Blogger's Note: I will confess that I didn't read this as closely as I should have and then spending something more than an hour attempting to be able to post to this blog, I believe this is more trouble than it is worth. Yes, I believe that we should learn all we can about the Roswell Slides and I also understand the attempts by some to protect the witnesses. I know that most of us would merely attempt to verify the information, especially when it has the potential to be explosive. But we are also dealing with private citizens who don't deserve an onslaught of telephone calls, some of which could get nasty.
Still, I understand the desire to verify the information. Sometimes things get changed from one investigator to the next, not as a result of deception, but misunderstanding. A case in point would be Thomas Dubose who seemed to tell two versions of the events in General Ramey's office, but one of those researchers was attempting to push a narrow point of view on a man who was 90 years old. Truth got lost in all that turmoil.
The real point here is that this turned nasty way too fast. There seemed to be little in the way of civil discourse and for that reason, I took it down. For those who desire information about the slides, let's see if we can't get something that deals with that specifically rather than some of the side issues.
But one thing that I want to make clear. Once those who hold the slides decided to make a public announcement about their existence and to provide some information about them, they should have expected all of us out here to want more specific information. They hold the cards, but they also opened the door. They demand patience but it is too late for that. If they don't like the tone of the discourse, they have the power to change it.
24 comments:
While I don't understand the genesis of the post, I understand the point of view. As I posted a some time ago, the approach of the "investigators" is so ridiculous that I don't know whether to be satisfied that opportunists or attention-seekers are getting what they deserve or to feel sorry for well-intentioned folks who are just incredibly bad at managing information release. Regardless, as Kevin says, the cat is out of the bag. As I tried to point out to Anthony several weeks ago, there does not seem to be any justification for the delay until May other than an attempt to build suspense in order to capitalize either financially or reputationally. After seeing the dialog of the debunkers here, I can understand why folks would attempt due diligence to avoid their knee-jerk denials, However, this should be proof positive that no amount of evidence is compelling to debunkers, so let it go and release whatever "evidence" you have.
Kevin:
I must confess I'm ignorant of the Thomas Jefferson DuBose matter you referenced. Would you elaborate on his conflicting stories and who pushed him?
Kevin:
"Regardless, as Kevin says, the cat is out of the bag."
I too support your decision to censor Tony Bragalia's submission.
Too much smoke and mirrors, not enough reasonable discourse.
...im outta here...
P.S. could you please post just where you let that cat out of that bag? thanks.
I didn't get round to reading all the critics' reactions before you removed the posting.
As I remember it Tony Bragalia did not, this time, go so far as to insist the slides depicted an alien but merely told the story and aftermath as he knew it.
But I just cannot see how any of this represents or advances scientific knowledge. It will be quite a 'hit' when it goes public (for a short period), but science will certainly ignore it and will get on with their own search for extraterrestrial life.
None of this is science at all - it is sensationalism and attention seeking. It is pure hype, and its intention is to pump life into, and rekindle interest in, a moribund UFO event.
With luck it will be the last of its kind, but I wouldn't bank on it.
Thank you. Wise decision -- let us all have some patience.
The whole thing was laid out in a July 15, 2007 posting. This link should take you to it:
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2007/07/klass-shandera-and-dubose.html
I didn't say I let the cat out of the bag, but clearly the cat is out. It all began in Feb 2013 when Nick Redfern learned about the slides. At that point the bag was opened and a few months later the cat escaped. There has been two years of posting about that here and over at Rich Reynolds UFO Conjectures blog.
Ahh... Now that I get it, good for you Kevin. If they aren't smart enough to stop this "inch at a time" approach that they seem intent to continue until May, good on you for not aiding and abetting.
I am a little bewildered because the people still discuss the so-called "Roswell Slides"!
Thats the REAL Roswell Slide:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/history-roswell-incident2.htm
due to the following points:
1. No one can prove that this REAL Roswell Slide is a fake!
2. This is NOT the Marina Popowitsch photo because the mouth is much bigger and the eye of the left side on the photo is damaged!
3. The photo looks like so real like the post mortem photo from the early 20th century!
So...why you dont discuss this REAL Roswell Slide and discuss a photo of an ancient mummy???
Mu said:
"So...why you dont discuss this REAL Roswell Slide and discuss a photo of an ancient mummy???"
Sorry michael, but your photo looks like a human asiatic baby.
Mmh, what a pity!!There were some really interesting points adressed in Mr. Bragalias post. Hope we get the chance for a second release.
Michael Mu -
Because that thing was debunked 20 years ago. Do your due diligence and research the history of that slide... I think it was published more than once in Tim Beckley's UFO Universe magazine.
A general question - Why is it that every ten or twenty years we have to revisit all the nonsense. Next thing you know, you'll want to talk about the Bermuda Triangle or the Philidelphia experiment and Carlos Allende.
@Kevin
No it was not debunked! And when it was debunked...why i found nothing in the internet about this REAL Roswell Slide?
Give me source, the website where i can see that it was debunked and i will shut up!
@Don Maor
It looke like how Melvin E. Brown and SoM describes the Roswell EBEs
Kevin:
Interesting that you mention The Bermuda Triangle.
Wasn't it Charles Berlitz who wrote the principal book on this? And next came his "Philadelphia Experiment" (with William Moore).
And then? None other than "The Roswell Incident" (again with Moore).
And had it not been for that book we would never have heard about Roswell, and none of the subsequent myriad of writers on Roswell, including yourself, would ever have got involved, and we would not be having this 'slides revelation' looming ahead.
Or is my logic a bit faulty?
cda;
My understanding is that it was Stan Friedman who did the initial work on Roswell and was the first interviewer of Marcel and was the one person most responsible for 'reviving' Roswell. If Moore/Berliner hadn't published their work (Supposedly Friedman was an unaccredited contributor for that book), Friedman would have...and eventually did with Crash at Corona.
bobsc:
Friedman was acknowledged in the book but only with all the other contributors. He had wanted a major acknowledgement at the front but didn't get it.
Berlitz was already an accomplished writer, which is why his name appears on the cover (for marketing reasons, despite Friedman & Moore doing 95% of the research).
It is a moot point whether Friedman would have ever got his own book published without the initial impetus of the Berlitz-Moore book. The same applies to all the other Roswell books.
Gilles -
I removed your comment because it was inappropriate here. Since I have posted a revision of Tony's article, your comments there are welcomed as long as they adhere to the rules suggested on that posting.
@Kevin
And? Where is the prove that the REAL Roswell Slide:
http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/ufo-roswell-121a.jpg
Source: http://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/history-roswell-incident2.htm
is a fake and debunked?
I m waiting for the prove!
Michael Mu -
I don't have time to do your homework for you but did you even read the caption on the picture? it said, "This dubious photograph of unknown origin purports to show the face of a dead alien. Similar pictures have proliferated in the wake of revived interest in stones of crashed UFOs and cover-ups.
Intercontinental U.F.O. Galactic Spacecraft Research and Analytic Network Archives"
It has gone from dubious photograph to the real Roswell alien. Please explain how that is possible.
And I found a better copy of the picture in the Fall 1994 issue of UFO Universe but with no information about the picture. That is more than twenty years ago.
Kevin:
Thanks for the link to the July 15, 2007 post. Very informative! Klass was certainly a Klass act.
@Kevin
You should do youzr homework before you tell someone to do his homework!
I have explained why i think that this Roswell Slide are real...look at the point i wrote in my comment.
Once again:
1. No one can prove that this REAL Roswell Slide is a fake!
2. This is NOT the Marina Popowitsch photo because the mouth is much bigger and the eye of the left side on the photo is damaged!
3. The photo looks like so real like the post mortem photo from the early 20th century!
4. Melvin E. Brown told his daughters about when he saw the Roswell EBEs and they looked like the EBE at the Roswell Slide.
5. SoM ( http://www.majesticdocuments.com/pdf/som101_part1.pdf ) describe at side 9 the same EBEs like on the photo.
@ Michael Mu
You suggest that no-one can prove the slide is a fake...
That may be a premature statement as that may or may not prove to be possible. On a more fundamental point though the issue here is really the other way around.
Take for example a picture of, say, the Loch Ness monster. As that would fall firmly into the category of an extraordinary claim the onus is firmly on those claiming it to be real to show why it couldn't be any of the more mundane possibilities for such an image ( I remember one such photo which looked exactly like a standing wave, for example).
The challenge really is not for the sceptics to prove it a fake, or, perhaps more likely a genuine image of a mummified body ( and so on through various possibilities) but rather the onus is firmly on those arguing for an ET origin for the body to demonstrate why apparently simpler explanations need to be discounted.
This is a fundamental methodological point and my biggest complaint is that we have this drip feed of information and press release style announcenents rather than a complete paper setting out all the evidence to support the claim.
Hopefully we will get to that point in May but we shall see. At the moment I am highly confident that it is something terrestrial, but as always very willing to listen to hard evidence. I just haven't seen anything to knock out a terrestrial origin so far whilst the counter argument for a mummified body looks very persuasive to me at the moment...subject as always to considering any new data that should become available.
I shan't go into the other points you mention here beyond suggesting that you can't use one piece of highly controversial material as evidence for the validity of another.
Hi Anthony
you wrote "my biggest complaint is that we have this drip feed of information and press release style announcenents rather than a complete paper setting out all the evidence to support the claim."
I agree with your statement and everything else really in your latest posting. My guess is we are being "drip feed" to build up the story to gain publicity for the eventual "big reveal" - bit like "who shot JR" in the 1980's
Regards
Nitram
I will wait with the same rapt attention I waited with for the reveal of who shot JR.
Post a Comment