Well,
we all knew that this would blow up quickly once the slides were out… or I
should say a poor copy of one of the slides were out. As we’ve all seen by now,
that image is not very clear, it doesn’t have much in the way of color, and it
provides us little in the way of information. Tom Carey told me yesterday that
the slide is much clearer than that very poor image we have.
Today,
that is February 10, Gilles Fernandez provided a photograph with “good rezolution
[sorry, but I wanted to accurately report what Gilles had said though my first
thought was to correct the spelling but should note that Gilles has a very good
grasp of English].” He provided a link that shows a small body that looks
similar to that in the slide:
He
also provided the location of the body seen in this photograph. It is the Museo de las Momias
de Guanajuato.
He noted that he was asking a Spanish speaking colleagure for more information.
He also provided
another illustration at:
This is not the end
of the story, of course. Tom Carey reported, “What we
thought at first was the being’s foot (circled in the images) isn't a foot at
all. It's something else (a piece of debris?) sticking up. The being’s feet
actually end behind the placard. Yes, we were on to that almost two
years ago. Of course this will not satisfy what's going on out there right now
on the blogs, which is insane.”
It would seem then, that this picture,
or this being, is not a surprise to Tom. It does look like what we see on the
slide, but then, we don’t have a good look at the being on the slide.
So here’s where we are on all this. We
haven’t seen a good version of the slide. We do have a very good look at the
being in the museum. The two look very similar. Until we get a better version
of the slide, it’s very difficult to compare the two.
There is one final comment to make.
They released the information into the public arena. If the slide image is of
poor quality, it is because of the way it was released. The point is, once they
began to publicly talk about the slides and what they showed, then they should
have expected some pushback by those who had waited (some not as patiently as
others) for them to present their evidence… now we have a presentation for
the presentation of evidence at a later date. I suspect we won’t know much more until May 5th,
but then they should have expected all the discussion. They have no one to
blame by themselves.
.jpg)
120 comments:
Anyone who thinks these photos are going to settle anything has been smoking something.....and not tobacco.
I can't believe they are going through with it. Then again, they'll make millions off of this so afterwards they can just retire.
I sure as hell hope that nobody is stupid enough to continue to view Carey and Schmitt as "experts" after this. Then again, Project Camelot will probably be the first to have them on.
"It's something else (a piece of debris?) sticking up. "
Ahhh ok, sacred Tom Carey's claim then....
I wait full slide resolution, because (well you will see when released)...
Regard,
Gilles Fernandez
On a side note:
As I wrote in my 2010 book titled "Roswell : rencontre du premier mythe", Tom Carey promised "debris" to be released for all !
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Zam_fRnt1Po/VNqIoPLyuuI/AAAAAAAABac/VYGiXoJSpfc/s1600/0000%2Bextraxct.jpg
Source: My 2010 book or http://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.fr/2014/04/laffaire-roswell-reponse-la-lecture.html
Sorry for French... ^^
Gilles
"Then again, they'll make millions off of this so afterwards they can just retire."
They hope so. It is up to people like us to ensure they don't. I still hope the thing is a complete flop.
Then we can all devote our energies to the Aztec case (or even the Flatwoods monster)!
Gilles -
Though I don't know and haven't asked, I don't believe that Tom was referring to UFO debris. I think he just meant debris in general.
Update :
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tfpZ8vYcHsA/VNqSN8IG1aI/AAAAAAAABas/BdOijs4lQI0/s1600/slides%2B00001.jpg
:p
Gilles Fernandez
@ Gilles,
Gilles, look at the floor as well!
Could it really be the American Museum of Natural History? Is it that easy? LOL
Jeff said:
"Anyone who thinks these photos are going to settle anything has been smoking something.....and not tobacco."
If it doesn't settle something for you about the people involved in this then you aren't trying hard enough.
This farce, which the hardcore Roswell faithful refuse to call as such, typifies the quality of the "research" that Roswell has always enjoyed.
Lance
Disappointed but not surprised.
Lance carelessly wrote
"This farce, .... typifies the quality of the "research" that Roswell has always enjoyed."
This is a false statement.
Some of the research undertaken - for example debunking the ridiculous "Mogul explanation" has been very well done.
Again Lance, why do you have to paint everyone with the same brush...??
Hello Gilles, ¿is your spanish speaking friend Luis Ruiz Noguez? (The mexican debunker, who indeed is a specialist in purported photos of extraterrestrials.)
At any rate, I think we must wait for the clearer photographs.
These hard core debunkers/critics have way too much debunker juice on there brains. They are all a part of a debunking club seen them post many times before. They are saturated with "the world is flat" lets execute "Isaac Newton mentality"
"swamp gas" etc etc
I will wait for the original slides, these guys are all a part of the same choir"
@ Jim,
I assure you that this is a con game. The thing in the slides is not alien and it has no connection to Roswell.
Whether or not you saw what you claim to have seen doesn't mean you need to have your head so far open that your brain falls out. Ufology is filled with hoaxers, frauds and con artists.
So Carey and Schmitt are either very stupid or they are in this for the money. I don't think they are stupid.
Randle-
"Hi Loki. 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) Id post the diploma for you."
...so, dude, just WHEN will you actually post your diploma?"
So Randle, WHY are you delaying posting the 'Adam Dew' diploma he sent you???
I agree that all your statements in your last post could be true and probably are regarding the slides.
But one important fact that I know with 100% certainty is that there is intelligent life outside our solar system.
I certainly don't need the debunker/critic crows suffocating the open minds from posting.
I found a 2010 blog post (in English) that includes the photo in Kevin's first embedded link. The writer says:
My first stop was the Museo de las Momias (Mummy Museum). The Guanajuato mummies were discovered in a nearby cemetery and were dug up between the years 1865 and 1958. Why were these bodies exhumed, you ask? Well, the local law required relatives to pay a kind of grave tax. You could pay the tax once and be done with it (for wealthier individuals) or you could pay a yearly fee (for the less wealthy). If the relatives could not pay this tax for three years, the body was dug up from the cemetery and put on display in the Mummy Museum. Fortunately, in 1958, the law was changed and no new bodies have been dug up.
http://esperanzaenmexico.blogspot.ca/2010/03/charming-guanajuato.html
@ Terry The Censor,
Great find. Thanks.
Kevin this image is a snapshot taken from the documentary preview. It shows more information. Nobody seems to want to discuss this screengrab.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_oML4-Q0LHM/VNVVakRAboI/AAAAAAAAHoA/cOGJJf0j2g0/s1600/Body.jpg
Terry and Doc your eager desperation to debunk the slides before they have been released is obvious. Why can't you wait until you have enough data to come to an accurate assessment.
@Turk
> Nobody seems to want to discuss this screengrab.
Because it is so fogged as to be useless.
> Why can't you wait until you have enough data to come to an accurate assessment.
I am providing data. I have not made an assessment.
A little more about the blog post I linked to:
I don't know the origin of the photo -- if it's from a museum site or from the blogger -- but the blogger has posted a very large version on Flickr.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/42291659@N04/4435682143/
> Tom Carey reported, “What we thought at first was the being’s foot (circled in the images) isn't a foot at all. It's something else (a piece of debris?) sticking up."
If you download the largest size (5120x3413) at Flickr and crop out everything but the child mummy, you can view it at 2536x1684. It will be very clear. You will note the mummy is wearing booties.
Is that the same smooth edge we see projecting up over the display label in the Roswell slide? Zetan baby booties???
(Were baby booties back-engineered from alien space textiles? Find out next week on Basic Cable Mysteries!)
@ Turk,
I'm not debunking Roswell. I'm not debunking UFOs. I'm debunking these damn slides because they are not that of an alien being from the Roswell crash as claimed.
If we wait until after May 5 then the con artists will walk away with all the cash, which is what they want.
If these were legit slides of an alien they would not be presented at a circus in Mexico City.
DocConjure:
"If these were legit slides of an alien they would not be presented at a circus in Mexico City."
You are 100% right, Doc.
They would have been presented at a proper scientific conference, in the USA, sometime in either late '47 or early '48.
And there would never have been any of this conspiracy twaddle either.
First of all can I say both 'congratulations on a good piece of work' and 'thank you' to Giles Fernandez on putting forward clear evidence for a credible possible explanation for these slides.
Even if the exact source of these slides turns out not to be the same individual specimen Giles provides for comparison purposes the similarities are so strong that the probability that he has correctly identified the general type of human remains involved is, I think, very high indeed.
In a normal case, once a reasonably credible prosaic explanation has been found I would say leave it at that...this case is a bit different.
I am extremely uncomfortable with the way in which press release type information has been put out without any serious evidence being put into the public domain for scrutiny by those arguing in favour of an ET origin for this body. I would therefore encourage those with the time, interest and expertise in these issues to nail this nonsense stone cold dead and to do so before the event in Mexico if at all possible.
This sort of nonsense is hardly unique in the annals of ufology but we can all do without yet another example to tar the subject with even more derision than it already receives.
There have been attempts in the past, and some current examples, to put together serious research groups (NIDS, NARCAP and a number of non-US based groups such as GEIPAN etc etc). There is alas only one serious peer reviewed journal that will take UFO related papers, the JSE. For those of us determined to follow the principles of critical rationalism it is towards this small middle ground of academic rigour than we need to direct our energies.
Can I conclude by also thanking Kevin and numerous other commentators on this blog for informing this discussion, which seems to leading to very appropriate conclusion in this affair.
Loki -
I find you reference to me by my last name to be rude.
I have not been given the diploma by Dew and I don't know why you think I have. I also am not sure why this would be relevant unless you have some reason for doubting he has a degree. But, before you spout off, be sure you know what you're talking about.
Gilles notice also in your image from the museum (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tfpZ8vYcHsA/VNqSN8IG1aI/AAAAAAAABas/BdOijs4lQI0/s1600/slides%2B00001.jpg) - on the far right second compartment down the placard in front of the artifact - looks of a very similar type to the 'alien' body image
The bodies in the Kodak slides don't have 5 fingers according to statements made by Tom Carey in a previous interview.
It does not appear that Gilles museum body fits the data.
Gilles can you confirm the the body in your image has 5 fingers? And not less than that as the Kodak slides do>
This all comes down to how many fingers?
And Kevin Randle can you confirm that you have looked at the other screen grab from another angle which I posed above?
What is your email address?
So far all attempts to debunk the unreleased slides has been a total failure.
You forgot to look at the fingers.
How many fingers does Gilles museum body have? If it is 5 then the debunkers have lost again.
This is why jumping the gun prematurely will make the skeptical community again look silly.
Hello,
Concerning the lead of American museum, a friend found this picture. It is from the National Museum of Natural History.
According to wikipedia: "Opened in 1910, the museum on the National Mall was one of the first Smithsonian buildings constructed exclusively to hold the national collections and research facilities".
I dont state it is the culprit in the following "photo-montage" I made, but maybe in the collections of American Museum, there is our culprit...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7R_Tiio45xY/VNtmNN-Bg9I/AAAAAAAABa8/Ofq6zHVYaDY/s1600/slides6.jpg
Regards,
Gilles
@ don: no, the person I asked/suggested if he can email the Museum is a Spanish UFO/anomalistic investigator, not the person you mentioned.
Gilles how many fingers does the mummy have?
Dear Turk OVNI,
First, maybe T. Carey did this statment about the fingers, I dunno.
Will "judge" when the slide(s) in better resolution, not from an unique possible "statement". Judging on forensic pieces, if you prefer, than on oral statements.
Because, for the mummies pictures I have seen, despite sometimes in very good resolution, it is extremaly difficult, if not impossible, to count the fingers and we can easy mistaken or "auto-illusioned" (and even more when an investigator have a great/strong UFO background and bias then? :p )
It depends on the orientation, perspective, state of preservation the mummy, etc.
Regards,
Gilles
Turk: I also see differences between the blurred screen shot and Giles mummy's.
I am not going to Mexico or spending any $$$ on this but I am still keeping an open mind regarding the slides.
If there is any doubt whether Gile has debunker/critic on his brain take a look at his BIO below.
It appears he is "the world is flat" and the "earth is the center of the universe" type person
Gilles Fernandez
My Photo
View Full Size
On Blogger since June 2009
Profile views - 880
My blogs
Sceptiques vs. les Soucoupes Volantes
About me
Gender
Male
Location
France
Introduction
Gilles Fernandez is a PhD in Cognitive Psychology from LIMSI/CNRS (Université de Paris-Sud) and René Descartes University (Paris, France). His interrests for 1993 to 2006 as research scientist focused on the relationships between linguistic and visio-spatial representations, between creativity and human intelligence, on psychometry and child giftedness, Bayesian statistical methods for assessing importance of effects. He is actualy independant writer and lecturer in the domain of "why people believe weird things" (such as pseudosciences, UFO, superstitions, modern myths, urban legends, etc.).
In terms of the discussion on the number of fingers...
I agree with Giles that the resolution of the current image isn't good enough to pin that down with certainty. Considering that the preservation of many mummified remains often includes missing fingers and toes, or other parts of the anatomy I can't see how that can be considered particularly evidential one way or the other ( see for example the Gebelein mummies).
The thumb can also quite easily be hidden from a side view whilst the basic proportions of the hand in the slide image looks right for a human hand, but too blurred to clearly make out individual fingers.
"I find you reference to me by my last name to be rude."
Seriously, Mr. Kevin Randle, PhD???
Is not that the label you yourself have displayed on your portrait that your blog shows?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4Mj-sCZVWz0/TXK4jcZnTRI/AAAAAAAABA0/VcxTXiiXSWs/s220-h/Randle.jpg
I trust your blog has not been hacked.
So, were you resentful every time in your military experience that you were addressed by your last name?
First, I have never stated it/they are the culprit(s). We have several leads/pists driving to "Mummies" and not specially those ones.
We are only on the thing for few days, "I" have not published an article I think or something "for sure". Kevin found such pictures/mounting slides/ for comparisons "I" made in brainstorming web dissussions I think? I have never asked someone to publish it (Kevin or Rich on their blogs). That's only "works" in progress with several leads/pists, some probably wrong, one probably the best of all.
Yes, there is another possible better candidat/culprit, because many things are matching between it and what we have/know about the Roswell slide at the moment.
Wait a little, please, because we must contact some US anthropologists before (and dunno if they will reply)...
Regards,
Gilles
***
@ Jim and on a side note:
If there is any doubt whether Gile has debunker/critic on his brain take a look at his BIO below.
If you are interested by my bio, notice I eated an apple few minutes ago. It could be interesting for you, without a doubt.... And please, Jim, if you are able to copy-paste my "bio", notice how to spell (correctly) my name...TY very much.
Regards,
Gilles
Jim Bender:
What is it in Gilles' biography that indicates he is a "the earth is flat and at the center of the universe" type person?
I happen to believe the earth is a spheroid and not at the center of the universe, but share Gilles' views, at least on such matters as Roswell.
You remarked earlier that you were 100% certain that intelligent life existed outside our solar system. I am inclined to agree, although I would put it at 99.9%.
But that does NOT mean it has ever visited the earth, does it?
Loki -
Only by subordinates...
Only by strangers I don't know...
And only when accused of not putting up Dew's diploma, which I do not have and have not requested.
Hi CDA
"The 97 phoenix lights first event @ 830pm"
AND NO CHANCE IT WAS A MILITARY CRAFT
Do you guys write books and make movies (and make $$$$$) based on the skeptic/debunker/critic view point????????????? I believe so.
The blurred slide does not match your mummies IMO
Jim, please, you are making no sense. You are beginning to sound like Stanton Friedman.
@ Jim,
Please refrain from attacking skeptics with claims that they believe the word is flat and such. By doing so you are implying pure, irrational belief is the "enlightened" take on this matter. I can assure you it's not.
If you want to believe in UFOs and Roswell, that's fine. However, these slides have nothing to do with either thing. The being in the slides is not an alien. It's a mummified child. No matter how the con artists try to spin this and try to fool people with dating of the slides and such, it's still a mummified child.
Well, after seeing the latest photos of the mummies, I’m pretty much convinced we have a solution. It also furthers my belief that the slides should have been made public long ago, AS PART OF THE INVESTIGATION, not the conclusion.
With regard to the investigators behind this story; I would not be so quick to make accusations of fraud. I don’t know any of them personally – they seem like nice people, but not the sharpest tools in the shed, if you know what I mean.
Is that fair? I think it’s fair.
Dear Christopher,
Off-topic, but well,
I think Jim is claiming I'm one claiming the Earth is flat cause the Universal Zetetic Society...
IF the case, he is ignoring the term have been used by many, including pseudoscientists, like the ones behind the Universal Zetetic Society's history.
A good friend (and MODERN zetetician) realized imho a good article about the semantic and the uses of the term, but in French: http://www.zetetique.fr/index.php/dossiers/235-histoire-zetetique
In order to avoid future confusions and amalgams,
Gilles
@ CommanderCronus,
I seriously don't think they are stupid. Money seems to be the main motive here. The desire to keep the slides secret it to secure the money for themselves. You can't make money off of it if they were released and you can't make money off if it if you admit it's a mummified child. So you have to lie and claim it's a Roswell alien to bring in the cash. Don't underestimate the power of human greed.
The fact that they are going ahead with their plans for May 5 should solidify for you that they are only in it for the money. They are con artists and have zero credibility left.
Gile,
Your English has improved dramatically wow!!!, we are so surprised???.(smoke and mirrors or should I say swamp gas)
Its amazing the slander,false, and misleading statements that are made of others by the critics/debunkers
Hey doc, nice comment about Stanton friedman
By the way I still don't see a mummy that matches the slide. Keep working with your photo shop I am sure you will get the match eventually
Gilles wrote:
I dont state it is the culprit in the following "photo-montage" I made, but maybe in the collections of American Museum, there is our culprit...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7R_Tiio45xY/VNtmNN-Bg9I/AAAAAAAABa8/Ofq6zHVYaDY/s1600/slides6.jpg
Gilles doesn't state it is the culprit because obviously it is not the culprit. American Museum skeleton: normally proportioned; slide body, not normally proportioned, not remotely.
"Maybe" there is body in the collection of the Museum, or "maybe" there isn't. Great proof.
Gilles also linked to a photo in the basement of the American Museum and circled one of the L-girders supporting exhibits and said it was a match to the L-girder in the slide. Yes,they are both L-girders, highly generic structural supports used everywhere (like my garage), but that is where the similarity stops. That is even a worse "proof" than comparing the very dissimilar bodies.
I thought Gilles was on much firmer ground with the child mummy in Guanajuato behind the glass windows, which looked a little more like the slide body, but still not an exact match.
At least I think the skeptics have made a prima facie case that it MIGHT be a deformed, maybe mummified child tucked away in some museum somewhere, but have not provided actual proof. ("Might" does not equal "proven")
The problem is everybody is speculating wildly and claiming they've proven their case, but all we've been going on is a low-resolution screen grab of one of the two slides. None of us on the outside has all the facts yet, including maximum resolution images of the slides which might clear up some points (e.g., in the brief view I got of a slide printout, I don't remember the head being skeletal or mummified--full resolution might settle the matter), or medical/forensic testimony that may have been obtained already (and no doubt will accelerate after the big slide reveal, with everybody and their maiden aunts weighing in).
I'm not blaming the skeptics on this, just noting that nothing yet has been proven one way or the other, people are still jumping to conclusions instead of taking a more scientific "wait and see" attitude that is called for here.
Of course, search away on the Internet for an exact match to the body in the slides. That would at least settle the matter if one can be found.
@ David,
Where you one of the slide proponents who assured us it wasn't a mummy? Just curious.
The think is David that one doesn't dismiss the mundane in favor of the extraordinary.
It's a mummified child. The burden of proof lies on the person who claims it's an alien. And so far the con seems to trying to bank on "is it or isn't it? You decide!", which is deplorable.
David, I would advise you to jump ship as well. Tom and Don are discredited and you should't want to be either.
Doc Conjure,
I didn't insure anybody that it wasn't a mummy or human, in fact am on the record saying that when I first got a short look at a printout of one of the slides 2-1/2 years ago, I thought it could possibly be human.
Yes, there is a burden of proof to demonstrate that it isn't human. But skeptics claiming a "mummy" also have a burden of proof, that they haven't met yet, not surprising because not all the facts are in.
I might remind you that there have been likewise, totally unfounded claims that Carey and Schmitt are the perpetrators of hoax, even going so far as to claim they purchased an old camera, found some old film and shot pictures of a dummy. (Not a stitch of evidence has been provided for this accusation, which would require C/S to find totally pristine old film with no obvious age-related damage that would necessarily occur and get the Kodachrome slides developed before the last lab closed in 2010, apply a lacquer coating to the film that Kodak discontinued in the 1960's, etc., etc.
So what is it? Dummy or Mummy? To the skeptics it is obviously both.
I am still not convinced either side has proven its case. Instead we are getting qualifiers that it "might" be a mummy that "might" be in the American museum, or "maybe" the museum of mummies in Mexico, or "maybe" its a museum in Columbia. Or "maybe" its in some other world museum of medical/anthropological oddieties. But then again, it "might" not be.
"Might/maybe" doesn't cut it. It's like arguing, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant 'might' be guilty, but then again, the defendant 'might' not be guilty."
David
Very well stated!!!!!!
Notice zero insults or calling somebody fraud until all the evidence is in.
David I appreciate your insight and logical thought process.
@ David,
I do not believe that Tom and Don faked the slides. Instead, I think they've deliberately decided to go with the Roswell alien claims in order to make money.
Tom's "We have the smoking gun!" comments can't be erased. So I think we all know what the outcome will be.
FYI: Remember, the counter side doesn't have to prove anything. This is not a case that if we can't prove it's a mummy then it's an alien. It looks like a mummified child and is a mummified child until proven otherwise, as far as I'm concerned.
[[ people are still jumping to conclusions instead of taking a more scientific "wait and see" attitude that is called for here.]]
So call it a tentative conclusion, Dave, that's scientific enough--not that this sham involves any real science.
The slide looks very much like a mummified child, so most likely is a mummified child. It could still be a hoax of various sorts, or something else.
But, for now, mummified child it is, and any doubt about that most probable determination, or any other, cannot be reasonably sustained after the Cinco de Mayo reveal.
Comprende?
Are the Investigators of the slide sure that an army blanket was used to cover the genitals?
Strange to see an army blanket on a mummy...
Dear David,
"But skeptics claiming a "mummy" also have a burden of proof, that they haven't met yet, not surprising because not all the facts are in."
For the 100th time, Rich Reynolds and Kevin Randle have "stolen" more or less an ongoing work, shared in some FB pages here or there and decided for their OWN initiative to create some topic on their respective blog. I have not a problem with it, but please, dont transform the thing...
They choose such pictures (as "I" give others), but there are others.
There are several pists/leads, some eliminated step by step, other coming which must bee investigated more, to be elimated or retained. It takes time and to contact Academic Anthropologists, for example...
In few words, such captures are not extratcted from a sort of "final paper", of something finalized claimed "we have the culprit".
It is like to extract some slides from an ongoing investigation -(then a cinematic, with pauses, changes, bemols, abandonned leads, new ones, etc) and to claim it is a final claim/work...
Yes, we are driven more and more on a particular mummy exhibit and candidat. When "we" will claim "Ooh that's the culprit", ok the burden of proof will be for us...
For now, when have Jaime Maussan and few others, including Bragalia, Carey and Schmitt claiming "Alien beings" and teasing for monthes now ;)
"We" are only not surprised / amazed by these slide, because close to mummy orto be one of the many in the world. To examine "all" the hundred, if not thousands mummies possible candidats take time.
Now. Wait and see, again in no case "I" asked Kevin or Rich to provide something on our ongoing investigations, nor I shared directly with them...
TY for your understanding.
Gilles
I forgot to add to the "mummy", "dummy" skeptical explanations, that body and photos were ALSO of a secret monster child that the Rays had (presumably chained in the basement or attic). The Rays, being unfeeling parents and monsters themselves, callously took photos of their dead monstrosity and tucked them away.
For the millionth time, there may be details in or about the photos that have not been revealed yet that would change everything. All we have on the outside is a blurry, low-res version to look at. I think Carey and Schmitt know their reputations are on the line here, so I can only hope they have done proper due diligence, such as showing the photos to top-notch medical and forensic experts.
From what has been revealed that is more concrete, the slides are of 1947 Kodak film stock, housed in 1940s Kodak cardboard holders, and coated with a lacquer that Kodak discontinued in the 1960s. In addition, they show none of expected damage (fogginess, low contrast, blotchiness, graininess) that would be expected of very old film stock being stored for many decades and only recently used and developed.
Thus the preponderance of present evidence points to genuine old slides (despite some proclamations by some skeptics that the slides were only recently created, which would be damn difficult, maybe impossible to pull off).
So, genuine old slides but of what? I myself am tilting toward the museum curiosity theory as being more likely, but unlike the usual skeptic proclamations of certainty of Mummy/Dummy/Evil Mommy, based on scant or nonexistent evidence and mostly conjecture, I don't know at present, and await further information.
@ David,
Are you just making up stuff at this point?
Look, it's real simple. You can support the slides all you want just as long as you realize there's a price to pay for that support with regard to your credibility.
Tom and Don are done. I guess your willing to flush your work down as well.
I never thought the slides were a recent production; rather it’s my opinion that this is a genuine photograph of a mummy on display at a museum – one that Hilda and Bernard Ray visited sometime in the late 40’s or early 50’s. This is a much, much simpler and obvious explanation, and I think it is the best one. As to why they would have tucked it away separately in an envelope is anyone’s guess, but I assume they had their own reasons.
Gilles -
I "stole" your work and posted it to my blog? Really?
You posted the links in various comments sections here. I moved them to a more prominent place. I didn't ask you to post here. I didn't search the material out on the web and post it here. You did that. So don't accuse me, or Rich Reynolds, of stealing anything. Due credit was given.
You didn't ask us to post, but you did post in the comments section. Had you not done that, then I certainly would not have posted. You are in the same boat as Tom and Don. You initiated the discussion. If you don't like the direction then you have no one to blame but yourself.
If you object to any of this, then remove your postings, but do not sling a label that cannot be sustained with fact.
This is an outrageous claim and I will write it off as a simple misunderstanding as you write in English (realizing that sometimes things get lost in the translation and complimenting you on your fluency in English) but remember one fact. I would have posted nothing that you had not already placed in the comments section on this blog yourself.
@ CommanderCronus
The problem is that people are still believing the story from the mysterious owner of how the slides where found. It's likely that there were many additional slides that would have revealed the real origin of those two slides which the owner deliberately withheld in order to promote the lie of it being an alien.
@DocConjure,
Bingo. That's also a very likely, and reasonable explanation, one that does not require speculation regarding finding and storing old film stock, lead-lined storage containers, degradation from cosmic rays and whatever else would be involved. It's just a photo of a mummy taken in the late 40's. Works for me.
Pseudonyminous "DocConjure" wrote:
Are you just making up stuff at this point?
Making what up? I'm not that imaginative. Here are some of just YOUR recent comments on the subject in just the last few days, bouncing around like a ball in a pinball machine:
1. IT'S A MUMMY, IT'S FROM COLUMBIA, OR FROM EGYPT, OR FROM THE U.S. IT'S BOTH DEFORMED AND NOT DEFORMED.
Could it really be [from] the American Museum of Natural History? Is it that easy? LOL
BINGO! I think you nailed it exactly! [Andean mummy] It supposedly was taken at a museum in Colombia so that would make perfect sense.
It doesn't have to have hydrocephalus. It might just be a standard child mummy. In fact, the being is very similar to classic examples of Egyptian child mummies, such as this:
It's clear to me at least that the being in the slide is likely a deformed human child.
2. NO WAIT. POSSIBLY NOT AN OLD MUMMY. IT'S A MODERN HOAX USING OLD FILM AND A DUMMY FILMED RECENTY
It may even be a dummy as the hands look odd to me.
All this time I just assumed that the slides were authentic but just didn't show an alien as claimed. Now it seems that it's very well possible the slides are hoaxed, using unexposed film from the circa 1947 era.
3. BACK TO, NO, THE SLIDES ARE AUTHENTIC, BUT CAREY AND SCHMITT ARE SCAMMERS ONLY OUT TO MAKE MONEY
I do not believe that Tom and Don faked the slides. Instead, I think they've deliberately decided to go with the Roswell alien claims in order to make money.
I seriously don't think they are stupid. Money seems to be the main motive here. The desire to keep the slides secret it to secure the money for themselves. You can't make money off of it if they were released and you can't make money off if it if you admit it's a mummified child. So you have to lie and claim it's a Roswell alien to bring in the cash. Don't underestimate the power of human greed.
So Carey and Schmitt are either very stupid or they are in this for the money. I don't think they are stupid.
As for the secret monster child of the Rays hidden away out of shame, that theory came from William Strathman, but he also made it clear he was being highly speculative and trying to think way outside the box.
Look, it's real simple. You can support the slides all you want just as long as you realize there's a price to pay for that support with regard to your credibility. Tom and Don are done. I guess your willing to flush your work down as well.
Whereas you hide behind a pseudonym throwing out unsupported accusations that Tom and Don are guilty of a deliberate hoax and are just a pair of flim-flam artists. Hiding from your perch of smug and nasty anonymity, you never have to pay a price for anything, right pal? Typical troll behavior.
You're concern for my reputation is touching, if a trifle disingenuous. I am not "supporting" the slides, but am trying to stay agnostic and give them a fair hearing, as information remains sketchy.
In contrast, you seem to jump all over the place, supporting the latest flavor of the day theory. (quotes above) About the only thing you have been consistent on is your certain belief that it couldn't possibly be a nonhuman, therefore it must be Egyption/American/Columbian mummy, either completely normal or deformed, or maybe it's a dummy.
GillesF wrote:
"We" are only not surprised / amazed by these slide, because close to mummy orto be one of the many in the world. To examine "all" the hundred, if not thousands mummies possible candidats take time.
No need to personally examine thousand of mummy candidates. Contact museum curators, provide picture, and ask if they have anything in their collection that matches, or if they know of a museum that may have a match.
At least I give Gilles credit for being willing to do the legwork and look for a match. Most skeptics don't bother to investigate anything, as it is so much easier to know everything with certainty without leaving their armchair.
David
I agree, also as youve pointed out which hasnt been explained is why would the Rays keep these 2 slides seperate if indeed they were just pics of mummys or dummies.
The beings head and body also looks somewhat disproportionate compared to a child, mummied or otherwise
Didnt Tom in an Interview say there is an Army blanket underneath the being, i didnt know they used Army Garmets for Mummies, let alone for Musuems.
@ David,
Okay, let's get this real clear. I have NEVER accused Tom and Don of hoaxing this. Do not accuse me of such again or at least you better have evidence to prove your allegations.
I don't need you to post every comment I've ever written, thanks.
However, despite what I've offered as possibilities, note that every single one was mundane and rooted in the real world and not the realm of fantastical imagination designed to separate people from their money.
I seriously doubt you are "agnostic" as you claim. Your actions don't support such a stance. You, like many of the Roswell camp, are trying to hedge your bet and it's blatantly obvious. However, none of this will save Roswell research.
We don't need to wait. The quality of the slide that has been leaked is clear enough to identify it as human remains, THE END. All you are doing is trying to support the con artists at this point.
This is why Roswell research is dead, folks.
@ AL12,
You don't know any of that! You are just believing the story that was told by the mysterious owner. You are just assuming that he is being honest. None of that is fact.
@ David Rudiak,
Gilles doesn't need suggestions from you. He has already contacted people.
FYI: Being a skeptic is good. You are falsely equating skeptic with debunker. They are not the same thing. If you aren't a skeptic then you are true believer and you are just as bad as the debunkers.
DocConjure - "However, despite what I've offered as possibilities, note that every single one was mundane and rooted in the real world...."
I'll give you one thing, you certainly know how to "hedge your bets". Chuckle
@ Paul,
All of those were just stages I was in. I honestly had no opinion until that slide was leaked. I immediately knew it was not what they were claiming it was.
One of my comments was that it looked like a child and that it was probably mummified. That's my best guess.
I'm not hedging my bets. It's not an alien being from Roswell. The people here who are hedging their bets have feet on both side of the fence so that when the truth comes out they can try to fool us into believing they were on the "right side" all along.
DocConjure -...
The problem is that none of us can really make a call on this until we have seen both slides in HiDef. If these slides are images of a "recently dead" being, as described by the holders of the slides, then it will be obvious NOT a mummy.
Until then, we can't call it. As said by other posters here, we're better off taking a wait and see approach rather than a scatter gun approach at anyone who we view as being on the other side of the argument.
The increasingly disingenuous "DocConjure" wrote:
Okay, let's get this real clear. I have NEVER accused Tom and Don of hoaxing this. Do not accuse me of such again or at least you better have evidence to prove your allegations.
I don't need you to post every comment I've ever written, thanks.
OK, let's get this real clear. "DocConjure" won't even own his own words where he CLEARLY IS accusing Tom and Don, not of hoaxing the slides (though he has also said that as well), but knowingly and falsely pitching them as alien to make money.
My evidence is his own words. I think "Doc" DOES need to read his own comments again:
I do not believe that Tom and Don faked the slides. Instead, I think they've deliberately decided to go with the Roswell alien claims in order to make money.
I seriously don't think they are stupid. Money seems to be the main motive here. The desire to keep the slides secret it to secure the money for themselves. You can't make money off of it if they were released and you can't make money off if it if you admit it's a mummified child. So you have to lie and claim it's a Roswell alien to bring in the cash. Don't underestimate the power of human greed.
So Carey and Schmitt are either very stupid or they are in this for the money. I don't think they are stupid.
And if there was any doubt, his final comment just posted:
All you are doing is trying to support the con artists at this point.
@ David Rudiak,
For the second time David Rudiak has falsely accused me of accusing Tom and Don of hoaxing the slides.
I have NEVER accused Tom and Don of hoaxing the slides. At no time can David Rudiak point to any comment I have made to that effect because no such comment exists. It's all in his head.
What I have accused Tom and Don of is being money hungry opportunists. In my opinion they could only be incredibly stupid for believing that the being in the slide is an alien or they were out for money. I do not think Tom and Don are stupid.
In the twisted mind of David Rudiak, me stating that I think Tom and Don are out for money = they hoaxed the slides. That's illogical, David.
@ Jim,
I'm going to remind you one more time because you keep getting mixed up in the head over this.
I'm not debunking Roswell. I'm not debunking UFOs. I'm debunking these slides because they are not what proponents are claiming them to be. So stop trying to make me be the enemy for you to attack.
@ Jim,
There's something seriously wrong with you. Kevin will probably delete your comments.
You must think you are a regular Einstein because you mastered the ability to Google.
AI12 wrote:
I agree, also as youve pointed out which hasnt been explained is why would the Rays keep these 2 slides seperate if indeed they were just pics of mummys or dummies.
I guess a counterargument is that we don't know for a fact that was the case. All we have is the word of the slide owner, who said his sister found them that way.
Clearly the rest of the slides seem to have come from the estate of Hilda Ray, so the part of the story where the sister was cleaning up her house after her death is likely true.
The beings head and body also looks somewhat disproportionate compared to a child, mummied or otherwise.
Yes, none of the other presented mummy examples come close. Again playing devil's advocate, we can't say that the head necessarily belongs with the body. It could be some sideshow museum of oddities that took a big head and placed it with another body to make it look more bizarre.
From my brief viewing from 2-1/2 years ago, I am quite certain the head was not a skull. I remember it being a fleshed out head with muscle and skin, recently deceased or well-preserved, like a human cadaver. I don't remember it being wrinkled and mummy-like. I might be wrong about that, as it wasn't a good image and I'm working from memory. That's why I'm one reason why waiting to see the slides in high detail before making up my mind.
DocConjure
You equelly do not know any of the various statements you have said here and elsewhere to be fact either do you?
You havent seen the full facts, neither have you seen the slides in full Resolution, all youve done here, along with Giles is offer what you think "mayby" this slide represents.
At the same time you are here saying " its not an alien being from Roswell " do you also know that as fact? if so how? since that is what your implying whilst offering no proof yet to say its a mummified child.
Youve said to Paul that you knew immediately that it wasnt what they were claiming to be when you saw the slides and then straight after say its only your "best guess" that its a mummy, so your so certain of one thing but not another before all the facts are in.
@ AL12,
Me making a negative claim, as in "It's not an alien being from Roswell", does not require proof. The burden of proof lies on the person who claims it is an alien. And if you think about this how in the hell are they going to be able to prove it's alien? The answer is they won't. They know they won't be able to prove it's an alien.
> we can't say that the head necessarily belongs with the body
That's an excellent point.
Likewise, perhaps we can't say that the so-called Roswell slides necessarily belong with the rest of the slides? Hmmm.
DocConjure...
You might not have directly accused them of manufacturing the slides,but the rhetoric used by yourself in the past week heavily suggests that you consider Don and Tom to be an active part of a hoax in order to make a rake of cash.
@ Paul,
Wrong. Don't twist my words and don't put words into my mouth. I am not and have never accused Tom and Don of hoaxing the slides. The slides are likely from 1947. However, they don't depict an alien being as claimed and in my opinion Tom and Don are too smart to be fooled into thinking that's an alien. Therefore, it's my opinion they are in it for the money.
I've repeated this several times so anytime you or anyone else tries to to twist it around to mean something else you will fail.
DocConjure laughingly wrote:
For the second time David Rudiak has falsely accused me of accusing Tom and Don of hoaxing the slides.
I have NEVER accused Tom and Don of hoaxing the slides. At no time can David Rudiak point to any comment I have made to that effect because no such comment exists. It's all in his head.
What I have accused Tom and Don of is being money hungry opportunists. In my opinion they could only be incredibly stupid for believing that the being in the slide is an alien or they were out for money. I do not think Tom and Don are stupid.
In the twisted mind of David Rudiak, me stating that I think Tom and Don are out for money = they hoaxed the slides. That's illogical, David.
More game-playing from the increasingly dissembling or reading-challenged "DocConjure", who is again trying to avoid responsibility for his very clear accusations that Don and Tom are hoaxers. ("Doc" himself is either stupid or deliberately twisting my words; I don't think he's stupid.)
According to Doc, over and over again, Tom and Don know the slides aren't alien, but are consciously deceiving the public to make money. But heavens, he hasn't accused them of "hoaxing!"
Now THAT'S illogical!
There are two hoaxing issues here:
1. The slides themselves are hoaxed. They are recent photos of a dummy. "Doc" at one point said he thought that a distinct possibility (I won't quote again where he says this), didn't mention Tom and Don by name (though at least one other skeptic did specifically accuse Tom--I'd have to look back through several hundred posts to find it). Here there is also the possibility that they were hoaxed by someone else, Don and Tom are unwilling dupes, i.e., not deliberately hoaxing.
2. The slides are genuine date way back, but are of something mundane, probably a mummy in a museum. Don and Tom already know this, but are pitching the alien angle to make money. At least four times, "Doc" has made this accusation, the latest example above. Clearly this is just another way of hoaxing, no matter what little disingenuous semantic games "Doc" plays.
@ David,
At the beginning of the miss I thought that hoaxing could be at play. However, I have never accused Tom and Don of hoaxing the slides. That is quite clear except for people, such as yourself, who are trying to muddy the waters.
For the last time, I do not think Tom and Don hoaxed the slides. The slides appear to be legit. It's just they don't show what proponents claim the show.
I think the word you are missing is "scam" or "con artist". I have been very honest with my opinions that Tom and Don, as well as Jaime, Adam, and the mysterious owner, are only in it for the money. They have taken a real slide and are trying to fool people into thinking it's an alien from Roswell.
Doc,
Never assume evil intentions when abject stupidity or religious blindness will suffice.
Lance
@ David,
"According to Doc, over and over again, Tom and Don know the slides aren't alien, but are consciously deceiving the public to make money. But heavens, he hasn't accused them of "hoaxing!"
I believe they know deep down inside that the slides don't show an alien being and I think they are hiding behind the testimony of "experts", as in, "Well, if they say it's real, then we'll just go with that."
In order for Tom and Don to be hoaxing they would have to know for a fact that it's not an alien, not just believe it's not an alien. If we later learn that Tom and Don were sitting on slides that revealed the museum this being was displayed at and didn't come forward with it, then they could be said to be part of a hoax. As for now, they are just money-hungry in my opinion.
I really hope this enough for you to drop this but I fear you will keep dragging this on.
All -
This discussion is seriously off the rails. I have deleted way too many posts that were insulting to others or have degenerated into personal fights. That won't be tolerated.
If you wish to discuss this in a civilized manner, then have at it. If you wish to engage in the type of discuss that all too often is found in other arenas, take it somewhere else.
For the record, I do not believe that Tom or Don have hoaxed anything and they truly believe that what they have are pictures of an alien creature. I believe them to be sincere in this and do not believe that money is a motivation for them. If anyone has evidence of this "in it for the money" attitude, or that they know the "truth" about the slides but are keeping it to themselves, please present it. If not, take the allegations into another arena... I do not enjoy pouring through these comments just to delete them.
If it persists, I will start banning people from making comments. I have always endorsed the idea of free wheeling discourse, but this has gone too far.
@ Lance,
I don't think they are stupid.
One of the key things about the photo is the trail of ownership. Can we show that someone who could have taken these photos in 1947 was in the Roswell base? Who would have had access to the area where the alleged bodies were held?
Do expect any real photos to be spectacular.
@ John's Space,
To the best of my knowledge, the only connection to Roswell is the claim that Bernard Ray worked in a gigantic region that included Roswell.
To me the object in the blurred slide looks much different when comparing to all the mummy link photos.
The head is much larger (proportionately when compared to the body)
The mouth on the object appears very large.
The skin looks different and more in tact and not like a mega old mummy
If it is true that the legs stop at the place card then startling difference.
I don't believe that Tom and Randy would try to pull a fast one. (been involved in UFO research for many years and their reputation is good)
I am confident that there is still significant evidence still being held back.
At the same time I would never go to the big show in Mexico and would not pay for the live event online and wouldn't recommend anybody too. These guys should offer their findings for free and as soon as possible once the investigative work is completed.
Kevin, Thank you for providing this forum! I visit it often and always enjoy your writing and your judgment!......Why are there so many of the same people posting on this site, and other sites, all clamoring for a clear picture of the slides, when a close-up image of the face was given to everyone… as a gift? Adam Dew gave you all a gift, and to be blunt, you were too self absorbed to see it! You only had to look at his trailer to see a relatively high resolution close-up image of the dead being in question. The image does not conform with the “mummydum” or Hydrocephalic solution!........not this large, close up image!....The ear is Sci-Fi fantasy!. But we will have to wait and see…look at the curser moving at the end of the trailer …..
Dwight
Yes, Thanks, will check out the curser. Nice to know it's not all about the $$$$
Thanks I got it the curser points out the flat ear tops. hmmmmmm
Any more clues? going to be tough waiting another 90 days, will continue to investigate
1.Kevin, as usual the pseudoskeptics are once again resulting to name calling, personal attacks, and profanity. When they don't have any facts to support their argument the pseudoskeptics will usually begin to get really nasty and noisey.
A typical pseudoskeptic will demand everyone else's diploma while not releasing their own.
2. The dummy/mummy debate all comes down to how many fingers do to Kodak slides show versus the dummy/mummy. Last time I checked humans usually have 5 fingers.
3. Kevin I was wondering if you have a public email account? Thank You
There has been some discussion on the balance of evidence needed by those arguing for a prosaic vs ET origin for the body shown in the image we currently have available.
I don't think there is an even balance in the burden of evidence needed. If those arguing for a prosaic explanation such as a mummified body can present a reasonable case that is sufficient to mean the image cannot be used as evidence of an ET origin. They do not, I would argue, need to formally establish that it is, for example, a mummified body. On the other hand the proponents of an ET origin will need to falsify such conventional explanations.
The problem arises when assertions are made that are beyond what the evidence can support ( i.e. conventional explanations cannot be falsified) or where conventional explanations are held onto even when they can be clearly falsified, such as the NYU flight 4 idea for the Roswell debris.
In this case it will need something very surprising indeed to clearly falsify the various reasonable possible explanations for this image. That we are all discussing this with as far as I can see no real evidence at all to support the claims of ET origins having been presented is a very sad situation.
Doc wrote:
"However, they don't depict an alien being as claimed and in my opinion Tom and Don are too smart to be fooled into thinking that's an alien".
Tom and Don have claimed seriously for decades that Roswell was an ET crash. They, and others, have been endlessly hoping and searching for the hard evidence for this. Therefore why do you say they are too smart to be fooled into thinking the slides depict an alien?
I am certain Tony Bragalia has the same views as Tom & Don. Yes, he can be fooled too.
There is no need for anyone to waste their money travelling to Mexico City (assuming the event ever takes place).
As I said before, if Roswell was a genuine ET visit, the scientific world and the public would have learned about it long, long ago, probably before the end of 1947.
And the conspiracy brigade that flourishes today would never have existed.
In fact, if it were not for this conspiracy mentality, Roswell would never have been resurrected by Moore, Friedman & Berlitz in 1980, and ufologists would have better things to do with their time. Maybe.
Kevin:
When I looked at 2pm today (Greenwich Mean Time) there were 97 comments. If you deleted a lot, I presume the true number was well over 100. This may be a candidate for the Guinness World Records people. I now make it 99.
Hi CDA
I think you are extrapolating way beyond what the evidence suports. This is not the time for another detailed debate about the hard evidence (much helpfully collated in the official Roswell reports in the 90's) that, together with the weather data, destroy the NYU flight 4 hypothesis. Nor is it time to go over the more credible evidence for the occurrence of a crash of something and how far one can go in drawing firm conclusions about all that.
There is a huge amount of 'noise' around Roswell, but strip it back to what can be clearly documented and you have something of significance.
And no, no one in their right mind would have announced that to the world, or at least no one with a grasp of the sociological, political, geo-political, military and technological implications. This was not, is not and never will be a simply scientific issue.
b”h
“. . . ALSO of a secret monster child that the Rays had (presumably chained in the basement or attic). The Rays, being unfeeling parents and monsters themselves, callously took photos of their dead monstrosity and tucked them away.”
For the record, when I made the suggestion of the Ray’s deformed child I had not yet seen the screen captures of the slides. Having now seen them I would also doubt the likelihood that the photos are of a hapless child of the Ray’s. Let me also say, for the record, that I am indifferent (i.e. not hostile) to the possibility that these slides are of a non-human entity. But the problem-solving principle espoused by the learned theologian William of Ockham leads me to prefer simpler explanations if they are possible. Assuming the slides are genuine, they could still be of a deformed child who suffered various maladies.
cda..."As I said before, if Roswell was a genuine ET visit, the scientific world and the public would have learned about it long, long ago, probably before the end of 1947."
I think you might be overly optimistic of how a (at the time) new super-power, such as USA, would have eagerly shared information with other countries, and the population at large, on their newly aquired flying saucer.
Anthony Mugan can you elaborate more on the NYU flight 4 hypothesis regarding debris?
thanks
Anthony:
1. There is not one iota pointing to an ET crash that can be "clearly documented". If there was, where are the official 'documents'? Where are the unofficial ones as well?
2. You sound a prime candidate for the conspiracy brigade, purely by postulating that the truth can literally NEVER be revealed (supposedly due to sociological, polical, military reasons, etc).
3. It is certainly not purely a scientific issue, though it is primarily one.
4. Yes, we can be certain that the discovery of intelligent ET life would be revealed to the world once it was verified. Think of the prestige value for the country concerned. If you disagree, I repeat the question I ask others on this point: how long will we have to wait before the truth IS finally revealed? Or do you think we earthlings will never be fit to be told (this includes the select few of one country who already know it!)?
5. Finally, do you really believe there are tons of official papers still top secret on this, after 68 years (which is what conspiracists tell us)?
Probably Kevin would rather we did not continue this route, as it is not really relevant to the slides.
All -
This is not the place for another long debate on Project Mogul and I'm not sure how we get from the slides to balloons... No more postings on Mogul will be tolerated on this posting. This is supposed to be a discussion about the slides and not all these ancillary issues.
Ai12 wrote:
Didnt Tom in an Interview say there is an Army blanket underneath the being, i didnt know they used Army Garmets for Mummies, let alone for Musuems.
Hum... It is for another wishfull thinking of Carey. Allow me to react to his claim. Carey seems to be auto-illisioned. Why?
That's Tom Carey claiming they are "Army blanket"! It is "curious" to say/claim it". Why (again)?
If you examine Mummies with your best friend (Google), there are "blankets" (including in some mummy's captures I shared)...
So, Tom Carey have maybe added "Army" to "blankets" we found here or there concerning mummies, despite there exists mummy wrappings (he is ignoring it, as Phd in dunno what, Anthropology?), which can be confused by UFO Roswell-mythmakers (him) and their Army conspiracy background, with "army blankets"...
Wishful thinking at his best imho, by Tom Carey...
Regards,
Gilles
giles
I am going with Army blanket, others (who I respect) have mentioned it as well and so far your investigative work hasn't proven anything to me. sorry
Also I am giving Tom the benefit over your opinion, after all he has the NON-Blurred slides and you don't.(or at least he had access to them) Sorry again
Ok, Tom Carey have isolated an USA(A)F designation in the blankets of this corps (Mummy imho), because he have better resolution of the slide than I have!
Sacred ufologists! Continue your "nothing".
That's why he called the blanket as an Army one!
No, wait the slide in full resolution, you will see how absurb Tom Carey is, with his claim of an "Army blanket...
Gilles
Jim
To be fair, I don't think there is anybody alive who has expertise in 'id'ing an alien body'. I know I don't, I don't think Tom Carey does, or Gilles or anybody else for that matter. And it's certainly not something that can be done from a slide, blurred or otherwise.
Jim Bender:
I believe Gilles' book was written before the slides came out, so he would not have included anything about them in it.
I am not that concerned whether the body in them is a dummy, mummy, white elephant or pink elephant. I am far more interested in whether the slides have a pedigree, where they have been for the last 68 years, who took them and where and when the photos were taken.
And I would not give one chance in a zillion that they are of an alien being, any more than I gave the 'body' in the alien autopsy film of 1995.
And if Carey and Schmitt really believe the slides depict an alien perhaps they should become flat-earthers as well.
Regarding AAF blankets, I'm kind of wondering why an alien body would be laying on one, in what 'appears' to be an open air environment. I would think that any scientist worth his salt, today or in 1947, who was involved in this would be extremely concerned about cross-contamination (viruses, bacteria, microbes, parasites, etc.) and would demand that the body be stored in a clean room, biologically isolated from contact from the environment (Think CDC clean rooms or the Ebola outfits used for transporting infected persons). Such unintended contamination could *potentially* lead to worldwide pandemics with the most serious consequences, and I don't think anyone 'running the show' would dare risk that.
Geez, you people have the attention span of a goldfish and I think I'm insulting the goldfish.
I have eliminated the discussion of who is making how much money from their books. That is a pointless discussion... Journalists sneer at us for being in it for the money while they are collecting their multi million dollar salaries. Scientists sneer at us for being in it for the money all the while taking multi million dollar grants from the drug companies to "prove" their drugs are good, money from the government for studies that make no common sense, and from universities so that they can jack up tuitions.
I'll tell you all the big secret. I'm paid the same for writing a book today that I was 30 years ago. The majority of the cover price of the book goes to the bookstore, the distributor and the publisher... the little left goes to the writer unless they can figure out a way to keep it (my favorite is holding back money in case of returns and will be released to the writer at some arbitrary date in the future).
So, Gilles, if you made money on your book, more power to you. If you wrote for the money, then less power to you. I have written books for the joy of sharing the information and telling a good story and the money received is a bonus.
Now onto the blanket nonsense. If this was a body picked up in the desert (and here I don't care about the source whether is alien or a mummy) and the Army (the Army Air Forces were part of the Army in 1947), then those recovering it may well have wrapped it in an Army blanket, which would be course green wool and might or might not have a "US" stamp in the center. Anyone who has seen these Army blankets, which were all over the place after WW II, should be able to recognize it by the wool and the green color. If the slide is as good at Tom said, then he might well have identified is as an Army blanket.
So, let's attempt to drag the discussion back to the slides and let these side issues of trivia go. When the high quality copies are viewed, we all might just find some answers. And yes, given the circumstances, it's time to release them... they opened the door.
Thanks Kevin
Thanks for elaborating on the Army blankets existence and its use. I am sure that Carey and Schmitt have more solid evidence to show us,
I have been spinning on the FLAT EARS that were highlighted in the trailer. AMAZING any thoughts Kevin on the FLAT EARS?
Gilles,
I'm with you on the Army blanket. My guess is that Tom and Carey are going off of the color alone, which of course would be useless as means of identification.
My guess would be that the blanket is actually not American, no military, and far smaller than a standard issue military blanket. Of course it appears to be mummy wrappings or even the shroud of a child's corpse so Tom and Don just have to immediately jump to some other conclusion.
@ bobsc,
Under no condition would the remains of an alien be left out on an "Army blanket" in glass box on a shelf with a placard that identified it. Such display is incapable of preserving flesh and preventing the transmission of disease.
However, what can be displayed as such are mummies. A human mummy can be displayed as such and there are countless examples of such. The reason why mummies can be displayed as such is because they are desiccated and moisture is required for decomposition and for bacterial and fungal growth.
That fact that this being is displayed in this manner is proof that it is not a freshly dead being, as claimed by slide proponents. It is in effect, a mummy. It may or may not be a traditional mummy. It might just be a child's corpse that naturally mummified after burial and then for some reason was disinterred and put on display.
Hi Kevin
Its great to read your posts, especially as I'm currently mid way through my feature documentary Cosmic Whistleblowers (which features Schmitt and Carey when I filmed them at their last dig in Roswell in 2013, under the invitation of Schmitt), so I've been aware of the slides for longer than many, patiently waiting on the sidelines until they went public.
I would appreciate the opportunity to speak with you directly for my film on this and other matters , and wondered what the best route to contact you directly would be? I'm ex BBC and my film is not part of any publicity for the slides etc, its a serious examination of the remaining evidence and the people still involved. In fact my film goes back beyond the current 'Kodachrome' timeline, and as such I have information that I'm quite certain is not in the public domain.
My production is entirely independent and not connected to any network and therefore has no agenda either good or bad, only the pursuit of truth.
Thank you for your time and I hope to speak with you soon.
Regards
Simon Sharman
Post a Comment