Sunday, February 01, 2015

Roswell Slides: An Update

(Blogger's Note: I pass on the following information because of the nature of the information and the high level of interest in the Roswell slides. This information is of interest to those who visit this blog... I have not been able to vet the information contained here and do not know the name of the Kodak consultant nor do I know the names of any of the scientists.)


What some say represents stunning visual evidence of a humanoid creature that was found crashed near Roswell, NM in 1947 will soon to be released in an international livestream event. Referred to by some as “the Roswell Slides,” the Kodachrome images have now been authenticated by expert scientists and their provenance has been confirmed. During that long process many have speculated about precisely what these pictures show.  People will now be able to see for themselves with the public reveal of the slides on May 5th 2015.


The event will include presenters Dr. Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man on the Moon, as well as noted authors and Roswell investigators Tom Carey and Don Schmitt. Transmitted live from the 10,000 seat National Auditorium in Mexico City, the history and background context of the slides (as well as other facets of the case) will be detailed. Tom Carey, who made international news when he announced the discovery of the slides at American University in Washington, DC last month, will be providing more information and logistical details on the event shortly.


Some years ago, while an attic was being cleaned out, a chest was found containing many Kodachrome slides. Two Kodachrome slides were later found to have been separately hidden in an envelope within the inner lining of the chest’s lid. The chest and its contents were traced and found to have belonged to an intriguing, childless couple that are now deceased.

This author made the discovery that the husband, Bernerd A. Ray, was an Oil Exploration Geologist working the fields in New Mexico and the Permian Basin (which includes the Roswell region) in the 1940s for a company that would later become part of Texaco.  In 1947 he was the President of the Texas chapter of the American Institute of Petroleum Geologists, which also at that time ‘folded in’ the State of New Mexico. After 1947, Bernerd became a ‘ghost’ in his profession and did not publish nor appear to be active with the Institute ever again.

Bernerd’s wife was Hilda Blair Ray. Researchers Tom Carey and Don Schmitt and the current owner of the film learned that Hilda was a highly respected lawyer with a high-end clientele and possible intelligence connections.  A private pilot, she maintained favorable relations with well-placed individuals in both the public and private sectors during the 1940s. The other slides in the chest (over 100) are often found depicting accomplished people, including Dwight Eisenhower. This is a couple who were of the highest integrity. And both had contacts and activities that could have fortuitously enabled them to obtain these slides. And neither would have been the type to hide away hoaxed images as part of some sick prank, only to have those images found decades later by happenstance. This busy professional couple was also philanthropic with no propensity to prank.


Professionals from a range of disciplines who have seen the slides agree that they depict a small humanoid creature –a formerly living thing- that is not a prop nor a genetically defective human [Blogger's note: Of all the UFO researchers involved here, Carey is the most qualified to make judgements... He has a background in Anthropology and completed the course work for a Ph.D, but didn't complete a dissertation]. And importantly, the being that is shown in the slides does not correlate whatsoever to the depictions of aliens extant in the popular culture of the 1940s (such as those that appeared in pulp magazines like Amazing Stories or movies like Buck Rogers) What the slides depict were not even part of the public psyche of that time. This is not how people envisioned things from outer space to look like back then. Instead, these 1947 slides reveal a being that looks like the beings found  in the desert in 1947 as described by the witnesses to Roswell.

I was asked by Tom Carey to find the best available talent to test and analyze these Kodak slides. An extensive search was conducted and I found that talent. A Photo Scientist employed by Kodak for decades who will be named at the event, this expert has led engineering, production and product management groups at the company’s Rochester, NY headquarters. Now a consultant, he also published the definitive book on Kodak film processes. Highly acknowledged in his field, he conducted extensive testing on the slides and conclusively authenticated the slides of the creature as having been exposed in the year 1947. It was also concluded that the slides had not been tampered with nor manipulated in any way. What is depicted is really there, accurately reflected in the emulsion as an actual moment in time in 1947. Science has weighed in and has determined that these are real slides that are really from 1947.

And Law would agree with Science in this case. In the eyes of the courts, the slides serve as two types of legally admissible evidence. Circumstantial Evidence represents informed and reasonable inferences that can be made about a case given the specific circumstances and history surrounding it. The circumstances and history surrounding the Rays is very telling- from who they were and what they did, to where they were and who they knew. Documentary Evidence is a legal term that relates to evidence that accurately reflects a moment in time. This includes video, sound recordings, x-rays, photographs and slides.


This humanoid is not a deformed person, mummy,  dummy, simian or dead serviceman. It is not a creature that finds its origin on Earth. And given that the slides of this creature were taken the very same year as the Roswell UFO crash; that the appearance of the creature matches the reported appearance of the Roswell crash aliens; and given that the person who was in original possession of the slides was a geologist working the New Mexico desert throughout the 1940’s, it is not a jump or stretch to then conclude that these slides indeed show the corpse of one of the creatures found fallen at Roswell.


cda said...

The statements made in the final block of text under the heading THE ONLY CONCLUSION are among the most preposterous and nonsensical scientific judgments ever made.

It is in fact a VERY BIG "jump or stretch to then conclude that these slides indeed show the corpse of one of the creatures found fallen at Roswell".

There is not one iota of evidence to show that the slides were taken at Roswell or anywhere in New Mexico. There is not one iota of evidence to show they were taken in July 1947. Not a single person involved in researching the slides is identified. The person who took the photos is also unnamed. Even the location of the house and attic is missing.

Lastly, whatever the slides depict, it is certainly "of a creature that finds its origin on earth", for one simple reason: no other humanoid 'creatures' (i.e. creatures that have their origin outside the earth) are known to science.

Oh, and I presume the date should be 2015 not 2014.

Ross said...


Robert Shanebrook has done most of the authentication work. That he has chosen not to associate himself with this circus in public speaks volumes.

Bruce Duensing said...

This announcement reinforces the ritual circumambulation around the Roswell as a totem in the propaganda wars within the cash marketplace. The lack of an arm’s length transaction assures that it will achieve it’s ten seconds of infamy while perpetuating a dead heat on a merry-go-round spun by hard core belief systems. This is being sold with all the ardor of a branding strong enough to perpetuate a cargo cult among those already in the choir. A sort of reliquary like the Shroud of Turin which in the minds of most requires no further explanation.

Rusty Lingenfelter said...

While I hope there really is some steak, not just sizzle, the continued trickle of this vague information and the unexplained months before release really undermine their credibility. If the announcement in May is anything like this message, this will be another underwhelming event that unfortunately undermines serious research in the field. Everything about this so far just reeks of slipshod opportunists looking to make a buck and get their 15 seconds of fame.

MrAnonymous said...

Call me cynical, but one can write about visual media 'til the cows come home.

Until the slide owners share the images with the rest of creation, this is all hearsay.

Wake me when they're ready to put their money where their mouth is.

Anthony Bragalia said...


The names and details will be provided at the May presentation. You would have known this if you had carefully read what I wrote. And if you hunt around enough, the answers to nearly all your questions are answered on the net, in part based on the leak of my hacked emails or leaks about our investigation.


Anthony Bragalia said...

Hi Rusty-

I first want to say that I have no financial interest or financial reward in this story at all. All of my work on it has been volunteered.

And the reason that all of this has taken so long was not to build sizzle but rather to provide steak.

Establishing provenance of the slides, including chain-of-custody and a consistent narrative; researching the ancestry, lives and associations of Bernerd and Hilda Ray; conducting searches for experts and retaining them; performing testing and analysis; and creating a venue to present the findings- all of this took time.


Bob Koford said...

Thank you for all of your hard work over the years, Tony. It is appreciated, by some, at least.

KRandle said...

Sorry Gil but you will have to advertize your product at another site. Next time ask permission before posting a commercial.

cda said...

I just remembered that the UK general election takes place on May 6 or 7, i.e. the day after the great Roswell news hits us.

Obviously these slides will drastically change the way we regard politicians, the future of our country (and the world) and, considering the earth-shattering revelations likely to ensue, could even decide the result of the election.


Yvan D. said...

Ok, I'll play along. Who's gonna pay for the rental of the 10,000 seat National Auditorium in Mexico City, Mr Bragalia ?

ufonalyzer said...

Thank you Mr Bragalia for all your hard work in doing original research on the UFO subject. You remain one of my favorite ufologists. I am tired of armchair pseudo-intellectuals commenting on the subject of UFO reality. It is clear that they would prefer to relegate the whole subject to the imagination and insanity of humanity.

Lance said...

Am very much looking forward to hearing how the date that an image was shot can be determined just from examining slide film.

This is preposterous, of course. The UFO faithful will, no doubt, nod their heads in slack-jawed agreement: He said "scientist" so it must be true!

But I am willing to wait until May to see just how embarrassing this ends up being for the folks involved. I would predict VERY embarrassing but then again none of the participant have any shame to begin with so maybe not.

Such pitiful childish nonsense.


Frank Stalter said...

Congratulations Tony!

Anthony Bragalia said...

Thanks for the kind words, Bob K and ufoanalyzer. It is encouraging to hear.


albert said...

I am interested in the film analysis as well. As I pointed out earlier, much research has been done by Kodak, and other experts, regarding Kodachrome film.
You know about the date codes. Emulsion aging effects are well known. Perhaps there are ways to determine the approximate time of processing, but I'm sceptical that the time of exposure can even be estimated. Nothing is impossible. We'll have to wait and see.
I won't predict anything*, but I won't be disappointed if nothing pans out, either.
I gotta go...
* OK, I expect I'll have a bunch of 'what abouts' and 'why didn't theys' when the facts come out.

David Rudiak said...

I have to agree with Albert. Edge codes, film chemistry, and maybe cardboard slide holder would probably enable pinpointing the film stock to 1947, but how do you pinpoint exposure date? Film fogging and color changes from radiation and heat might enable one to estimate within a few years when the film was exposed, but I doubt one could actually pinpoint to within a year.

I think it would also be difficult, maybe impossible, to 100% distinguish something like a well-made dummy from a real corpse.

At best, one can make a circumstantial argument of "guilt". It is 1947 film stock. If there is no fogging, etc., it was probably exposed within a certain limit of time. The body resembles in size and description those given by various witnesses from Roswell. If it was a dummy, why would someone create such a dummy and why would it so closely resemble these descriptions? Tony does make the point that this was not the alien "meme" back then (if there was one). Even Frank Scully's 1950 aliens were literally little men with hair and teeth. No matching "meme" there (except for the little part).

How the Rays got involved is unclear since the pictures are taken indoors, not outdoors in the field, where somebody like Bernerd Ray might conceivably have stumbled across a crash while exploring for oil in eastern N.M. Thus I'm not sure being an oil geologist in the area is necessarily relevant. How would either Ray have gained access? Was Hilda Rey really THAT well-connected?

I think a more likely scenario is that somebody who would have had access, such as a doctor, might have been able to take pictures and keep them for further study. If they were a client or old friend of Hilda Ray, maybe they then surreptitiously passed them on to her for safekeeping. Just a theory--maybe somebody can come with something better.

I haven't been able to find much on Hilda Ray and don't know if she was really that prominent. From my search of old law books and legal databases such as Lexis/Nexis, she seemed to practice primarily law related to oil (not surprisingly). She had only three cases taken to a higher court on appeal. (It is these appealed cases that "make law" and are used as legal precedents, thus in the databases.) Prominent attorneys usually have dozens of such cases during their careers.

From electronic newspaper database searches, about all I could find is she was on the draft board in Midland, Texas during WWII.

This was a very superficial search of Hilda Ray's background and maybe Tony has been able to dig up more info from other sources.

Unknown said...

And out trot the disinfo specialists... almost on cue!

Loki said...

WOW, Randle!

After your unfortunate Roswell research history with endorsing frauds like Frank Kaufmann, and 'claiming' to have divorced yourself from 'The Roswell Dream Team', I had some hope for your recovery.

...but now you provide a platform for this "Anthony Bragalia" internet character? Why, because "Anthony Bragalia" is unable to easily create his OWN Blog???

...your are being played, Sir!

Capt Steve said...

"that the appearance of the creature matches the reported appearance of the Roswell crash aliens"

And which described appearance would they most resemble? If I remember correctly (somewhat in doubt on the morning after the Superbowl LOL) there's plenty of variance in the descriptions of the purported bodies...

Anthony Bragalia said...

Hi Frank-

Thanks for the support as always. For those who may not know, Frank is an outstanding researcher in his own right and is the one, for instance, that alerted me to the Stirling Colgate note to Linus Pauling that the Socorro UFO was a student hoax.

Hi David-

You are correct. Though the film stock is conclusively dated to a year of manufacture of 1947, it does not say precisely when the picture was actually taken.

But it is not difficult to see that most all people use their film within the year of its purchase. If I purchased film for my Nikon F6 today, in 2015, I would most probably have that film exposed in 2015. Like printer ink, you buy film in anticipation of use in the near term.

And we can very reasonably assume that 1947 is both the year that the two shots were taken as well as the year of the slide stock's production for other reasons.

Bernerd and/or Hilda or another, after having taken the shots, would not have waited a year or more to see what was photographed, especially considering the importance of what was photographed.

Because of the dating of the slides manufacture to 1947 we know that was what photographed could not have been earlier than that, say 1946. It could only be that the shots were taken in the year 1947 or later. Given that the creature does not resemble anything but the 1947 beings found crashed at Roswell, 1947 seems the likely year the slides were taken.

As a side to this, in talking with the American Institute of Petroleum Geologists Texas chapter it was learned that Bernerd was likely an excellent photographer and carried a camera with him professionally. And they used Kodachrome for its clarity and color features. This is because oil exploration geologists went out into the Permian Basin to photograph and document oil sites, field conditions, earth strata and soil characteristics, production facilities, etc.

As far as Hilda Ray's contacts and connections, as I indicated in the piece, Tom, Don and the slides' owner have done the research on that and it is there story to tell, and will be doing so.

My concentration rather was on Bernerd Ray and his activities and associations.

And as you allude to, there are indeed many unanswered questions about the Rays and the exact circumstances surrounding their possession of the slides. It is hoped that this public reveal of the slides may help to get these answers. Someone somewhere out there knows more...


cda said...

Perhaps Tony can tell us why the launch of these slides is taking place in Mexico City. Is it because it will likely get a much more receptive audience?

The logical place is Roswell itself but maybe everyone in the USA, together with the news media, is so fed up with this whole ET crash shambles for the last 35 years that it is not a suitable venue for the presentation.

Come on Tony. Why Mexico City?

Why not Rio? Dammit, they did recently stage the World Cup and are all geared up for the Olympics.

Paul Young said...

Hi Anthony,

Good work!
Is there any information about the range in dates of the other, non-alien, slides found in the chest?

ie, are they all from the 40's? Does the age of Eisenhower correspond with the age of the slide, etc?

Anthony Mugan said...

So, just to make sure I haven't misunderstood, the claim that film could be shown to have been exposed in 1947 is not correct and is now superceded by a claim that the slides were of 1947 stock...although again the basis of that claim is not fully spelled out. Would that be a fair summary of the discussion above?

We shall wait and see, but not getting too excited about these 'press release' type statements.

Bagga said...

Well it seems to me, that the researchers are doing their best to dot the i's and cross the t's prior to giving us the purported evidence, which in my eyes is the best way to go about this, so no-one can say, 'you haven't done this', or 'you haven't done that', 'and therefore it's all non-sense'. But for people to come on here and start rubbishing the claims without actually seeing anything themselves first hand, I find that more preposterous than the claims of slides of ET's!!! I for one am looking forward to seeing the presented evidence and hope it doesn't disappoint, and based on what looks so far like a professional attempt at researching this subject matter, I don't think it will disappoint. Keep up the good work.

Zak McKracken said...

Great job, Mr Bragalia.
So what about the new(?) witness from Alburquerque, which was mentioned in the leaked information. Will there be any revelation about him on this event?

Anthony Bragalia said...

Why Mexico City, CDA? Well, only the owner can answer that. I have indicated many times that we are only supporting his efforts in research and that any decisions about venue or manner of reveal is his alone. But why not? The official public announcement of the slides was made at American University in DC. Why not have the reveal of an item of global import be broadcast internationally and outside of the US? You are a Brit yourself, CDA yet you take extreme interest in Roswell. Don't be so US-centric.

Paul- More on the other slides found in the chest will be detailed at the presentation. I do know that most appear to be from a 1940s time frame.


Lance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KRandle said...

Lance -

I get that you don't believe that there has been alien visitation and I get that you wish to have everything explained to you in easy to understand language but I find your pronouncements here to be over the top. The film stock is apparently from 1947 (though as I have pointed out, the codes were recycled... 1927 would have been the first time it was used, but the type of film wasn't developed until after that date... the next time it rotated to the top would be 1967).

I realize in this world that no one ever makes a mistake... it is always a lie. So, tone it down or go elsewhere.

Anthony Bragalia said...


Kodak experts consulted agree that the overwhelming majority of film customers of just-bought film take their pictures and have the film developed within a year of purchase. And more commonly, it is used within weeks or months, certainly not years, from purchase.

Additionally, the emulsion and other characteristics of the slides were compared against slides known to have been exposed in the year 1947. This provided further authentication, but I will leave it to all to review the report's findings when presented in May.


Tim Hebert said...

Tony B: "Kodak experts consulted agree that the overwhelming majority of film customers of just-bought film take their pictures and have the film developed within a year of purchase. And more commonly, it is used within weeks or months, certainly not years, from purchase."

Tony, can we expect that statistical data will be presented that definitively supports the above?

Tim H.

cda said...

There is a feeling of deja-vu here.

I recall exactly the same arguments being put out over the date of the black & white alien autopsy film that hit the news in 1995.

Yes, it was EXACTLY the same years being determined (by Kodak) for the production of that film, i.e. 1927, 47 or 67. Needless to say, that film was a recent fake, date unknown.

I really do wonder if the slides have been produced by someone who is familiar with that autopsy fake, and wanted to emulate it in some way.

Notice that in neither case do we know the identity of the photographer. AJB promises that all will be revealed in due course. Perhaps.

Lance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Zak McKracken said...

As far as I know Kodak and Bob Shell only received a blank leader film with no alien (dummy ) on it.
so their analysis might have been correct, but completely useless.

Robert Sheaffer said...

Mexico City. Does this mean that Jamie Maussan will be involved? It's hard to imagine any UFO dog-and-pony show in Mexico City that doesn't involve him.

Anthony Bragalia said...


The slides were physically taken to Rochester and examined in their entirety. Not a section or snippet of the slides- but the actual, whole slides.

The knowledge that an elderly witness from Albuquerque was involved in confirmation is derived from Ross Evans -who commented above as 'Ross'- based on his despicable action in working with the hacker of my emails. I am not going to comment on information that was obtained illegally by people like Ross.


You are wrong- more than simple edge code dating of the slides was conducted. The year is pinpointed as 1947, not 1927 nor 1967 nor any other possible year. This included emulsion testing which accurately identified the film as being from the year of the Roswell crash.


Zak McKracken said...

"The knowledge that an elderly witness from Albuquerque was involved in confirmation is derived from Ross Evans -who commented above as 'Ross'- based on his despicable action in working with the hacker of my emails. I am not going to comment on information that was obtained illegally by people like Ross. "

Fair enough.

Lance said...

I have just gotten off the phone with a VERY interesting party in this proceeding and I have A LOT more information---I will let Tony hang himself for a bit longer before revealing what I have learned.


rroffel said...

I keep on telling people that just because film stock has been proven to be from a certain time period, it does not necessarily mean that the images on them are from the same period. Well-preserved film stock can be used years after the stock was made. The fact that the stock is from the late 1940s proves nothing.

ufonalyzer said...

Methinks that the usual skeptics and doubters are running a bit scared of this May 2015 announcement, plus they are demanding answers to minutiae questions which, after 67 years, just may not ever become available. Their responses to this impending announcement are becoming shrill, irrational, insulting, and even hostile. I am maintaining an open mind, but am not expecting a whole lot when the announcement comes, and think that everyone else should do the same.

KRandle said...

Lance -

First, people make mistakes and these are not lies. Sometimes they are told things that they believe only to learn later they were not true. And, I don't believe that Tony was lying and he clarified the information.

Second, you might remember that Mark Rodeghier and I outed Frank Kaufmann in IUR. True, there were those who didn't believe his tales, but we proved that he had lied about any number of things... not mistaken but lied.

Third, it is the same situation with Gerald Anderson. There were those who didn't believe him, but I proved he was lying... not only that, I see others getting credit for the evidence that I uncovered but that is another story.

Fourth, when the Air Force labels a case as being a satellite, and it has in the files, documenation that proves it wasn't a satellite, that isn't a mistake.

Fifth, Tony wrote the piece and you are here commenting on it. I don't see what your problem is with this. All sides get to voice an opinion. I'm just asking you to not call people liars just because you don't agree with them.

Lance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nitram Ang said...

Lance posted

"So as we can all see above, Tony said:

" he conducted extensive testing on the slides and conclusively authenticated the slides of the creature as having been exposed in the year 1947""

Lance, you are correct of course - but if you could tone things done a bit it would be helpful.

For what it's worth I think that Mr Bragalia has made a "false statement" and I also can't understand how he could have done it by accident.

Lance you seem to be getting a bit carried away as per usual and I note your further posting:

"I have just gotten off the phone with a VERY interesting party in this proceeding and I have A LOT more information---I will let Tony hang himself for a bit longer before revealing what I have learned."

Might I suggest you share that information privately with Kevin first - the idea is to determine the truth, not to unnecessarily "shoot" at the researchers, (with the aim of point scoring) that achieves no real purpose.

I totally agree with CDA (who is certainly not always correct) when he wrote

"there is a feeling of deja-vu here.

I recall exactly the same arguments being put out over the date of the black & white alien autopsy film that hit the news in 1995."

Lance, you should repost part of an early posting which Kevin deleted sometime ago in relation to the slides which was both helpful and on topic - just leave out the insulting comments please.

Tony - I appreciate we haven't met but I am also a bit curious about the comment posted earlier which I would also like to see answered:

"Who's gonna pay for the rental of the 10,000 seat National Auditorium in Mexico City, Mr Bragalia ?"


Nitram Ang said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Rudiak said...

Kevin wrote:
The film stock is apparently from 1947 (though as I have pointed out, the codes were recycled... 1927 would have been the first time it was used, but the type of film wasn't developed until after that date... the next time it rotated to the top would be 1967).

Correction: Kodachrome film only came into being in the mid 1930's, therefore it could not be 1927 film stock.

Besides the edge codes, definitive dating might also be done by film emulsion chemistry, the plastic the emulsion is on, and the cardboard holder, presuming they did change over the years.

A simple example: All Kodak-processed film had a Kodak ID on the slide holder. Kodak lost its monopoly on processing the film around 1955. If there was no Kodak stamp on the cardboard holders, or if they were plastic, we would know the slides dated from later.

There is more than just edge codes that can be used to date the film, but I am far from an expert on these matters.

Anthony Bragalia said...

Hi Nitram-

Thanks for the comments and for the question.

I can take this opportunity to clarify that I do not know payment details for the auditorium rental because I am not in any way participating in the production of this media event. I had no say so in the logistics of the event and I have no knowledge of the associated costs, how they are being paid and about any remuneration that may be involved. All I know is that I did not seek nor will I obtain any recompense.

I simply volunteered my research and search efforts and was kept abreast of progress.


David Rudiak said...

If the edge code is 1947, 1967, etc. consistent but the film emulsion chemistry can be definitively dated to circa 1947 and not later, then the film stock is 1947.

Presuming this was a recent hoax 50 to 60 years later, this would require obtaining 1947 film stock to stage the hoax. From what I've read, Kodachrome is noted for being relatively stable, but DOES deteriorate with time from radiation and heat (as does all film), causing fogging and discoloration. This can be slowed down, but not totally eliminated, by refrigeration and some radiation shielding to protect against low-energy background radiation. But nothing is going to eliminate cosmic rays slowly fogging the film, unless you bury the film in a deep mine shaft (and shield from natural radiation in the rocks).

Eventually, very old film is going to get very noticeably fogged and discolored. I read one blog where someone said they found some old Kodachrome about 15 or 20 years old (I'm doing this from memory), used the film, and some of it came out decent (but not crystal clear and had some discoloration), whereas other film was heavily fogged.

I presume (without definite knowledge) the Kodak expert used also looked at the clarity and color reproduction of the slides. If they lacked fogging or obvious discoloration, exposure probably would have been within a few years of 1947.

Lance said...


Thanks for your comments. Personally, I see no issue with calling a spade a spade. I try to give the same respect that I get. Tony is almost the bottom of the barrel when it comes to reliability (see below) and he has proven this over and over again.

I don't remember what comment by me you are referring to.



When you say,

"If they lacked fogging or obvious discoloration, exposure probably would have been within a few years of 1947."

you are saying that without any knowledge or data about the topic, correct?

If so, why are you saying it at all?


Now the name of Jamie Maussan has been mentioned because of the venue in Mexico. If he is involved then we have truly reached the bottom of the barrel--he is completely without credibility of any kind.

And that is exactly what I expect from the "Dream Team".


NearSide said...

Tony, a sincere "thank you" for your efforts regarding the slides (and so many other UFO-related research efforts over the years). You know the drill... if the skeptics didn't appear and launch a few volleys you wouldn't have had much of a story. I have a hard time understanding why they hover here if everything is a lie, fantasy, or waste of time. I suppose it all boils down to human psychology or the fact that they're tasked with causing dissension.

Anyway, at this stage of the game (after nearly 70 years) if there is any new significant evidence in the Roswell case, especially of this potential magnitude, it warrants being cautiously on the edge of one's seat -- which is exactly where I'll be while awaiting May the 5th.

Good work once again.

James Hatch said...

Lance, why don't you go quietly away? Since you find all of this so objectionable, why not ignore it and pursue other things that you find interesting? But you don't do that - instead, you lurk here and on other forums and insult well-meaning people. That is the definition of "troll." Kindly take it elsewhere. I have never commented here, but felt inclined to because you are an ass. I enjoy this blog - take all of it with a grain of salt, but do enjoy it. I'll be waiting to hear about these slides. Been hearing about them for some time now and can't wait to see the actual images. Badger

KRandle said...

Lance -

"Your example here on the Air Force may comfort you but you don't know when the various material got put into the BlueBook file or which parties put it in or reviewed it."

Yes we do. The sighting was on April 16 and the memo for the record about the satellites was written on April 20... They knew within days that it wasn't a satellite.

David Rudiak said...

I wrote: "If they lacked fogging or obvious discoloration, exposure probably would have been within a few years of 1947."

Lance responded:
you are saying that without any knowledge or data about the topic, correct? If so, why are you saying it at all?

I don't understand what your problem is here. I said I wasn't a film expert, but I do know that ALL film will deteriorate with time, from heat, moisture, and background radiation. This will eventually create fogging and color imbalance with color film.

Film stock does not last forever. (Do you dispute this?) From what I've read you can extend the life by keeping it in a dry, refrigerated place, but it is virtually impossible to prevent fogging from radiation, which is cumulative and can only partially be shielded. (Try shielding from cosmic rays.)

Kodak recommends exposing and developing film within 6 months of purchase. Their suggestions for storing their movie film for shorter and longer periods can be found here and also discusses the effects of radiation on film:

I would imagine much the same storage advice would apply to their other films.

So I stand by my earlier statement, unless you can demonstrate differently. If it can be proven that the slides are from 1947 film stock, then it is very unlikely to be a MODERN hoax if the the slides are not fogged and color balance can be determined to be normal.

And, I stand by my other remarks, that we can't determine the actual exposure date (maybe bracket it to within a few years from the image quality), nor is it likely that we can determine from two slides whether the images are of a real body or a dummy.

And we still have no idea how such slides might have fallen into the possession of Bernerd and Hilda Ray. Even if Bernerd Ray carried a camera with Kodachrome film in it all the time, how would he have gotten access to such a sensitive body if it was real and alien? These slides depict something on display inside a building, not in the field where one might imagine Ray could stumble on it and take pictures before the military got there.

Lance said...


I agree with much of what you say above.

But not that we can bracket the exposure to within a few years.

My reading of various accounts of exposing old films shows a much wider range, 10-20 years being a rather common figure that still delivered excellent results.

I also called and spoke with several companies that develop old film as a business. They confirmed that MUCH longer times were possible, depending, of course upon many factors.

I posted some of what I found earlier.


David Rudiak said...

LANCE: "Your example here on the Air Force may comfort you but you don't know when the various material got put into the BlueBook file or which parties put it in or reviewed it."

KEVIN "Yes we do. The sighting was on April 16 and the memo for the record about the satellites was written on April 20... They knew within days that it wasn't a satellite."

And the AF press release that the Ravena sighting was caused by an "Echo satellite" and "Venus" was three days later, even though they knew otherwise. The memo saying they couldn't find a known balloon or satellite that could explain it can be found here with calls dating from April 18 to April 20:

Page 1:
Page 2:

Page 2 says the following at the bottom: "Goddard Space Flight Center, [UNDERLINED] Definitely not ECHOI or ECHOII they were over the southern hemisphere at the time of the sighting."

Above that they also contacted the Smithsonian Astrophysics Laboratory, which stated they only did partial tracking of the Echos for the eastern cities and likewise didn't think there was one over Ohio at the time.

What's not to understand here? They knew April 20 that it couldn't possibly be either Echo satellite, yet three days later gave it as the "explanation". There is no other explanation other than deliberate lying for this.

David Rudiak said...


That Kodak reference I just gave mentions the most obvious indicator of cumulative radiation damage to film is increased granularity of the film. Somewhere out there is probably an old study or two that quantified the increasing granularity with age of the film before exposure and developing. It might possibly also distinguish grain exposure to low energy background radiation from radioactive decay and much higher energy radiation from cosmic rays. The lower energy stuff can mostly be shielded, but not the cosmic rays, which are constant in intensity.

This could serve as a quantitative metric that would put bounds on when the images were likely made. If someone knows of such studies, please comment.

Such radiation damage should be measurable even if the overall images may still be "excellent" to the eye.

Whether any of this was done when the "Roswell" slides were examined by the Kodak expert I have no idea. Maybe he only determined the date of the film stock.

Lance said...

David & Kevin,

Am I missing where the AF press release clams that it was the Echo Satellite?

I see the press release, which just says satellite as far as I can tell.

The memo seems to have established that Echo wasn't a possibility--but several other are listed as possibilities (Pegasus I II III). And there is no info on the tracking of those

Can you post a link to the press release that says Echo?

Note that I am not saying that it was a satellite.



Lance said...


In regards to the above concerning film.

Not sure how you might think this distinguishes between otherwise identical film:

1. Exposed on date X and processed on date Z
2. Exposed on later date Y and processed on date Z.

This is the main point--you cannot tell when film is exposed with accuracy ~1 year.

I think even Tony has admitted this with some lame back pedaling.

Are you saying that (using the great weight of the studies that you imagine must exist) you know better?


Frank Stalter said...

Hey Tony,

Thanks for the kind words. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good but it's best to be a little of both.

Anthony Mugan said...

The above discussion really does highlight that what we need is a sober, detailed, technical paper which is fully referenced to sources and peer reviewed research where relevant (e.g. regarding issues around dating this film etc).

What we definitely do not need is another 'media event'.

Lance and David - thanks for your interesting comments regarding dating film exposure. This definitely is not my area of expertise but may I ask a question or two - perhaps most particularly of Lance...

Lance - are there any references available for what would be needed to provide a date range, with relevant confidence intervals, for the exposure date of this type of film? Is it possible to determine a latest date (say with 95% or 99% confidence etc) at which the film was exposed?

There may be value in firming up the details of a test for this data prior to anything being published...if the film might have been exposed after the early 80's for example, then it would overlap with public discussion of bodies. If it is possible to credibly establish an earlier limit on the date then it passes one test.

What do you think - is something like that even possible, assuming optimal storage conditions to give the latest credible upper limit on the date of exposure?

Daniel Kühn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Daniel Kühn said...

hello from munich. why they dont go to cnn or any other media station and show these pics to the rest of the world? what are they waiting for? cia? fbi? i dont get it. who knows what happens until may. greets! daniel

Zak McKracken said...


Afaik there is already a TV documentary in production

KRandle said...

Lance -

I said nothing about a press release. I was looking at the project card and the solution that turns up in the master index. I also pointed out what was in the file and what was in the Memorandum for the Record, which was dated only a few days after the sighting. Since that was in the file... and looking at Quintanilla's "investigation" seems to say it all.

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


In short, I cannot find any reference to determining the time a photo was exposed by examining the film (in the sense we are using it here: to narrow things down within a few months).

I sent you an email with some additional info.



Lance said...


I see where Echo was eliminated. But several other satellites were still open (as far as they knew--they gave up on tracking the Pegasus satellites and never apparently determined where they were).

I know you want to call the AF liars in this but you haven't proven your point that this is a clear case of lying. They were wrong certainly and they did a superficial investigation. But you can't say, from the evidence, that they were lying.


What press release are you quoting from?



P.S. I published a post a few minutes prior to this one that was incorrect (I thought I was quoting Kevin while I was actually quoting David). I deleted that post. My apologies for the error.

David Rudiak said...


In the world I grew up in, most people developed their film soon after they exposed it--days, weeks, maybe months if they were traveling off in some remote place of the world or just lazy.

Few people develop film years later, though sometimes people will come across old exposed film and take it into a shop to see if there is still anything useful on it.

In terms of dating exposure/development from radiation damage to the film (particularly cosmic rays), I'm not sure if it would make much difference in the two scenarios you propose. What counts is when the film grain is fixed through development so that (ideally) no further grains remain to be exposed by light or radiation.

No, I can't point to a particular study quantifying exposure/development date from the degree of radiation damage to the film. Kodak mentions such damage, such as increase in film granularity, which should be very measurable and quantifiable. Plot it on a graph and draw a regression line through the points, and that can be used on other similar film to date the lapse of time between manufacture and development.

Stacks of film plates lofted by balloons have been used clear back to at least the 1930s to record cosmic ray tracks high in the atmosphere. Down on the surface of the earth what we mostly see is secondary, lower energy particles (but still many times more energetic than background radioactive decay radiation from rocks) from particle showers created by the collision of primary cosmic rays from space with air molecules.

My point is the cosmic rays striking the film grains acts to expose them, leaving dense tracks through the stacks of film when the film is later developed. The heavier and more energetic the particles, the denser the track.

Even the lower energy secondary cosmic rays are extremely penetrating. Unless extraordinary precautions are taken, these cosmic rays are relentlessly striking everything down here on the surface. Approximately 10,000 lower energy cosmic/sec pass through each square meter (roughly the number penetrating each of us every second).

Now take a slide film with its smaller area. Still at least a few hundred million cosmic rays are striking it and the film grains every year. The longer this goes on, the more film grain is hit. If it goes on too long, most of the grain has been exposed; developed film will be very overexposed and badly fogged.

Whether this radiation damage has been used to estimate date of exposure of an image on film, I don't know, but it could be done, in theory, and I suspect could be used to narrow exposure date to at least a few years if not a year. It would take a real expert in film to know for sure.

Lance said...


I sent you an email in regards to the photo information above.


albert said...

@Lance, David
There's a lot of information about Kodachrome film on the web. You just have to look for it.
As I pointed out before, historians, archivists, and law enforcement had a serious interest in film aging and dating. The put the onus on Kodak to provide answers, and they did a lot of research.
Kodachrome was the film of choice by professionals up until Kodak abandoned it in the early 2000s. This is phenomenal, ~74 years of history, and untold numbers of rolls processed. Lots of history, lots of info online, in addition to the Kodak experts opinions.
I'm willing to wait. The film may not be that important to the case, unless it can be proven to have been exposed and processed at a much later date, which is highly unlikely.
I gotta go...

cda said...

Can AJB please tell us a bit more about the nature of this Mexico City presentation.

Is it part of a bigger UFO Conference, or is it an event on its own?

Considering its scientific uniqueness and importance, will the world's media be there? And if not, why not? What about, for instance, the main US TV and newspaper companies, and what about, say, the BBC?

Has it been given any advance publicity, either in the scientific world, or to the general public? Are any scientific organisations likely to be there? Do they even know about it?

We would expect, for such an earth-shattering disclosure and revelation (if such be the case) that just about everyone with the slightest interest in extraterrestrial life would at least try to be present.

I expect a partial response from AJB or someone 'in the know'.

And I am still very curious to know why Mexico City was chosen. Low rental of hall or cheap hotel rooms maybe?

Lance said...


Can you provide a link that expands upon what you say above?


David Rudiak said...

Lance, an example news article from April 25, 1966, quoting the AF that it was a satellite:

An AP teletype from April 22 with the same quote:

And maybe the original typewritten AF press release (undated) with the same wording:

Note that only 2 days (April 20) after Blue Book had phoned around, eliminated either Echo satellite, and also had zero evidence that a Pegasus satellite was in the area at the time, there was a press release (AP teletype) that the police officers had seen a satellite and then allegedly chased Venus. Although the newspapers weren't specifically told Echo, that was the official explanation in the project summaries, as Kevin mentioned.

I think it was Jacques Vallee who said BB decided by this time that any old "explanation" would do, and the stupider the better.

No "satellite" could possibly match the descriptions of the various officers, being much too small and much too dim. Remember officers Spaur and Neff reported an extremely brilliant, very extended, ice-cream-cone-shaped object coming out of the west, then parking itself over their heads for a minute, blotting out much of the sky, so bright it was painful to look at, lighting up the countryside like daylight all around. (The critical start of the sighting that Robert Sheaffer in his book decided his readers didn't need to fully know about.)

HALF AN HOUR LATER, officer Wayne Huston near East Palestine, Ohio said he was listening to the chase on his police radio and saw both Spaur/Neff and the object approach from the west (or northwest). He gave the same, brilliant, ice cream cone description as Spaur/Neff and said the object FLEW OVER HIS HEAD:

"As it flew by, I was standing by my cruiser. I watched it go right overhead. It was shaped like an ice-cream cone…. It was so bright, I would say it was brighter than the sun when it came up. The point part of the cone was underneath; the top was sort of a dome."

Must have been another "satellite". Or maybe "Venus", which was low to the east, flew over to the west so Huston could report he saw it approaching from there and then flew over his head back to its position in the east so Huston could continue chasing it along with Spaur and Neff.

Lance said...

C'mon David...did you not understand what I was asking about.

I already stipulated that they said it was a a satellite.

I already stipulated that is wasn't a satellite.

As you well know that is not the point.

The>>> ECHO<<<< satellites had been eliminated. The Pegasus satellites had not.

Your whole claim is that the AF lied by specifically claiming that it was an Echo satellite when they knew that was not the truth.

In reality, that does not seem to be the case.

You use quotation marks above to claim that the AF said it was an "Echo satellite".

Surely you quoted that from somewhere and didn't just make it up? I was all ready to apologize and admit that what the AF did looked like an outright lie.

But none of your links say that. None of them say "Echo satellite".

Where did that quote come from?

There is no question that Bluebook had become a lackluster affair by the 1960's. And Quintinella was disingenuous or incompetent or jaded. And his investigation of this case was completely superficial.

But you can't say (as you and Kevin do, apparently blinded by UFO belief) that you are certain that they were intentionally lying. Unless the quotes you provided above are which case, I am wrong and I will apologize.

So where did those quotes come form?


Lance said...

David, since you doubled down and said this:

"Although the newspapers weren't specifically told Echo, that was the official explanation in the project summaries, as Kevin mentioned."

Can you provide a link that proves this new modified claim?

The summary I see doesn't mention Echo either.


Lance said...

And to tie this back into the actual topic--it is hilarious to note that the Portage case included some photos that didn't turn out because the film was old and fogged!

I thought everyone shot their film immediately and processed it according to Tony!


ufonalyzer said...

One last comment about this alien photo situation. Of course those people who are staging the May 2015 presentation in Mexico City (a venue which seems perfectly logical to me) are acutely aware of the Alien Autopsy footage as well as lots of other alien photos and video clips. I’m also sure that they are acutely aware of the criticisms that followed those photos and videos as well as the probability that nobody made a lot of money from them, yet these people are willing to run the gauntlet of criticism anyhow to present what they have. Can they be so foolish as to think that they will be the first to make a fortune from an alien photo, especially one with poor provenance? Why are they willing to run the risk of a besmirched reputation if the photos are not received well? This entices me to think that something is different this time, like the evidence is stronger. To have the present discussion devolve into minutiae about photo emulsion granularity, statistical studies of such, cosmic rays, etc…. is laughable. Wait and see. And when this is over and the presentation is finished, I will doff my hat to the people who dug these photos out in the first place because it will be they who did the grunt work, and it will be they who did not sit around spinning pseudo-intellectual UFO theories while demanding proof be laid at their feet for them to consider.

Nitram Ang said...

DR wrote

"In the world I grew up in, most people developed their film soon after they exposed it--days, weeks, maybe months if they were traveling off in some remote place of the world or just lazy.

Few people develop film years later, though sometimes people will come across old exposed film and take it into a shop to see if there is still anything useful on it."

Correct of course. Unfortunately we are selecting facts to suit a theory...

My feeling is that the slides are fakes. For this to be true they must have been exposed well after 1947. I can accept that some 1947 film was found somehow (although it wouldn't be that easy) and then they were exposed quite recently - much like the alien autopsy nonsense.

Still, if anyone still wants a bet with me that the film was exposed in 1947 please name your sum.

Still waiting for the chance to make some money.


David Rudiak said...


So far I can't find a Blue Book file over at Fold3 where they specifically state it was an Echo satellite.

Perhaps you can similarly direct us to where they received confirmation that a Pegasus satellite was passing overhead. Demands can go both ways. Two days before the AF claimed publicly the officers had seen a "satellite", they had eliminated Echo satellites and were told there was no tracking information for the Pegasus. Please tell us what changed in those two days?

It was probably more like, "We have ZERO evidence of any satellite in the area at that time, but what the hell, we need to explain this one away, so we'll call it a satellite anyway."

Still a big lie since they had no evidence to support a satellite.

At some point they did go with the Echo satellite story. I do have an article several months later where Dr. James McDonald was interviewed by the Tucson Daily Citizen and stated the AF DID say it was an Echo satellite. In his diary, McDonald said he wrote Quintanilla that he had information that it couldn't be Echo and Venus and what was he going to do about that? Quintanilla said he would change it, but of course never did.

Here's an interview with McDonald where he again mentions the AF's Echo "explanation".

As usual, Lance, you try to take us off on trivia instead of focusing on the main point. How could multiple police officers mistake a star-like satellite (assuming one was around--prove it!) for a giant, brilliant, ice-cream cone shaped object hovering directly over their heads and lighting up the ground, also flying over their heads?

David Rudiak said...


I am suspending judgment like you until I have more information. Assuming it can be proven that the slides are of 1947 film stock, it would very much help to be able distinguish whether the images are of recent vintage, thus a clear hoax, or date to within a few years of 1947, in which case POSSIBLY authentic. That is why I went into a prolonged discussion of radiation damage from cosmic rays, very hard to protect film from. Very old film developed recently would very likely be badly fogged from such radiation. Clear, sharp images with no obvious fogging would indicate much older vintage. It might be possible to get much more quantitative than that, another part of my discussion. I'm looking into this now.

Lance said...


Nothing changed in those days. I suspect that someone unwisely suggested the satellite idea as a solution and then ran with it.

It may well be that they (possibly just Quintanilla) decided that a satellite was a good solution and then improperly suggested it. Quintanilla was not good at investigating cases and does seem to have sometimes shot from the hip, so to speak. It's dumb and it's wrong. But it isn't lying.

I remind you that the press release just says "probably" a satellite.

Again, none of this is the point. The point is simply that saying that the Air Force LIED is not supported by the evidence at hand (Note that I am especially excluding the evidence that you apparently misremembered and improperly "quoted").

Let me also remind you of our last discussion of this case in which you repeatedly called Robert Sheaffer a liar because of some evidence that you claimed didn't exist--I found that evidence and I can't remember if you apologized or not. I assume you did.

All in all, this was probably not the best case for Kevin to bring up as an example of when it is proper to call someone a liar.

Apparently calling someone an "ass" (see above) isn't a problem here on this blog. As long as that person is a skeptic...



Robert Sheaffer said...

I knew it!!!!!

The "Roswell Slides" will make their appearance in Mexico City because JAIME MAUSSAN is promoting them! 'Nuff said.

Robert Sheaffer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CommanderCronus said...

From what I understand, absolutely nothing depicted in the slides specifies the Roswell incident as its origin; this relevance is being projected on it by the owners and/or investigators because it seems to have been taken around 1947. Well, there were a number of purported UFO crash tales from that era, Roswell being only one of them. Because of this, I don’t consider the age of the film to be all that important.

Having read the original news stories and primary witness testimony from the Roswell incident, I’m rather skeptical that bodies were ever part of the original story. They certainly weren’t mentioned at the time – tales of humanoid corpses only began to surface in the late seventies. Because of this, I’m able to look at this case outside of the “Roswell box” and I encourage others to do the same.

As for the Roswell slides, they are what they are – photographs of a humanoid body allegedly linked to an oil exploration geologist who worked in New Mexico at the time. This alone is intriguing, in my opinion, even if it has nothing to do with flying saucers. Think about it – humanoid bodies, geology, mining…I’ve often wondered if the Roswell story might be nothing more than a media sensation, one that obscured an altogether different phenomena that may have been occurring at the same time in that part of the country.
I’m curious as to what the slides show, even if they are completely unrelated to Roswell, especially if displaying them encourages others to come forward with new information.

Lance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Rudiak said...

Lance wrote:
"It may well be that they (possibly just Quintanilla) decided that a satellite was a good solution and then improperly suggested it. Quintanilla was not good at investigating cases and does seem to have sometimes shot from the hip, so to speak. It's dumb and it's wrong. But it isn't lying."

So your argument is that Quintanilla was grossly incompetent, not a liar? Or would you prefer he was guilty of willful disregard for the facts?

Hynek had very harsh words for Quintanilla in "The UFO Experience" (Chapt 8), noting initially he spend a total of 4 minutes on the phone with officer Spaur in two phone calls, tried to get him to say the sighting lasted only a few minutes instead of over an hour, and started with the words, "Tell me about this mirage you saw." He didn't bother to interview any of the other major witnesses involved in the chase.

About the "explanation" a few days later that it was "probably" a "satellite" initially seen, Hynek comments that there was "no satellite visible at that time over Ohio."

In the footnote he clarifies, "Records of he Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory show that neither of the bright satellites, Echo I and Echo II, was in the sky over Portage County at the time. Nor were any of the three Pegasus satellites visible at that time. Even if these had been, however, their brightness was 5 to 10 time less than that of the Echo satellites, and their orbital inclination was so low that they would have been seen only to the south."

When they learned of the invisibility of the Pegasus satellites is unclear, but there is no indication that they had ANY evidence of ANY satellite in the sky at the time when they issued their press release.

You say it isn't lying. But when you tell the media something is "probably" true when there is no evidence to support it, maybe even knowing it is absolutely untrue, what word do you want to use instead to describe it? Isn't it completely dishonest no matter how you split the semantic hair?

Hynek goes on to say that even though he was BB's astronomical consultant and should have been immediately consulted, he was never consulted for his consent to an "astronomical" solution. (He vehemently disagreed with the "Venus" part as well.) Instead when he finally got a hold of the case file THREE MONTHS LATER, he marked it a "strong unidentified."

Another Hynek comment about the case: "Quintinilla's method was simple: disregard any evidence that was counter to his hypothesis." I would say that is the SOP of all debunkers. Lying, dishonesty, incompetence, or lack of intellectual integrity. Take your pick. Doesn't much matter and doesn't paint a very pretty picture of "'scientific' skeptism".

Lance said...


You ask:

"So your argument is that Quintanilla was grossly incompetent, not a liar? Or would you prefer he was guilty of willful disregard for the facts?"

Yeah maybe any of those. Perhaps he just wildly over estimated his own abilities. Maybe had seen another case that was a proven satellite and this one reminded him of it so he jumped to the wrong conclusion.

You know, like when you falsely called Robert Sheaffer a liar?

Or like when you apparently created evidence in your own mind that the AF had said that it was an "Echo satellite".

It happens. But I still love you!

The real point is that evidence at hand doesn't tell us why that press release happened. And evidence is really the thing that believers ought to pay more attention to. And I am talking about real evidence, not the stuff that you wish was true.


David Rudiak said...

William Weitzl in his lengthy report in Flying Saucer Review ("Into the Middle of Hell") on the Portage County case, had Blue Book's Quintinilla already saying it was an "Echo satellite" on April 22, only 5 days after the sighting, and a day before the press release of "probable satellite" went out:

On Friday, April 22, Major Quintanilla called Sheriff Dustman to announce his evaluation. The sheriff "laughed out loud," when the major told him the deputies had initially observed an Echo satellite going from northwest to southeast, then had seen Venus in the southeast and had chased it into Pennsylvania, thinking it moved around in the sky as their relative direction on the road changed... The major had checked all the aerial activity on the morning of the 17th, he said, and the UFO could have been nothing else.

But we have unambiguous established that BB by April 20 had contacted the Smithsonian Astrophysical Lab and both Echo satellites had be absolutely ruled out.

So what do we call Quintanilla for saying it was an Echo only 2 days later?

Lance insists we can't call him that dreaded word "liar." Maybe he conveniently forgot--yeah that's it. Or maybe Sheriff Dustman is the "liar", or maybe Weitzel for reporting this, because Lance says Q. couldn't be lying.

But then Dr. James McDonald must be lying as well for saying a short time later that Quintanilla and B.B. were indeed saying it was an Echo and he had to write Q. insisting that was impossible and they should change the evaluation.

I think Occam's razor applies here: Quintanilla KNOWINGLY told an untruth.

David Rudiak said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ashley Jenkins said...

This is my very first time to this site, I'm really curious on what info has been collected about/on this film. Definitely remember when the story first broke, was hoping something anything to give us answers about the Roswell crash was there.

I tried reading all the posts here to see where everyone's opinions are. I could only get through like, a half of them because of all the badgering. Wow! I understand your never to talk religion or politics openly in a crowd but now it looks like we can't even discuss ALIENS either amongst one another in a civilized manner. :(

Just a quick question, why are a lot of you "quoting" one another's sentences when typing snide remarks?

Peace and Love people, pEaCe AnD lOvE... <3

cda said...

Nobody has commented on the involvement of Jaime Maussan. (See Robert Sheaffer above).

I don't know much about this guy, except that he once got his name involved in a highly dubious camcorder video case in Mexico City.

Does anyone, including Tony, know why this guy is taking part and promoting the slides? I suppose it is a partial answer to the points I raised with Tony a while back (and still unanswered).

Why is Jaime (or Jamie) Maussan getting his name into this case?

And what is the rest of this conference about anyway?

Tim Hebert said...

May 5th, Cinco de Mayo, should be a hopping time in Mexico City.

I suspect the entourage will be treated to Aztec ruins, fire works, an authentic taco (or two), alien photos...

Dennis Morrison said...

If all the research is done why does this big unveiling have to be put off until May? I, as I assume many, would like to see them as soon as possible.

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

No,I cannot provide links. My statements are a summation of material I read on various websites of professional photographers, and Kodak sites.
I don't typically save links, unless there are specific facts I want to remember.
You can do a web search for 'Kodachrome aging' and similar terms.
Some topics I do remember:
1. Refrigeration and freezing in film storage.
2. Heat and humidity effects on film in storage.
3. Kodak 'owned' Kodachrome processing until a lawsuit allowed others to do it.
Don't recall the date. Unfortunate, since they lost quality control as well. Kodak-processed slides are identifiable as such.
4. Typical professional photographers procedures for pre- and post-processing storage, as well as time periods before and after exposure.
Unfortunately, none of the things in (4.) can be unequivocally applied to the case at hand.
I gotta go...

Robert Sheaffer said...

Anthony, is Adam Dew the person you refer to as "the owner" of the slides? The comments he makes in this interview by Maussan seem to suggest that:

Presumably, "the owner" sold the slides to the highest bidder, and the highest bidder was Maussan.

Anthony Bragalia said...


Adam is not the owner of the slides.


Yvan D. said...

Anthony Bragalia,

can you tell us who is paying for the rental of the Auditorio Nacional ?

Nitram Ang said...

Let me help you Yvan D.

Mr Bragalia

Could you PLEASE tell us who is paying for the rental of the Auditorio Nacional?

If you don't know could you PLEASE ask someone who does and kindly let us know.



Terry the Censor said...

Wow. This reads like a Sorcha Faal report.

Or the Wikipedia page for a Republic serial.

Robert Sheaffer said...

Obviously, the rental of the Auditorio Nacional will be paid for by Jaime Maussan, as in his previous 'UFO revelation' shows (see my new Blog entry on Maussan, ) He will also collect the proceeds.

Anthony, if Dew is not "the owner" of these slides (despite his statements of having obtained them), then please tell us who is.

Terry the Censor said...

Braglia: "the reported appearance of the Roswell crash aliens"

Reported by who? And how many decades after the "crash" was this description reported?

Terry the Censor said...

There has been a lot of discussion about dating the slides. That is important, but please remember that photographs are not physical evidence. That is, what looks like an image of a non-human body is not proof the body is even organic, let alone what kind of being it is and where it came from.

Here's a simple example.

If I show you a picture of a wine glass that is filled halfway with a dark liquid, what can you say definitely about the composition of the liquid? Is it wine? Blood? Oil? You can't know from the picture alone. So you certainly would be foolish to look at the photo and tell me THE ONLY CONCLUSION is that the liquid is indeed wine, it is made from merlot grapes, that they were grown in France, and they were harvested in 2005 -- and that 2005 was a very good year!

It doesn't matter if as a witness you bring out a 900-year-old sommelier/vampire/mechanic who has known every type of wine/blood/oil -- you cannot tell me what the liquid is just by looking at a photo.


Curt Collins said...

The slides remind me a bit of this, the "oldest known UFO photo" that wasn't.

Dan McDonald said...

Writer and X-Files creator Chris Carter said in an interview, when asked how he got some of his ideas for the show, that most of them were "leaked" by anonymous high-level sources who could not go public with what they knew but had no problem with the truth being presented as "fiction." For that reason I'll be most interested to see how the Roswell slides are presented, and by whom.

Steve Alcorn said...

Why the big circus act? Why not just release the slides without all the fanfare? If they are legit shouldn't they stand on their own? Just sayin...

Unknown said...

I believe someone at Kodak once said that Adamski's photos were authentic. A slide is not a body. Furthermore, there used to be a Ogden's camera story in Manhattan where they had boxes of old film - some I remember dating back years - that could still be shot and developed I am sure successfully. When we made movies we used to buy what they call "re cans" that are basically left over undeveloped film that you can get for half the price (like they probably used in the alien autopsy). Since there are other slides found in the same local it is within the realm of possibility -- but not proven -- that someone could have unsealed another slide and placed these images into the cardboard frame and sealed them up again. It would have to be someone with experience in the processing method. Seems sort of "fishy" that the slides were tucked away and separately as if to make them more mysterious. Sort of finding a model supposedly hidden in the wall at Ed Walter's old house just looking to be discovered at a later date.

Why only two slides? Perhaps more were taken by someone who has an agenda but were fogged and these two were the only ones that were not.

Boy you could never fill a ten thousand seat auditorium in the States. No doubt this will cause a hornets nest of controversy, and the professional skeptics will lead the way. I can hear them already.

Unknown said...

I am not unknown the last post is from me Timothy Beckley. We will be discussing this in weeks to come on Unraveling The Secrets which I am hosting starting this evening at 11 Eastern.

Larry Holcombe said...


I would like to reply but I fear to do so would take the discussion too far off the threads subject. Since it's Kevin's blog if he wished to give the green light to my reply I'll go, otherwise I'll refrain from offering my rebuttal.

New Hampshire UFO Research said...

Curt Collins said...
The slides remind me a bit of this, the "oldest known UFO photo" that wasn't.

Curt, how does me writing an article REFUTING that the 1871 MT. Washington stereoscopic photo is a photo of a object in the sky, remind you of this Roswell Slide nonsense?

People were trying to sell the photo as a legit UFO photo for upwards of $700.00 on ebay, so I put an article proving it wasn't a UFO from multiple credible sources, do you have an issue with that? It's called research.

I never have ever claimed the photo was a UFO, I did the exact opposite. You would know that if you actually knew what you were talking about.

Pathetic attempt Curt. I'm sure Kevin doesn't want you starting trouble in the comments section of his blog, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't try and associate my research with this dog and pony "Roswell Slide" show.

Try staying on topic.

Curt Collins said...

New Hampshire UFO Research said:
"Curt, how does me writing an article REFUTING that the 1871 MT. Washington stereoscopic photo is a photo of a object in the sky, remind you of this Roswell Slide nonsense?"

You misunderstand. It's cited as just that, an example of research disproving a misrepresentation of a photo claimed to be something alien.

The "alien" slides under discussion will also be conclusively refuted once they are revealed. Maybe before.

Scott Lee said...

Ok Guys, I see a lot of commenting but lets get down to what this really is. It's a Money Grab no different than the Mayweather vs Pacquiao fight and no more authentic either. It's always the same thing. Create some extreme Hoax, suck the people in, get the Speakers to say it's very compelling, the do an event suck lots of money as much as possible from the gullible public claiming that these funds earned are needed for further research and then it all fades away and all profits are never revealed, never accounted for, never put into any further research and then they find something else to create and have another big event and make another

Documentary and it has been happening over and over again. The last one of note was Greer's little alien baby that was complete bullshit. Where did that money go? He claimed all profits were to go to final testing.... and then what? NOTHING! He comes back and says ooops we need more money for that.

It's a huge Money Grab that's all I see this as and I believe this as well as Greer's claims will be proven a Hoax and a severe case of defrauding the public. Now you can delete my comment, but that's how I see this.

And of Course everyone always claims they did it for free and never made a Dime.

Scott Lee said...

After many years in this and knowing most of the Researchers personally. I have to now conclude from this event that what we have is not a UFO Disclosure Movement but a huge clamering dog eat dog, MAKE MONEY MOVEMENT.

There is absolutely no reason to have had this in a 10000 seat arena with PayPer View other than to suck as much money from people as possible. I mean come on guys get real! Those slides if real are probably a Mummy in a glass case that was on display and nothing more.