Sunday, November 30, 2014

The Roswell Slides and Premature Disclosure


There are times when premature disclosure can ruin an investigation and close avenues of research. Back in the last century (which is a line that cracks me up for some reason) Gerald Anderson burst on the scene with his tale of seeing the crashed saucer over on the Plains of San Agustin. Contrary to popular belief, I was the first to talk to him and found his tale interesting but in conflict with the information that Don Schmitt and I were developing. We didn’t understand how the Barney Barnett tale fit into the whole Roswell picture, especially if Anderson’s date and location were accurate. Anderson seemed to be corroboration of the Barnett story and it was from an alleged first-hand source.

Anderson told me that he could identify the archaeologists that Barnett had mentioned, said they were from the University of Pennsylvania, and the leader was a guy named Adrian Buskirk. Tom Carey, who had studied anthropology as both an undergraduate and graduate student, took on the search for Buskirk and found a guy named Winfred Buskirk, and given the identikit sketch of Buskirk provided by Anderson, looked like it was the right guy. But Buskirk denied that he had been involved and during the summer of 1947 was in Arizona working with the western Apache and on his dissertation.

The question became if Buskirk wasn’t on the Plains of San Agustin to have seen the crashed saucer, then how would Anderson know about him. Buskirk, who had taught high school anthropology in Albuquerque was as confused as the rest of us. He solved the problem by calling friends at the Albuquerque High School who looked at the records there. According to what they told Buskirk, Anderson had taken his anthropology class. Buskirk told me this and provided the names of three contacts at the school if I wanted to verify the information. This I did, and in fact, the man on the phone told me that he was looking at the transcript as we spoke. Anderson had taken Burkirk’s anthropology class. We had put the two of them together in the same class room at the same time.

I called Fred Whiting at the Fund for UFO Research and told him what I had discovered. Whiting, in turn, called Stan Friedman, who called Anderson. Anderson then called the school and threatened them with a lawsuit if they disclosed anything about his academic record. Anderson then sent me a letter with the same threats, but in the course of that, verified some of the information I had received. Anderson insisted he had not taken Buskirk’s class but had taken sociology instead.

The upshot of this was no one else would be able to verify the information. Had I not told Whiting and set that chain in motion, better evidence could have been obtained and Anderson’s tale would have been rejected much sooner than it was. I can now mention all this because those who helped me are not in danger of losing their jobs. Yes, I have documentation to back this up, including letters from Buskirk confirming this.

That was premature disclosure.

So, how does this relate to the Roswell slides?

In much the same way.

I first learned of the slides, not from my research partners, but through Rich Reynolds’ UFO Iconoclasts blog. He mentioned the information came from Nick Redfern. While I didn’t believe most of what Rich had published about the slides, especially about some sort of nondisclosure agreement, I emailed Nick about it. Nick suggested that I call him, so I did.

At that point he confirmed what Rich had published. Or, at least, it was what he had been told, including the names of some of those involved. I next checked with my research partners and learned that the information Rich had published was accurate. I just hadn’t been in the loop.

At that point, I suspended work on the slides because others were involved and that nondisclosure agreement bothered me. As much as I wanted to publish here what I knew, I also suspected that the man who owned the slides would think that they had told me. If the man with the slides wanted nondisclosure agreements, it meant that he was serious about this, and if I entered into the investigation uninvited, then he could invoke the agreements. The investigation would end there.

I had learned the name of the man, not from either Don or Tom. I had just enough information about him that it took me about three minutes to find an active telephone number for him. I’m not sure why I bothered with that because I had no intention of calling him. If I did that, he could take his slides and go home. The investigation would have been ended. To me, the end result, that is verifying the provenance of the slides and securing as much data about them as possible was the most important aspect of it. I could stand aside and let the investigation go.

Sure, I had ideas. When I was told that the coding on the edge of the slide film proved that it had been manufactured in 1947, I asked if they knew that the codes were recycled every twenty years, which meant the film could have been manufactured in 1927 or 1967 rather than 1947. I believed that the chemical composition of the film and a proper analysis of the chemicals used in developing the film might be important in dating the film. I wasn’t told if this was being done but have since learned, as has everyone else, that a Kodak official has verified the date… and no, I don’t know how that verification was done. If it is based solely on the dating code, then that doesn’t do much for us.

I didn’t want to wreck the investigation of what could be some of the most important evidence of the Roswell case just so that I could know everything that was going on immediately. I put my trust in Tom who had put his trust in Don. Or, in other words, I believed that when the time came, I would eventually have the information necessary.

The problem for me was that others were being brought in. Tom and Don got permission to ask questions of others but I was left out of the loop. In conversations and emails with various people, I learned a little more, but never anything that wasn’t already out in the UFO community… I suppose a more accurate way was to point out that I was getting corroboration of what I knew as opposed as getting anything from them. I wasn’t actively looking for the information but was getting it as a by-product of other work.

The real point is that there wasn’t much for me to do in the investigation. I made suggestions about what should be done, I harped on the provenance, and on chemical analysis as a way of dating the slides, but I wasn’t being told anything specific… Oh, I wanted to publish but knew that could destroy the working relationship between the source and Tom and Don.

Just over a year ago, this whole thing had a minor detonation. Information got out and people asked me about it. I felt the information was proprietary. Some of the things I knew, I didn’t think should be shared widely because I believed that could damage the work being done. I answered questions by saying that I was not part of the investigation, which was true. I used that to dodge the question so that I didn’t have to lie about it. I wasn’t involved in the investigation and had done no real work beyond the preliminaries when the information first surfaced but that was what everyone else already knew. It wasn’t the exact truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but it wasn’t false either. Some took offense at that, the very thing I had attempted to avoid. My statements were misinterpreted and twisted and not what I had said, but that happens quite a bit in the world of the Internet and all too often in the world of the UFO.

The leaks in this weren’t coming from Tom and Don. Nick had learned of all this from a source in Midland, Texas, but it was never clear to me how that source learned about this. Nick had told me, so long ago, that the slides were discovered in a box of slides as a woman was cleaning out a house after the owner had died. The slides were taped to the underside of the top of a box and didn’t seem to be part of the slides filed in the rest of the box. The other slides were of the same era, meaning 1947, which suggested a date, but certainly wasn’t evidence of it.

The name of the woman who had cleaned the house and the name of the now deceased owner were known, but that still didn’t tell anyone who had taken the slides or how they had gotten into that box. There was speculation about who had taken them, but, at that time, no one knew for certain. And there was no way to connect them to Roswell, other than there just couldn’t be that many UFO crashes. It was deduced that they were from Roswell.

As we know from what Tom has said lately the slides were dated as 1947 and that a historian at Kodak verified that. Tom’s specific words were, “It’s 1947 stock. From the emulsions on the image, it’s not something that’s been photo-shopped like today. It’s original 1947 images and it shows an alien who’s been partially dissected lying in a case.”

I can dissect that statement but I wasn’t in the room to ask the specific questions which means that someone probably didn’t ask them. I would have asked had there been a chemical analysis done, which might have provided an accurate date. It is a question that will come up. Yes, the image on the slides is a real image, but that doesn’t mean it was a real alien. I know that the slide holder was from the proper time frame and I know the code could be from 1947 but the code is not definitive.

Tom also said that the creature is “three and a half to four feet tall, the head is almost insect-like. The head has been severed and there’s a partial autopsy. The innards have been removed, and we believe the cadaver has been embalmed, at least at the time this picture was taken."

A question that comes to my mind is how does this affect the Glenn Dennis story. The illustrations that he supplied of what the alien supposed looked like is not insectoid. They more closely resembled the heads described by Betty Hill at one point and the arms and hands look like the Martians from the 1953 War of the Worlds. Does this mean that they now reject the Glenn Dennis testimony? Oh, it wasn’t that strong in the first place because the descriptions he offered were second hand at best.

There is an indication that they have a witness who is over 90 years old who said that the creature on the slides looks like the creatures he saw. Given what I know about Tom, I’m sure that he has verified that this unnamed source was assigned to the base at Roswell in 1947 (or to one of the other commands in the proper time frame) so that he could have seen the creatures recovered there. That would tend to tie the slides to Roswell but that still doesn’t tell us who took them and how they ended up in Midland, Texas.

There are a couple of other points. In the pictures, the alien’s midsection is obscured by a hand lettered sign that could provide some information. Unfortunately it is turned at a sharp angle to the camera so that it can’t be read. Yes, there have been attempts to read it, but it is more obscured than the Ramey Memo.

At the moment, from what I know, there doesn’t seem to be an answer to the question of who took the slides. There is speculation, and even if that speculation is accurate, the man can’t be interviewed because he is long dead. That, I think is going to be a stumbling block.

I will say, however, that this isn’t really an investigation in the scientific arena. Areas of science can be used such as the chemical analysis of the slide stock and the chemicals used to develop the film, but this is actually an historical investigation. Given what is in the hands of Tom and Don, history is a more appropriate arena. The case needs to be put together as historical research with a dash of documentary evidence thrown in and a little bit of scientific analysis.

But the real point here is that premature disclosure could have wrecked the investigation and there wouldn’t be any controversy if some of the information hadn’t leaked too early. That information didn’t come from Tom or Don and I don’t believe they had any reason to disclose what they knew in the very beginning. They had made no public claims about the slides and while there were those who wished to know more, neither Tom nor Don had an obligation to supply that information. In fact there could be legal ramifications if they did.

That situation has changed with the information released at the press conference. Tom announced officially that they had the slides and that some research had been done. Once he did that, then questions that have been asked for the last two years should have been answered. No evidence was offered… it was sort of a presumption of evidence to come. It was “Here is what we have and we will let you know about it soon.”

Tom said that everything would be revealed after the first of the year, but the trouble with that is that he was sitting at the table telling the story now. If he was not prepared to share the evidence, then he shouldn’t have been talking about this in the way he was at the forum where he was. The issue of premature disclosure was over… he had ended it with the announcement.

Oh, I’m willing to wait a few more weeks for the detailed information but if he, and Don, were not prepared to provide it, they should have waited. After all the turmoil over the last eighteen to twenty months, that was what should have been done… But, of course, that wasn’t my call, I had no hand in making the decision, and have no inside information contrary to what some believe.


25 comments:

cda said...

Tom Carey's words:

"It’s original 1947 images and it shows an alien who’s been partially dissected lying in a case.”

Two questions:

1. Does Carey know what an alien (i.e. an ET) looks like? Has he ever seen one or is such a thing known to science? I repeat: does ANYONE know what an alien really looks like?

2. Does Carey know when the photos were taken? He may have a good idea when the film was produced, but does he know when it was exposed? I submit that he does not. Neither does anyone else.

David Rudiak said...

I'm no film expert, but from the little I do know, the following should be noted.

Regarding film stock and edge codes repeating every 20 years, Kodachrome slide film did NOT exist in 1927, in fact only came out around 1938/39. The chemistry and slide covers did change over the decades, so that would be another way to date when the film was produced. According to Carey, the Kodak historian dated the chemistry as well as the edge code to 1947. Nothing was said about the slide cover, which might tell us more.

Yes, the year of production does not tell us exactly when the film was actually exposed, but film does deteriorate and fog from exposure to background radiation and heat, colors change, etc. That is why film has expiration dates printed on it. An expert should also be able to tell from the clarity of the pictures whether the film was exposed within a few years of production date or decades later. Again, I don't know what work has or has not been done on this.

Unless somebody kept some old 1947 film in a lead-lined, chilled vault, you cannot use decades-old film stock in the present to fake pictures. This does not sound like job for amateurs, but one of those 3-letter agencies.

Nitram Ang said...

Interesting article again - thank you Dr Randle.

As an aside, I am a little surprised that D&T still believe in the tales of Glenn Dennis.

David Rudiak wrote:

"According to Carey, the Kodak historian dated the chemistry as well as the edge code to 1947. Nothing was said about the slide cover, which might tell us more."

Ok - I can accept this for now, but surely the question would have been asked at the time of this "verification" - CAN YOU CONFIRM THE DATE THE FILM WAS EXPOSED?

Like David, I am also no film expert (more of an "enthusiast", as we like to say) anyway - after having possession of this slide for over a couple of years now surely we know whether the film was exposed within a year or two of production or decades later.

It's such a ridiculously obvious question and the only reason I can think why we are not provided with the answer is that it WASN'T exposed in July of 1947.

David Rudiak said...

Nitram,

From chemistry and deterioration of image, an expert might be able to narrow down exposure to within a decade or even a probable few years, but not to within a year, much less the specific month of the year.

The slide cover could conceivably tell us more. E.g., through 1955, Kodak had a monopoly on development of Kodachrome film. Therefore a non-Kodak slide cover would point to post-1955 for development (though not necessarily exposure).

An expert could give us probabilities of time of exposure and development, but can never provide an exact date. However, if the film stock dates to 1947 and the film was probably dated in exposure and development to within a half dozen years, this obviously rules out a modern hoax, and begs the question why create an OLD alien autopsy hoax and who would have motive to do so, if that is what it is?

Alien autopsies were not exactly standard fare in 1950s flying saucer movies, so a film prop seems highly unlikely if the slides are old. Therefore, the only other likely hoax scenario for OLD slides would be a three-letter government agency.

Leonard Stringfield wrote that he was warned by a CIA source not to get into a pissing match over the authenticity of any alien autopsy movies or film, as allegedly they were all faked. Stringfield also had several military pilot sources claiming they were shown alien autopsy movies (usually these date to the 1950s and 60s).

One source, I recall, said he thought the purpose of showing such a film to a group of fellow jet jockeys was to gauge their reaction to such a disclosure. Of course, a fake film would serve just as well for such a purpose as a real one and preserve some plausible deniability.

But even assuming this is all true, what would be the possible purpose of such faking unless it was based in some reality?

Nitram Ang said...

Hi David

Thanks for replying and apologies if I sound too negative (no pun intended).

I agree largely with what you have said, but my main grumble is the "date" of the exposure.

Again you state "An expert could give us probabilities of time of exposure and development, but can never provide an exact date. However, if the film stock dates to 1947 and the film was probably dated in exposure and development to within a half dozen years". Again I accept this - but why hasn't this question been asked years ago and if it has - why doesn't TC and the rest of the team have an answer?

Somebody surely must have asked that question about the exposure date long ago!?

Your points about who would fake them and why are noted - but I'm really trying to stay focused on the key point of the exposure date rather than by passing the matter.

Jack Brewer said...

David Rudiak asked, "But even assuming this is all true, what would be the possible purpose of such faking unless it was based in some reality?"

Nick Redfern addressed related questions in an article back in March. If he's correct, it might explain how some of the whistleblowers are neither hoaxing nor witnesses to aliens:

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2014/03/dead-aliens-or-special-effects/

Terry the Censor said...

> Therefore, the only other likely hoax scenario for OLD slides would be a three-letter government agency.

In the absence of any evidence whatsoever, naturally, you are able to conclude it's a government conspiracy. Well done.

> what would be the possible purpose of such faking unless it was based in some reality?

Even fake pictures of aliens are positive evidence of alien visitation. Good to know.

So...I think I can now reproduce Dr. Rudiak with three lines of BASIC:

10 INPUT X
20 PRINT X "proves aliens have visited Earth."
30 GO TO 10

Capt Steve said...

Terry,

I think David R's comment regarding the three-letter agencies concerned having the foresight and resources to keep 1947 film viable in the right conditions for decades, NOT the slides themselves.I can see where a strategy would be useful for a LOT more than messing with UFO enthusiasts.

Unfortunately, the nature of the medium (Kodachrome) limits what we can learn about the images. Research might be able to determine when the slides were developed to within several years (maybe) but there's no better data in the medium; there's no timestamp, no location data, no data telling us what camera was used, all the fancy stuff we have in digital format (and which can be modified, so caveat emptor for digital shots as well).

The best possible outcome would be to determine that the film was manufactured in 1947, that it was developed within a few years of manufacture, that the provenance of the slides can be confirmed, and that they show something unusual. There's no way to tie them to a specific date or event (such as Roswell) based on the slides themselves.

Robert said...

First to Kevin, thank you for a well written article covering at least your side of this.

How did the Kodak official determine the date of the stock? Did he take the easy way out and just look at the symbols and based upon that made a statement OR did they actually take a piece of the slide and do a chemical analysis on it to determine this? To my knowledge we don't know.

As to Kodak and how old film is if you go out to this web site you can figure out the year of manufacture. See: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/Guide_to_Identifying_Year_of_Manufacture.pdf

The next question (which has been asked earlier) would be: How do we know that those particular slides were "actually exposed" in 1947?

Then we would ask Is it possible to go out and buy old unexposed Kodak film from somewhere? Answer is yes. See this link for unexposed movie film on ebay. http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=1947+kodachrome&_from=R40&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.X1947+kodachrome+unexposed&_nkw=1947+kodachrome+unexposed&_sacat=0

Another question would be: How do we know that these particular slides were taken at Roswell in June or July of 1947? Is there anything in the background of the pictures that would connect it back to Roswell?

Assuming the slides are real, even though the film is dated 1947 we don't know when the actual pictures were taken. It could have been anytime between January and December 1947, 48, 49, 50, 51 etc. I have known photographers that have found some old rolls of unexposed film and went ahead and used it just to get rid of it.

Do we have other slides that tie back to the same roll of film? That might be helpful.

Where did the original owner of the box of slides get the slides from? Were they his/hers or did they buy them at a yard sale years ago?

Do we have evidence that the original owner in fact owned a camera? If we know the house that was being cleaned out, then we would know the name of the person and may be able to locate family members still living.

There is a lot of information that still needs to be discovered.

Lance said...

It's a sad testimony to the state of all things Roswell that Kevin's piece here is filled top to bottom with the names of liars and frauds.

Indeed much of what makes up the mythology came from these sorts of sources and their supporters.

The most dubious of these have been discarded by rational folks like Kevin. Unfortunately the gossamer framework of their lies remains somehow part of the story "supported" by tertiary "witnesses".

I think David makes a good point in one respect: if the dating of the image of the supposed alien in the supposed slides is confirmed to be pre-1970 and it does look convincing (that is if it is a good looking alien), then I think it will only be a matter of hours until the source of the subject matter will be revealed.

It needs to be remembered that this is unfortunately currently in the hands of the worst sort of believer/liar/exaggerators so NONE of what they claim should be accepted without independent confirmation.

Bragalia for instance simply makes stuff up. For instance, he made up the idea that a LIFE magazine staffer had "confirmed" that a photo was taken by Paul Trent when in actuality the photo was taken by Loomis Dean.

That Bragalia is part of this is a very bad sign and it is unfortunate that Kevin gives any attention at all to his ravings.

Lance

KRandle said...

Lance -

Do you really wish to paint with such a broad brush? What lie, for example, would you pin on Buskirk? Or Fred Whiting?

cda said...

These people may not be liars or frauds, but it does not follow that they know what they are talking about.

For instance, if Tom Carey actually said the words in quotes that are attributed to him: "It’s original 1947 images and it shows an alien who’s been partially dissected lying in a case” then he simply does NOT know what he is talking about, for the reasons I gave before. It is, quite simply, trash.

But I don't suppose anyone in that audience picked him up on this point.

And if Carey, and others, are still propagating this garbage, why should we, as reasonably intelligent people, accept anything else he says.

David Rudiak said...

"Terry the Censor" as usual snidely wrote (deliberately quoting me out of context):
Partial quote: "Therefore, the only other likely hoax scenario for OLD slides would be a three-letter government agency."

In the absence of any evidence whatsoever, naturally, you are able to conclude it's a government conspiracy. Well done.


I very clearly already elaborated on my own quote (after discussing deterioration of film stock over decades):

"Unless somebody kept some old 1947 film in a lead-lined, chilled vault, you cannot use decades-old film stock in the present to fake pictures. This does not sound like a job for amateurs, but one of those 3-letter agencies."

This was obviously a pure hypothetical. IF the film was indeed OLD, and IF it were a MODERN hoax, then likely it was well beyond the ability of amateurs, who do not typically try to preserve film stock for decades. That was the only point I was making.

On the other hand, OLD film exposed and developed soon after (i.e. within a few years), obviously cannot be a modern hoax. It is either of something genuine or an OLD hoax for much more obscure reasons, since alien autopsy hoaxing is a modern phenomenon (at least publicly). If a hoax, this again does not seem to be in the realm of amateurs, but of those "guvmint conspiracy" 3-letter agencies.

I also discussed Leonard Stringfield's comments about some CIA guy telling him not to get into fight over the genuineness of alien autopsy photos/films (which some of Stringfield's sources claimed they had viewed decades earlier). Allegedly they were all faked said the CIA source.

I then asked the obvious questions, even IF true, then faked by whom and why?

All this, of course, was left out by "Terry", who still hides behind his pseudonym (excuse me, "title") and thus not take full responsibility for his stupid and inaccurate barbs. That is the usual signature of a troll.

Steve Sawyer said...

"...but why hasn't this question been asked years ago and if it has - why doesn't TC and the rest of the team have an answer?"

Well, this is "begging the question," but what makes you think TC and crew don't have an answer to what you and others here note, which is when was the 1947 vintage Kodachrome stock actually exposed, and what forensic tests have been conducted to determine that timeframe, if possible?

Based on some data Bragalia has put online in the past on Reynolds "iCon" blog (unfortunately, now deleted by "RR" in a fit of pique and revenge on Tony for his "daring" to take offense that Reynolds and Ross Evans used stolen email data and published it before it was then deleted at Tony's insistence), it seems a variety of professional forensic testing, chemical analysis, non-destructive X-ray diffusion testing, and other professional analysis has been conducted in an objective attempt to empirically determine both the vintage of the film, the slide holder, the date codes, and most importantly, the timeframe of the film being exposed.

My point here is that, despite the very obvious question of when the film slides concerned actually might have been exposed, as David Rudiak notes, there are chemical breakdown and subtle deterioration aspects of grain, color, etc., on such slides that may be able to determine within a few years when such film stock was exposed, and Kodak experts, who were brought into this investigation, have seemingly estimated the exposure date of the slides to have been within a couple years of the vintage 1947 date codes on the edge of the slides.

So, I think there is in fact "an answer," but that Tom Carey and crew are either not ready to present all of that background testing data to the public as yet, or may even be precluded from doing so under some possible ongoing non-disclosure agreement with the owner of the slides, as the owner is final determiner of both the disposition of the slides and how and when they will at long last be released to the public, which will occur some few months from now, apparently, in the form of a broadcast documentary.

I also assume that regardless of whatever data the documentary provides, there will be a simultaneous release online of high-resolution photo scans of the slides, documentation as to the testing process, and the essential back-story and provenance of the slides, as can be best determined, although it is likely to be incomplete and raise a number of further questions that may or may not have sufficiently documented answers to truly satisfy most. We will all have to wait.

As for what the slides portray, given it is circumstantial, not direct, evidence, that remains to be seen, also. Whatever the origins, nature, or intent behind an allegedly 1947/48 vintage pair of slides showing what purports or suggests a kind of humanoid form (or, to some, "alien"), and whether it is something related to the Roswell incident, a sophisticated fake somehow created as part of an early Cold War counter-intelligence ploy, or a modern hoax of a rather sophisticated kind, I really wonder if anyone of us will ever be able to know for sure. I have my doubts in that regard, to be honest.

Lance said...

David,

I know of many instances of old old film being stored in refrigerators and basement vaults of photographers and schools for years and years--forgotten.

Bringing in the CIA or whatever is quite unnecessary. And, I'm afraid, rather silly.

Lance

Lance said...

"there are chemical breakdown and subtle deterioration aspects of grain, color, etc., on such slides that may be able to determine within a few years when such film stock was exposed"

Citation? Particularly for the last part.

Lance

Lance said...

I did speak to a representative at a lab specializing in processing old film.

She said that they have certainly seen and processed film from 1947 and before ("right back to the beginning of Kodachrome").

She said that the results are all over the board, sometimes obtaining good images, sometimes nothing.

Getting images that were exposed recently on very old film is not a common situation at the lab but it does happen, again with variable results.

I did learn that Kodachrome is more problematic out of date than some other films and that getting it processed in color has become harder and harder usually it is just processed in B/W since Kodak ended support in 2010.

Lance

Nitram Ang said...

"but what makes you think TC and crew don't have an answer to what you and others here note, which is when was the 1947 vintage Kodachrome stock actually exposed"

This is a poor way of looking at the situation. Reminds me of one of the witnesses who had documents in his possession which he showed to KR confirming what happened at Roswell was ET but refused to hand over the originals so they could be verified! Only reason to do this of course was because they would not stand up to scrutiny.

Now I am certainly not painting everyone with the same brush but rest assured that if the film was exposed in 1947 or within, say, a few years of that date - we would be told about it.

Anyone like a bet with me on the exposure date? I'll bet it was exposed after 1970 (I really think it was exposed this century) - you can decide the amount of the bet.

Look forward to making a dollar or two..

cda said...

Nitram:

Isn't the whole point of the 'date of exposure' problem really whether or not the film was exposed in early July 1947?

Exposing the slide or photo of a genuine ET later than this is presumably impossible, since the very nature of this whole Roswell tale is that the hard evidence (which would include photographs) was strictly kept under wraps after early July, i.e. the authorities seized it all and nobody has seen it since.

This is the essence of Kevin's, and others', conspiracy theory and is the backbone of the whole 'Roswell is ET' scenario.

Therefore for the photos to be of a genuine ET, and for it to have been taken by some unknown private citizen, is simply impossible, according to the ET protagonists.

It is no good dating the slides from later than July 1947; they would be useless as ET evidence and must therefore be of something else.

Are we really to believe that these slides mean anything at all?
No, nothing related to ETs, although they may possibly prove useful in some other branch of anatomical or biological science.

As far as establishing the 'ETs from Roswell' idea, they are totally useless.

Nitram Ang said...

CDA wrote

"Isn't the whole point of the 'date of exposure' problem really whether or not the film was exposed in early July 1947?"

You are essentially correct. If Roswell was an ET crash then it's possible some photos were taken at a later date using 1947 film (maybe November 1947 for example - no particular reason why I chose that month).

However I believe the photo is almost certainly a fake (on the balance of probabilities) and accordingly, would have to have been made many years afterward.

I agree with you that if the photo is real it would almost certainly be exposed in 1947.

I would be surprised if the film was exposed in 1967 for example as Roswell was not well known at that point.

I agree with David that someone may have gone to quite some trouble to fake all this - so let's find out the date of exposure first so we can continue the conversation.

KRandle said...

All -

This discussion seems to revolve around the dating of the film. Tom said that it had been verified as coming from 1947, but as I mentioned, Tom didn't provide enough detail for any of us to know what that meant. Was there a chemical analysis done because I believe that the chemicals used to process the film would have changed at some point as the technology improved. If they relied solely on the film date codes, then that is not sufficient proof.

If I needed some old stock film, I know of two places to get it... and I found a roll of unexplosed Kodachrome when I moved that is from the 1960s... The film stock is out there. What is important is if there is a way to determine when it was manufactured and when it was developed.

Robert said...

Something else to consider. Even if the slides are authentic in terms of the film age (being 1947) AND knowing for an absolute fact never to be doubted that the film was exposed in 1947, pictures of ET corpses sitting on the ground in the desert somewhere, without an other identifiable landmarks in the back ground aren't very useful. Meaning no way to tie or connect them to Roswell.
Another possibility, but probably very remote is that they may have been created and or connected to Newton Geebaur swindle. That would be difficult to prove because we would need evidence that they were showing slides of a dead ET around to people.

Daniel Transit said...

Robert said...

'..Another possibility, but probably very remote is that they may have been created and or connected to Newton Geebaur swindle. That would be difficult to prove because we would need evidence that they were showing slides of a dead ET around to people...'

Alice Scully, from letter to William Steinman (pg.391 UFO Crash At Aztec):

'..All the flying saucer material as far as I know is together and for the time being unavailable. I saw pictures - tiny ones - of saucer inhabitants laid out on the hillside near the downed saucer. They were, as far as I remember contact prints of snapshot calibre, so not too clear. We didn't ever have those in our possession. Doggone it, it's frustrating to know we collected all this & can't get to it...'

KRandle said...

Lance -

I asked you about labeling everyone in my posting as liars... but you just can't help yourself. If you wish to repost with the comment about liars removed, have at it. I'm not sure how others can remain civilized and you simply can't participate in a discussion with name calling.

Nitram Ang said...

Hello Lance

Unfortunately Dr Randle has beaten me too it and I regret that he has deleted your posting.

The FIRST part of your post was "bang on" and I (sincerely) congratulate you on being so honest.

Would you mind re-posting the first bit again as Kevin suggests?

Thank you and regards

Nitram