.

"Based on the resources required to do what I think they were doing; intercepting our comms as opposed to just 'hacking' and just the way things transpired I'm of the opinion this was a three letter agency,"

"The first response I received to a communication I had initiated was a list of emails which were mostly discussions about the slides, but there was some unrelated material there (which I discarded). This was obviously the hacker wanting to let me know the extent of the surveillance. There was a lot of smoke and mirrors, but overall the story was that these slides were of interest to certain three letter agencies. There were offers of money, a sit down meeting with someone fully briefed in what the government really knows about UFOs, and even the opportunity to see for real what the slides supposedly depict. All these offers were related to my acting as a conduit to arrange a meeting between the people handling the slides and the party/parties doing the 'hacking'. This wasn't something I was in a position to set up not being in contact with or on good terms with the people involved."

Read the full article at: http://ufotrail.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/roswell-slides-saga-involved-email.html

According to comments at UFO Conjecture(s) poster Ross Evans received a huge batch of emails from the alleged hacker, including messages from all of the researchers involved, and the slides owner. He is now apparently privy to previously undisclosed information, such as the possible existence of a first hand witness.

For more info see : http://ufocon.blogspot.co.uk/

Lee
11-26-2014, 08:50 PM
Anthony Bragalia has now posted his version of events at Kevin Randles blog:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/anthony-bragalia-roswell-slides-and-ufo.html
(http://kevinrandle.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/anthony-bragalia-roswell-slides-and-ufo.html)

In his article Tony appears to point the finger at Rich Reynolds (owner at UFO Conjectures) however, both appear to have agreed to work together in order to resolve any conflict and now a new statement has been posted at UFO Conjecture:


"Rich Reynolds and I have agreed to put to rest the ‘Roswell Slides’ hacking story and to peacefully end the matter. This was done in large part because in so doing we are avoiding falling right into the trap intended by the hacker, which is to fracture everyone apart from one another in the UFO community even further.

In an email that I had received from the hacker he indicated that was his precise intent. Rich and I have elected to not play into the hacker’s hands. I frankly do not know if this hacker is affiliated with intelligence, or, instead, a disaffected lone person that gets his jollies out of such things. But we were all at some level tangled in his web and have now elected to get out of it. To give further attention to the hacker through endlessly writing about it in an ever-escalating way is exactly what the hacker wanted and delights in. So were just not going to give him the satisfaction. We are in concurrence that we all really do want to take the drama away and to stop feeding his perverse pleasure. We are going to take a higher road than he is on and move on…

AJB"


http://ufocon.blogspot.co.uk/

Try and keep up folks, this one is moving fast!

Garuda
12-15-2014, 01:47 PM
Kevin Randle posted an article in which he speculates that the slides may have to do with the Aztec crash:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-roswell-slides-and-aztec-ufo-crash.html

Doc
12-15-2014, 05:49 PM
Kevin Randle posted an article in which he speculates that the slides may have to do with the Aztec crash:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-roswell-slides-and-aztec-ufo-crash.html

Thanks for the link to this interesting post by Kevin Randle. The comments there are very interesting, also. While almost everything there is framed in speculation, it serves a useful purpose. Kevin Randle is a cautious and insightful guy and his speculation is worth reading for who he is and who he has interviewed over the years. He starts from a viewpoint that I like to use also, i.e. "If this is a hoax, why did someone go to the bother?" If we can see a clear reason for doing something, the hoax hypothesis is supported, though not proven.

In another vein, speculation from knowledgeable people and the responses they provoke can get us closer to useful hypotheses. This was a period of famed hoaxes and alleged hoaxes, most for financial gain if successful, so looking at the Aztec Crash from this perspective makes sense. Here, Randle touches on another aspect of hoaxing that is interesting: The amount of resources put into a hoax should make it worthwhile to the hoaxer or it doesn't make sense. for example, if someone were to go to great expense making a fake autopsy film, he would have to have an expected market for the film or expending the resources makes little sense. It is conceivable that an attention-seeker might not care how much he puts into the hoax. The whole process, from imagining the fun of fooling people, to making the hoax film might all be fun to that person. But that would be a rare person indeed.

Then there is the "Found Footage" explanation. Suppose someone found some old film that is just vague enough that someone could edit it creatively and present it as something else entirely? No real expense to try to sell the old film as an alien autopsy-like film. So, if someone were to find a couple of old pictures that could be misidentified by error or by design, there is no investment of time or money to any potential hoax.

Lee
02-02-2015, 02:52 PM
Here is another article on the slides from Anthony Bragalia. This time we finaly get a date and location for the "public reveal", the National Auditorium Mexico City, 5th May 2015. The event will apparently also be streamed live:


"The Public Reveal of The Roswell Alien Slides
By Anthony Bragalia

What some say represents stunning visual evidence of a humanoid creature that was found crashed near Roswell, NM in 1947 will soon to be released in an international livestream event. Referred to by some as “the Roswell Slides,” the Kodachrome images have now been authenticated by expert scientists and their provenance has been confirmed. During that long process many have speculated about precisely what these pictures show. People will now be able to see for themselves with the public reveal of the slides on May 5th 2015.

The event will include presenters Dr. Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man on the Moon, as well as noted authors and Roswell investigators Tom Carey and Don Schmitt. Transmitted live from the 10,000 seat National Auditorium in Mexico City, the history and background context of the slides (as well as other facets of the case) will be detailed. Tom Carey, who made international news when he announced the discovery of the slides at American University in Washington, DC last month, will be providing more information and logistical details on the event shortly."


Read the full article - http://www.theufochronicles.com/2015/02/roswell-alien-slides-to-be-unveiled-in.html

newyorklily
02-05-2015, 02:09 AM
This video is going around Facebook. It looks like a teaser, a sneak peek of the upcoming reveal.

Kodachrome - A Documentary: http://youtu.be/jL0MvHpieaE

Sent from my LG-LS720 using Tapatalk

Garuda
02-05-2015, 09:28 AM
Open Minds has an article on the press conference, as well some videos that were shown:

http://www.openminds.tv/roswell-ufo-alien-photo-details-revealed-videos/32066

newyorklily
02-05-2015, 06:13 PM
This video is going around Facebook. It looks like a teaser, a sneak peek of the upcoming reveal.

Kodachrome - A Documentary: http://youtu.be/jL0MvHpieaE

Sent from my LG-LS720 using Tapatalk
The person who put this video up also has a Twitter account.

Hilda Blair Ray @SlideboxMedia

Sent from my LG-LS720 using Tapatalk

newyorklily
02-06-2015, 02:53 AM
In this video, Jamie Mussan gives some details of the Skype press conference about the upcoming reveal of the Roswell slides. The press conference was held Wednesday.

With subtitles.

Jaime Maussan Presents the Smoking Gun: http://youtu.be/4q989LHlIFM

Sent from my LG-LS720 using Tapatalk

Edward
02-06-2015, 04:29 AM
In this video, Jamie Mussan gives some details of the Skype press conference about the upcoming reveal of the Roswell slides. The press conference was held Wednesday.

With subtitles.

Jaime Maussan Presents the Smoking Gun: http://youtu.be/4q989LHlIFM

Sent from my LG-LS720 using Tapatalk

I like it. This could be the tipping point where the consciousness and minds of many people will be set free. And in the words of Neo............................................... .....................




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8YO5icNGn0





"I know you're out there...I can feel you now. I know that
you're afraid. You're afraid of us, you're afraid of
change...I don't know the future...I didn't come here to
tell you how this is going to end, I came here to tell you
how this is going to begin. Now, I'm going to hang up
this phone, and I'm going to show these people what you
don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world
without you...a world without rules and controls, without
borders or boundaries. A world...where anything is
possible". Neo - The Matrix

-------


Edward

Lee
02-09-2015, 10:30 PM
I thought the "Kodachrome: A documentary" trailer was very interesting and appeared to be fairly well balanced as opposed to sensational in it's presentation.

Several new peices of information came to light:

- The slides themselves appear to be held in Kodachrome mounts from the 1941-1949 period. Meaning they had to have been manufactured, processed and developed during that time fame. See http://www.theoutpostforum.com/tof/showthread.php?1454-The-Roswell-Slides&p=27045&viewfull=1#post27045

- Even though the images are blured, it's possible to make out some details, all of which confirm what we've heard so far. Two slides showing the left and right sides of a humanoid cadaver in a glass display case, with a sign or notice clearly visible. (Though possibly not readable?)

- The facial reconstruction and 3d modeling looks consistant with witness testimony. How many time have you read the following in old UFO books: "little men with bald heads and almonds shaped eyes."?

The other slides of Eisenhower, Bing Crosby, etc provide an interesting context and possible area for further research. They're already asking for help at the web site.

Can anybody here ID these people in the 'Hunt' slide? - http://slideboxmedia.com/research/

Or pinpoint the location of this temporary Military housing site? - http://slideboxmedia.com/trailers-3/

newyorklily
02-10-2015, 12:02 AM
Thanks for posting these other pictures, Lee. I'm going to post them to FB and see if anyone there knows.

Sent from my LG-LS720 using Tapatalk

CasperParks
02-10-2015, 01:14 AM
I thought the "Kodachrome: A documentary" trailer was very interesting and appeared to be fairly well balanced as opposed to sensational in it's presentation.

Several new peices of information came to light:

- The slides themselves appear to be held in Kodachrome mounts from the 1941-1949 period. Meaning they had to have been manufactured, processed and developed during that time fame. See http://www.theoutpostforum.com/tof/showthread.php?1454-The-Roswell-Slides&p=27045&viewfull=1#post27045

- Even though the images are blured, it's possible to make out some details, all of which confirm what we've heard so far. Two slides showing the left and right sides of a humanoid cadaver in a glass display case, with a sign or notice clearly visible. (Though possibly not readable?)

- The facial reconstruction and 3d modeling looks consistant with witness testimony. How many time have you read the following in old UFO books: "little men with bald heads and almonds shaped eyes."?

The other slides of Eisenhower, Bing Crosby, etc provide an interesting context and possible area for further research. They're already asking for help at the web site.

Can anybody here ID these people in the 'Hunt' slide? - http://slideboxmedia.com/research/

Or pinpoint the location of this temporary Military housing site? - http://slideboxmedia.com/trailers-3/

Appears pheasant hunting was good.

That trailer photo: Sadly, no way to zoom on car and truck plates or mail boxes in front of houses. Type of pine trees are common in the US. There is what looks like an the old style bread-truck, orange - but difficult to say beyond a doubt a delivery truck with a logo on it. The object in question is near three tan buildings or trailers with skirting.

Distant of houses along the dirt road, close enough for weather consideration when constructed.

newyorklily
02-10-2015, 01:35 AM
Someone commented on my FB post that the trailers do not seem to be in Eastern Tennessee. He said that the area is too dry, too flat and it does not have enough vegetation to be Eastern Tennessee.

Sent from my LG-LS720 using Tapatalk

majicbar
02-11-2015, 04:07 AM
I thought the "Kodachrome: A documentary" trailer was very interesting and appeared to be fairly well balanced as opposed to sensational in it's presentation.

Several new peices of information came to light:

- The slides themselves appear to be held in Kodachrome mounts from the 1941-1949 period. Meaning they had to have been manufactured, processed and developed during that time fame. See http://www.theoutpostforum.com/tof/showthread.php?1454-The-Roswell-Slides&p=27045&viewfull=1#post27045

- Even though the images are blured, it's possible to make out some details, all of which confirm what we've heard so far. Two slides showing the left and right sides of a humanoid cadaver in a glass display case, with a sign or notice clearly visible. (Though possibly not readable?)

- The facial reconstruction and 3d modeling looks consistant with witness testimony. How many time have you read the following in old UFO books: "little men with bald heads and almonds shaped eyes."?

The other slides of Eisenhower, Bing Crosby, etc provide an interesting context and possible area for further research. They're already asking for help at the web site.

Can anybody here ID these people in the 'Hunt' slide? - http://slideboxmedia.com/research/

Or pinpoint the location of this temporary Military housing site? - http://slideboxmedia.com/trailers-3/


" - The slides themselves appear to be held in Kodachrome mounts from the 1941-1949 period. Meaning they had to have been manufactured, processed and developed during that time fame."

A determined forger with enough money and patience can duplicate almost anything. Destructive testing of the ink and paper with lasers to provide gas chromatographic analysis could prove that they are from the period, but one cannot validate them as to being, "manufactured, processed and developed" by their appearance only.

Lee
02-11-2015, 04:12 PM
" - The slides themselves appear to be held in Kodachrome mounts from the 1941-1949 period. Meaning they had to have been manufactured, processed and developed during that time fame."

A determined forger with enough money and patience can duplicate almost anything. Destructive testing of the ink and paper with lasers to provide gas chromatographic analysis could prove that they are from the period, but one cannot validate them as to being, "manufactured, processed and developed" by their appearance only.

I wouldn't disagree, Majicbar and really hope that those tests have been done by the experts consulted. Hopefully, the test results will be presented with the public reveal.

My point was that the slide mounts appear to match those developed by kodak between 1941-1949.

One hoax scenario that we have to consider is old film photographed recently, developed prior to 2010 (when the last kodachrome developers ceased operation) and then inserted into a period mount.

Another very real possibility is that the film is authentic but depicts something earthly. Time will tell.

newyorklily
02-11-2015, 05:59 PM
Some interesting information from Billy Cox in his latest DeVoid blog.

http://devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/15164/the-petroleum-geologists-tale/

Sent from my LG-LS720 using Tapatalk

Lee
02-11-2015, 08:24 PM
For those that haven't seen it, there is a screen capture from 'Kodachrome: A Documentary' doing the rounds on Facebook and elsewhere, originally posted at the following German forum.

http://www.allmystery.de/themen/uf25902-212

Although interesting, I urge caution with this image. It is much clearer than any screenshot I was able to capture from the documentary because the film makers purposely blurred the images to protect the big reveal on the 5th May. Therefore what we see here is essentially a photoshop reworking of the blurred image, it is subjective at best and should not be taken as an accurate representation of the 'Roswell slides'. (People are already saying it's just a mummified child.)

Lee
02-11-2015, 08:34 PM
Adam Dew, the man behind 'Kodachrome: a Documentary' has posted an article at UFO Conjectures:


"Adam Dew provided this update and clarification about his Kodachrome slide participation

I'll say this, I fully understand and appreciate all the skepticism. The first time I saw the slides I had the same response. But the story, by any measure, is fantastic and continues to get more interesting. A few random notes on all this that might answer some questions:

Tom and Don were very skeptical of the slides (out of fear of another hoax) for more than a year. I pursued them. It wasn't until I finally had them vetted by film experts that they were willing to connect me with the witness to offer an opinion. Tom and Don were not with me the first time the witness looked at the slides. He's now seen them a second time with Tom and Don present and he had the same reaction to them."

Read more: http://ufocon.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/adan-dew-provided-this-update-and.html

epo333
02-19-2015, 02:27 AM
This aired today...

Posted 9:50 AM, February 18, 2015, by WGN Web Desk, Updated at 10:42am, February 18, 2015

http://wgntv.com/2015/02/18/possible-photo-of-an-alien-life-form/

CasperParks
02-19-2015, 04:35 AM
Thanks to everyone providing links keeping us updated on these slides and documentary.

newyorklily
02-20-2015, 12:22 AM
Kevin Randel's latest blog on the Roswell Slides.

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2015/02/roswell-slides-adam-dew-on-wgn-chicago.html?m=1

Sent from my LG-LS720 using Tapatalk

whoknows
02-20-2015, 08:10 PM
Sorry, I'm really not trying to spoil anyone's fun but this really seems a relatively large amount of hype for a couple of slides. I'm thinking they're trying real hard to sell commercial slots before the air time.

Kinda reminds me if Geraldo's mystery of Al Capone's vault.

newyorklily
02-21-2015, 06:32 PM
New article in UFO Chronicles by someone who allegedly has seen the slides.
http://www.theufochronicles.com/2014/07/new-details-of-alleged-roswell-alien.html?m=1

Doc
03-05-2015, 05:21 PM
Update from Open Minds TV:

“Roswell Alien Slides” owner speaks out Posted by: Alejandro Rojas (http://www.openminds.tv/author/alejandro) March 4, 2015 1,725 Views
There has been a lot of online buzz around photographs that one researcher has called a “smoking gun (http://www.openminds.tv/roswell-ufo-researcher-claims-picture-aliens/30977)” when it comes to proof that aliens are visiting Earth. Even though there are many articles, blogs, interviews, and forum posts about the pictures, the public has yet to actually see them. They will be displayed during a special event (http://bewitness.mx/default.aspx?PK=b1643c7e-a7bb-4c9f-b1f1-548959fc81e9) hosted by Mexican Broadcast Journalist Jaime Maussan in Mexico City on May 5, 2015.
http://www.openminds.tv/wp-content/uploads/Adam-Dew.jpgAdam Dew (Credit: Adam Dew)

Among the buzz is speculation about what the pictures show, questions as to why they will be shown in Mexico, and questions as to how the pictures were found in the first place. The pictures are owned by a production company, and the owner of that company, Adam Dew, is creating a documentary about the slides titled Kodachrome (http://slideboxmedia.com/). He says the trailer to Kodachrome shows everything they know to this point. However, as questions are answered, more arise.


Read more at the link and see more pics: http://www.openminds.tv/roswell-alien-slides-owner-speaks/32432

majicbar
03-06-2015, 02:33 AM
They are saying the slides are not perfectly in focus. New holographic analysis is able to bring such photos back into focus. I assume that they will use every technology to analyze these images, so they should be employed here.

Garuda
03-10-2015, 07:19 PM
New article by Robert Hastings on the Roswell slides:

http://www.theufochronicles.com/2015/03/the-roswell-slides-time-bomb-tick-tick.html

A short quote from the article:


The slides’ promoters would have us believe that the diminutive figure in the glass case is the corpse of one of the aliens allegedly recovered from a crashed UFO, near Roswell, New Mexico, in July 1947. Consequently, they claim, the images are of revolutionary importance. Indeed, one member of the group, Tom Carey, has gone so far as to say that these two Kodachrome slides are the “smoking gun” proving that mankind is not alone in the universe.

Of course, the images are nothing of the sort. They are instead problematic artifacts associated with an incomplete and way-over-hyped research project, that is likely to become one of the most embarrassing missteps in a seven-decade-long effort by ufologists to gather and publicize data pointing to the reality of the UFO phenomenon and its probable extraterrestrial nature.

Lee
04-30-2015, 07:50 PM
There hasn't really been any new developments on this topic for the past few months, lots of articles without much substance, lots of debate and conjecture but little else.
Now, as we draw closer to the "Cinco de Mayo" event, tickets for the livestream are now available for purchase and Adam Dew has released another promotional video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t-LA7xy7H8

Get your tickets, if you want them, at: http://bewitness.org/

On a personal note, I'm gonna be paying my $15 and watching the event live, (even though it will be on during the early hours for me,) not because i'm a believer (or "Slider"), but because I want to see the images firsthand and evaluate the investigation work carried out to date.

calikid
05-03-2015, 01:48 PM
There hasn't really been any new developments on this topic for the past few months, lots of articles without much substance, lots of debate and conjecture but little else.
Now, as we draw closer to the "Cinco de Mayo" event, tickets for the livestream are now available for purchase and Adam Dew has released another promotional video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t-LA7xy7H8

Get your tickets, if you want them, at: http://bewitness.org/

On a personal note, I'm gonna be paying my $15 and watching the event live, (even though it will be on during the early hours for me,) not because i'm a believer (or "Slider"), but because I want to see the images firsthand and evaluate the investigation work carried out to date.



Looks like May 5th pre show is 1530hrs, and 2 hour main event follows at 1730 hrs Pacific time,

Garuda
05-03-2015, 05:41 PM
RIchard Dolan just posted this on Facebook:


I have been in Mexico City for the past day, meeting with Jaime Maussan, Tom Carey, and Adam Dew. Don Schmitt will arrive soon. I was able to see directly the two so-called Roswell slides. In addition, I became further acquainted with several fairly detailed analyses of them by technically proficient professionals. All of this has made me glad that I have decided to participate in the event this coming Tuesday. My opinion is that these slides are compelling. There will always be the possibility or glimmer of uncertainty about them, no question about it. But when you put the entire story together about these slides, and when everyone has the opportunity to look at them and examine them in detail after Tuesday, my feeling is that they will not easily be debunked. Not legitimately, anyway. My feeling at this point is that these slides will be here to stay.

Longeyes
05-05-2015, 04:53 PM
Today's the day the slides are being revealed.

Garuda
05-05-2015, 05:42 PM
Today's the day the slides are being revealed.

Yep. It will be past my bed time, so I'll have to read about it tomorrow morning.

I know there's the (paying) live stream. Is anybody live reporting on it (on Twitter, a blog, Facebook, ...)?

Lee
05-05-2015, 09:44 PM
Yep. It will be past my bed time, so I'll have to read about it tomorrow morning.

I know there's the (paying) live stream. Is anybody live reporting on it (on Twitter, a blog, Facebook, ...)?
Not sure. I'll be staying up to watch tonight though, so I'll post something in here tomorrow. (after a sleep ; )

Longeyes
05-05-2015, 11:10 PM
The trailer

http://youtu.be/jL0MvHpieaE

earthman
05-05-2015, 11:47 PM
There must be more then just the slides, or it wouldn't be two hours long. Wonder is Mexico is up to something, releasing some info or such. It's sure being hiped up. I'm not sure if I want to pay for it though. I'm sure we'll hear about it right after the show.

Standing by patiently, lol. :rolleyes:

Lee
05-06-2015, 01:24 AM
There must be more then just the slides, or it wouldn't be two hours long. Wonder is Mexico is up to something, releasing some info or such. It's sure being hiped up. I'm not sure if I want to pay for it though. I'm sure we'll hear about it right after the show.

Standing by patiently, lol. :rolleyes:
I'm expecting an intro by Jamie Maussan followed by short presentations from Tom Carey, Don Schmitt, Richard Dolan, Ed Mitchell and Adam Dew. Then I'm expecting a screening of the full Kodachrome documentary.

So far the stream seems to be working ok.

Edward
05-06-2015, 03:00 AM
Keep us updated.

earthman
05-06-2015, 06:33 AM
Going to listen in on Coast to Coast shortly. Like to hear what Dolan has to say.

CasperParks
05-06-2015, 06:51 AM
Going to listen in on Coast to Coast shortly. Like to hear what Dolan has to say.

What did he have to say?

Garuda
05-06-2015, 06:54 AM
Some people are talking on Twitter about it, including showing screenshots of the slides.

#Roswellslides

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Roswellslides

Longeyes
05-06-2015, 08:54 AM
I thought there were two slides i can only see one. Can't understand why if it was an alien body it would just be stacked on what appears to be a shelf? Surely they would have preserved it? It also looks decomposed or even fossilised?
Anything from the live feed Lee?

newyorklily
05-06-2015, 02:26 PM
I didn't listen to the Coast to Coast broadcast last night but in this morning's email it says that Mrs. Hilda Ray was a lawyer. Does anyone know what type of law she practiced? Could her role as a lawyer and friendship with the Eisenhowers, given her access to the bodies and the opportunity to take the photos?

Sent from my LGLS660 using Tapatalk

newyorklily
05-06-2015, 02:32 PM
From today's Coast Zone Newsletter


Roswell Alien Slides:

In the first half, live from Mexico City, renowned historians and researchers, Richard M. Dolan (http://click.email.premierenetworks.com/?qs=0ffc3e84890bb9c6e4c1e8a4ebe5dec8980c1f94bf3ef0 6fa6be69039fd0b5c7) (first hour) and Don Schmitt (http://click.email.premierenetworks.com/?qs=0ffc3e84890bb9c61c208bb41391ade51c4a6a0c97d545 5407efa1c028e17191) (2nd hour) discussed the mysterious Roswell alien slides ( view (http://click.email.premierenetworks.com/?qs=0ffc3e84890bb9c69545057dd40f58253db2a01cc3e4ae 840ee932e7177bbd0c)), which were revealed to the public during a conference which both had attended earlier in the day. The conference, organized by Mexican journalist and ufologist Jaime Maussan, featured a number of experts, who'd spent months carefully analyzing the two slides. The slides were authenticated to be from the 1940s, and were from the collection of Hilda Ray, a now deceased attorney and pilot, who was married to a geologist, Bernerd Ray, said to be working in the Roswell, New Mexico area in 1947. Further, the Rays were personally acquainted with Dwight and Mamie Eisenhower.

Dolan noted that the experts found the creature depicted in the slides to be anomalous, and though damaged or decomposed it was not mummified. Nor was it believed to be a mammal or human. There is a minor blur in the images, which suggests that the photos were taken quickly or surreptitiously, and one of the last surviving persons said to witness the Roswell creature, stated that the image in the slide looks remarkably like what he saw, Dolan recounted. The slides won't be debunked easily, but neither are they definitive evidence without an actual body, Dolan continued.

The presentation in Mexico City of a medical pathologist demonstrated why the body is not human-- among the anomalies was a missing rotator socket in the shoulder, the incorrect number or ribs, and no breastbone, sternum, or pelvic bone, Schmitt reported. There was evidence that the body had been preserved or frozen at one point, and that the photo may have been taken around six months after the being's demise, Schmitt added.

Garuda
05-06-2015, 02:33 PM
Michael Salla posted an article on the slides, with (blue) copies of the two slides in the article:

http://exopolitics.org/photos-released-of-alien-body-found-at-1947-roswell-ufo-crash/

Garuda
05-06-2015, 02:34 PM
And this is the Coast to Coast page (colour photo):

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/pages/slide-image-roswell-alien-body



An article in the Express (uk):

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/575263/REVEALED-Images-Roswell-ALIEN-found-wreckage-crashed-UFO-70-years-ago

newyorklily
05-06-2015, 03:17 PM
That slide picture is definitely a display case, either in a museum or a private collection. How am I so certain of that? I think the object next to the being's head is a geode, possibly quartz. You wouldn't find that in a secret lab that examines alien bodies.

Marvin
05-06-2015, 05:02 PM
The body appears to be desiccated or mummified.

Other than the reported time period for the photographic slide being made… what evidence is there of this being anything other than a mummified human (child). I see zero evidence to conclude (without question) this is a body of an alien.

calikid
05-06-2015, 05:59 PM
Sounds like some were less than impressed.

Roswell Slides unveiled: UFO fans left heartbroken by Area 51 'alien' photo unveiling which was 'an epic fail'
6 May 2015
By Jasper Hamill

wo photographs of a "dead alien" were unveiled at a big money event last night - and immediately dismissed as fake.

A series of 'UFOlogists' appeared at the Be Witness meeting last night to reveal images of an extraterrestrial who supposedly crashed to Earth during the infamous Roswell incident in 1947.

The images were found by former journalist Adam Dew, who reportedly turned down interviews with magazines that wanted to cover the story because "they were not offering any compensation".

He claimed to have taken steps to verify the pair of alien snaps and said Kodak experts had dated the film to 1947.

But the rest of the world has not had the chance to test the rigour of his methods, because high resolution images of the alien are not yet available.

They are likely to be sold through his production company Dew Media alongside a documentary about the discovery of the slides.

The photos were supposedly found in Arizona, hidden in a collection of snaps owned by oil geologist Bernard Ray and his wife Hilda Ray, who have both died.

Nick Pope, a researcher who headed up a UFO investigation wing at the UK Ministry of Defence, told Mirror Online he was "underwhelmed".
Story Continues (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/roswell-slides-unveiled-ufo-fans-5643962)

http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5644601.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Roswell-Slides.jpg

Longeyes
05-06-2015, 06:00 PM
Agreed it looks like a mumified child in a storage rack in a museum.
I feel sorry for Donald Schmitt and Tom Carey because they've sided with this.
Their reputations will suffer as a consequence.
The way the whole thing has been hyped strung out and used to generate a few bucks is a massive waste if people's time.
What a shame

Lee
05-06-2015, 06:30 PM
I had a similar response. I don't see anything to rule out a mummified child in a museum display. There are apparently other objects on display on the opposite shelf, as nylily points out.

The experts consulted seem to see several non-human charecters tics but unfortunately their opinions are somewhat subjective and may be explained by a combination of deformation and dessication.

I look forward to more expert analysis, hopefully in English this time. But I really do suspect that the museum and display will be identified within the week.

earthman
05-06-2015, 06:42 PM
Let down...

Chris
05-06-2015, 07:27 PM
Certainly not what I was expecting/hoping to see.

earthman
05-06-2015, 07:39 PM
I thought it was more then just the slides. Guess I was wrong. More for the cause but just not enough for a "Told ya So..".

whoknows
05-06-2015, 08:13 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLsDxvAErTU

epo333
05-07-2015, 02:17 AM
Agreed it looks like a mumified child in a storage rack in a museum.
I feel sorry for Donald Schmitt and Tom Carey because they've sided with this.
Their reputations will suffer as a consequence.
The way the whole thing has been hyped strung out and used to generate a few bucks is a massive waste if people's time.
What a shame

Another black eye for the UFOlogist and those of us who dwell in this community.

D. Schmitt and T. Carey are seasoned investigators, how could they both have been duped into a scam such as what this appears to be?

Disappointment to say the least!!!

earthman
05-07-2015, 04:02 AM
I second that.. Shame..

newyorklily
05-07-2015, 05:27 AM
Richard Dolan posted this on Facebook about an hour ago from Mexico City.


It has been a day since the event in Mexico City relating to the so-called Roswell Slides. Since there seems to be a great deal of misinformation spreading about them, and the event, I would like to help clarify a few things.
I will start by saying that although I still do not yet have a firm position on the slides, I think they are interesting and worthy of continued investigation by qualified individuals. I do not think any of this is a hoax.
Most striking in all this are the critics. There have been a number of remarks that the body is “certainly” (a) a mummy, (b) a child mummy (c) a deformed mummy, and (d) a model. There have been other claims but these seem to be the main ones.
Such people — all of them English-speakers — obviously did not acquaint themselves with the detailed and technically proficient treatment of these very questions by the three scientists who were featured last night: Jose Benetez, Dr. Luiz Antonio de Alba Galindo, and Richard Doble, The first two of these spoke in Spanish, and I understand there may have been glitches at times with the translation on the livestream. However, Richard Doble’s Skype interview was in English and extremely easy to follow. The Spanish speakers were simply outstanding, and I was able to listen via translation. All of these gentlemen spoke in detail and with deep analysis as to why that body was not a human being. I am not going to repeat their reasons here, but I have been assured that a website is being constructed right now that will feature full translations of their analysis in text form. Incidentally, in addition to these three individuals, there was some excellent video testimony presented from other technical professionals relating to the physical properties of the slides themselves.

After reading the negative comments, and privately messaging with some of these individuals, it was clear to me that none of them bothered to watch the event anyway. They based their comments on a single image that was released last night via the Coast to Coast AM website. The fact that it was one image and not two caused a number of angry questions about why the other image is being hidden from the public, and so on.
The only reason that image was released at all was because the producers at Coast to Coast asked me personally if I could get them an image prior to my interview with them, which immediately followed the event. I asked Adam Dew for something to give Coast, and — amid the hectic atmosphere of the event — he sent one image of good resolution to my phone. I then sent that to Coast. Barely able to get that single image out to them, by the way, as my phone charge was low and my connection was not good at all. In other words, I was lucky to get anything at all to Coast.
In retrospect, all this did was allow lazy commentators to chime in without having acquainted themselves with any of the analysis presented. They looked at a single picture, formed their instant reactions, and then complained that the whole event was a hoax. I hear such things and just roll my eyes.
After all this, and as I stated earlier, I do not have a solid position on these slides. But I do think they absolutely deserve genuine investigation. Clearly, not from the the commentators who have dismissed them without taking on the analyses that have already been performed on them. Such individuals proved to me that they have lost their game and should probably take a few deep breaths and a break from the field.
What would be nice, however, would be for genuine researchers — e.g. scientists and qualified experts — to analyze the slides in further detail.

There is already a small consensus that has been offered on these slides, and this can be either enlarged or debunked. Both directions are valid, naturally. However the future analyses goes, however, it should only come from qualified individuals. Not self proclaimed experts who immediately “know” it depicts a mummy, or that the dress depicted in it is out of date, or that the slide was “intentionally” blurry, and so on.
Finally, I suppose I am disappointed by the unprofessional invective that I have seen from so many people (again, solely in the English-speaking research community). They act like this is Armageddon. The attacks in particular on Jaime Maussan are startling. I am not saying anyone in this field is perfect. But I know Jaime and have seen him at work first-hand. I know he cares about the truth. He certainly did not make money on this event — the current guess is that he lost money, but he doesn’t care. He was the only person to step up and arrange for scientific analyses, which included not only money for testing, but for travel. He recorded the process of the investigation, which is valuable. He did a great deal. The comments and invective are not simply ignorant, but they are beneath the dignity of decent people. If you have a problem with any of this, why get personal about it? I have never understood that attitude.
I laugh a bit, too, when I see comments like, “this is a disaster,” “the field will not recover from this for many years,” etc. etc. Aside from the hyperbole coming from such people, it’s obvious they are wrong. Even if this were to turn out to be a mistake — well, then it’s a mistake. Life always goes on. The worst thing to do would be to avoid investigating something because you “know” the answer already. Particularly regarding the mystery of UFOs, which I consider the greatest mystery in the world, how odd it would be that investigators are afraid to analyze and investigate something genuinely intriguing?

I suppose the other complaint I hear is that the event charged people to attend. That the slides were not put up for free. Frankly, this is something I expect to hear from children. Research costs money. Jaime and Adam Dew did not simply want to toss the slides out there to the world before they themselves had strong analyses performed on them. How is that unreasonable? Doing so, however, costs time and money. Nothing is for free in this world. And Jaime, believing these slides to be worthy of significant treatment, wanted a major venue for them. He got it in the National Auditorium of Mexico City, one of the premier places for major events in the entire world. Complaining that he charged money at the gate and $20 for pay per view is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard in a long time.
As I said, my position on the slides is still not firm. I have been and remained impressed with the story behind their provenance — such as we can put it together. And I am currently impressed with the analyses performed on the slides themselves, as well as the body in question. These analyses are far more technically detailed than the criticism against them that I have seen. My position would change if I am presented with analyses that deal with the data already provided. Not people’s hunches or invective.
So, to those critics, I suggest that rather than rush to judgement, why not simply acquaint yourself with the arguments put forth that support them? Once you do that, once you understand the technical issues better, don’t you think you will be better able to critique them?
Again, if, after all this, other qualified professionals make convincing arguments that the body in question is not an alien or something deeply anomalous, then fine. If that is where the evidence leads, so be it. But the point is that the evidence must be considered first. From my perspective, this is something the critics have not done.

Marvin
05-07-2015, 02:01 PM
I just find this whole affair deeply disappointing and unscientific. Blaming the “critics” (which is basically the “public”) for promoters hyping the slides to be authentic photos of a “Roswell alien” (and claiming to hold the expertise high ground) is simply a con-man’s slide of hand. The burden of proof must be carried by the people making the “alien” claim. The only evidence shared till now has been two photos. For anyone to claim the photos alone demonstrate an alien body are totally ignoring the context and contents of the photos themselves. Scientifically, there is no way (with the only evidence being two photos) to reasonable conclude the body shown in the photo is an alien… no matter what oddities are seen on the body.

You may remember Ata, which was speculated to be an “alien.” After DNA testing, the facts were much stranger than that... since Ada turned out to be human, and it took many years of research to find the answers (...and they had the actual body of Ata in their possession, not just photos).

http://www.theoutpostforum.com/tof/showthread.php?1969-Ata



M

Longeyes
05-07-2015, 02:51 PM
Adam Drew had two things he could gave done when he found those photos, released them immediately, or hold on to them.
I don't blame the guy for keeping them under wraps and trying to make some money out of them. I don't think this is a con , he just played with his cards tight to his chest. We had the impression he had two , it turns out he had a pair of deuces.
Of course we are annoyed we've waited over a year to find two very suspect photos.
We still haven't seen the second. What led him to believe they were to Roswell alien in the first place?
Jamie maussau is a blind believer, he doesn't have a b£lls£&@t detector. He perfectly likeable but also entirely gullible.
When you aren't open with people and try to keep it to yourself for whatever reasons you can't be surprised that people question your motives.
Why can't we now have high res versions of the photos?
As Robert Hastings pointed out we can decide for ourselves. What context is the are the other photos giving it. Is it presumed to be in the same place as the Mamie Eisenhower photo? Drew has asked for help with that on his site.
Looks to me like it was taken in the UK. There is a prince of Wales three feathered crest in the background.
I've found three giant models of Cunard's Queen Mary: one in NYC , one in Southhampton and one in Glasgow.
Does this mean the other photo is taken in UK? What are the other photos of?

Dragonfire
05-07-2015, 03:52 PM
As much as this was promoted, main stream media seems to have left it alone.

Chris
05-07-2015, 04:27 PM
I've not seen the second photo, but unless it is perfectly clear and taken from a better angle I don't see how anyone could make any claim to it being a human, an alien or even a model from the one picture we have seen.

I also haven't see any proof regarding the provenance of the pictures leading back to Roswell.

Dragonfire
05-07-2015, 06:53 PM
Richard Dolans article above was very well written. I agree with him about all the "critics". Seems that happens way too much within the community.

Garuda
05-07-2015, 07:07 PM
I'm interested in reading the reports of the three experts...

Marvin
05-07-2015, 10:22 PM
The two photos (originally posted by Garuda) basically taken from the same angle:

http://exopolitics.org/photos-released-of-alien-body-found-at-1947-roswell-ufo-crash/



http://exopolitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/1st-slide-of-Roswell-ET-body.jpg

http://exopolitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2nd-slide-of-EBE.jpg


M

Garuda
05-08-2015, 06:27 PM
Another article on the Roswell Slides:

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/05/the-roswell-slides-finally-solved/

Were these slides taken at the Million Dollar Museum?

Nick Redfern thinks it's a possibility.

Garuda
05-08-2015, 07:12 PM
Richard Dolan just posted on Facebook:


Since returning from Mexico City, I have been in communication with many people regarding the so-called Roswell slides. I attended the event in the first place because it seemed to have the potential to unveil important information. I had not seen the slides beforehand, but did have conversations with some of the principals who had. During those conversations, I was also told about the analyses performed on them. So I decided to go, and at no point was I ever asked to endorse the slides.

After arriving and seeing the slides, and especially hearing the analyses in more detail, I felt the overall picture presented was compelling. The analyses by Jose de Jesus Zalce Benitez, Richard Doble, and Dr. Luis Antonio de Alba Galindo argued that the body depicted was not a human being. Since I am not a physiologist, I never felt qualified to debate that point.

My problem is this: when I simply look at the pictures, I see what many other people are seeing -- an interesting museum piece. One that looks like other examples that are on the web. With the acknowledgment that looks can be deceiving, I still keep coming back to that.

On top of this, there have been some very good critiques coming in. Recently, Nick Redfern posted a good analysis on the “Million Dollar Museum” in New Mexico, which he suggests may be where the slides were taken. Perhaps this is the answer, or perhaps it’s something else. But it is clear that the arguments promoting the slides as depicting an extraterrestrial have to overcome some serious objections.

It’s frustrating that the analyses by the three scientists have not been published in text form on a website where others can read them and respond to them. I told the group in Mexico City that this needs to happen as soon as possible, and they agreed. But it has not yet happened.

Although I previously stated the slides would not easily be debunked, it seems more relevant to me that they don’t need to be debunked so much as to be proven to be something anomalous. That is where the burden of proof lies.

For all the hoopla that accompanied and followed the Mexico City event, and all the furor that followed it, I feel it was a worthy endeavor. I believe the people involved are honest.

But for me, until the proper analyses are published, and until we have had time to read critiques of those analyses, and until there are strong replies to some of the critiques that are currently published, I cannot consider these slides as evidence of extraterrestrials.

He basically formulated how I feel about it.

newyorklily
05-08-2015, 10:04 PM
This is a Reuters video from the Washington Post. It includes a couple of clips from the event.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/national/ufo-specialists-present-never-before-seen-photos-of-roswell-alien/2015/05/07/934d9532-f4ea-11e4-bca5-21b51bbdf93e_video.html

majicbar
05-09-2015, 12:42 AM
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/10656

The million dollar museum was visited by a german film crew. They undoubtedly filmed inside the museum so there should be much more available about this particular exhibit. The museum's contents went up for auction so records from that auction, may indicate the disposition of the "alien"."



"There are full mummified skeletons, and the new star of the place, "Alien Baby." In 1997, during the 50th Anniversary of the Roswell Incident, a German TV crew came by and took the tour. They proclaimed that one small mummy with a detached femur might actually be an E.T. This caused quite the sensation, and management quickly changed the description from "one of a race of midget Indians" to "Alien Baby."

According to its new label (the only Million Dollar Museum label computer printed instead of hand written), "No one is sure exactly when the museum acquired this artifact, but it does not appear to be human."
- See more at: http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/10656#sthash.d6dH3bNy.dpuf

Garuda
05-09-2015, 06:19 AM
End of story? The text on the placard has been 'deblurred' with 'SmartDeblur' software.

The first line reads: 'mummified body of two year old boy'

More here: http://www.blueblurrylines.com/2015/05/the-placard-of-roswell-slides-final.html

Lee
05-09-2015, 01:17 PM
Just incredible. After over two years of hints, rumours and proclamations that researchers needed the time to carry out their due diligence. Less than a week online and the body is identified, mystery solved.

A disappointing end to the story, but a stark reminder that open public research will yield much better results, much faster than small groups of like minded individuals.

Accusations of deception and profit motives have been rife and will no doubt continue after this latest revelation. Personally I suspect that the Dream Team were simply blinded by hope. Unfortunately though, there involvement in this fiasco will leave an ugly scar on the already beleaguered Roswell case.

Lee
05-09-2015, 06:20 PM
In the interest of accuracy, slidebox media have posted a high res version of the placard and are saying the the deblured image is fake. They point out that the placard is hand written not typed as in the deblured version.

However, the word spacing and size does fit.

http://slideboxmedia.com/placard/

earthman
05-09-2015, 07:23 PM
A fake of a fake. Humm? I think they need to provide the Slides, not a hi-res of the sides to some one trustworthy enough to look at this. I think its from that museum like some are thinking.

Garuda
05-09-2015, 07:28 PM
In the interest of accuracy, slidebox media have posted a high res version of the placard and are saying the the deblured image is fake. They point out that the placard is hand written not typed as in the deblured version.

However, the word spacing and size does fit.

http://slideboxmedia.com/placard/

Ah... yet another twist to the story.

Guess we'll have to start paying attention again to who is making which claims, and see what their agendas are.

Chris
05-10-2015, 01:07 AM
Comments from Daniel Drasin:

"The word-spacing and size do fit, and what appears to be "handrwitten(sic), cursive script" seems to be an artifact of camera motion. This is most obvious in the word "OF" in the headline, which is clearly uppercase but is streaked in an upward direction.


If this were actual cursive script, the heights of the vertical lines would be much more varied from one character to the next, but in this sample the heights are perfectly uniform.

The placard might have been produced using an architect's stencil -- a plastic card with the letter outlines that the user would trace with a pencil or pen. The sanserif italic font we see here was used very commonly in hand-drawn architects' drawings and blueprints of that era."

Garuda
05-10-2015, 07:28 AM
Analysis of the Hi-res image of the placard appears to give the same result:

http://www.theufochronicles.com/2015/05/the-roswell-slides-analysis-of-placard.html

Garuda
05-10-2015, 08:23 AM
Deciphering the placard:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkaKpPGKTV0

The placard is available at: http://slideboxmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/placard-TEXT1.jpg

The software used is SmartDeblur PRO.
A trial version of the PRO edition can be downloaded here: http://smartdeblur.net/download.html

They use a filter which can be downloaded here:
http://www.roswellslides.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/placard-TEXT1crop_KERNEL0.1305.png

That png file has to be downloaded and renamed to placard-TEXT1_KERNEL(0.1305).png.
This file has to be chosen when prompted for the blur model.

earthman
05-10-2015, 08:34 AM
Surly these folks knew that these were not the Roswell alien. They had these slides for a long time and it only took a day to figure out it was a two year old boy. Sad. I have lost a lot of respect for all involved.

Garuda
05-10-2015, 10:29 AM
The saga continues:

Slidebox Media has updated their placard page after they, too, ran the SmartDeblur software, and they don't get the same results:

http://slideboxmedia.com/placard/

The difference lies in the filter that was used.

calikid
05-10-2015, 01:42 PM
Analysis of the Hi-res image of the placard appears to give the same result:

http://www.theufochronicles.com/2015/05/the-roswell-slides-analysis-of-placard.html



Has anyone seen analysis of the body?
Child like torso, I can't make out the ratio between upper and lower arm (reported to be reversed in grays).
Not sure if the eye sockets are normal for human, or oversized like a gray.
The mouth appears larger than I would expect for a gray.
The cranium does appear oversized, but that may be typical for a child?
If it is a mummy, and not a fossil, then DNA should resolve the matter quickly. All we have to do is locate the remains.

Garuda
05-10-2015, 02:27 PM
Anthony Bragalia admits he was wrong, and goes along with the 'two year old mummified body of a boy' interpretation after finding further corroboration:

http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-roswell-alien-slides-and-my-apology_10.html

majicbar
05-10-2015, 04:28 PM
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/10656

The million dollar museum was visited by a german film crew. They undoubtedly filmed inside the museum so there should be much more available about this particular exhibit. The museum's contents went up for auction so records from that auction, may indicate the disposition of the "alien"."



"There are full mummified skeletons, and the new star of the place, "Alien Baby." In 1997, during the 50th Anniversary of the Roswell Incident, a German TV crew came by and took the tour. They proclaimed that one small mummy with a detached femur might actually be an E.T. This caused quite the sensation, and management quickly changed the description from "one of a race of midget Indians" to "Alien Baby."

According to its new label (the only Million Dollar Museum label computer printed instead of hand written), "No one is sure exactly when the museum acquired this artifact, but it does not appear to be human."
- See more at: http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/10656#sthash.d6dH3bNy.dpuf

Discrepancies are answered in that photos before and after July 1997 are of different placards. The item is clearly from the "Million Dollar Museum", the body could not be of a 'Roswell alien". Disposition of the mummy would fall under the antiquities and Indian acts and the body would have been given back to the local tribes for burial.

Chris
05-10-2015, 06:24 PM
Anthony Bragalia admits he was wrong, and goes along with the 'two year old mummified body of a boy' interpretation after finding further corroboration:

http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-roswell-alien-slides-and-my-apology_10.html

I'm pleased to see that Anthony Bragalia had the intestinal fortitude to write this apology regarding his involvement. Everyone else intimately involved with this should also step forward and make similar statements.

Except for Dew. He's the one it seems who controlled all of this and supposedly had photo experts authenticate the photographs. Yet we have someone with a $99 piece of software who was able to discern the writing on the placard when his experts could not? Really??? I think Dew is the one who has some 'splainin' to do!

Lee
05-10-2015, 06:41 PM
I'm still flabergasted that those involved did not recognise what they were looking at.

To me the key is context. If we were looking at a cadaver in a medical context, such as hospital or laboratory, or even a Military context, such as a hangar, I could understand the confusion. Clearly we are looking at an exhibit, a glass display case with multiple historical artefacts, complete with their own placards.

It's good to see Anthony Bragalia acknowledge his mistake. I wonder if others will do the same?

newyorklily
05-10-2015, 07:07 PM
There are seasoned UFO Researchers on Facebook who are still defending Slidegate (yes, I just named it that). People are allegedly getting unfriended because they believe the slides to be a picture of a mummy. Arguments are still going on on Facebook. This is UFO Research at its worst.

epo333
05-11-2015, 12:36 AM
There are seasoned UFO Researchers on Facebook who are still defending Slidegate (yes, I just named it that). People are allegedly getting unfriended because they believe the slides to be a picture of a mummy. Arguments are still going on on Facebook. This is UFO Research at its worst.

"SLIDEGATE", That's perfect Lily!

IMO there is one or two of those who were intimately involve in this aware of the truth. I don't know which ones but a LOT of $$$ and a lot of publicity was the goal. Not necessarily truthful disclosure!

...

Longeyes
05-11-2015, 01:13 AM
Definitely it looks like a museum and why would it be dried up like that after a crash ?!?


I'm still flabergasted that those involved did not recognise what they were looking at.

To me the key is context. If we were looking at a cadaver in a medical context, such as hospital or laboratory, or even a Military context, such as a hangar, I could understand the confusion. Clearly we are looking at an exhibit, a glass display case with multiple historical artefacts, complete with their own placards.

It's good to see Anthony Bragalia acknowledge his mistake. I wonder if others will do the same?

earthman
05-12-2015, 01:27 AM
Looks like "Case Closed" on this one. Wonder how much money they made off this. Hard to believe they had the slides this long and not figured out it was just a mummy. They had to know, or at least someone knew. Wonder what the next one will be. The debris from the crash, strait from Reynolds Wrap. lol. A big black eye on this one for us who believe. Maussan has been silent on this. Wonder what he will have to say? Wonder how many that are new to this field paid to see this thinkin "smoking Gun", cool. But now think were all nuts... Black eye for sure... "He's Dead Jim, beam me the hell up, NOW". lol

Garuda
05-12-2015, 07:32 PM
Tom Carey replies:


We believe that the recently released "reading" of the placard by the so-called "Roswell Slides Research Group" was faked. Some of the names in this group, in itself, should give pause and raise red warning flags do damage to anyone actually searching for truth. Ever since Don Schmitt and I became aware of the slides three years ago, our modus operandi has been four-fold: (1) to authenticate the age and integrity of the slides; (2) to obtain professional anthropological and forensic opinion as to what the body on the slides represented; (3) to find out as much as we could about Bernerd and Hilda Blair Ray, the long-deceased owners of the slides; and (4) to "read" the placard located at the foot of the body on the slides.

We physically took the slides to Kodak's historian, who is an expert regarding Kodachrome., and, using several parameters of interrogation, he determined that the slides dated from the 1947-49 time period (manufacture to exposure). For the most part, the American anthropologists we contacted did not want to even look at the slides when they learned that they might be "UFO-related." Those who did, however, did so "off the record." They all concluded that the body on the slides was not that of a mummy but possibly that of a congenitally deformed child. Fortunately, we were able to secure Canadian and Mexican anthropologists and forensic anatomical experts who went "on the record" at our May 5th "beWitness" event in Mexico City. In short, their detailed presentations concluded that the body on the slides was: not a mammal, not a primate and not human. One, Richard Doble, after a detailed morphological examination, concluded that the creature on the slides did not evolve on earth. You already have Doble's report, and the report of the two Mexican authorities is still in translation.

The Rays had no children or close relatives we could interview who could shed some light on their activities. Bernerd was an oil geologist whose whose zone of activity was the Permian Basin of west Texas and eastern New Mexico. He was also the President of a geological society in west Texas. Hilda was an oil attorney in Midland, Texas and an amateur pilot who, according a friend in the nursing home where Hilda passed away in 1988, was also friends with Mamie Eisenhower (General and later President Dwight D. Eisenhower's wife). There are a number of color slides in the collection that do appear to show Mamie Eisenhower in various situations. Prior to her death, Hilda Ray bequeathed almost $1M to the American Association of University Women.

Regarding the placard, we quickly determined that (1) its content would be key to interpreting the slides; and (2) we could not read it. So, we sent copies to Dr. David Rudiak and Dr. Donald Burleson. Both had done exemplary work in trying to decipher the so-called "Ramey Memo" - a situation very similar to placard issue here. Both responded to us that the placard was "unreadable." Through a contact, we had the Photo Interpretation Unit at the Pentagon in Washington, DC take a look at it. They said that it was "unreadable." A copy went to a company in New York now requesting anonymity that conducted the analysis on a major historical artifact. That company's response to us was that the placard was "unreadable." Another copy went to the people at Adobe, Inc. (manufacturers of Adobe Photoshop and the Adobe Reader on your computer). Their response? "It's unreadable." A copy also was also sent to aggressive Roswell researcher Anthony Bragalia who also reported to me that it was "unreadable." (Bragalia has now aggressively joined in with our critics). Our own computer guy says that he applied the "SmartDeblur" software to the placard over a year ago without any success. He did so again this week to an enhanced, sharper version of the placard with the latest edition of the "SmartDeBlur" program, again without success.

Now, we are told (not asked) to believe that a cast of characters, one of whom has clearly become unhinged and was himself party to a known UFO body hoax some years ago, has used the same program (SmartDeBlur) on a distorted,"screen-grab" of the placard and is somehow able to "read" it when all of the above, some of whom had much more sophisticated equipment and techniques at their disposal, could not. I ask you, what's wrong with this picture?

Finally, lost in all of the vile invective being hurled our way by the members of the RSRG and their fellow travelers, is what the analysis of the physical body on the slides is saying. The RSRG has used a note from an obscure late 1800's journal to weave their tale that the slides show the "mummified body of a two year old boy" (the word "mummy" or "mummified" appears nowhere in their alleged de-blurred "reading" of the placard). In their excitement to play "Gotcha!," it apparently has not crossed their thought processes (I'm being charitable here) that a mummy of a two year old boy several thousand years old would be less than half the size of the body shown on the slides!

So, what are we to make of all this? Jaime Maussan relied upon Tom Carey and Don Schmitt, who relied on all of the above to reach the conclusions that were reached. We have, at this point in the proceedings, have sent out additional copies of the placard image to third parties whose opinions we can trust to run the SmartDeBlur application on it and are prepared to abide by their findings, wherever the chips fall.

Tom Carey.

CasperParks
05-12-2015, 08:05 PM
Photos, slides and videos will come and go. Hard physical evidence is needed.

Even with hard evidence debunkers will be all over it.

Chris
05-12-2015, 08:12 PM
I'm falling behind on following this due to work requirements. Does anybody know who Carey is referring to in the RSRG? And what are the questionable names of the people in the group?

newyorklily
05-12-2015, 09:22 PM
I'm falling behind on following this due to work requirements. Does anybody know who Carey is referring to in the RSRG? And what are the questionable names of the people in the group?

http://www.roswellslides.com/

If you hoover your mouse over where it says on top "The Research Group" it will give you a dropdown of the names. Another person (not listed above), who worked on clearing up the placard, is an image analyst named Nab Lator. He has a Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/nab.lator.3?fref=ts

Longeyes
05-13-2015, 12:32 AM
Isn't the other main member of the Roswell slides research group ,Isaac Koi, he used to post on OM and I think he has here. I would tend to trust his motives.
If the film is from 1947 it doesn't mean the picture is a Roswell alien. If it was found in a Mesa could it be the fossilised remains of an alien left in one. I sincerely doubt it and cannot believe it was from the Roswell crash, but there is no way an specimen that important would have been left to dry out on a shelf.
If they want to save their bacon they've got to come clean now. Show us the highest res photos etc.

Garuda
05-13-2015, 06:17 AM
Grant Cameron just posted this on Facebook. He quotes Richard O'Connor MD, in what appears to be a mail to Linda Moulton Howe.


Dear Linda,
With regard to the ongoing controversy surrounding the Kodachrome slide photo presented at Jaime Maussan's Be Witness event in Mexico City on May 5, 2015, I have determined that, although the placard seen in the photo does read "Mummified Body of Two Year Old Boy", this statement cannot be correct (see below). I did confirm to my satisfaction, using the Smart Deblur v. 2.3 Pro software (as suggested by The Roswell Slides Researchers) that the placard does in fact read "Mummified Body of Two Year Old Boy", but that is as far as I go in agreeing with the widespread and surprisingly vehement criticism I have seen directed at Mr. Maussan and the other experts who presented at the Be Witness event. This criticism is uncalled for and needs to be rectified. I felt that their presentation from Mexico City was very well done, and very informative.

To Wit: there is a woman standing close to and behind the glass display featured in the photo. Using her cuff-to-tip-of-thumb measured distance, and using 5 inches (both mine and my mother's length) as a standard, I calculate that the being in the photo, even in it's shrunken state, is approximately 47 inches in length. This is calculated while applying a 20% increase in the woman's cuff-to-tip-of-thumb measured length, to allow for perspective in the photo. This is a correction which arrives at a shorter calculated height for the being in the photo. This being's calculated length would be the average height of a tall 6 year old male, and would be completely off the growth charts for a 2 year old. Therefore, the placard is false. As an aside, this calculated height would be very consistent with the average reported height of an "Alien Gray" being!

Additionally, a close inspection of the body reveals a number of glaring inconsistencies if we are to assume this body is that of a human being. One of the features most clearly seen in the photo is the left knee joint, and the distal femur is much different than a normal human distal femur. I work as an M.D. anesthesiologist and have participated in 100s of total knee joint replacements. I know what a normal human distal femur looks like. The distal femur in the photo appears much more streamlined. The femoral condyles are not nearly so bulbous as in a normal human distal femur. The adductor tubercle is not present, and there is no patella. Patellar ossification in humans begins at age 3 years, therefore, given the size of this being, a patella should be there, but isn't. Regarding other features, I count only 5 pairs of ribs (humans have 6). There are no clavicles present, yet all human beings have 2 clavicles. There are no teeth. The length of the upper extremity appears to be approximately 3- 4 inches foreshortened for a human being. The nose appears quite small.

I have no photo-manipulation software on my computer that would allow me to more closely inspect the details of the wrist and elbow joints, and I am therefore hoping that an English translation of the comments made by both the Spanish-speaking Mexican forensic pathologist and the Mexican professor of anatomy will soon be forthcoming. I am certain that their observations will be enlightening to many. A DVD of the event, provided with English subtitles, would be very helpful in helping the naysayers amend their views about this important event. I really think that many of them just did not understand about half of the information that was presented in Mexico City. They have all become so hung up on the placard that they cannot move on. Guys, the placard is false information, so ignore it.

Someone needs to find this specimen and carry out DNA testing to determine whether or not this is a human being. I would be most happy to contribute toward covering the cost of DNA testing. Perhaps this specimen may be at some obscure museum in San Francisco (San Francisco is mentioned on the placard). From what I can see in the photo, the question "is this a human being" is a valid question and needs to be definitively answered. My hat is off to Jaime Maussan, Richard Dolan, Tom Carey, Don Schmitt, J.J. Hurtak, the medical experts, and the video witnesses who came forward to speak their Truths. And to you too, Linda. Thanks for all you do to bring our world up to speed. BTW, great interview with Dark Journalist!

Sincerely,
Richard O'Connor, M.D.

He (Grant Cameron) added: Four Foot Tall Two Year Old Mummy without Human Distal Femur or Clavicles?

calikid
05-13-2015, 04:23 PM
Grant Cameron just posted this on Facebook. He quotes Richard O'Connor MD, in what appears to be a mail to Linda Moulton Howe.


Dear Linda,
With regard to the ongoing controversy surrounding the Kodachrome slide photo presented at Jaime Maussan's Be Witness event in Mexico City on May 5, 2015, I have determined that, although the placard seen in the photo does read "Mummified Body of Two Year Old Boy", this statement cannot be correct (see below). I did confirm to my satisfaction, using the Smart Deblur v. 2.3 Pro software (as suggested by The Roswell Slides Researchers) that the placard does in fact read "Mummified Body of Two Year Old Boy", but that is as far as I go in agreeing with the widespread and surprisingly vehement criticism I have seen directed at Mr. Maussan and the other experts who presented at the Be Witness event. This criticism is uncalled for and needs to be rectified. I felt that their presentation from Mexico City was very well done, and very informative.

To Wit: there is a woman standing close to and behind the glass display featured in the photo. Using her cuff-to-tip-of-thumb measured distance, and using 5 inches (both mine and my mother's length) as a standard, I calculate that the being in the photo, even in it's shrunken state, is approximately 47 inches in length. This is calculated while applying a 20% increase in the woman's cuff-to-tip-of-thumb measured length, to allow for perspective in the photo. This is a correction which arrives at a shorter calculated height for the being in the photo. This being's calculated length would be the average height of a tall 6 year old male, and would be completely off the growth charts for a 2 year old. Therefore, the placard is false. As an aside, this calculated height would be very consistent with the average reported height of an "Alien Gray" being!

Additionally, a close inspection of the body reveals a number of glaring inconsistencies if we are to assume this body is that of a human being. One of the features most clearly seen in the photo is the left knee joint, and the distal femur is much different than a normal human distal femur. I work as an M.D. anesthesiologist and have participated in 100s of total knee joint replacements. I know what a normal human distal femur looks like. The distal femur in the photo appears much more streamlined. The femoral condyles are not nearly so bulbous as in a normal human distal femur. The adductor tubercle is not present, and there is no patella. Patellar ossification in humans begins at age 3 years, therefore, given the size of this being, a patella should be there, but isn't. Regarding other features, I count only 5 pairs of ribs (humans have 6). There are no clavicles present, yet all human beings have 2 clavicles. There are no teeth. The length of the upper extremity appears to be approximately 3- 4 inches foreshortened for a human being. The nose appears quite small.

I have no photo-manipulation software on my computer that would allow me to more closely inspect the details of the wrist and elbow joints, and I am therefore hoping that an English translation of the comments made by both the Spanish-speaking Mexican forensic pathologist and the Mexican professor of anatomy will soon be forthcoming. I am certain that their observations will be enlightening to many. A DVD of the event, provided with English subtitles, would be very helpful in helping the naysayers amend their views about this important event. I really think that many of them just did not understand about half of the information that was presented in Mexico City. They have all become so hung up on the placard that they cannot move on. Guys, the placard is false information, so ignore it.

Someone needs to find this specimen and carry out DNA testing to determine whether or not this is a human being. I would be most happy to contribute toward covering the cost of DNA testing. Perhaps this specimen may be at some obscure museum in San Francisco (San Francisco is mentioned on the placard). From what I can see in the photo, the question "is this a human being" is a valid question and needs to be definitively answered. My hat is off to Jaime Maussan, Richard Dolan, Tom Carey, Don Schmitt, J.J. Hurtak, the medical experts, and the video witnesses who came forward to speak their Truths. And to you too, Linda. Thanks for all you do to bring our world up to speed. BTW, great interview with Dark Journalist!

Sincerely,
Richard O'Connor, M.D.

He (Grant Cameron) added: Four Foot Tall Two Year Old Mummy without Human Distal Femur or Clavicles?

Well I did ask for analysis of the body in the photo.
Looks like you delivered Garuda, thanks for finding/posting that.

Seems Dr. O'Connor was able to look past the tag debate, at the subject.
He came away with a different conclusion.

Makes me want to see the interview with subtitles.

calikid
05-13-2015, 04:59 PM
I'm falling behind on following this due to work requirements. Does anybody know who Carey is referring to in the RSRG? And what are the questionable names of the people in the group?

I read there were approximately 20 members of the Group.
Have not seen a complete list, but a few I have found are:
Tom Carey,
Don Schmitt,
Anthony Bragalia.
Nick redfern,
Jaime Maussan,

The Roswell Slides Research Group (http://www.blueblurrylines.com/)
José Antonio Caravaca, Spain
Isaac Koi, UK
Nab Lator, France
Lance Moody, USA
Tim Printy, USA
Curt Collins, USA
Tim Hebert, USA
Paul Kimball, Canada
Gilles Fernandez, France
Trained Observer, USA
Chris Rutkowski, Canada
Roger Glassel, Sweden
S. Miles Lewis, USA

As to who has questionable credentials, I suppose that would be a matter of opinion that Mr. Carey would have to share with us.

majicbar
05-13-2015, 05:46 PM
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?63938-Authentic-Alien-Images-From-Roswell...-FINALLY-FOUND/page2

This posting includes what looks like a second frame from another angle. These might be from the German documentary.

Some interesting images here too.

https://plus.google.com/communities/101181946579603507290/stream/d154c90d-7555-4c51-b508-ffc1217f4f7c

earthman
05-13-2015, 11:21 PM
Some folks are still hangin on even after "Mummy Gate" came out. Ya know, this whole fiasco has torn the UFO community up. Folks need to back away from Dew. He saw dollor signs and ran with it, In my opinion. Shame he involved so many good researchers, staining them a bit. I think Dew needs an ass kickin for this... imo.. sorry...

Garuda
05-14-2015, 03:36 PM
I said from the beginning that I wanted to hear what the experts had to say.

You will remember that there were three experts at the event. This is one of them giving his analysis and conclusions.
He is Dr. José Zalce, a surgeon who specializes in forensic medicine.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MruKIwI9kM

The video has English subtitles.

Garuda
05-14-2015, 04:13 PM
Another testimony, by Dr. Luis Antonio de Alba, who specializes in anatomy and physiology. Again, with English subtitles:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I95O5AaWpzU

Garuda
05-14-2015, 04:17 PM
Also good to know: all English translations and analyses done in English will be published at http://www.bewitness.org/

earthman
05-14-2015, 11:37 PM
Just seen this on Richard Dolan's facebook page...


Just saw this message from Donald R. Schmitt regarding the so-called Roswell Slides. This had to be hard for him to write, and he has my sympathy and respect. I know without a doubt that his intentions, and those of Tom Carey, were sincere. As everyone knows, I supported the idea that the slides were interesting enough that they deserved more investigation. Well, they got it. In my opinion, the matter of the slides is CLOSED. If others wish to debate the physiology of the body, let them. I have no more interest in this matter and fully believe we can and will move on. There remains much work to do. RD.


From Don Schmitt:
"It would seem like I've been here before... Asking my friends and colleagues to accept my sincerest apology for my participation in the recent event in Mexico City. I accept full responsibility for the fact that I allowed myself to be drawn into this situation, albeit with the best of intentions, I sacrificed my better judgement by being overly trusting when I should have known better. As one strives to make up for the mistakes of the past, there are times that emotions cause one to outrun their headlights. In my case, I ran it right off the road. Through the years I have worked hard to earn back your respect and confidence in my work only to presently jeopardize it all. For that I am especially remorseful. I am afraid that after spending almost half of my life devoted to one specific investigation, I allowed the allure of final resolution cloud my skeptical nature to be replaced by a false vision of hope. I now realize that the image in the slides is a mummy as specified by the display placard. At this time I consider the matter concluded and intend on moving forward. My only desire is that you try to understand that I never willfully did anything to mislead or misrepresent what I thought was the truth and I only acted with the best of objectives. Still, if I have offended or hurt anyone through my participation in this event, you have my deepest apology and have every right to hold it against me. When the truth finally was made known to all of us, I realized that I could only blame myself for not only failing you, but more sadly, failing myself. I must do better. And with God's help and your understanding, I promise I will.
Sincerely,
Donald R. Schmitt"

Longeyes
05-14-2015, 11:56 PM
It takes a lot of courage to make an apology like that. Well done Don Schmitt.

Marvin
05-15-2015, 03:08 PM
Another perspective:


http://news.discovery.com/history/roswell-alien-photo-revealed-as-mummified-boy-150514.htm?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_533781



M

calikid
05-15-2015, 04:38 PM
Just seen this on Richard Dolan's facebook page...


Just saw this message from Donald R. Schmitt regarding the so-called Roswell Slides. This had to be hard for him to write, and he has my sympathy and respect. I know without a doubt that his intentions, and those of Tom Carey, were sincere. As everyone knows, I supported the idea that the slides were interesting enough that they deserved more investigation. Well, they got it. In my opinion, the matter of the slides is CLOSED. If others wish to debate the physiology of the body, let them. I have no more interest in this matter and fully believe we can and will move on. There remains much work to do. RD.


From Don Schmitt:
"It would seem like I've been here before... Asking my friends and colleagues to accept my sincerest apology for my participation in the recent event in Mexico City. I accept full responsibility for the fact that I allowed myself to be drawn into this situation, albeit with the best of intentions, I sacrificed my better judgement by being overly trusting when I should have known better. As one strives to make up for the mistakes of the past, there are times that emotions cause one to outrun their headlights. In my case, I ran it right off the road. Through the years I have worked hard to earn back your respect and confidence in my work only to presently jeopardize it all. For that I am especially remorseful. I am afraid that after spending almost half of my life devoted to one specific investigation, I allowed the allure of final resolution cloud my skeptical nature to be replaced by a false vision of hope. I now realize that the image in the slides is a mummy as specified by the display placard. At this time I consider the matter concluded and intend on moving forward. My only desire is that you try to understand that I never willfully did anything to mislead or misrepresent what I thought was the truth and I only acted with the best of objectives. Still, if I have offended or hurt anyone through my participation in this event, you have my deepest apology and have every right to hold it against me. When the truth finally was made known to all of us, I realized that I could only blame myself for not only failing you, but more sadly, failing myself. I must do better. And with God's help and your understanding, I promise I will.
Sincerely,
Donald R. Schmitt"

"Just seen this on Richard Dolan's facebook page..."

I visited his facebook page, can't seem to find this.
Not many posts in the timeline.

Am I looking in the right place?
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Richard-Dolan/169639803137748

Be nice to confirm someone isn't putting words into Mr Schmitt's mouth.

Add note: Did find this, but not familiar with the radio program.
Appears to be confirmation. Hopefully credible.
http://www.kgraradio.com/richard-supports-colleague-don-schmitts-apology/

earthman
05-15-2015, 10:01 PM
Here ya go. Took a few to find it again on his page. https://www.facebook.com/richard.dolan.37/posts/767843873336544?pnref=story

IsaacKoi
05-16-2015, 12:00 AM
Isn't the other main member of the Roswell slides research group ,Isaac Koi, he used to post on OM and I think he has here. I would tend to trust his motives.


Thanks Longeyes.

I still drop in here fairly often, but don't post very much.

I think virtually everyone that has looked into the issue now accepts the deblurring results of the Roswell Slides Research Group (of which I am a member).

Those results have now been duplicated independently by quite a few people (including David Rudiak, one of the experts that had been named at the show in Mexico) and led to the apologies issued by Anthony Bragalia and Don Schmitt.

I've probably spent too much time on the "Roswell Slides". I'm about to turn to focus again on UFO documents. I'll probably start a thread here in a week or two about another collection of material which I hope to share.

Sentry579
05-16-2015, 01:13 AM
Whoa, hold the phone! That list of members has the red and black checkers mixed all together.
Let me try and fix it for you:

The Roswell Slides Promoters (the bad guys)
Tom Carey,
Don Schmitt,
Anthony Bragalia.
Jaime Maussan
Adam Dew and his silent partner Joseph Beason

The Good Guys
The Roswell Slides Research Group (http://www.roswellslides.com)
Formed in early Feb. 2015, just a loose collection of folks with a shared interest.
As we ran into snags, we drafted some outside expertise.
José Antonio Caravaca, Spain
Isaac Koi, UK
Nab Lator, France
Lance Moody, USA
Tim Printy, USA
Curt Collins, USA
Tim Hebert, USA
Paul Kimball, Canada
Gilles Fernandez, France
Trained Observer, USA
Chris Rutkowski, Canada
Roger Glassel, Sweden
S. Miles Lewis, USA
Jeff Ritzmann USA (was an 11th hour volunteer/recruit)

These guys are either associate, auxiliary members, or cool for some other reason:
Thanks to our colleagues and associates, including Alejandro Espino (for the
Israel Ampuero team, Spain), Philippe Hernandez, Aaron J Gulyas, Irna France, Nick Redfern, Fin Handley and many, many more who provided help.

In addition to the RSRG (http://www.roswellslides.com) site,
some members have articles at thier individual sites or blogs.
Mine is http://www.blueblurrylines.com

earthman
05-16-2015, 01:27 AM
Great Isaac. Thanks for stopping by. This case is closed looks like. Roswell probably did happen but ever getting proof will not happen. Just don't think so. Won't stop us from trying though... We can't stop or let this debacle close the case.

Sentry579
05-16-2015, 02:22 AM
Where's my last post?
Eaten, vanished, awaiting moderation?

There was a list of the Roswell Slides Research Group (Slidebusters) that was seriously confused.
Tom Carey, Don Schmitt and friends were the promoters of the slides. (The perps.)

epo333
05-16-2015, 02:39 AM
Whoa, hold the phone! That list of members has the red and black checkers mixed all together.
Let me try and fix it for you:

The Roswell Slides Promoters (the bad guys)
Tom Carey,
Don Schmitt,
Anthony Bragalia.
Jaime Maussan
Adam Dew and his silent partner Joseph Beason

The Good Guys
The Roswell Slides Research Group (http://www.roswellslides.com)
Formed in early Feb. 2015, just a loose collection of folks with a shared interest.
As we ran into snags, we drafted some outside expertise.
José Antonio Caravaca, Spain
Isaac Koi, UK
Nab Lator, France
Lance Moody, USA
Tim Printy, USA
Curt Collins, USA
Tim Hebert, USA
Paul Kimball, Canada
Gilles Fernandez, France
Trained Observer, USA
Chris Rutkowski, Canada
Roger Glassel, Sweden
S. Miles Lewis, USA
Jeff Ritzmann USA (was an 11th hour volunteer/recruit)

These guys are either associate, auxiliary members, or cool for some other reason:
Thanks to our colleagues and associates, including Alejandro Espino (for the
Israel Ampuero team, Spain), Philippe Hernandez, Aaron J Gulyas, Irna France, Nick Redfern, Fin Handley and many, many more who provided help.

In addition to the RSRG (http://www.roswellslides.com) site,
some members have articles at thier individual sites or blogs.
Mine is http://www.blueblurrylines.com

I believe your 1st post is awaiting moderation due to a combination of links and your post count. I think the system set-up is up that way, to catch spam or some such.

I quoted you here so that your 1st post will be viewable!

I'm sure an Admin could explain this better. LOL, I'm sure one will be along here shortly

newyorklily
05-16-2015, 03:27 AM
Where's my last post?
Eaten, vanished, awaiting moderation?

There was a list of the Roswell Slides Research Group (Slidebusters) that was seriously confused.
Tom Carey, Don Schmitt and friends were the promoters of the slides. (The perps.)

Your post (#151) has been approved. You should be able to see it now.

calikid
05-16-2015, 02:21 PM
Where's my last post?
Eaten, vanished, awaiting moderation?

There was a list of the Roswell Slides Research Group (Slidebusters) that was seriously confused.
Tom Carey, Don Schmitt and friends were the promoters of the slides. (The perps.)



Low post count and multiple links often equals SPAM.
To help combat such, those type of posts are automatically held for staff approval.
Sorry for the delay, but at least your post wasn't sandwiched between advertisements. :)

Thanks for sorting out the names. Very helpful!

newyorklily
05-16-2015, 05:12 PM
Thanks Longeyes.

I still drop in here fairly often, but don't post very much.

I think virtually everyone that has looked into the issue now accepts the deblurring results of the Roswell Slides Research Group (of which I am a member).

Those results have now been duplicated independently by quite a few people (including David Rudiak, one of the experts that had been named at the show in Mexico) and led to the apologies issued by Anthony Bragalia and Don Schmitt.

I've probably spent too much time on the "Roswell Slides". I'm about to turn to focus again on UFO documents. I'll probably start a thread here in a week or two about another collection of material which I hope to share.

Glad to hear that, IsaacKoi. I look forward to reading your new thread.

Garuda
05-25-2015, 07:41 PM
If you thought the dust had settled by now, you'd be mistaken.

Maussan still is adamant that this is not a mummified child.

See, e.g., this interview by Maurizio Baiata:
http://mauriziobaiata.net/2015/05/23/jaime-maussan-does-not-give-up-that-is-not-a-mummified-child-the-mexican-journalist-under-fire-for-the-roswell-slides-talks-to-maurizio-baiata/

Or this article on Whitley Strieber's Dreamland: http://www.unknowncountry.com/dreamland/jaime-maussan-says-roswell-slides-are-not-fake
(There is a link on the page to the audio interview with Linda Moulton Howe).

Linda Moulton Howe, in the mean time, published an article where she refutes that the picture was taken in the Million Dollar Museum, because, by now, pictures of the alien that was on display there have surfaced, and they're clearly showing something different than the body in the 'Roswell' slides.
https://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=2315&category=Environment

On the other side of the debate, others draw different conclusions. See, e.g., the 'What we can learn from the Roswell slides' article by Adam Gorightly:
https://gorightly.wordpress.com/2015/05/24/what-can-we-learn-from-the-roswell-slides-by-adam-gorightly/

calikid
05-25-2015, 08:23 PM
If you thought the dust had settled by now, you'd be mistaken.

Maussan still is adamant that this is not a mummified child.

See, e.g., this interview by Maurizio Baiata:
http://mauriziobaiata.net/2015/05/23/jaime-maussan-does-not-give-up-that-is-not-a-mummified-child-the-mexican-journalist-under-fire-for-the-roswell-slides-talks-to-maurizio-baiata/

Or this article on Whitley Strieber's Dreamland: http://www.unknowncountry.com/dreamland/jaime-maussan-says-roswell-slides-are-not-fake
(There is a link on the page to the audio interview with Linda Moulton Howe).

Linda Moulton Howe, in the mean time, published an article where she refutes that the picture was taken in the Million Dollar Museum, because, by now, pictures of the alien that was on display there have surfaced, and they're clearly showing something different than the body in the 'Roswell' slides.
https://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=2315&category=Environment

On the other side of the debate, others draw different conclusions. See, e.g., the 'What we can learn from the Roswell slides' article by Adam Gorightly:
https://gorightly.wordpress.com/2015/05/24/what-can-we-learn-from-the-roswell-slides-by-adam-gorightly/
Wow. Some biting sarcasm in Gorightly article. Would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

IsaacKoi
06-10-2015, 10:34 AM
One of my fellow members of the Roswell Slides Research Group, Jose Antonio Caravaca, shared a new (and clearer) photo of the mummy earlier today. He has now posted that photo on his blog at the link below. (I expect details to follow fairly soon):

http://caravaca.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/diapositivas-de-roswell-fin-de-la.html




1351

Doc
06-10-2015, 04:37 PM
One of my fellow members of the Roswell Slides Research Group, Jose Antonio Caravaca, shared a new (and clearer) photo of the mummy earlier today. He has now posted that photo on his blog at the link below. (I expect details to follow fairly soon):

http://caravaca.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/diapositivas-de-roswell-fin-de-la.html




1351

The looks pretty convincing...and final. Thanks for posting that evidence, Isaac.

Garuda
06-10-2015, 05:11 PM
This is a direct link to that image:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7OdhahkmLM0/VXe-dNxe2kI/AAAAAAAAE1w/MXtpI8C7e7U/s1600/momoi.jpg

IsaacKoi
06-10-2015, 05:38 PM
This is a direct link to that image:


Thank you for embedding the image properly Garuda.

I did try embedding it in my post but only got a small thumbnail.

earthman
06-10-2015, 06:17 PM
By lookin at this shot of the "mummy", they knew all along it was just that. You can read the plack...Scammers, lookin to make money.

Doc
06-10-2015, 07:01 PM
By lookin at this shot of the "mummy", they knew all along it was just that. You can read the plack...Scammers, lookin to make money.

Exactly, when a plaque has to be blanked out and the entire image shown in low resolution to be able to "sell" it as alien, someone had to either be incredibly lucky at finding conveniently blurry images or good with photo-shopping.

IsaacKoi
06-12-2015, 12:47 AM
Maussan has made repeated unqualified statements during the last 36 hours that the mummy photo supplied by Jorge Peredo was a fraud and a painting clearly created in Photoshop in an attempt to debunk his event in Mexico unveiling the "Roswell Slides" on 5 May 2015. It will be (mildly) interesting to see how Maussan responds to the _2008_ online source for the above photo (discussed in the new article at the link below by Anthony Bragalia on Kevin Randle's blog):
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/second-photograph-found-of-roswell-alien.html

In short, it appears that the photo above was uploaded in 2008 to a Picasaweb album at the link below:
http://picasaweb.google.com/spadie34/Arizona19571967#5243459729619431298

earthman
06-12-2015, 09:01 AM
Maussan isn't going to let this die. He needs to just back away or this will be his downfall, which in my view, has already happened. I don't think I will believe nuttin this kook says again. What a black eye for the rest of us. I would love to give one back to him about now.

IsaacKoi
06-13-2015, 02:45 PM
More nails in the coffin of the Roswell Slides (although the lid was pretty firmly nailed down a while ago...):

Further to a FOIA request by researcher Shepherd Johnson, the National Park Service has released 186 pages of documentation concerning the Montezuma Castle / Mesa Verde child mummy. As Shepherd has already mentioned on Facebook, the documents can be accessed here:
http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/foia/foia-frd.htm

The material is in PDF format here:
http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/foia/upload/MEVE_ChildMummyDocs_ForWeb.pdf

Just for ease of browsing and sharing on Facebook, I've converted the Roswell Slides material provide further to Shepherd Johnson's FOIA request into a Facebook album (with a title, and a description, giving credit to him - of course): https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10203829857256486.1073741837.1521667891&type=1&l=29f3a2fe47

This material includes further photos of the mummy.

Garuda
06-13-2015, 04:47 PM
Soon we'll have more nails than coffin! ;)

Doc
06-13-2015, 06:04 PM
Maussan isn't going to let this die. He needs to just back away or this will be his downfall, which in my view, has already happened. I don't think I will believe nuttin this kook says again. What a black eye for the rest of us. I would love to give one back to him about now.

I think he is shameless. Of the type that if he were to be run out of town by a mob he would say he had led a parade in his honor. At one of the last UFO Congress in Laughlin he was part of a presentation that included a number of pictures of clusters of balloons, intended by some someone(s) to be a hoax, which he and co-presenter were passing off as genuine. Among the audience, any of us with any of his/her critical faculties in good order could easily see they were were clusters of balloons. It was awful. People applauded politely. Privately they were saying to each other, "is he kidding?" It is the opinion of many that he is "journalism as show biz" and is there to sell tickets. He works in a medium that constantly demands new and exciting content. So, we all may be done with him but I doubt he is done with us. Some one wrote recently that "Jaime jumped the shark a while ago and hasn't jumped back." He was being kind.

He is being trashed all over the Ufolological world:

http://drmsh.com/2015/05/07/roswell-alien-kodachrome-slide-fraud-put-to-rest/

Lee
06-13-2015, 07:35 PM
More nails in the coffin of the Roswell Slides (although the lid was pretty firmly nailed down a while ago...):

Further to a FOIA request by researcher Shepherd Johnson, the National Park Service has released 186 pages of documentation concerning the Montezuma Castle / Mesa Verde child mummy. As Shepherd has already mentioned on Facebook, the documents can be accessed here:
http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/foia/foia-frd.htm

The material is in PDF format here:
http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/foia/upload/MEVE_ChildMummyDocs_ForWeb.pdf

Just for ease of browsing and sharing on Facebook, I've converted the Roswell Slides material provide further to Shepherd Johnson's FOIA request into a Facebook album (with a title, and a description, giving credit to him - of course): https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10203829857256486.1073741837.1521667891&type=1&l=29f3a2fe47

This material includes further photos of the mummy.
Thanks for posting that here, Isaac!

I've been keeping an eye on this story since the "big reveal" on the 5th May, at which point it became clear to most of us that we were looking at images of a child mummy.

On the one hand it has been slightly embarrasing to watch certain well known individuals refuse to accept the obvious conclusion, on the other hand it has been good to see researchers come to a 100% solid conclusion. For me, despite the damage done to various peoples reputations, it just goes to show that the online UFO community are more than capable of getting to the bottom of any given story.

Withn just over a month we now know for certain the following facts:

- The Kodachrome slides depict a mummified child.
- The Mummy was discovered in 1896 at Montezuma Castle by SL Palmer
- It was put on display at Mesa verde museum where the Rays took their picture aprox 1947.
- It was later moved to the Montezuma museum where it was photographed by Frank Hadl in December 1956.
- The rest, as they say is (slightly embarrassing ufological) history.

The extensive FOIA file above provides all of this detailed inforamtion and much more. So now, hopefully, the child at the center of this story can finaly be laid to rest. Hats off to the RSRG, to Jose Antonio Caravaca , Shepherd Johnson and all involved for what has turned out to be an outstanding investigation!

CasperParks
06-13-2015, 11:51 PM
Thanks for posting that here, Isaac!

I've been keeping an eye on this story since the "big reveal" on the 5th May, at which point it became clear to most of us that we were looking at images of a child mummy.

On the one hand it has been slightly embarrasing to watch certain well known individuals refuse to accept the obvious conclusion, on the other hand it has been good to see researchers come to a 100% solid conclusion. For me, despite the damage done to various peoples reputations, it just goes to show that the online UFO community are more than capable of getting to the bottom of any given story.

Withn just over a month we now know for certain the following facts:

- The Kodachrome slides depict a mummified child.
- The Mummy was discovered in 1896 at Montezuma Castle by SL Palmer
- It was put on display at Mesa verde museum where the Rays took their picture aprox 1947.
- It was later moved to the Montezuma museum where it was photographed by Frank Hadl in December 1956.
- The rest, as they say is (slightly embarrassing ufological) history.

The extensive FOIA file above provides all of this detailed inforamtion and much more. So now, hopefully, the child at the center of this story can finaly be laid to rest. Hats off to the RSRG, to Jose Antonio Caravaca , Shepherd Johnson and all involved for what has turned out to be an outstanding investigation!

Lee, thanks for a break-down that put the entire affair into an easy to follow perspective.

I concur with Lee.

It showed the UFO community as mostly united and able to sort wheat from chaff.

There is an "emerging network" within the UFO Community of respectable researchers. At this point, Ufology is no longer a "fringe" science.