Thursday, February 19, 2015

Roswell Slides - Adam Dew on WGN (Chicago)


 We have now heard more about the Roswell Slides, again from Adam Dew and again on video, though this comes from WGN-TV in Chicago. Dew was interviewed about the slides. He told us that the Rays, Bernerd and Hilda, divorced in the 1960s. He remained in Midland and she went to Arizona. Dew said that people have been contacting him about the Rays, so he was learning a little more about them. He implied that the Rays had taken the pictures, probably Hilda, though it could have been Bernerd. At any rate, the slides had wound up in Hilda’s possession and were only discovered long after her death. Although it was suggested at the beginning of the story that it was Dew’s sister who had been cleaning the house for an estate sale, it was actually the sister of a friend. Much of this we had already heard and already knew.

For those interested, and for as long as it remains up, you can see the interview here:


And now for a few observations from my end. I’ve sort of remained neutral on all this, but this preliminary nonsense is getting out of hand. A trickle of information leading to the big reveal on May 5… which reminds me of the trickle of information until the big reveal of the Alien Autopsy some twenty years ago. Remember we were being told all sorts of things about that, much of which turned out to be untrue such as Truman could be seen walking about on some of the footage and that there were more than two hours of film. We all now know that the Alien Autopsy was faked, those who created have been interviewed and the preliminary photographs taken as the alien was created have been seen. I published some of them, thanks to Philip Mantle in my book about alien conspiracies (and before my skeptical friends chime in, yes, they’re all basically about alien conspiracies but I mean the one called Alien Mysteries, Conspiracies and Cover Up.)

I believe it is safe to say that the slides are from the proper era. It seems that the coding on the edge is correct for 1947 and that the slides were mounted in cardboard sleeves available for a specific time seems to eliminate the other coding possibilities. Although we haven’t seen all the scientific testing that has been done and don’t have access to the chemical analysis of the film stock nor the chemicals used to develop and preserve the film, all do seem to be from the proper era. The slides were taken in the late 1940s, developed in that time frame, and are not part of a modern hoax.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that the slides show an alien creature. Though we have a poor quality slide to use as a base, there have been many examples that seem to show similar creatures, mummies actually, found in museums. They are close to the image we all have seen and if it isn’t an exact match with that on the slide, I’m not sure that is a problem. What we need to see is something that is far removed from those examples. Something that is truly alien in nature and I’m not sure how you’re going to prove the creature is alien especially if you don’t know who took the pictures, when they were taken or where they were taken.

I’ve listened to the arguments such as in the 1940s the aliens in science fiction didn’t have big heads, but that isn’t much of an argument. And, there are some examples of just that. Here is something else about the science fiction literature of those times. When talking about an advanced species, about what humans will look like in the far future, it seemed to always big with big heads and spindly bodies. The idea was that the brain would evolve and grow and the rest of the body would degenerate and shrink. Aliens, often thought of advanced humans, sometimes took on those characteristics (for those interested in this, see “The Man Who Evolved,” by Edward Hamilton published in 1931... type the name into Google and take a look at the cover for the April 1931 issue of Wonder Stories) For that reason, I don’t think much of the argument that no one was talking of creatures like seen in the slides. I believe that in the 1940s, when people discussed the evolution of humans (and granted, that would be a small number of people) the big head little body was sort of the default setting.

The magazine cover can be seen here:

http://brendans-island.com/blogsource/20130220ff/20141006wonder-TheManWhoEvolved-collage-658.jpg

What all this means, simply, is even if they prove to the satisfaction of everyone that the film was exposed and developed in 1947 or 1948, they are not going to be able to prove it alien. The mummies seem to be too close and frankly, the best explanation is that the slides show a mummy found out in the desert. This has nothing to do with the Roswell case.

I hope for the best for them, but I fear it will end badly for them. Unless they have something better, something hidden from all of us and saved for the big reveal, I think we’re all going to be disappointed. This is, of course, just my opinion but since I have mentioned in the last couple of weeks, I figured I should make it official. I wish Tom and Don luck because they’re going to need it.

37 comments:

Bob Koford said...

Let's say it really is an alien:
Someone else discussed this similarly, but even if it is impossible to prove the slide depicts an alien, based on the slide itself, just the background search itself could yield the needed evidence. There would have to be a story behind it..,one hellofa story.

Bob Koford said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Daniel Hurd said...

The key to the narrative here is still Bernerd and Hilda Ray. Where they were, why they took these photos, etc. So much investigating needs to be done yet!
Also as I mentioned before, military historians, or historical researchers could and should be contacted about the method in which the body is displayed, the shelving being used, the "drab floor/room" as mentioned by AJB, and other nuances found in the photos. Not to mention there must be other photos to compare them too. The flooring, the shelving, etc. this was an actual place, it must have existed at some point, and maybe there are other photos of rooms and equipment similar to what we see in the slides.
Yet at the end of the day, it's still just circumstantial evidence, and may not be roswell or alien related at all. It's still an interesting story.
Hope there is more to it than we have seen so far. I too wish Schmitt, Carey, and Bragalia the best. I admire their tenacity when it comes to Roswell.

KRandle said...

Daniel -

There is no evidence that either Bernerd or Hilda Ray took the photographs. That is speculation based on some rather thin evidence.

CommanderCronus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Al12 said...

Kevin

If they do secure highly credible people or scientists or people who are more qualified than you or me to go on record and state what they believe these slides depict.

And they then say that there certain it is NOT a Mummy or anything else that can be explained, what will you think then?

I dont think they will say its Alien as how can they, but they can tell you what it isnt.

Your still even after that type of possible announcement going to get people refusing to admit the possibility its Alien, even after every Earthly explanation has been eliminated by people qualified to make such an elimination.

Bob Koford said...

Funny, I was just going through my files, yesterday, and came across one dealing with the BLUEBOOK guys being upset with some NICAP reps. They were being interviewed by a team from NBC and telling this reporter about a museum in Chicago, where the government had a secret vault. In the vault, they explained, were secret artifacts.,.including" little green men" from outer space. I'll be home at around 8:00 tonight, and will try to relocate the doc. Wouldn't that be weird if they were actually telling the truth? Hehe

Bob Koford said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Daniel Hurd said...

Good point Kevin.
However, the slides were found in Hilda's possession. So at least it's a starting point.

Bob Koford said...

For anyone interested:

Blue Book Archives
MAXW-PBB2-206
Major Quintanilla speaking about an interview in Elk Grove Village, Feb. 8, 1965

"...to hear the NICAP people regalling(sic) one of the NBC crew members and Mr. Patrick Crowley with some real cock-and-bull stories. They didn't know that I was listening. Along with the usual vilification of the Air Force and their secrecy, they were tossing around some real oddball stories about friends of theirs having gone to the basement of the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, and wandering into a forbidden region where they found "little green men", or at least models of them."

John's Space said...

I still can't see how the Ray's would be able to have taken the photos. The were in the military or an government security organization as far as we know. If real they would have been taken after the body was in military custody. So why would this have been allowed? Big problem. On the other hand I don't see why they would have done a fake either. Can experts rule in or out the mummy theory?

CommanderCronus said...

John's Space -

If it was under control of the military, civilians might be brought in as consultants if they have some kind of special creditials or knowledge. Bernard Ray was an expert in geology, and his wife was an attorney. That's about all we know, so you'll have to infer the rest on your own.

KRandle said...

Daniel -

Actually and technically, they weren't found in her possession. They came from the sister of the man who has then now and she said that they were found in a house that belonged to Hilda Ray. They were in a box of slides that had apparently been taken by Ray but they do not fit into any sequence and were hidden... though we don't know that for certain at this point.

In other words, we can suggest that the slides belonged to Hilda Ray and might have been taken by her or her husband at the time, but we simply don't know that. The trail ends with Hilda Ray and doesn't get us to the location where the slides were taken or under what circumstance they were taken. At this point, there is a huge gap in what we know and that gap might exist in what Don and Tom know.

Daniel Hurd said...

You're right again Kevin. I believe that is a failure in the chain of custody. If they even were actually in Hilda's possession, and we are to believe the story of which they were found- does it mean they were actually taken by the Rays? Is it possible the Rays were holding them for someone else? Is there a way to link them to the rest of the slides found? I presume the other slides show evidence that they were taken by the Rays.

albert said...

Very little can be established given the evidence so far presented. We can infer the Rays shot the bulk of the slides. We can infer they shot the 'mummies'. We can't _prove_ either point. We can't infer the location of the cases; a museum in Mexico in the 40's (or a storeroom in Chicago:) might not be as sophisticated as Americans might expect.
.
We can't make judgements based on our present-day viewpoints, or what we think we might know about the time period back then.
.
Of course, I hope some things can be proven or disproven, but I suspect we'll have to fall back on probabilities.
.
I'm hoping for a very thorough investigation.
.
...

Loki said...

WGN, huh?

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2015/02/roswell-slides-and-video-clips.html

" Adam Dew tells us, “I am a graduate of Northwestern University (BSJ '98). If I wasn't on an actual paying job (as opposed to the slide doc project) I’d post the diploma for you [not me but someone who questioned his credentials],” "

Hmmm....the fine record of the NU Medill School of Journalism supports Adam's assertions, n'est-ce pas?:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-alstory-simon-lawsuit-northwestern-20150217-story.html#page=1

Rusty Lingenfelter said...

Has anyone explained what is happening between today (or December when they threw the gasoline on this) and May 5th? It seems like they already know what they plan to say, so it is hard (for me) to imagine why, other than notoriety, potential profit or both why they would begin hyping the event so far in advance. As others have said, I wish them well, but the cynic in me can't help but imagine months from now when the "investigators" are explaining how they were duped by a money-grubbing opportunist. I hope I'm wrong and I hope there is something much more compelling than we have seen and heard up to this point. To be clear, I have no problem with them recouping their investment of time and resources. I have a problem with a disingenuous attempt to state otherwise.

Lance said...

They are apparently doing the "scientific" portion of their work.

Which seems to consist of forwarding random supportive comments and "ideas" from anonymous folks on blogs like this one.

Lance

KRandle said...

I have attempted to remain neutral in this, which is to say that I have bent over backwards to give Don and Tom the benefit of the doubt. I have tried to mention the real problem with the slides which is there is no connection to Roswell other than the film was manufactured in 1947 and the analyses suggest that it was developed in that time frame. We still don't know who took them, and even if we did, we can't interview them (assuming it was Hilda or Bernerd) and the name of the owner and his sister are basically unknown.

I could go into the other problems, and I hope that Tom and Don have answers but I fear they don't. The point is that I think this is going to turn out badly and even if they get people to accept that the slides were taken in 1947, they are not going to be able to prove it is an alien creature. This is, after all, just a photograph without any sort of provenance and no real evidence it is an alien creature.

Terry the Censor said...

Regarding the scientific work being done on the slides:

On February 15 on this blog, Anthony Braglia said in the comments, "And scientists such as pathologists have also been engaged to gain insight on the various alternatives of what this being could be. All ruled out primate, mummy and hydrocephalic."

On February 18 on WGN, one of the hosts wondered if the figure in the slides was a human child with a deformity, then asked Adam Dew if he'd consulted experts about this possibility. Dew responded: "We're trying to find people that will look at it and give those opinions."

So, Anthony, who's telling the truth, you or Adam?

John's Space said...

I doubt this is going to prove Roswell was an ET incident just like everything else doesn't. However, if the photos could be proven to be authentically taken in 1947 and not of a mummy or a fraud it would be a piece of supporting evidence in a circumstantial case. So I don't think we should be too hard on the people bring us this piece of potential evidence. It will be interesting to see what can be learned by further investigation. However, as long as our visitors remain evasive and the major governments continue their "don't ask, don't tell" policy things are unlikely to fundamentally change.

Don McCoy said...

ANOTHER example of the smoking gun being delayed; studied; restudied; kept secret; unavailable for viewing...

They "verify" the "authenticity" of the film...and hope it makes people believe they've verified the subject and exposure-date as well...which they HAVEN'T and CAN NOT.

Verifying it's real Kodak film, manufactured at the right time doesn't prove it wasn't exposed YESTERDAY and doesn't prove it's not a picture of a rubber dummy.

This nonsense happens EVERY TIME someone finds an alien OR bigfoot...and it ALWAYS indicates a fake.

Paul Young said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Young said...

Well...I've been baffled as to why we are being drip-fed the information a full five months before the big event.

I can only imagine that, one of the purposes, is so that the parties concerned can monitor the many blogs and forums with an interest in UFOlogy, in order to see what questions WE'RE coming up with amongst ourselves...

...giving them more of a chance not to be surprised by a really awkward question (one they hadn't thought would be asked)on the big day. And there'll be plenty of those!

Forewarned is forearmed...as they say

Nitram Ang said...

"Which seems to consist of forwarding random supportive comments and "ideas" from anonymous folks on blogs like this one."

Thanks again for the positive reinforcement Lance!

To be fair - I do sincerely hope that Don, Tom and maybe Anthony know a lot more about the slides than us "knockers" otherwise they will be in big trouble...

Unknown said...

I wanna believe in these slides, I really do, but withholding the slides for a "big reveal" seems sketchy to me. I agree with Kevin that the trickle of info leading to the reveal is a red flag to me. If somebody truly believed they had proof of extraterrestrials, they should just reveal it immediately for the world to see. This would be something that transcends one's claim to fame and notoriety. But in this case, you've got a group of people turning it into a big extravaganza months in advance.

Now, I'm all for due diligence and taking one's time to verify and authenticate as best they can, but I question if that's all that's going on here. If the authentication has been completed, put it out immediately, why does the world have to wait months for it? Obviously, they feel confident enough in the material to announce the date. And even if they want to set up a media event, it shouldn't take this long.

Capt Steve said...

"Well...I've been baffled as to why we are being drip-fed the information a full five months before the big event."

I wish I had your optimism, Paul, regarding the motive(s) behind drizzling out a little info at a time...but this appears to be more of a marketing campaign at this point than any scientific endeavor. If they released all the info they have who on Earth would buy tickets to the big show on May 5th?

Kurt Peters said...

I may be too late now, but we can only hope that Don and Tom got something in writing before handing all their hard work over to Adam Dew:

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/creating-written-contract-transfer-or-license-rights-under-copyright

albert said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
albert said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
albert said...

@Kurt
The copyright belongs to the original photographer, whomever that may be, or the descendents thereof :)
.
It's a moot point, since the copyright protection limit in place back then was 28 years. So assuming they were shot in 1947, they became public domain in 1975.

So no one can own a copyright on the slides.

Dew can and will copyright his work, but obviously, not that of others.
...

Terry the Censor said...

@albert

> the copyright protection limit in place back then was 28 years. So assuming they were shot in 1947, they became public domain in 1975.

Not so. You are thinking of published works from that era that lapsed into public domain before the passing of the Copyright Act of 1976. That pertains to a lot of crappy movies but not to these slides.

From the United States Copyright Office:

Works in Existence but Not Published or Copyrighted on January 1, 1978
The law automatically gives federal copyright protection to works that were created but neither published nor registered before January 1, 1978. The duration of copyright in these works is generally computed the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: life plus 70 years...

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf

If authorship cannot be determined and the Roswell slides are considered anonymous works, they would enjoy copyright protection through the year 2067 (provided the date of creation is indeed 1947).

(c) Anonymous Works, Pseudonymous Works, and Works Made for Hire.
In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html#303

Gilles Fernandez said...

Terry wrote: Dew responded: "We're trying to find people that will look at it and give those opinions."

Yeah, among surprising claims by those sensationalists...

Well, our great friend,Tony too, stated/claimed Museum have not handwritten placards when exhibiting biological displays. Wow, we smell they have knowledge to discard prosaic leads...

Dunno if Tony posed one day on his life a feet in a Museum...

http://i38.servimg.com/u/f38/19/01/83/59/brgali10.jpg

Regards,

Gilles

albert said...

@Terry
I got that circ15a pdf. You are correct about the term.

Assuming the 'creator' of the slides is unknown, and they have never before been published, and that they were never registered in the US, and they weren't registered anywhere else, and they are legally anonymous works, then they are subject to the copyright terms as you point out.

All I can see is that the copyright will simply 'protect' the work from being copyrighted by anyone, and that when it expires, it will revert to public domain. This longer protection is actually a good thing, as it allows for historically interesting things to enter the public domain, and even be usable by others during the copyright period.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

2067. I think there's a distinct possibility that this whole affair will not even rate a footnote in history long before then. :)

This reminds me: If any of you create something worth protecting, register it immediately. You can do it online (it's cheaper).

...

Rusty Lingenfelter said...

On another note, thanks for the reference to “The Man Who Evolved,” by Edward Hamilton. That story and about a half a dozen more are available for download in multiple electronic formats. I suppose the copyright has expired, hence they are in the public domain. Another article (I think from the Anomolist) put me on to some classic science fiction and I am currently really enjoying Lach-Szyrma (1885), Alerial or a Voyage to Other Worlds which was also available for download.

Kurt Peters said...

for Rusty:

I you liked "The Man Who Evolved", then perhaps this 1951 short story that eerily predicts the Mexico City Roswell slide event will be of interest:

http://mysite.du.edu/~treddell/3780/Kornbluth_The-Marching-Morons.pdf

jessejames1956 said...

I am an amateur genealogist and I do research on my family history. I was trying to track down Bernard and Hilda Ray from what sources I use. Ancestry.com and Familysearch.org

I found that the couple lived in Minneapolis from around 1925 to 1935. I can only assume they were married in Minnesota but I can find no record. Bernard was born in Minnesota and Hilda in Illinois. Her maiden name was Blair, which she used as her middle name once she was married.
They moved to Midland, Texas between 1935 and 1940 because they are present in the 1940 US Census. They are present in the Midland city directory from 1940-1944 and 1946. And 1948, 1950, 1953- 1957.
No trace of either after 1957 other than a Social Security Death record of a Hilda Ray who passed away in February 1988 in Minnesota and another who passed in Navarro Texas in 1985. No record of a home in Arizona.