Monday, December 08, 2014

The Roswell Slides and the Aztec UFO Crash


For a couple of decades I have been chasing stories of pictures of the Roswell crash. I have been given the names of some of those who supposedly had pictures, talked to others who thought they might have seen pictures, and tried to find those who might have taken pictures as part of the official investigation. In this I have failed, other than finding lots of pictures of alien bodies, all of which seem to be traced to hoaxes, frauds and science fiction movies.

I have not seen the Roswell slides but have heard descriptions of what they show as many of us have. I know a little about how they were discovered and who owns them now, but I have not been involved in the investigation of them. I know that Tom Carey said that they have been dated to 1947, but I don’t know how that dating was accomplished, I don’t know how accurate it might be, and I’m not sure of the relevance of it.

All of this, however, set me to thinking. If the slides were made in 1947, as has been alleged, then what was the motivation for it, if it was a hoax? In other words, why would someone in 1947 make something like that? What would be the purpose?

Then, taking this line of speculation further, and I must point out this is all speculation now, were there any flying saucer cases that hinted at such things, other than Roswell? Well, yes there were. There were many reports of flying saucer crashes, all of them, other than Roswell, seemed to be invention by the participants and few of them talked of alien creatures.

There is one, though, that reached a wide national audience in the late 1940s, and that is, of course, Aztec. Now, I think Aztec was a hoax created by two con men who were attempting to sell some cockamamie metal detector or mineral detector and were claiming that alien technology had been used to create the machine. That doesn’t matter right now. What is important are pictures and that does relate to Roswell.

According to Scott Ramsey in The Aztec Incident, some guy named McLaughlin, had pictures of a flying saucer crash, and according to documentation found by Ramsey, it relates specifically to Aztec. This document doesn’t prove that there was a crash at Aztec, only that some guy was attempting to sell pictures that he alleged were taken at the crash site. The document was dated October 9, 1950.

Now the question seems to be what do the pictures show, if there were, in fact pictures. The only description available is that they show the crash which would imply that they were taken in the field and not inside a building or of a body on a Gurney. If there were bodies lying around, it would seem that pictures of them would have been taken, but without a description, we just don’t know.

Here’s the thing… This is a story about the Aztec crash, and the desire for evidence of it… Newton carried around some little bits of metal that he claimed came from the crash… and that tale would be enhanced if there were pictures of bodies. Someone might have conjured them up as further evidence of the Aztec crash.

What I’m saying is that here we have a motive for the invention of the pictures in the right time frame. We aren’t locked into 1947 and pictures created in 1948 or 1950 for that matter, could have been taken with film made in 1947. I simply don’t know enough about how the dating was done to know how close it is. I suspect the best they could do was tell us that the film was processed in the correct era, give or take a couple of years, but I just don’t know.

I could point out many of the parallels here. The land where the Aztec crash is claimed to have happened is oil land so that people from Midland involved in oil could have been there just as they could have been over in Roswell. The Aztec crash is alleged to have taken place within months of the Roswell crash, both were in New Mexico, but only Aztec got any real publicity in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

Please don’t misunderstand here. I’m not saying that we can now elevate the Aztec crash to the level of Roswell. I think the evidence is pretty clear. Aztec was a hoax that did include claims of physical evidence. It is not outside the realm of possibility that someone created pictures of alien creatures in an attempt to validate Aztec, and the documentation clearly mentions Aztec.

There are two flaws in my theory. One is that I don’t know if anyone ever saw the alleged pictures of the Aztec crash. The man who had them apparently never showed up for the sale and the documentation that relates to it makes it clear that the pictures were never shown.

Two: According to what Tom said, the slides relate to Roswell and have nothing to do with Aztec and if they can be dated precisely, that would tend to rule out Aztec. I just don’t know exactly what the slides show. All I know at this point is that the connection to Roswell seems a little thin, at least according to what Tom said recently (and the connection to Aztec is even thinner). Tom and Don Schmitt have a witness, who isn’t named (and given the nature of the UFO field, I’m not at all surprised that they wish to protect him) who says the creature on the slides resembles those he saw in 1947 at Roswell.

Here’s where I am on this. There are slides of some sort of creature. These slides are alleged to have been exposed in 1947, though I don’t know how firm that information is. There is a story, backed up by documentation, which says someone was trying to sell pictures of the Aztec crash in 1950. There is no reason to assume that these Aztec pictures have anything to do with the Roswell slides that Tom was talking about. I am just suggesting that there was stuff going on back then that could lead to someone creating the slides for Aztec. I’m not saying that it happened only that it could have.

The one major caveat is that I don’t know how accurate the dating of the slides is. If they can be shown to have been taken and processed in 1947, then Aztec is not an issue. If the dating isn’t that precise, then other evidence, which Tom and Don might possess, could eliminate Aztec as a possibility.

Here I’m as guilty as so many others. Speculation without a solid foundation, but then, not much has been offered in the way of evidence here and that leaves the door open to all this speculation.

14 comments:

Nick Redfern said...

Interesting theory.

It's worth noting that Frank Scully was, in part, referred to Aztec player, Silas Newton by cinematographer J. Peverell Marley and Marley's wife, Linda Darnell.

Marley was deeply plugged into the world of Hollywood movie-making.

Maybe someone should look into Marley and see if he had any contacts in Hollywood who could have pulled off something like this?

That Scully was put on the Aztec trail by a Hollywood cinematographer is possibly important.

Nick Redfern said...

Interesting theory.

It's worth noting that Frank Scully was, in part, referred to Aztec player, Silas Newton by cinematographer J. Peverell Marley and Marley's wife, Linda Darnell.

Marley was deeply plugged into the world of Hollywood movie-making.

Maybe someone should look into Marley and see if he had any contacts in Hollywood who could have pulled off something like this?

That Scully was put on the Aztec trail by a Hollywood cinematographer is possibly important.

Nick Redfern said...

No idea why that posted twice!

cda said...

You write:

"If they can be shown to have been taken and processed in 1947, then Aztec is not an issue."

And if they can be shown to have been taken in 1948 or later, neither Roswell nor Aztec is an issue.

The reason being that both the Aztec and Roswell crash debris and any associated ET bodies would be in the hands of the military, and under tight security. Hence no private citizen could possibly have had access to them. This is the very philosophy the pro-ETHers have been propounding for the last 65 years, isn't it?

So why, after all this time are some diehards STILL expecting some miracle will occur and the great photographic evidence "that will change the course of history" (Tony Bragalia's words) will suddenly appear?

Answer: because some people just never cease trying to square the circle.

KRandle said...

CDA -

I think I limited the Aztec stuff unnecessarily... The information about it didn't come out in March 1948, but sometime later. The key is how closely they can date the slides. If they can demonstrate the film was exposed and processed in 1947, that is one thing. If they can only provide a range then it becomes more problematic.

You have also hit on the thing that has bothered me and that is how did these end up with a civilian. When the Army made a classified movie, they counted every frame to make sure nothing was missing... with photographs and slides, that would have been easier. But, we don't have all the details, so we don't have all the answers yet. That is what is bothering some. No one has any patience anymore.

albert said...

Base on some quick research, I point out the following:

1. Slide films like Kodachrome 'age' (measured by color balance, AKA 'shift') before exposure, after exposure, and after processing.

2. Film aging is very much affected by storage temperature and humidity. Elaborate HVAC systems are used by important archives. Heat is the main enemy.

3. It is highly unlikely that _any_ films from the 40's or 50's were stored under optimum or even decent conditions. Most buildings and residences were not air conditioned, so refrigerated storage would have been required. A box from an estate sale hardly sounds like proper storage to me.

4. With digital photo software, it's possible to restore some color imbalances provided there's enough detail to work with. Once it's faded away, it's gone forever.

5. I don't hold out much hope for a detailed chemical analysis of the slides and I haven't found any information about what, if anything, can be determined from such an analysis.

With very old film, I'll take good B & W negatives over color any day.

I gotta go...

Frank Warren said...

Greetings All,

I think the most pertinent statement above is:

"...I must point out this is all speculation..."

Since it was publicized some ago that I was privy to information concerning the slides, I will add this with that in mind:

• There are slides depicting bodies. Stating they are of "aliens" is a stretch, to be polite, and I was shocked to hear Carey say that.

• Given who's doing the dating of the slides, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, that they're dated to 1947.

• Beyond that (at present), there is nothing connecting them (the slides) to Roswell or Aztec, or any UFO, or more accurately, ALIEN event.

@Nick,

Scully and Newton met because of their common denominator of writer, Frank Harris; Newton reaching out to Scully in 1944 concerning him.

Re "Peverly" Marley, in Scully's book, he writes:

"I received a call from Newton asking me if I'd like to drive up to the town of Mojave, which is about ninety miles from Los Angeles, to see how his exploratory operation was getting along. The geophysicist who was the top man in magnetic research would be with us. This was on September 8, 1949. He said that Peverly Marley, cameraman at Warner's and the husband of Linda Darnell, would be coming along too."

IMHO, this gives the impression that Newton knew Marley independent of Scully, and if memory serves, I've never seen anything to suggest otherwise.

Either way, none of this negates your point, re Marley's abilities, re his employment in the film industry in the realm of pure speculation we're having.

@Kevin,

You wrote,

Aztec was a hoax created by two con men who were attempting to sell some cockamamie metal detector or mineral detector and were claiming that alien technology had been used to create the machine.

Newton nor GeBauer ever made this claim.

You also wrote:

This document doesn’t prove that there was a crash at Aztec, only that some guy was attempting to sell pictures that he alleged were taken at the crash site.

I would argue, that the document on it's face doesn't "prove" anything, (particularly since the perp later denied everything); it was/is an interesting lead and is still being pursued.

Speaking of speculation, I'll toss this in:

With Scully's infamous twenty questions (to the Pentagonians), he in part asked:

8. Why don't you release the tape recordings of comments and questions asked at the public viewing of one of the men picked up dead from a flying saucer, put in a preservative solution, and placed between human specimens from prenatal to grown man in an exhibit in Chicago?

15. What happened to the body of the man 3%2 feet tall, taken dead from a saucer which had landed in New Mexico and exhibited in Chicago? Was that at the Rosenwald Institute?

20. . . . As for the query concerning one of the men picked up from a flying saucer, put in a preservative solution and placed between human specimens in an exhibit at Rosenwald Institute, Chicago, Fortnight said: "An old time newspaper man with a strong sense of public obligation, Scully swore his questions were based on good sources, wanted Air Force to answer."

Herb Hildebrand, a spokesman for the Rosenwald Institute, was quoted in Fortnight as replying: "Regarding your question the only specimen we have of a grown man is a plaster model, showing one-half bone and one-half nerve tissue. Dating back to the World's Fair of 1933 is an actual medical exhibit which shows the development of the embryo from conception to the full term."

It was Fortnight's opinion that maybe I had stirred up something on one of the biggest stories in history or maybe I hadn't. This two-way escape hatch was followed by the statement: "As usual the Air Force was keeping discreetly silent and-at Fortnight end-had issued no denial or answer to the Scully column."


Cheers,
Frank

Tim Hebert said...

Frank wrote:
"Since it was publicized some ago that I was privy to information concerning the slides, I will add this with that in mind:

• There are slides depicting bodies. Stating they are of "aliens" is a stretch, to be polite, and I was shocked to hear Carey say that.

• Given who's doing the dating of the slides, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, that they're dated to 1947.

• Beyond that (at present), there is nothing connecting them (the slides) to Roswell or Aztec, or any UFO, or more accurately, ALIEN event."

Frank, thanks for the breath of fresh air and a common sense approach. With the exception to those who have physically seen the slide, the rest, including me, merely speculate and hypothesis about something that is yet to be made public.

Robert said...

I appreciate Franks's comment when he wrote:
"Since it was publicized some ago that I was privy to information concerning the slides, I will add this with that in mind:

• There are slides depicting bodies. Stating they are of "aliens" is a stretch, to be polite, and I was shocked to hear Carey say that."

So what we have is slides that some people looked at and in their mind what is on the slide is a dead alien corpse. Another person has looked at the slides, saw the same thing and has come up with a different conclusion and was obviously surprised by the original dead ET corpse conclusion.

Very interesting if you ask me.

Frank Warren said...

Good Day Tim,

Thanks for the kind words.

I feel the most unbiased description of the slides (from someone who's seen them) is found here: http://tinyurl.com/pj9dtkj

Sadly, my sense is that "slides" will go the way of the alien autopsy.

@ Robert,

To be clear I have not seen the slides; my argument is that whatever the slides depict, on their own merits, without any ancillary or corroborating evidence, no determination can be made of what they portray (conclusively), the least being–aliens.

Cheers,
Frank

Daniel Transit said...

'..I feel the most unbiased description of the slides (from someone who's seen them) is found here: http://tinyurl.com/pj9dtkj...'


From linked article:

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.


From Truman Bethurum Aboard A Flying Saucer, published 1954:

Suddenly I realized that there was something different about these little men; not that they were dwarfs. They were fully developed small men. The real difference which struck me so forcibly was that they all seemed to be wearing some sort of uniform - unfamiliar to me. All but two or three of them wore black billed caps with a black band around the bottom. Of the bareheaded ones, all whose hair was black and crew cut, one's hair was wavy. And all of them wore jackets like cowboys and trousers of material which reflected a blue-grayish cast under the bright moonlight. Their dark olive hued faces were bland and without lines or blemishes, like the skin was taut and hard over the bone structure...

Dr. Moebius said...

Kevin,

If you are not a mis-information agent, nor a moron, then let me point out a few problems with your article that I hope you will reflect on before you continue posting topics on ufology (a field of study sadly lacking in credibility from the outset); Note, it is MY intent to attempt to bring a little more scientific formalism to the analysis, at least highlight flaws in deductive reasoning, logical errors, and correct grammar, if nothing else!

Point #1: Paragraph 8, you begin mentioning a person called Newton ("Newton carried around some little bits of metal that he claimed came from the crash… "), but fail to detail who it is, what their relationship is to the others, or even refer to them again in the post. Why is this Newton guy relevant?? This is poor form, which I should not have to explain, but if you don't know better, take a writing class, please!

Point 2: You make multiple statements like, "point out this is all speculation ", or that you "don’t know (if the story/ factoid) is real"; you say you "don't know" Nine (9) time in the first half of the article, and that you have no real evidence. You then go on to say that the Aztec crash is a hoax. Do you see the problem? You have no evidence, yet make conjecture sound like fact; you analyze based on hearsay, and you don't even bother to do a little basic research to clear it up. You say it might relate to Roswell, and this stretches credulity even further.

With near total lack of evidence, such a story is not really worth writing. You did have a profound train of thought that SHOULD have been pursued, namely, if the alleged Roswell film was indeed shot (exposed, even manufactured) in 1947 or there about, this was before the idea of hoaxing alien photos was in the public consciousness, and so those photos would have to be legit. That would be research worth spending time & money on, including doing statistical analysis on, and yet you push it off until when, exactly?

In conclusion, Kevin, you need to up your writing quality - in content, style, and logical argument, for me to continue reading. I hope my feedback has made the points well enough for you to improve in these areas. I do find the subject matter compelling (I've witnessed 2 physical UFO's that did not seem to be "of this world"), and I hope you raise your level of blogging, as you are obviously an 'enthusiast', too. Peace, Best Wishes and Happy New Year!

KRandle said...

Dr. Moebius -

Really?

As I post here, I assume a certain level of knowledge and sophistication on the part of the readers. I assume that I needn't reprint information in a post that has published here before. I assume they are smart enough to use the provided search engine to learn what facts have been discussed in the past. It is why I take the time to fill in the labels to make that search easier. Therefore, you should have been able to learn who Silas Newton was without me boring the readers by rehashing something that nearly everyone with an interest in UFOs would know.

I also made it clear to the astute reader that this posting was speculation based on limited information available in the public arena. I know that there is a time line for the release of information on the slides and that others control that time line. I did not want to compromise their investigations here and now, but asked some questions that I found interesring.

Finally, I have taken more time than necessary in responding to you even though I don't know who you are or what your expertise might be. But I will note that the best way to begin a correspondence might not be to suggest that I was a disinformation agent or a moron... and yes I know you posed it as a question, but it was still a tad bit snarky.

Ben Moss said...

According to the latest release the slide's emulsion test has shown it is from a 1947 exposure. Slides of this type are fairly easy to spot tampering and are harder to tamper with since it is very obvious. Some provenance is shown in the latest release. Although it could be fake several people are setting themselves up to lose all credibility if it is, so in my mind there is no reason to announce a 'fake', but until it is revealed there is no real point in debating its reality.