Sunday, February 15, 2015

The Roswell Slides - An Update by Tony Bragalia

(Blogger's Note: This is a version of the posting yesterday. I had removed it for two reasons. One, the information about the hacking seemed to be irrelevant and accused certain people with it. That was inappropriate, I believed. Second, the comments section had turned so toxic that the discussion turned into a private war and was not appropriate. I now warn all that any comments that slide into name calling, unfounded allegations, and personal attacks will be removed. Keep the conversation civil and we'll all have no trouble. Deviate and the comment is gone.

There is a second problem that I have not been able to resolve and frankly, I don't want to spend the time to do it now. I cannot post the pictures. My solution is to send this to Frank Warren at UFO Chronicles along with the illustrations so that all can see them. Since there has been quite a bit of discussion about this, I believe that we all need to see the illustrations though one of them has been well published and the other shows the form that the slide was in before it was manipulated by others.)


The announcement that slides dating from 1947 found to have belonged to lawyer Hilda Ray and her husband Bernerd Ray (a top oil exploration geologist working in NM and TX during that time) have caused what can only be described as an internet sensation. Awareness of the slides existence was heightened very recently by the fact that individuals have taken a “screen grab” of one of the slides that appeared in a documentary preview by one Adam Dew, entitled “Kodachrome,” and attempted to enlarge and enhance it.

Since then, opinions have been proffered and amateur “analysis” has been conducted. Verdicts on just what the slides show have been rendered, often with impassioned, mean-spirited response and heated accusations. Inflammatory remarks, name-calling and near-libelous allegations have been made by people who have not been privy to a clear version of the slide nor seen the other existing slide at all- and without the benefit of review of the professional, scientific study that has been conducted on the them. And this negative, knee-jerk reaction to the slides existence began far earlier, even before the release of any image at all!

The truth of the matter could not be more different from what the noisy naysayers maintain…


If, as the saying goes, a picture is worth 1000 words, this attempted enhancement gives only 250 of them. The fact is this: this is a video screen grab from a computer monitor –it is a picture of a picture of a picture- which has been taken at a distance of a slide in its frame. It is not a photographic print made from the slide, nor does it show the slide’s projected image on a screen.

Importantly, this poor-quality image is not even in color as are the original Kodachromes (a sepia-tone was applied to the image in the video.) The size and perspective of the being –and its texture and shape- is hugely distorted and important key details are unable to be seen.

A reproduction of an image can only be as good as its source material – and that source material was intentionally modified in the preview video. Bear in mind too that this is only one of the two slides that exists. This slide is the least interesting of the two. The other slide provides greater clarity and with far more detail revealed.

None of the photo-scientists who analyzed the slides were working with such degraded material like a video screen grab- they were working with the ‘raw’ original slides and with high-definition enlargements of them. This is not so of the many who give ill-informed opinions about them.

Finally, the image on the video was only offered as to give an idea or preview of the ‘real deal.’ It was not intended by any means whatsoever to be used to technically dissect the image or to offer the ‘full view’ of what the slides actually show. It is difficult to understand what some people do not understand about that.


There have been cries from some quarters that the slides are not authentic, or depict a mummy or even a hydrocephalic deformity. And these cries are as loud as they are incorrect.

To address the question of dating of the slides and the possibility of photographic deception, here is a summation of analysis done by experts from industry and academia:

-The film is manufacture coded (edge code dated) as 1927 or 1947 or 1967

-The protective lacquer used on the film is from the 1930s to 1960, eliminating the year 1927

-The cardboard sleeve used is 1941-1949, eliminating the year 1967 and leaving 1949 as the latest date the film was exposed

By simple process of elimination using these findings, we are left with the year 1947. Allegations that somehow the owner of the film was able to locate, purchase and take undeveloped, pristine and preserved Kodachrome filmstock from the specific year 1947 and find a way to take a picture with it and have it successfully developed using the old stock is ludicrous. I challenge anyone anywhere at any time to today find such 1947 cardboard slide sleeves and unused 1947 Kodachrome film, find an appropriate camera, take a picture of what is shown, and then have it processed.

If the being depicted in the slide was made in 1947 was a model or dummy, it in no way correlates to the 1940s concept of what ‘Martians’ look like and everything like what witnesses to the bodies at Roswell reported. Too, the slides were found hidden amongst well over 100 other slides taken by the Rays in the 1940s, so everything must be viewed within this context.

To address the question of whether or not the being depicted is that of a mummy or of a hydrocephalic:

-Hydrocephaly is a condition whereby there is an abnormal accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid in the ventricles of the brain causing bulbous enlargement of the skull. The treatment is to use a cerebral shunt to regulate amount, flow direction and pressure of the fluid. However, there are two things that must be understood. According to the journal Annual Review of Hydrocephalus, the long-term survival of hydrocephalics before 1960 (the year shunts were introduced as a treatment) was exceedingly low. Dr. Spyros Sgourus says that there was “high morbidity and mortality associated with treatment of hydrocephalus in the 1930s and 1940s.” According to the Review, in the 1940s, before shunting was established, infants with hydrocephalus had a very poor prognosis for survival. The fact is that the being pictured in the slides is between 3.5-4.0 feet tall and because of this is not a hydrocephalic infant. The skirted female legs (stocky like Hilda Ray) shown in the slide give us a very good sense of the length of the being she is looking at.

-Clear versions of the slides depict a being whose anatomy does not correspond to a human being. The limbs (legs and arms) are exceeding thin, frail and fragile, characteristics that are not associated with hydrocephalus. In fact, the torso (which has been opened) and rest of the body look nothing like any known case of hydrocephalus in history. The skull too, is enlarged but not ‘bulbous’ which is characteristic of non-shunted hydrocephalics.

-The being’s head is severed from the body (not evident in the screen grab) and one eye is missingThe chest and the abdominal cavity are missing.  Hydrocephalic corpses are kept intact in medical study and display.

-The being has no teeth and has wide-set eyes. Lack of teeth and wide set eyes are not known to be conditions associated with hydrocephaly.

-In the actual slides it is evident that the being has only four fingers. To my knowledge, mummies and hydrocephalics are not typically missing a fifth digit.

-A detail not known or revealed to anyone but those who have seen the slides is that close-ups of the being’s face show a very ‘pointed’ chin, a chin that in no way resembles a human, mummified or hydrocephalic. In fact, the facial features do not in any way match that of other known hydrocephalics or mummies.

-One commenter (Gilles Fernandes) has shown a side-by-side comparison of the video grabbed slide and an infant mummy. He circles the feet of both, making a comparison and implying that they are one and the same. However, the image Mr. Fernandes offers is that of a specimen who is far, far shorter than 3.5-4.0 tall. And what is depicted in the slide is not a foot at all, but something else, perhaps a piece of debris lying on the surface. The being’s feet actually end behind the placard. In the actual slide there is even another similar, smaller such item which can be seen.

-This ‘placard’ is not very evident in the video grab image. However, it has been enlarged by experts and the writing, in red ink, is handwritten, not typed, as would be found in a biological display in a museum.

-Most importantly, the placard, as well as the support structure that the being rests upon, are clearly ‘temporary.’ The structure looks very make-shift, resembling a quickly-assembled ‘erector set’ type deal, with beams that have ratchet holes in them. The set-up in no way whatsoever resembles that of a professional museum display. It is not a well-crafted, pristine glass museum display box, but something not meant to be at all permanent. There is also a military-green blanket upon which the being rests, atypical of any such museum display of other biological specimens.

-Mummies are desiccated. This being was obviously either recently alive before the fatal pictures were taken, or had been embalmed.

-The Rays hid these two slides away and separate from the other slides found in a chest and were only discovered by the owners much later, as if to indicate that these two slides held special importance and meaning.


Some rabid skeptics have disparagingly termed the whole slide affair as ‘a circus.’ If it has in some way become one, it is not at all due to the actions of those who seek to study and present the slides. In fact it is outsiders who have tried to insert themselves into the saga who are the real ringmasters.

It began with a ‘leak’ of the story nearly three years ago.  An anonymous individual apparently contacted researcher Nick Redfern and divulged what he knew. Nick then –understandably- began contacting researchers to gain more information. When word of the slides existence became public, very sick behavior ensued:

-This author had his computer system hacked in an attempt to gain more information about the slides, or perhaps to obtain the slides themselves.

-Other researchers including Nick Redfern and Tom Carey (who had his stored documents ‘crypto-locked’ with malware) were also hacked.

-Information and names obtained from my stolen emails on the slides investigation was made public on a website (before being deleted.)  

-Some people began contacting -or threatened to contact- involved photo scientists and witnesses (including a 90 year old man) in an effort to either gain more information or to derail the investigation.

-Money was stolen from my credit card account in a ‘skimming’ scheme resulting from the hack of my computer system. Bank investigators are currently engaged in resolving this.

-Accusations of hoax were made even before any release of any type of the slides. I was directly accused of being ‘a liar’ and other defamatory and legally-actionable comments were made against me and my reputation.

-Phone calls were placed to me in the wee hours by blocked callers who threatened me with ‘exposure’ as a fraud and my family members have even been harassed.

-Some have recently blogged accusing investigators of “pretending” to be hacked to build publicity and mystery. Falsely reporting that a crime has been committed (charges have been filed with the FBI) is a federal offense.


Some have said that the whole thing has been done to make money. But what has really motivated the slides investigation is a sense of obligation to truth and to history. What these skeptics fail utterly to understand is the great expense –both personal and monetary- that this slide investigation has cost. Who do they think paid for the expert analysis of the slides? Who do they think paid for repeated visits to places like New Mexico, Texas and Rochester? Who paid for the hotels, car rentals, meals out? On whose dime and on whose time do they think all this investigation was done? This has all been self-funded by the owner and the investigators. And every moment that has been taken investigating the slides is a moment that has been taken away from making a living or time with family. Frankly the gall that some have to suggest that this should all be unpaid effort is beyond belief.  And despite attempts at gaining mainstream media interest, none was obtained. A public venue was chosen and a live broadcast planned (on May 5th) that has to be paid for by someone, and a self-funded documentary such as Mr. Dew’s was produced. Skeptics should thank those involved, not condemn them. And as the discoverer of the slides, why shouldn’t the owner enjoy recompense? I cannot understand why some insist this should be a volunteer effort and that everything should be done for free. That said, this author has neither received nor sought any compensation- but I do not in any way at all find any fault for those that do.


Perhaps as interesting as the remarkable story of the slides themselves is the remarkable story of how people have dealt with such news. Jealousy, a sense of exclusion, and an inability to accept the possibility of what the slides do represent have all been in evidence during the slides saga. The compulsion by some to insert themselves into the story and to offer their judgment even before the slides and study are presented is worthy of a psychology study. Indeed, what the slides say about life beyond Earth is as telling as those who live upon it.


Stephen Jackson said...

May I ask, if you were left with the dates of 1941-1947, what was eliminated to narrow it down to the precise date of 1947?

Frank Stalter said...

I freely admit that the untextured 3D recreation they showed in the promo video looks like a strange looking kid. I'm very much looking forward to seeing the real deal.

Larry said...

Stephen, I think Tony is saying that the edge code on the film proves it was manufactured in either 1927, 1947, OR 1967. The particular design of the cardboard jacket that the slides are enclosed in was in use continuously from 1941 through 1949. The year 1947 is the only year of the the 3 possible years of manufacture that lies in the interval of 1941 through 1949, so that says the film was manufactured and sold in 1947.

I should note that the fact that the lacquer on the film was in use from the 1930s to 1960 ALSO eliminates 1927 and 1967 as options and is a redundant indication that the film was manufactured in 1967.

The fact that the cardboard sleeves that the slides are enclosed in were no longer in use after 1949 says that the film was developed no later than 1949, but could have been developed any time in the two year interval, including in 1947 itself.

Larry said...

Edit that sentence:

"I should note that the fact that the lacquer on the film was in use from the 1930s to 1960 ALSO eliminates 1927 and 1967 as options and is a redundant indication that the film was manufactured in 1967."

Obviously, it should read: " a redundant indication that the film was manufactured in 1947."

Larry said...

Jeez, I have one more edit (my typing is getting ahead of my thinking).

I think the sentence: "... the fact that the lacquer on the film was in use from the 1930s to 1960 ... is a redundant indication that the film was manufactured in 1967." should read: "...... is a redundant indication that the film was DEVELOPED in 1947."

This assumes that the lacquer is placed on the film at the time of developing, not at the time of manufacture. (I'm not a photography expert, so I wouldn't know; I'm just trying to trace out the logic flow of Tony's argument).

Jim Bender said...

Frank myself as well, The FLAT EARS ARE PUZZLING

Thanks for the clarity TONY, was giving you guys the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe we should get the powerful politician John Podesta involved, after all he is a believer and might have had access to the Huge government conspiracy regarding UFO's. Look below
Obama adviser John Podesta's biggest regret: Keeping America in dark about UFOs

Anthony Mugan said...

in all honesty it would take something very unusual indeed to persuade me that this isn't photos of the remains of a mummified human.
It would need something that definitively established the corpse could not be human and bits of missing bones are unlikely to cut it in that respect given the variable state of preservation of mummified remains.
Even if such evidence is presented in due course it would still need to be convincingly shown that the remains are actually biological.

Hopefully at some point we will get to the point where there is a full paper available presenting the full set of data for scrutiny. So far I am, shall we say, 'underwhelmed'....

G. Shumway said...

I, for one, am totally convinced by the coldly logical argument presented by Bragalia. Tony! you have any cats???

John's Space said...

Given what Tony has put forward this looks very interesting. The one big question is how did the Ray's come into possession of these slides? The Ray wasn't a member of the Army Air Force stationed at Roswell or any other base. He wasn't a member of any government security agency either. So how did he get the slides?

Anthony Bragalia said...

Hi John's Space-

We have confirmed that Bernerd Ray -who was Chief Exploration Geologist for a company that would become Texaco- worked the Permian Basin in NM (which includes the Roswell region)throughout the 1940s.

Though I have been unable to place him specifically at Roswell in July of '47, there is something that may be very telling:

Ray was President of the TX Geological Association -which at the time 'folded in' NM- in 1946/7. After that year he left the Association, stopped publishing in professional journals, and became a virtual 'ghost.'


The Podesta statements are, I agree,interesting, putting it mildly. There is more to that story which I hope to write about soon.


I can tell you that other types of scientists beyond photo scientists have been engaged in the study of the slides and the being they predict. More in May. I will add that Tom Carey himself has degrees in Anthropology and is just short a dissertation for his Ph.D in that discipline.

G Shumway-

I am indeed 'coldly logical' by nature- but with a big heart. No cats, I have a West Highland Terrier.

cda said...


I have one important question for you, which is:

When on earth are you ever going to stop kidding yourself over these slides? I know you are desperately trying to convince yourself that the world will never be the same again. All I can say is that when you wake up on the morning of May 6 (i.e. the day after the great 'reveal') the world will be exactly the same as it was on May 5.

Apart, that is, from some 210,000 extra mouths to feed and a few possible very slight changes to our environment during those 24 hours.

And that about sums it up. Nobody anywhere in government or in science will be taking the slightest notice of these slides.

End of story.

Anthony Bragalia said...


The 'desperation' that you say I have is not found in me- but in others.

The 'desperate' are in fact those who have seen fit to hack my computer to find the slides, those who have seen fit to night call and harass the scientists and witnesses at their homes, and those who see fit to say it is a mummy or hydrocephalic without working from the actual slides or waiting to hear the scientific analysis by experts.

I have heard nothing from you all of this time condemning those who have done this. Why?

Capt Steve said...

"Finally, the image on the video was only offered as to give an idea or preview of the ‘real deal.’ It was not intended by any means whatsoever to be used to technically dissect the image or to offer the ‘full view’ of what the slides actually show."

What was the purpose in doing this (i.e. releasing the video trailer)? Surely you were aware that what was shown in the video was going to be analyzed/criticized?

Zak McKracken said...

Interesting article, Mr Bragalia.

"A detail not known or revealed to anyone but those who have seen the slides is that close-ups of the being’s face show a very ‘pointed’ chin, a chin that in no way resembles a human, mummified or hydrocephalic. In fact, the facial features do not in any way match that of other known hydrocephalics or mummies."

I think you can see this on the 3 d Modell in the trailer.
The first thing which came into my mind was the Mosgrove jawbone.
HEre is a description by somebody who studied it : "The most striking part of the thing was the shape of the mandible. If you would put tissue on this — you know how you see on TV when people have drawn aliens and they all have little, real pointed chins — that’s exactly how it would look. You would have a pointed, very small chin area, and wider where it connected to the temporal mandibular arch."

From my (laymans) perspective the mandibel ccould fit on the 3 d Modell. As far as I know some experts said that it is impossible that this mandible is from a primat.
Afaik John Mosgrove said that there some sort of teeth, which seem to be knocked out by an accident.

Anthony Bragalia said...


Thanks very much for this observation of the Mosgrove jawbone and its possible similarity to the chin of the creature depicted in the slides!

This may be a very important clue...and of very real significance.

I am going to mention your observation to Tom Carey...again, thanks very, very much.

Al12 said...


On the 3d model though the eyes dont look human shaped at all.

So the Mosgrove Jawbone on a human doesnt explain the eyes nor the 4 fingers on this being

However its a good observation.

Gene Steinberg said...

The problem with the run-up to this event is that people involved in this study just won't shut up. Took bad you didn't take the Apple Inc. approach, which would have meant not revealing anything until all the evidence was in place and you were prepared for a proper press conference with all hands on deck to explain what's what.

Right now, despite Anthony's promising presentation, it's still just vapor till the actual slides are made available at full resolution, in a format that any skilled photo analyst can use to make an independent determination of what's really there.


Derek Fraser said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Derek Fraser said...

yes of course, they just happened to be found by the friend of a kodak slide "expert" and film producer, all coincidental! get a grip people, this is only proof that people are incredibly naive and stupid... and showing it in mexico city haha too funny!

Don Maor said...

"yes of course, they just happened to be found by the friend of a kodak slide "expert" and film producer, all coincidental!"

And who would be that person who found it?

Anthony Bragalia said...


You are seriously off-base and misinformed. There is more than one photo scientist who has examined the slides. I genuinely have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

Gregory Phipps said...

Bravo Anthony, for a well-reasoned and eloquent post. With due respect though, can everyone stop calling them the "Roswell Slides"? Perhaps if we did, the nasty rhetoric and vitriol would subside a little. At this stage in the investigation, there is nothing at all that categorically connects the slides with the "beings" to the Roswell crash - other than the fact that many of the photos/slides were taken around 1947.

To Stephen Jackson's question(s), I think that many have lost sight of the fact that there are several hundred other slides , that purportedly belonged to the Rays, and they can provide important clues to help validate the date of the slides with the entities (human, primate, alien....), beyond that associated with esoteric stuff like edge codes and cardboard sleeves.

For example and per a previous post of mine, the collection of army trailers has been "solved". It's temporary student housing being erected to accommodate the influx of GI's returning home and stretching the housing infrastructure at Kansas State University. It has been confirmed to be in 1946 - probably in the Spring before school started, by K-State officials.

In the photo of the young men with the car (1940 Chrysler Traveler or Royal), and the travel trailer (Spartan Manor), we can at least date the photo to no earlier than 1946, as that trailer, built by Spartan Aircraft, Tulsa, OK, was not offered for sale until 1946.

The Chrysler has a Kansas license plate and while the date is obscured, that style and color of plate was only issued in 1945 and 1947.

The young men with the Chrysler have a dog (Wire Fox Terrier). That dog is wearing a dog tag with a date of issuance - "1947". The dog tag also reflects issuance in Manhattan: Kansas we can presume, as the car is licensed there too.

Adam Dew's documentary trailer talks to dating of other slides, including the 1948 US Open, etc.

There are a lot of uncertainties associated with this investigation, but dating the slide(s) is not, in my mind, one of them. There's been a lot of very negative comments from those apparently frustrated at the speed of release of the slides too. Not sure how they connect speed of the investigation to authenticity of the slides. I applaud those involved and their collective decision to "get it right" and learn/study/validate as much as possible about the slides and what they show, before releasing to the public and inviting scrutiny and inevitable criticism and personal/professional attacks.

albert said...

I am a photographer. The reason for the lacquer is to protect the emulsion side. The film base is non-porous, the emulsion is not. Film cannot be developed with the emulsion side lacquered. Unlike film negatives, color (or even the rarer b/w) positive transparencies are meant to be viewed by projection, so are subject to much more abuse. Hence the lacquer coating. Negatives, once printed, are stored away. Only experienced photographers with lab background (i.e. make their own prints) can glean anything from a negative. Kodaks 'orange mask' color negative process make it virtually impossible the glean color information from the film. Color transparencies are WYSIWYG things, good for immediate viewing, and for commercial reproduction, as in magazines.

I really hope this clears up the issue.


Rusty Lingenfelter said...

I'm not sure how many times the team needs to be blasted with criticism to take the hint that this "trickle out" method of informing is asinine. Either put out some real information or be quiet until May 5th. It is that simple. Announce the event not the results. I will tell you that if the information presented then is as full of holes and speculation as this post, expect a firestorm. I'm pretty open-minded and I can't keep a straight face through these logic leaps. As Gregory says, the first piece of advice is to stop referring to them as the Roswell slides since their is nothing but weak circumstantial evidence that there is any relationship.

CommanderCronus said...

The only person in the world who needs to be concerned about any of this is the owner of the "Starchild Skull", who's been getting seriously upstaged as of late.

Gilles Fernandez said...

However, the image Mr. Fernandes (Fernandez) offers is that of a specimen who is far, far shorter than 3.5-4.0 tall.

Dear Tony,

Well, I prefer to wait May, because how you discarded the Mummy leads (there are many more than the few already shared) is full of free, strange false/biased claims, like this one.
Or at least you discarded the Mummy leads with "arguments" which can be easy counter-argumented (somewhere else a comment section of a blog).

It seems here you used the female legs (you decided as skirted!) for your body size estimations if I understand/follow you (?). But there is another method (or using software like the one we used for the McMinville pictures) and other possible referential and "I" find smaller than you concerning our estimations.

I pass the army blanket assertions that smell wishful thinking, full nose, no "handwriten" placards in Museum, Mummy only in Museum, no red ink for placards, etc.

At this stage, you are are presenting very poor arguments when something extraordinary (ET being)is claimed.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (Sagan), and we are very far from it, or what would be required at a minimum here for such a claim.

But I will be patient and prefer a "finalized" paper when the time will come and a better basis/material than the ones you are offering in your "teasers" (for monthes now).

Patience is the mother of all virtues :)



Frank Stalter said...

Ha Gilles!

The proof is in the pudding. I was more than a little put off by the promo video from Dews. It did not strike the right tone at all nor did it sell the claim effectively but that's past now. Looking forward to Cinco de Mayo. I'm hoping the slides deliver and I know the weather will be better.

Anthony Mugan said...

Before getting too excited about pointed chins or flat ears etc., if the better resolution images we do not have provide a more detailed view on that, it is worth pointing out that the body would need to be convincingly shown to have proportions clearly outside the normal range of human variation and the effects of mummification etc.
I shall leave this topic at that for the moment. The Ray's tourist snaps of some museum exhibit circa 1947-49 have little enduring interest it seems to me as it stands, but we shall see...
I sincerely hope this doesn't continue to be as ridiculous as it appears to be at the moment, or it gets dropped.

Anthony Bragalia said...

Gregory Phipps-
Thanks much for the supportive comments, but more so for your observations and details about the other slides that were found in the Ray's chest. I have shared your information with others on the team, very helpful.

Eric Hoffman said...

Why Mexico City?

JR said...

This is a non-story for this reason alone: a photo of a supposed alien is absurd. There is no benchmark for authentication. Where’s the comparison? Where’s your yardstick for such a claim There isn’t one. It’s an utterly, and completely useless discussion from the get-go – and it’s certainly not ‘evidence’.

I’ve seen talk of analysis, and even the potential for Eastman House to get involved with examining the slide(s). It doesn’t matter who is doing “analysis” – nothing, no way, no how is going to prove a photo of an alien body. No benchmark, no comparison, no answers – only ambiguity.

I would contend that this is a birth of a disturbing new ploy: 'evidence' which says everything and nothing simultaneously. It's anti-evidence. It depends on belief to be considered anything significant, and by it's very nature solicits for belief.

The only thing this sort of "evidence" is suited for is marketing.

Don Maor said...

it looks like that in this kind of strange situation, the comments from skeptics have become increasingly schizophrenic. (e.g. JR, Derek)

Jim Bender said...

Yes I was thinking the same thing.
Lets see what they come up with when the clear slides are released.

1)dungeon son of the Rays

2)A 4 foot hydrocephalic child,(2-4 years old) A first ever on planet earth

3) Egyptian mummy 35,000 years old from Cairo

4)Staged 4 foot ford motor corporation car test dummy blurred by swamp gas.

5) A child that was left to die in the Sahara desert.

Tim Hebert said...

Don M.:

Increasingly schizophrenic by skeptics?

I don't see racing or rambling typing, nor do I see fragmentation of thought.

Yes, I see opinion, but nothing more. I deal with the psychiatrically disturbed on a daily basis...the abnormal tends to be normal. I see no psychotic thoughts presented by your two examples.

But of course, you appear to see differently and I would invite you to explain why JR, Derek, and others present with schizophrenic traits.

JR said...

This is the kind of response you get for pointing out the obvious Tim. Because it demonstrates a lack of critical thought in what amounts to someone's belief system, they call *you* mentally ill.

My point proven, as written about here:

I'd like either gent to explain to me how you authenticate a slide of an alien. Hmm? Please give accurate reference materials, and precise comparison data. That's part of how authentication works.

Of course, I don't expect much from someone who refers to me of all people as a 'skeptic'. Hardly. Using your brain shouldn't be a reason for dismissal or a fake psychology diagnosis.

John's Space said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Don Maor said...

Tim Herbert said:

"I don't see racing or rambling typing, nor do I see fragmentation of thought"

All right, let's see. Derek fascinatingly wrote:

"yes of course, they just happened to be found by the friend of a kodak slide "expert" and film producer, all coincidental! get a grip people, this is only proof that people are incredibly naive and stupid... and showing it in mexico city haha too funny!"

Starts by lying/accusing falsely, then asks the people to get a grip, then he goes on to insult people calling them stupid and naive, then he makes a classist/xenophobic comment about the showing in Mexico, then laughs and molests.

Dr. Herbert, are you serious?

Don Maor said...

Tim Herbert:

Regarding JR first message, it was totally strange. The guy stated his solid belief in the first line saying "a photo of a supposed alien is absurd". Frankly, that would have been acceptable as a statement of respectable belief, and the message should have stopped there.

The problem is the rest of his message, in which the guy went to no specifics and tried to retionalize his belief, but all he was doing was denying, using some kind of jargon of a intelectual wanabee selecting elegant words like "evidence" "benchmark" "comparison" "yardstick" "anti-evidence", etc, over and over again. In his second message he added to his set of super powers the "critical thinking" ability.

Poor people like me don't have critical thinking abilities. Oh dear, how can I be so unfortunate.

JR said...

Maor seems to have a lot to say without saying anything, so he and the slides are in good company. I'd just like to note that he completely I gnores the question(s) I posed, and instead resorts to more personal attacks because he doesn't like the question.

There's where the discussion ends.

Paul Young said...

JR ..."This is a non-story for this reason alone: a photo of a supposed alien is absurd. There is no benchmark for authentication. Where’s the comparison? Where’s your yardstick for such a claim There isn’t one. It’s an utterly, and completely useless discussion from the get-go – and it’s certainly not ‘evidence’."

Let's just play devil's advocate here for a second,JR, and say that these slides really, truely, are images of a being from another planet.
Using your argument above, the slides would STILL have to be considered a hoax...because there are no other alien being images to compare them with?

Hmmmm...bit of a lose, lose situation for anyone bringing back a photo of ANYTHING that hasn't been previously discovered!

Curt Collins said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Don Maor said...

JR asked:

I'd like either gent to explain to me how you authenticate a slide of an alien. Hmm? Please give accurate reference materials, and precise comparison data. That's part of how authentication works.

Sorry JR, I can't help you, you want an authentication of a photography. What else do you want to authenticate, an armchair? a pencil? It is just photo, I don't own it, I don't have it, I have not seen it yet because it has not been released yet to the public. I really can do nothing for you.

Gene Steinberg said...

I see this is one of those discussions that went nowhere fast. So until all the evidence is put on the table, rather than juicy but vaporous tidbits, there's not a lot to discuss.

I'm happy to wait and see what this Mexico City event produces, if anything. But forgive my skepticism as the result of all the pre-event hype.


JR said...

Paul Young stated:

"Hmmmm...bit of a lose, lose situation for anyone bringing back a photo of ANYTHING that hasn't been previously discovered!"

Right, exactly right. A photo is a damned poor thing to hang anything as lofty as "smoking gun evidence" of anything, as has been claimed in this instance.

Lets use your contention for a UFO photograph, something else that really has no comps - aside from potentially other UFO photos. But, there's something that can be done with those - you can check for atmospheric / distance hazing, focal lengths and ocular distortion per optics in the camera - some of which will tell you instantly if an object is small and close, or large and far away. There's also determining factors in CGI hoaxes and composites.

UFO photos do give information that can be measured and compared, especially to test shots and reconstructions - and in some cases, you even get to use the same camera in reconstructive examinations.

We can't tell what the object is, where it came from, or who if anything, is inside it from a photo. But the UFO photo at least gives up *something*.

Not so the case here. We've got an old slide with whats claimed to be an alien body on it. Where's the testing to determine what exactly we're seeing? Where is the comparison? The same dynamics do not apply as they do in some other anomalous visual data. There is nothing to test here.

The slides themselves? Sure, they can be said to be stock used in 1947. The exposure? Maybe that can be determined with some approximate date. The photographer? We can know him, and maybe even a lot about him and his work.

But what does any of that say about the alleged 'alien'?

It says nothing. Making the leap from some old slide of a small body of undetermined type, to 'alien' is impossible. This is why it's anti-evidence. It is evidence however, that UFO research standards of whats being called 'evidence' has greatly diminished.

What do the physical, nuts and bolts crowd need here? A body, a nut, or a bolt - not some ambiguous photo. That requires belief, and belief isn't required when you have good evidence. Belief requires relinquishing your control.

Don Maor stated:

"Sorry JR, I can't help you, you want an authentication of a photography. What else do you want to authenticate, an armchair? a pencil? It is just photo, I don't own it, I don't have it, I have not seen it yet because it has not been released yet to the public. I really can do nothing for you."

You're right, you can't. So you refer to my writing as schizophrenic, when I bring up factors you cannot account for, yet have no counter argument. Who sounds schizophrenic now?

Sorry gents, I'm bowing out. I said I wasn't going to give this story much attention and I'm already well past my intended volume of comments about it. The whole thing is a demonstrable pileup and I'm just not that into rubbernecking.

Don Maor said...

While your more recent comments have become more reasoned, they cannot erase the weirdness of your first message, in which you, with excessive eagerness, asked for comparisons, measures and benchmarks for a NOT YET released photographic image that no one here has claimed as “evidence” of aliens. Yet you dared to claim it was “antievidence”. Let’s admit it, it was a strange message.

Good look with other things that are no a pile-up.

Larry said...

JR wrote: ...Making the leap from some old slide of a small body of undetermined type, to 'alien' is impossible...."

I think a lot can be done after high resolution slides are released to outside researchers. The way to do this is by successive falsification of conventional hypotheses.

For example, I have seen presented during the last couple of weeks 4 different bits of information about the slides themselves: edge codes, lacquer type, film chemical composition, and cardboard sleeve design. If those facts stay facts, then I would agree with Tony Bragalia and Gregory Phipps that the hypothesis of a modern hoax is effectively falsified.

Given that the images originate from circa 1947, the next hypothesis is that the images are the result of a manufactured dummy. In that case, the dummy would have been manufactured with materials and techniques that were available no later than 1947. Moreover, there can be no doubt that it would have been created with the intent of replicating the appearance of a once living creature. Manufacturing convincing replicas of anything requires achieving a large enough dynamic range in the levels of spatial resolution. If you are creating a humanoid model that is about 1 meter in length, it can be very difficult to manufacture fine features a few millimeters in size, such as teeth, fingers, veins, and facial expressions with the same convincing accuracy. One way to get at this is perhaps to apply Shannon Entropy spatial filters to the images and compare the results with known dummies and known organic specimens. To some extent, the human eye seems to do this kind of filtering automatically. I think that's why most of the skeptics and debunkers on the blogs have gravitated toward the Andean mummy type of explanation; it's an explanation in which the bodies are acknowledged to be real, organic cadavers--just not of unconventional origin. I haven't seen anyone assert that the bodies actually look like fabricated dummies to them. I suspect that when the dust settles, it will be shown that the manufactured dummy hypothesis would be an extraordinary claim (i.e., would require an extraordinary, maybe even impossible, amount of resources to create in 1947).

So that only leaves the possibility of the bodies having been real, live, organic creatures at some point. If the level of detail that is said to be in the slides is actually in the slides after peer review, then I think Jenny Hanniver type creatures can be eliminated. So that leaves primates as the main candidate for conventional explanation (of which humans, of course, are the leading candidate).

The thing is, a lot is known about human pathology. (Not by me, or probably by anyone who posts on this blog--but by experts). The hypothesis that the slides depict a known, conventional pathology is testable, since known pathologies have--by definition--known characteristics. An expert in hydrocephaly, for example, should be able to definitively say that this body has all the characteristics that a hydrocephalic would have and no characteristics that it wouldn't have.

Or the situation may be a bit murkier, such as with the case of the Atacama mummified body that was going around a few years ago. In that case, the body had all the morphological indications of an aborted fetus, but had a radiological signature that made it appear that it had survived birth long enough for its leg, arm, and mandible bones to have matured. That false signature appears to have been supplied by minerals present in the unique nature of the Atacama environment. If a similarly complicated situation exists with the bodies shown in these slides, I am confident that it will eventually be revealed after sufficient exposure of the facts to the right experts.

However, there is probably neither sufficient knowledge of the data (the slides) nor sufficient expertise in this forum, to make such pronouncements here, so I don't think the real serious investigation is going to happen until after May 5.

Al12 said...


Apparently though these serious investigations have already been done behind the scenes.

They have been working on this for a number of years now and rumours are that these scientists and experts including according to Adam Dew a renowned US scientist

So i am hoping these answers and investigations into what the slides depict have already gone on behind the scenes already.

David Rudiak said...

Anthony Bragalia:
"However, the image Mr. Fernandes (Fernandez) offers is that of a specimen who is far, far shorter than 3.5-4.0 tall."

Gilles Fernandez:
"It seems here you used the female legs (you decided as skirted!) for your body size estimations if I understand/follow you (?). But there is another method (or using software like the one we used for the McMinville pictures) and other possible referential and "I" find smaller than you concerning our estimations."

Hell has probably frozen over, because for once I agree with Gilles. The body is shorter than 3-1/2'-4' by my own estimates, including comparison with the stocky woman standing to the right whose legs and pelvis are mostly showing (perhaps the middle-aged and stocky Hilda Blair).

Comparison with the woman suggests the body is at most waist high standing up, or 3'-3-1/2'. (Again depends on a lot of partial unknowns, such as how tall the woman really is, exact body proportions, where woman's and body's feet are, etc.)

A more accurate measure is the vertical metal support with holes in it. Such holes are typically 1" apart (I've been looking at contemporary ones) and can be used as a ruler. Using that, I get about 35" high, give or take maybe 3" (depends on where the feet really are, which is being disputed, and perspective.)

Now if the holes were really 1-1/4" or 1-1/2" inches apart, then you have to scale accordingly, and the body would be ~44"-57". Clearly the top figure of 57" is much too large compared to the woman, while the 44" figure might be barely possible, but I doubt it.

I suspect the 1" separation is likely to hold up, and we have a body about 3' high, give or take a few inches, not 3-1/2'-4' or more. This is also more self-consistent when comparing with the woman than the other estimates with larger hole spacing.

This is not human fetus size or the typical "10-year old girl" size used to describe the "grays" or Roswell aliens, but about the height of a two-year old human child. So if this is a human being, it likely survived for about 2 years. That should narrow down some of the possible pathologies a bit, such as those that would almost certainly kill in the first ~18 months of life.

Al12 said...


But the problem is we dont really know how tall completely the supposed Roswell aliens were.

Since i have heard them being referenced to 3ft also.

Also didnt Bragalia or someone already give an estimate to the length of the being in inches?

Curt Collins said...

David, I think you are getting warmer, but still feel you may have the size estimate too large. Based on comparison to similar case shelving, I think little Rozzy was about 26 inches tall. I could be wrong.

If the 3- 4 foot estimate is correct, I wonder what the weight would have been. What is the team's thinking about why this precious specimen would be trusted to a just glass shelf?

Zak McKracken said...

Mr. Braglia

Thanks for the reply, not sure that clue may help you in your higly respected research, but who knows?

I have a question reagarding the shape of the "glass box". On the blurry picture it seems to look circular, like a container or a tube, is that correct?

Daniel Hurd said...

In the slides are other pieces of information I feel have been overlooked. The floor type, the shelving type, the glass, etc. there must be photos of places we could be comparing this to. Military and musuem historians that could say "that was or wasn't standard practice during that time frame", verify the shelving being used was the norm for such and such institutions, or maybe if the military or other institutions ever used temporary glass cases for specimens.
Then the other side of this is the Rays. There has to be people out there that knew them. They were an interesting couple, so much more leg work needs done trying to find folks that knew them once. Or even lost relatives of some sort. If they did see something unusual and photograph it, maybe they told other people in passing.
I am sure these things are on the minds of the investigators like Tony as well. I think we would all like to hear more about it.
That being said, no matter what, this will not be considered the smoking gun, even if it is an actual dead alien. Proof is physical evidence, not photos- even if they are verified. Still, this is all interesting no matter how you spin it.

CommanderCronus said...

Daniel Hurd,

I agree 100%, and I'm glad someone finally pointed this out. Those who claim the pictures don't contain information are dead wrong; the image is loaded with tons of data, if one is observant. The support beam, the blanket, the flooring, at of these could give clues to a location. There's a woman in the photo, and she is wearing clothes. Clothing styles come and go, which points to a particular period in history.

A clearer, more detailed version of the slide may reveal light fixtures, another potential clue to date and location. I could go on and on, but the point is this; only an incompetent investigator would find nothing of value in the image. It wouldn't be proof of ETs, but one could certainly get an idea as to the slide's origin.

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

One question that has arisen here, which I agree with, is the apparent manner in which the being was handled. It just doesn't seem right. That's not intended to pass judgement on the research, or any researcher, at all. It is just what I agree is a legitimate observation. With the way everything was created up, etc., why is this little fellow just out in the open? Details like that will be interesting items to be resolved.

CommanderCronus said...

Bob Koford,

No one said you can't speculate on your own. So far, the conversation on this blog has been less about discussing the possibilities of the case, and more about bashing the people behind the scenes. I'd like to see that change.

As for the display, it was mentioned earlier that a museum exhibit featuring, for instance, an Egyptian mummy, would not be likely to show the specimen in such a temporary manner with a paper placard instead of a more permanent one.

A more reasonable alternative would be a private collection, or an estate sale. I haven't heard that mentioned yet, and that's what this could in fact be; a rare Egyptian artifact at a private auction or...

A BLACK MARKET TRANSACTION? Allegedly, these slides were found tucked away in a separate envelope, concealed inside the lining of a photo box belonging to Hilda and Bernard Ray. If this involved an illegal transaction of a rare antiquity, it might explain why they would keep the photo separate.

John's Space said...

For the sake of argument assume that the investigators do have slides of an extra-terrestrial that were taken in 1947. If in fact the slides are authentic then there are has some implications. One would be that the Roswell chase is real and has been covered up by the government of 68 years. For this to be true then it must then be the case that a powerful and effective organization is in place to maintain this effort.

So it would seem likely that this organization would be hostile to the investigators actions to attempt to prove the authenticity of the slides and to publicize their evidence. The investigators have experienced a significant amount of cyber-attacks when knowledge of the slides leaked is consistent with this idea. So isn’t it likely that the cyber-attacks experienced by investigators are not the actions of UFO skeptics or rival investigators but rather of this organization? Also, isn’t there a threat that this organization may attempt to gain possession by clandestine action of the slides before they can be publically revealed in May?

Larry said...

Al12 wrote: "...Apparently though these serious investigations have already been done behind the scenes."

I think it's been less than a full year that serious investigations have been going on and I don't think it's been a large number of experts. Any one individual, whether "believer" or "skeptic" can only bring one point of view. For better or worse, science is a consensus among qualified experts. That will emerge only after a significant number of experts have had a chance to consider the evidence.

As Daniel Hurd and others are suggesting, there are many other pieces of information in the images to be considered. I will restate: I think it is only after the slides are released that the "serious" investigation will take place.

Anthony Bragalia said...


'Serious' research on the slides has been going on for far more than one year.

And scientists such as pathologists have also been engaged to gain insight on the various alternatives of what this being could be. All ruled out primate, mummy and hydrocephalic.

Two photo experts have come to identical conclusions on the slides having not been tampered and on the dating of the slides.

Genealogical and ancestry tracing expertise was employed.

Additionally, one of the last known Roswell base witnesses to the bodies confirmed the creature in the slides as being identical to what he saw. The emotions exuded when he was shown the picture of the creature were moving.

Part of the reason for this 'pre-release'is to send out a call for help. Constructive, well-intentioned help.

If there are ideas to share, if someone out there knew the Rays (they were childless and both from extremely small families, now all dead)we would love to hear from you.

Larry, the other thing that proved challenging was getting the experts. Finding the best available talent was not very difficult, it was getting them to work on such a controversial project. Being involved in such a weird subject for many was viewed as professional suicide. Others worried that they would start to receive a barrage of night calls from inquisitive strangers- and that has already happened unfortunately, making one scientist's life in particular pretty miserable.

Anthony Bragalia said...


A private antiquities auctioneer -even an 'underground' one- would display his ill-gotten wares in a more attractive way to entice sale. This set-up is 'raw' and the green cloth does match military-like blanket cloth of the time. The sparse, drab room in which the creature is shown does not look like someone's home or a museum- it looks government-plain. And I doubt that Hilda Ray would risk her license to practice law to attend a shady showing of a hydrocephalac or mummy.

Rather than 'private auction' I believe that this is a 'private viewing' of a creature recently deceased, partially autopsied, and preserved.

I believe that a partial 'field autopsy' was conducted. They did not have ice or dry ice out in the desert to preserve the corpses. A field autopsy is conducted when time is of the essence. The action of predators and necrosis and the need to dissect before decomposition drove them to gut the torso and abdominal cavities. Field autopsies are often conducted in the natural world when investigating fish die-off, herd death, etc.

This creature came to grief in an accident. An eye is missing as if poked out and its head is severed at the neck. Decapitation and eye injury are not uncommon in air crashes.

Some select individuals were permitted by military to view a temporary set-up of the displayed being or beings and make independent observations before the beings were transported off to other locations for further study and more secure, permanent storage.

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

Tony wrote: And scientists such as pathologists have also been engaged to gain insight on the various alternatives of what this being could be. All ruled out primate, mummy and hydrocephalic.

Realy? All ruled out? It is recorded and screenshooted!

And you determined the size of the body like you did with your experts. Hum... I'm realy circonspect about your "forensic" competences and claims...

I hope "believers" as "skeptics" will have in May full size slides and in full resolution after all your teasers... The two will not forgot your claims...

"Dew", in a very recent TV (WGN TV) interview promoting his (Santilli like?) film made this joke regarding some "my" pictures comparisons, and all we are doing in general, photos presented inside the TV interview with "yellow circle" (not the best ones concerning the possible culprit(s) hypothezed, but well, it is better like this, I prefer to not share publicaly now some possible culprits we have in minds...).

[Skeptics] which has been really helpful, they are doing a lot of the research work for me that I have been trying to do in my free time for the past couple of years
Dunno if he is jocking or it speacks for itself how you all realy discarded mummy, and other "our Earth candidats"...

We will see in May, maybe you are right, maybe not: but at least, provide good photo materials for our analysis in May or later...

Merci, Tony!

Gilles Fernandez

Don Maor said...

An interesting speculation, for people who like comparisons, is that the special operations manual, the SOM (majestic document), which is dated in 1954, but which surfaced in 1994, describes the EBE Type 2 as a small bodied alien, with heights ranging between 3’ 5” to 4’ 2” inches. Now, in the “Kodachrome Trailer”, the estimation given is a range of 36” to 48” in height. We seem to have a nice fit.

It seems reasonable to think that if the SOM is an authentic document (which maybe), the guys in charge obtained a range of heights by analyzing at least _two_ alien individuals, one of them could be the one we see in the photo, so it seems reasonable to predict that the being on the photo is about 3' 5" in height, a guess before a detailed analysis is performed.

Another interesting point is about the range of body masses given in the SOM manual. The range of masses given is 25-50 pounds. Seemingly, this range of masses would be a numerically rounded range for the same two individuals whose height was given previously in the manual. Well, it happens that the body masses values given follow an approximately a cubic scaling law with respect to the values of heights given, i.e. Body mass is proportional to height cubed. The exponent I found is actually 3.1 and not 3 as in a cubic scaling, but given that the mass range has been rounded, assuming a nearly cubic scaling seems to be fairly reasonable. Well, this cubic law is kind of realistic. How did the hoaxer know?

Gilles Fernandez said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gilles Fernandez said...

The claim "The fact is that the being pictured in the slides is between 3.5-4.0 feet" is a Tony's Roswell Dream Team member claim and sounds not-coherent with some computations we made with (again) no full size and resolution slides.

Even David Rudiak is ok the body size is smaller than Tony is claiming (without - Tony- explaining us how he proceeded, his method -sic- despite David, at least explained how he did)...

Let's wait full reso of the slide(s), enjoy Tony making teasers again and again for monthes, and we will made our "computations" public and see if Tony's claims were one more time, well, Tony' claims...



Don Maor said...


Anthony Bragalia has said that the image is highly distorted with respect to the original. Moreover, your estimation has been made in a hurry.

On the contrary, Kodachrome investigators (let's call them that way) have analized TWO images on high resolution, during months or maybe years. You have analyzed just one image, extremely low quality, and which is (most probably) geometrically distorted.

At this time, the kodachrome investigators' estimation should still be more accurate than yours (or David's).

Stephen Jackson said...

Mr Bragalia's, I have A question for you please. If the conference in May succeeds in convincing everyone that this image is indeed that of once a living being from another world, what will be your next steps? and what do you expect to happen, globally, politically?

Anthony Bragalia said...


Yours is one the most interesting of all of the questions poised...

On May 6th, the day after the reveal, the clock will still tick and we will still get up in the morning with the obligations of life still before us.

But may we will arise with just a little more wonder and curiosity about the world in which we live.

Some will find it heartening to know that we are not alone in the vast, cold cosmos. Others will go through the same realization that man did when we realized when we learned that the world does not revolve around the Earth.

It will be an acceptance that there is something of a higher order than our own.

Some will fear, some will hope.

The Trained Observer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Trained Observer said...

Has anyone offered a reasonable explanation as to why an extraterrestrial biological sample would be displayed in a glass case where tourists in skirts could take photographs of it? Wouldn't the "holy grail" of science be handled with the highest medical safety protocols and preserved under the strictest conditions for future study? Common sense would seem to dictate that the corpse being displayed in the glass case, lying on fabric, marked with a hand-written note, and being photographed by a tourist, is not a priceless and potentially dangerous "biological specimen" from another world.

Michael Mu said...

@Tony Bragalia

I am a Roswell believer but sorry...the Ray Santilli Case taught me that people can all fake what they want!

Gilles Fernandez said...

@ Don,

We will see in May or after... We/I are quasi-certain of a culprit. CU then!

A. Bragalia wrote: Others will go through the same realization that man did when we realized when we learned that the world does not revolve around the Earth.

I almost shed a tear...

CU later, and best regards,