The
Roswell slides have been a hot topic for many months with little in the way of
serious information being presented. The basic story, of these two slides being
found as the result of a house being prepared for an estate sale is known.
Those who owned the slides (as opposed to who had taken the actual photographs)
has been known for some time and that last name associated with them, Hilda Blair
Ray, appears to have been as well connected as has been suggested.
Now,
Anomalist
Universe has linked
to a number of YouTube videos made by the principals in the investigation.
Those watching these fairly short videos have an opportunity to learn a little
more about the case.
As
I have said, repeatedly, I have not been involved in this research and like
almost everyone else, have been waiting patiently for the investigation to run
its course. That means simply that this information and these videos are
offered as a way of answering some of the questions we all have, but what is
said in the videos are the opinions of those making the statements. We’ll have
to wait for the May 5th presentation which should provide more data
for all of us.
Look
for the videos here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNKkfHoyr-Q (Tom
Carey)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5ylp-1zrlo (Don
Schmitt)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FufK99WyNfc (Edgar
Mitchell)
As I say, I offer these links as a
service and I know no more about them than the rest of you. You’ll just have to
form you own opinion of the value of this information. I received the
information through Anomalist Universe.
There is another link that might be of importance. It offers more information about all this, but again, I have not vetted this particular video. It is interesting and is offered here for those who might be interested. Find the short video here:
http://youtu.be/jL0MvHpieaE
And for additional information about all this, here is another link that should prove interesting:
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/adam-dew/7/163/2b9
Update February 5:
For those interested, Adam is not the owner of the slides. They are the property of another Chicago IT guy. I do not know if they were friends prior to the analysis of the slides.
There is another link that might be of importance. It offers more information about all this, but again, I have not vetted this particular video. It is interesting and is offered here for those who might be interested. Find the short video here:
http://youtu.be/jL0MvHpieaE
And for additional information about all this, here is another link that should prove interesting:
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/adam-dew/7/163/2b9
Update February 5:
For those interested, Adam is not the owner of the slides. They are the property of another Chicago IT guy. I do not know if they were friends prior to the analysis of the slides.
62 comments:
This is an overview of the slide story to date:
http://youtu.be/jL0MvHpieaE
We'll be releasing more slides over the next few weeks at www.SlideboxMedia.com
There are two slides in particular posted there that we think can offer some great insight into Hilda and Bernerd.
"We'll be releasing more slides over the next few weeks at www.SlideboxMedia.com"
So, Adam Dew, is this one of your Dew Media, Inc. projects, or a separate venture on your part?:
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/adam-dew/7/163/2b9
My major takeaways from this were:
1. The specific cardboard sleeve holding the slides was discontinued by Kodak in 1949. (Carey interview). Carey thought that particular design was used from 1942-1949. Rod Mix, who has been analyzing the slides, said he was sure the slides date between 1939 and 1949. Rod Mix is NOT the owner of the slides.
2. It would have been very difficult to fake the design of the cardboard sleeve, the stamps, etc. (YouTube "Kodachrome" video, 2:17', citing the opinion of Prof. Rod Slemmons, Dir. of the Chicago Museum of Contemporary Photography, 2002-2011, and who worked at Kodak in the 1950s.
3. If the slide stock dates to 1947, as has been previously asserted, then the pictures can be bracketed between 1947 and 1949.
4. There is a short interview (YouTube Kodachrome interview) with an unidentified former Lt. from Roswell in 1947 who says the image of the alleged alien looks exactly like he remembered them looking. If faked, they did a great job. (Perhaps Kevin or someone else recognizes this man, as I don't.)
5. Rod Mix's group been doing 3D reconstruction of the being in the body. (Don't know exactly how they are doing this.) What they show in the Kodachrome video looks exactly like the classical "grey" description.
6. It is still unclear the where, who, and circumstances under which the slides were taken. (Carey interview)
7. It appears that Jaime Moussan is indeed in charge of staging the event in Mexico City.
Now that this is all out, I can say that Tom Carey and Don Schmitt told me of the existence of the slides about 3 years ago, and I got a brief look at an inkjet printout on plain paper of one of the slides in July 2012 when we were all at the Roswell Museum for the 65th anniversary.
My major takeaway from this:
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/adam-dew/7/163/2b9
Is that Adam "SlideBox Media" Web claims to be a graduate of Northwestern University, much as as the discredited Don Schmitt falsely claimed a degree exactly two decades ago:
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/klass_files_volume_33/
b"h
If the image depicted at the link below is actually one of the two purported slides, then my comment is that Dr. Greer's human "alien baby" looked a lot more "alien." Such diseases as hydroencephalitis and genetic disorders ravage human kind, producing shocking deformities, yet nevertheless are purely human.
http://www.theufochronicles.com/2015/02/roswell-alien-slides-update-evidence.html
David Rudiak,
The elderly witness is legit in terms of his background. I won't mention his name as Bragalia will accuse me of harassing an old man.
What was your opinion of the printout? Do you think the past few years of research have been worthwhile?
Hi Loki. I am a graduate of Northwestern University (BSJ '98). If I wasn't on an actual paying job (as opposed to the slide doc project) Id post the diploma for you.
The slides are not a hoax. I've never seen an alien in real life so I have no frame of reference other than what pop culture tells me an alien should look like. The image on the slides, from what I can gather, predates that common image in pop culture. Hilda and Bernerd are a fascinating couple. I've simply (for better and worse) been drawn into this story and want to see it through. I've done as much vetting as I can over the last several years and hope that by putting the story out there more information will surface.
William,
The image you cite is simply an illustration, created by my own hand for use with the publication of the video.
The image by itself (which we have used repeatedly for articles relating to the slides) is labeled as such, i.e., "Illustration By FW"; however, in this instance it was/is a mash-up thrown up in haste and the attribution was covered up.
Amusingly, it apparently isn't far off from the original.
To your point–an image of a child afflicted with hydrocephalus would have sufficed (sadly). Moreover, I don't discount the notion that te a fore mentioned abnormal condition is what the so-called Roswell Slides represent.
Cheers,
Frank
Ross wrote:
What was your opinion of the printout?
Again, I saw an inkjet color printout of one of the slides on plain paper, so not high quality. I had maybe a minute to view it, so no time to carefully study.
The one thing I clearly remember is focusing my attention on the head (I don't have any memory of what the body looked like) and remarking to Tom Carey that it looked more human than I would have expected (though not quite human).
I suppose that would leave the door slightly open to maybe a deformed human.
Do you think the past few years of research have been worthwhile?
I'm not sure what you are asking here. One needs to run down promising leads like this, being well aware of the possible pitfalls (the obvious one being taken in by a clever hoax). Carey and Schmitt are NOT trying to perpetrate a hoax. Regardless of one thinks of Schmitt's past (judging by the usual snarky comments about him), Tom Carey has always been a straight arrow. They doggedly pursue such leads because they believe in the authenticity of the case, as do I.
So far the videos indicate that the pictures date from between 1947 and 1949 (1947 film stock and cardboard sleeve no longer used by Kodak after 1949). So they are in the right time period to POSSIBLY be connected to Roswell. I have not seen anything definite yet about the film being chemically dated to the right period.
Kodak was the sole developer of Kodachrome film back then (a difficult and complicated process from what I've read). Kodachrome slide film developed back then would necessarily come housed in a Kodak cardboard sleeve.
A modern hoaxer would have to come up with the right film stock that has been very carefully preserved, such as frozen in a dry environment and carefully shielded from background radiation, including cosmic radiation. Cosmic rays are everywhere, relentless, very energetic and very penetrating. They are difficult to shield against. You would have to have the film in something well underground or a thick, lead-lined vault.
Failure to do this would result in serious radiation fogging of the film, which would look like overexposure (everything whited out), loss of color balance, and very low contrast to the images. This does not appear to be the case with the slides.
The only other thing I can say on this point is that Carey sent me high resolution scans of the placard in the photos with handwriting on it. This is badly out of focus and largely unreadable to me. BUT, it IS of HIGH CONTRAST, i.e., very black letters on a very white background, strongly suggesting the images were indeed exposed and developed soon after the film was made. Otherwise, one would expect bad radiation fogging and very washed out lettering of low contrast.
In addition, a modern hoaxer would have to find very old cardboard sleeves from other slides, carefully open them, insert the hoax photos inside, and carefully glue them back together, without leaving clues behind that this had been done. This would have been quite a sophisticated hoax.
So far from the little information I've heard, the slides look genuine and date to the late 1940s. What exactly they depict I cannot say at this time from the little I've seen and know. I would need very good images that I could carefully study.
Even if it seemed to depict an alien, I doubt one could distinguish a real body from a mockup. But even a mockup would beg numerous questions. Who would create such a mockup and why? This does not conform to any movie or comic alien of that time period.
b”h
Thank you Frank for the clarification. I did surmise that the image was probably only an illustration. But since it includes the red “Kodachrome” logo without any caption that I could see, and since in the last few days lots of info on the slides is appearing, I figured I might as well comment and hope for elucidation.
Rudiak: "A modern hoaxer would have to come up with the right film stock that has been very carefully preserved"
Not necessarily. Another possibility:
Someone finds an authentic 1947 photograph of a dead human body. The cause of death and/or the circumstances of the interment change the appearance of the body so it looks not quite as human as a living person. An opportunistic person, or simply someone who wants to believe, thinks the "not quite human" look of the body means it is an alien.
This is just speculation, but certainly it is more probable than the first authentic alien photographs turning up 60-odd years after the fact, with no one in ufology having heard of them all these many decades.
Occam's Razor leads straight to Terry's above post. My guess is that the slides are genuine, but have nothing to do with Roswell.
Now having watched the videos, I must say the hyperbole from Carey and Schmitt is anything but cautious or modest. Their boasting is in the "you can't take that back" category.
If this turns out to be a scam and they were deceived, they will have no defence.
As for Mitchell, he goes on and on about the Glenn Dennis coffin hoax (amply demonstrated as such by our host, Kevin).
Zounds!
Terry,
As I have said, I now believe the slides are probably genuine slides of the 1947 period but possibly of a deformed human. Thus the slides themselves are NOT a hoax, though possibly misinterpreted as to what the images depict.
People like Carey, Schmitt, and others may honestly believe they depict an autopsied alien being. This is not an attempt to hoax, which would eventually backfire and tarnish everybody's reputation who was involved, but a possible mistake.
Unlike you, I do not presume to know the answer--alien or deformed human. With lack of sufficient information, I suspend judgment for now. Like everyone else, I await the release of high resolution images that can be examined by medical and forensic experts and see if there is a strong consensus of opinion that this is a deformed human or something else.
It is also conceivable that given wide distribution, someone will recognize exactly where the body comes from, such as a medical museum of deformities. That would not be top secret and one could then understand how the widely-traveled Rays may have come to take these pictures.
David
I thought the owner had already brought in Specialists to have a look at the slides to try and determine if it is a deformed human?
Also why would the Rays keep pictures ( seperate from the rest of the slides ) of a deformed human, i dont buy that at all.
Also in the Carey interview he mentions the creature lying on what looks like an Army blanket.
> Unlike you, I do not presume to know the answer
David, I don't know either.
You might have read too much into my comment, being as I usually disagree with you, but on this issue we agree on many points.
So I wasn't countering you, I was adding a possibility that hasn't been getting enough consideration on the various blogs: it's a real photo but a mistaken identity. (We all have seen cynical opportunists promote mummies with elongated skulls as being alien mummies.)
In another comment, I also consider the possibility that Carey and Schmitt have been deceived (their sin at the moment is near-delusional levels of immodesty). I do suspect opportunism pushed this thing along at some point, but who did the pushing I could not say.
Am I open to the possibility the slides depict an actual alien? Nothing we've been told so far suggests this is likely (and it keeps getting worse). Even SlideBox Media, in their trailer, make no claim that this is an alien -- that's all on Carey and Schmitt.
Hi, so why all this mediatic circus. We live in the era of the Internet, why not have published the slides bodies on twitter and ask people if it said something to them, you would have affected millions of people and the issue was resolved. Why not have made a collaborative subject to the era of internet instead of behaving like the mid-80s, that time is over. You can not make a trailer, a symposium, a tv show, books, autographs, and then after? ..... Nothing? Come on!
This is not like looking for the truth, but the operation of a mining the same old vein before it dries up completely?
David,
Terry really hit the nail on the head.
Why do believers always seem to err on the side of presenting things in the least scientific and least plausible way.
This event is indistinguishable from the way previous Bigfoot hoaxes were handled, for instance. Maussan promotes things like flying horses!
You say it could be an honest mistake but, assuming it does turn out to a human specimen (which we don't know for sure that it will, I realize), didn't they bring any derision on themselves.
How long was it before the human body idea was mentioned by skeptics? A few minutes after the first glimpses of the supposed slides?
How does the secrecy and inbreeding of ideas amongst died in the wool believers help the cause for finding the truth?
Why would those in a field that constantly complains about a lack of scientific interest in their claims, go this route?
And how do those in the field outside the event stand by without repudiating it just on the facts we know now? Can you see any possibility that this will lead to scientific acceptance of the claims you promote as UFO truth?
Lance
AI12,
All I've heard so far is rumor as to the slides being shown to medical experts, with nothing concrete or verified by principles. I agree that there are still large numbers of unanswered questions, therefore various proposed scenarios, including mine, put out there are highly speculative and not entirely satisfactory. Carey himself admits in his Moussan interview the photographer, the time, the place, and the circumstances of when the images were made are all unknowns, as are how the Rays came into possession of the slides.
Adam "SlideBox Media" Web in his youtube "Kodachrome" short, says he did start showing the images to photographic, medical, and forensics experts. (He shows Neil Degrasse Tyson, who is hardly a medical or forensic expert.) No medical or forensic experts are presented in the short video. He would be the one to ask for more information, since I do not know what any medical/forensic expert opined.
It also shows an analyst zooming out on the slide (see 34 sec. into video) and giving a brief blurry view of the body and the placard at the bottom of the body. It appears to be the same placard I was sent (this was cropped so I didn't see the rest of the slide).
http://youtube/jL0MvHpieaE
David,
You said that the text on the placard was mostly unreadable.
What part could you read?
Thanks,
Lance
Lance,
It would help if you stopped posturing with your usual "gullible believer" line and that only skeptics consider alternatives such as deformed human. Did you miss Frank Warren and my comments to this effect just on this one thread before Terry brought it up?
This all came up on the alien autopsy controversy 20 years ago, where I argued for the POSSIBILITY of a genetically deformed human, though I suspected a dummy and hoax. I even mentioned several possible disorders. (I do have some background in this, having taken upper level college courses 40 years ago in human development and anatomy, including dissection of human cadavers.)
I briefly brought this topic up with Tom Carey 2-1/2 years ago when he allowed me a glimpse of the slide printout and I thought there was a chance it could be human. Of course they have considered it. Who wouldn't?
We simply do not know at this point exactly what has been done behind the scenes to verify the slides. We have heard statements that they have been shown to medical and forensic experts, but have no details. If they have, then some scientific due diligence has been done. But we have no details who these experts might be how many there are, their backgrounds or what their expert opinions might be and why. The proper scientific, if skeptical position, is to take no position now until there is more information.
When good images of the slides are presumably and finally released, no doubt there will be a torrent of opinions, including from real experts, not amateurs.
I can kind of, sort of understand the logic behind the media event thing. If I had what I felt was incontrovertible evidence of a dead extraterrestrial I'm not sure how else I would present this to the world; peer-reviewed journals are out, putting it on a website/blog wouldn't lend me any credence, and a reputable newspaper wouldn't publish the story unless my evidence and reputation was rock-solid.
So yeah, I'd probably hold a press conference or something similar.
I would NOT announce an event four months in advance, book a 10,000 seat venue, put together a video advertising said event and sell tickets. That smells like a huckster.
No, all believers are not gullible.
And UFO proponents have done good work in identifying prosaic cases and frauds.
Alright, let's wait and see what happens. I am surprised that you have nothing to say about the choice of presentation. It is that which virtually sinks this whole endeavor before it gets off the ground (even if it is being flown by one of Maussan's flying horses).
Your picture of how studious and and careful your team mates approached this loses some credibility when that is considered.
By the way, Maussan has TONS of photos and videos of aliens that he has championed--in focus and close up (and I think angels and stuff,too). How can these rather modest old slides compare to that?
Lance
Lance,
The placard is four lines of unknown handwriting, very blurry, with about 8 to 14 words per line, about 40 words total. The center two lines are grouped closer together and longer, thus appear to be the body of the text, with shorter informational lines at top and bottom. I would guess, the date and location are on the top line, and the the name(s) of the commentator(s) at the bottom.
My best, VERY uncertain guess for the top line is August 10 or 19, 1950 (not 1947, but very uncertain), with no guesses now for the last 5 words, but guessing location.
Best current guess for line 2:
"I/We am/are unsure of what the death cause might be of xxxxxx corpse..."
I wouldn't bet a dime that is accurate. Even if it were, it would be very generic and doesn't tell us much, other than it is a unknown biological body of some sort and not a dummy.
No best guesses for line 3, and I withhold comment on line 4, pending further investigation (possible signatory line).
The placard is in someone's script handwriting (not printed). I do not know whose handwriting this is, thus have no way to obtain comparison handwriting that might help.
This is a much more difficult problem than the Ramey memo which has known contextual details to help (date, time, participants, circumstances), is not out of focus, and has a known printed font with other helpful characteristics like proportional font with fixed letter spacing, enabling one to accurately determine word length most of the time. Knowing the word length really helps narrow down the possible words.
Also the slides are color slides with 3 layers of color emulsion, unlike Ramey being B&W, adding to the blurriness. I've tried separating by color without much success. I've tried various commercial refocusing software, again without much success, generating many artifacts along the way. I got very frustrated and haven't done any work on this in a while.
Aztec UFO Incident : March 25 1948
U.S. Open : June 10-12 1948
National Air Races : September 4-6 1948
Oil + Golf : Silas Newton
Clark Gable, Bing Crosby : Hollywood : Frank Scully, Pev Marley, Linda Darnell
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kategabrielle/4507272770/
Thanks for sharing that, David.
Lance
Thank You David Rudiak.
Very concise and thoughtful replies.
b"h
So, a speculative alternative scenario. Perhaps the well-connected Ray's actually had a short-lived deformed child that survived a few years. In those decades before the genetic code was known, such a deformed child might easily have been viewed as a bit of an embarrassment to such a successful couple. In other words, the child was kept a hush-hush family secret. Hence "no children" might actually mean no "surviving" children. In any case the child surely was not the public's business. They had two photos of their ill-fated child, yet kept the slides separated from the rest of their photos. Pure speculation. YMMV.
DR writes early on:
"Carey himself admits in his Moussan interview the photographer, the time, the place, and the circumstances of when the images were made are all unknowns, as are how the Rays came into possession of the slides."
Is this not a severe warning that these slides are worthless as scientific evidence for ETs?
The point is that if such an ET event really happened nearly 7 decades ago, and if these slides somehow got through the alleged top military secrecy that engulfed the recovery of the debris and bodies (which secrecy allegedly persists to this day) they would have a proven pedigree and would thus have no unknown trail of this kind.
It has all the hallmarks of a manufactured hoax, moreover one that has been perpetrated by someone who has followed the Roswell tale in its various forms since it first surfaced some 35 years ago.
Somebody has tried to cover up all their tracks to escape detection.
Maybe the photos really were taken in 1947 but why are they suddenly, after over 65 years, being linked to Roswell at all?
Probable answer: because somebody familiar with the Roswell 'crash' WANTS them to be, but has carefully erased their true origin.
I am not an expert in this field, which is why I expended some effort in putting the slides' owner in touch with medical experts, but:
The cadaver, to my eye seemed to be a little over 4 feet in length. While I recall the proportions of the head length to torso length being "off" compared to a normal human phenotype (head is abnormally large) the proportions of torso length to leg and arm length seemed to be about normal for an adolescent human. If the cadaver is that of a human with a genetic or other pathology, it appears to have been alive for 10 years or so, as it seems to have undergone the normal phase of growth of the long bones (arms and legs).
That actually should narrow the search for comparison to known possible pathologies; as I understand it, with some known pathologies, the human doesn't survive past childhood.
Also, to my mind there is the question of the setting of the photos which appear to be much more clinical and laboratory-like than I would expect to see in a funeral home, for example. The cadaver appears to be in a setting given more to clinical study than to burial or cremation. If the cadaver is that of a human, born to two parents and with a known developmental history there would still be birth records and death records required by law. If this is the cadaver of a human with some pathology that caused it to end up in the collection of some medical research institution, there should be records of that transaction. Also, I would suspect that the number of such cadavers showing up in any given year is small; I wouldn't be surprised if specialists who work in that field are pretty familiar with most of the known cases. Seems like an area for research, to me.
Larry,
You left some possibly confusing comments elsewhere and I wonder if you would clear them up?
The Maussan video shows glimpses of some slides, small and low quality. Even though they are not very clear, one can see what looks like a head and body. In another one there is what appears to be a face.
Elsewhere blow up stills directly from the video were posted. You came in and said that those images were not what you saw.
Since then several more fleeting glimpses (sometimes blurred) of those scenes have been posted by the parties involved. They STILL correspond to those initial stills posted elsewhere.
So do the fleeting and small images we see in the Maussan video, appear to be the same thing you saw or are those different images, perhaps placeholders for the real thing?
If the former, why did you say initially that they were not what you saw?
Thanks,
Lance
If you go to the Youtube "Kodachrome" video about the slides, 34 seconds in when they are zoomed in on the placard with handwriting and zoom out to show the out of focus body and room-- the placard looks identical to the one I was sent.
"Hi Loki. I am a graduate of Northwestern University (BSJ '98). If I wasn't on an actual paying job (as opposed to the slide doc project) Id post the diploma for you."
...so, dude, just WHEN will you actually post your diploma?
cda wrote:
The point is that if such an ET event really happened nearly 7 decades ago, and if these slides somehow got through the alleged top military secrecy that engulfed the recovery of the debris and bodies (which secrecy allegedly persists to this day) they would have a proven pedigree and would thus have no unknown trail of this kind.
The secrecy aspect makes it very unlikely in my mind that either of the Rays took the pictures. More likely somebody who had need-to-know and access, such as a doctor. If such pictures did penetrate the secrecy (e.g., doctor managed to smuggle them out), I arrive at the opposite conclusion--they likely WOULDN'T have a pedigree. They would be like the MJ-12 papers arriving on a roll of film from an anonymous source.
It has all the hallmarks of a manufactured hoax, moreover one that has been perpetrated by someone who has followed the Roswell tale in its various forms since it first surfaced some 35 years ago.
So you are arguing MODERN hoax, but you aren't providing any evidence for such. This is why I spent a lot of time discussing the aging of old film stock. If the film stock indeed dates to 1947, it deteriorates from heat, moisture, and background radiation with time, unless preserved with exceptional care. Eventually it gets badly fogged.
Thus it is NOT so simple as to find some old Kodachrome slide film from 1947 and take some pictures of a dummy 50 or 60 years later. Film this old would show obvious and probably severe signs of aging. From what I've seen so far, these slides do not. E.g., I have seen the slide placard in detail and the letters on the white background are high contrast, not the low contrast one would expect of fogged film developed decades after manufacture.
However Kodachrome film developed and fixed SOON after manufacture is renowned for the retention and vibrancy of the colors over many decades, as some of the 1940s samples from Hilda Blair's collection demonstrate.
Finally, we have been told the two slides were housed inside of a cardboard holder, whose style Kodak discontinued after 1949. This is the basis of the recent statements that the images date somewhere between 1947 (film stock) and 1949 (cardboard holder).
Thus a MODERN hoax would require finding some exceptionally well-preserved 1947 Kodachrome film (frozen in a dry environment and maybe in something like a mine shaft to shield from cosmic radiation), also finding 1940s era cardboard sleeves, carefully opening them, and putting the film inside without leaving a trace of this operation.
Somebody has tried to cover up all their tracks to escape detection.
Covering up ones tracks would not be easy, if you really think through what would be required. If you think it was, by all means reproduce the process for us in detail and I'll concede the argument.
Maybe the photos really were taken in 1947 but why are they suddenly, after over 65 years, being linked to Roswell at all?
Maybe because Roswell was in 1947, the film stock dates to 1947, and might depict a nonhuman body? Granted the argument is purely circumstantial and not absolute proof, but not an illogical conclusion.
"Thus a MODERN hoax would require finding some exceptionally well-preserved 1947 Kodachrome film (frozen in a dry environment and maybe in something like a mine shaft to shield from cosmic radiation), also finding 1940s era cardboard sleeves, carefully opening them, and putting the film inside without leaving a trace of this operation."
...or one could just use one of the authentic slides from the Ray's box, remove it from the sleeve, and slip the fraudulent one inside. A true hoaxer who managed to gain possession of the slides might be tempted to do just that. As for the film stock, I'm not convinced this isn't something from the Mutter museum.
"Maybe the photos really were taken in 1947 but why are they suddenly, after over 65 years, being linked to Roswell at all?
Maybe because Roswell was in 1947, the film stock dates to 1947, and might depict a nonhuman body? Granted the argument is purely circumstantial and not absolute proof, but not an illogical conclusion."
...once more I find that I agree with David Rudiak's take on this.
What I wonder about is the circumstantial nature of the 'finding' of the slides. An old Box-o-Slides does not prove a chain of custody, but due-diligence does require examination...
@ CommanderCronus
IIRC, Date codes are not visible on mounted slides. Tampering would be evident upon removal of the film, or even before removal. Even if the hoaxer found period, unused mounts, and simulated the aged glue, there is the problem of finding film stock, creating the 'body', shooting it, processing the film (which had to have been done no later than Dec 2010, by non-Kodak facilities (Dwayne's Labs), in addition to any possible, but unaccounted for, differences between unprocessed film aging, and recently processed film aging, etc.
.
All highly unlikely, especially since even a perfectly hoaxed slide can't possibly provide provenance for the 'body', or any evidence of what it is.
.
Only a date code from later than 1947 would disconnect the slides from Roswell, but, again, not from the subject in the slides.
....
Albert:
My take is the same as yours. A modern hoax would be very, very difficult, requiring finding 1947 Kodachrome film stock in pristine condition with no significant deterioration. Don't know if the cardboard sleeve glue was tested. If it was modern, that would point to modern hoax. Finding or reproducing late '40s glue used by Kodak would be very difficult.
Here is a website showing many examples of how old film developed now turns out. In the worst cases towards the bottom, the film is very fogged, splotchy, and grainy, with color imbalances.
http://www.filmrescue.com/samples/
Assuming the modern hoax to be 40 to 60 years after the 1947 film stock, most film types would be in the good to very poor range. B&W holds up better, but the slides are color. Kodachrome 64 slide film is also indicated as often giving better results, but unfortunately they don't show any examples.
"Commander Cronus": See comments about about extreme difficulty of modern hoaxing of very old slide film. If the body is some deformed human oddity of something like the Mutter museum, it could easily go back to the 1947 era. The Rays traveled all over the world, as we have recently learned from the videos. If the body was from the Mutter, some archivist or docent there should recognize it.
Slilde Box Media's web page says they are trying to ID the men in this photo:
http://slideboxmedia.com/research/
Don't know about the men, but the car has a Kansas license plate, D-846?. Carfax can't ID the plate. D may stand for the county, such as Douglas, where Lawrence and the U. of Kansas are located, so maybe these guys are faculty or fellow oil geologists at the University?
Other details: Comparison of the plate to antique Kansas plates on eBay suggests that it is of 1947 vintage. The plate design seemed to change from year to year, including color changes. This one is black on white. So is 1949, but they added "The Wheat State" at the bottom, which this plate lacks.
Now the real puzzler. What is the make and year of the car? It has rather unusual vertical, square taillights. The closest I can come is the Chrysler DeSoto, but the red plastic for the Desoto protruded. This appears to be flat. The DeSoto also had a bigger, more squarish window, whereas this is much more oval. There is side, protruding horizontal trim similar to Chrysler products back then, but I've looked at Plymouths, Dodges, and Chryslers, and none seem to match the taillight or rear window. Ford, Chevy/GM, Studebaker, also don't seem to match.
Another puzzler, look at the gas cap on the left rear fender. Instead of the usual protruding, round cap of cars of that era, this appears to have a recessed cap with cover flush with the car body, like modern cars.
Anybody have any ideas on the car? Don't know if this will lead anywhere. They may be trying to ID the men and see if there are relatives who might remember the Rays. The men all appear middle aged, late 30's to 50's, so long since dead.
Since CommanderChronus brought up the Mutter medical museum in Philadelphia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFY4BxNgge0/
See 35" in (Teratology,or the study of human deformities) and 2:17 in for small skeletons with oversized heads.
David,
Is it a 1941 or 42 Ford Super Deluxe?
Lance
Albert,
does the film stock have to match the cardboard sleeves? Because the box contained plenty of old kodachrome slides inside their sleeves, so unless the slide has to match the sleeve, I assumed one could just take any of the slides out of their sleeve and slip in the fraudulent one, and glue it back together. I could be wrong, though.
But as for the film stock, you're right. That would be a problem for a modern hoaxer. Whatever the case, I suspect the slide is not modern...it probably just shows a strange exhibit that someone photographed around 1947. As for the human or humanoid in the photo, I've never really bought the extraterrestrial hypothesis for UFOs anyway. I don't think any being that evolved on another planet is going to have one head, two arms, two legs...etc. If such beings do exist, I believe their origin is somewhere on this planet.
"Is it a 1941 or 42 Ford Super Deluxe?"
Lance, I believe you've nailed it. Thanks.
http://www.secondchancegarage.com/public/photogallery3/1941-ford-super-deluxe-rear.cfm
http://www.tedvernon.com/itemimages/1941-Ford-Opera-Coupe-Deluxe-Washington-Blue-22500.002.jpg
https://www.flickr.com/photos/47661552@N00/4769770017/
Now if we could only ID the license plate.
b"h
@Larry
". . .Seems like an area for research, to me."
To me it seems there's much research that has not taken place. If the clip of Tyson glancing at the photos is part of the "research" then I roll my eyes.
Nevertheless, I appreciate your commentary above on the slides. I've just read comments at UFO Chronicles by "Larry, Aerospace Professional" and wondered if you are one and the same. In any case, there the comment is that the cadaver is not four feet, but:
"11. Given that the body is about 3 feet long, if it is human, then it must be either a child or an adult with a developmental disorder. (Human Trisomy 17 has been suggested as a candidate.)"
http://www.theufochronicles.com/2014/07/new-details-of-alleged-roswell-alien.html
Three feet in height would not require ten years.
As to the Ray's being childless, if it is a matter of official state records, then fine. But so far as I know, no one has said where the information about being childless came from. Thus, for example, a geology article featuring Mr. Ray might have said that he and his wife "have no children." But this would not mean they never had a child. They simply might not want to go into details in public. So if it's from public records, fine, but it would be helpful to say so.
For me, this slides episode appears so stained with that ancient philosphy, I-Cha-Ching, (Mexico City on Cinco de Mayo) that I seriously doubt more scientific data will be obtained than from photos of a bearded-thalidomide-girl.
Yes, it appears that, developmentally, kids are expected to get to be 36" at about 3 years old.
Why did Larry say 10 years?
Dunno, but I'll add it to my earlier question to him above.
Lance
I've presented some of my research on the (non-alien) photos to Adam Dew @ SlideBox Media. The car is a 1941 Ford Super Deluxe. My research suggest the plate was issued in 1945, and I suspect the "D" designation to denote it belongs to a dealer: Ford, I presume. By the late 1940's, the car could have been resold from any used car lot though. The largest Ford dealer in Kansas at the time was Mosby-Mack Motor Co., in Topeka. I believe that I have identified (some) of the hunters, and provided that information to Adam. If I'm correct, the inclusion of that photo will reinforce the general belief/acceptance that the Ray's were well-connected: politically, at least.
I have offered my opinion that the slide with a collection of trailers, featured in the SlingBox Media documentary trailer, is not that mysterious and does not, in itself, connect the Ray's to the military. In 1946, many colleges and universities across the US were inundated by exponentially high enrolment rates, as returning servicemen sought to complete degrees. The government paid for or subsidized their education. Enrolment more than doubled at most colleges/universities. Many had to hastily erect additional student housing, particularly for the frequently married GI's, and many colleges accessed the thousands of military surplus trailers available, to address the problem. "Trailer towns" sprung up across campuses across the country. I have not yet identified the specific location featured in the photo, but am focusing research on either West/North Texas, and Kansas.
I'll leave other researches (armchair and otherwise) to focus on analysis of the slides with the entities. My interest revolves around the Rays, and how they came to be in ownership of the two out-of-place slides. I'm working on three working hypotheses:
1. The Ray’s were present at a viewing of the deceased entity(s), and took the pictures themselves;
2. The Ray’s obtained a slide depicting the deceased entity(s) after the fact, from a person(s) (unknown), at a moment in time (unknown), and for a reason (unknown);
3. If the slides were (as has been reported in some internet forums) hidden, and separate from the other slides (behind the inner lining of the box/chest, as has been variously “reported”), there is a (remote) chance that the slides were hidden from view from the Ray's themselves, and, somehow the box/chest became the property of the Rays after the fact. If that’s the case, the Rays may not have ever actually seen the slides themselves.
One more issue. Can we please start calling him Bernard Ray? I believe that the one printed professional reference to his name (with an "e) was a typo. As was reference to his middle name as "Arthur". His name, and reference in Ancestry.com, and numerous newspaper references was Bernard Albert Ray. He went by Albert or "Al". Conventional wisdom suggests that he his middle name was Arthur, he might have gone with "Art".
I'd welcome constructive and respectful contribution to researching the whole source and "chain of command" side of the entire collection of slides. Insight into the Rays, their connections and associations, travel, etc., will undoubtedly shed light on the investigation and help validate the authenticity of the slides.
I look forward to the SlideboxMedia documentary.
@Greg
Your Point 3. is interesting. If the slides were hidden, who knows how many folks owned the box before the Rays acquired it?
...
Gregory Phipps,
I basically agree on your points. On the very minor point of Bernerd/Barnard Rays correct spelling, according to Ancestry.com, the Social Security Death Index has him as Bernerd, "Find A Grave" has him as Bernerd, and that is what is on his tombstone, and the 1930's U.S. Census has him as Bernerd.
On the identify of the car in one of the Ray photos, Lance Moody on another Kevin thread likewise identified the car as a 1941 Fort Super Deluxe. I speculated the "D" on the license plate might stand for the county, such as Douglas, Lawrence, Kansas being the county seat, also home of the U. of Kansas. My best guess (and that is all it was) was that maybe some of the men in the photo were from the university, maybe fellow oil geologists.
I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on who the men were, if you care to share here.
When I was growing up as a kid in Nevada in the 1950s, when it was still a very unpopulated state like Kansas, the letters on the license plates stood for the counties. "C" stood for Clark County (Las Vegas), "W" was Washoe County (Reno), "D" was Douglas County, "CH" was Churchill county, etc. My father when he was in the Nevada legislature in the early 1950s was given the license "C21", which is still in the family.
The license plate in the photo also resembles those issued in 1947 (black on a white background) based on those being sold on eBay. 1949 was also black on white, but with "The Wheat State" added at the bottom.
Lance asked:
"The Maussan video shows glimpses of some slides, small and low quality. Even though they are not very clear, one can see what looks like a head and body. In another one there is what appears to be a face.
Elsewhere blow up stills directly from the video were posted. You came in and said that those images were not what you saw."
I consider this issue moot since on Friday Rich posted a grabbed frame showing what I believe to be one of the authentic slides, being displayed on a computer monitor. If that slide came from one of the Maussan videos, then so be it.
However, just to clear the air: when I wrote that "those images were not what I saw", I was referring specifically and only to the stills (4 of them as I recall) that were apparently framegrabbed and posted on Rich's blog site some days earlier under a headline like: “are these the Roswell slides”, or some such. At the time I wrote the statement, I had not watched the Maussan video from which they were presumably grabbed (still haven't actually) so I couldn’t comment on what was in the video. All I was doing was answering the narrow question that Rich posed, to the effect that the slide images that I had seen in the presence of their owner were not represented in the 4 framegrabbed images.
With regard to the size and development of the body: back a year ago, I tossed out an estimate of 3 feet for the length of the body and a few days ago I used approximately 4 feet. Keep in mind that I saw digital images of the slides on a computer screen for a total of maybe 10 to 15 minutes. I took away no copies of any sort. I also did not have any measuring instruments and I don't recall seeing anything in the images whose size I knew with precision, so I am estimating body size based on comparison to uncertain surroundings. For example, I recall some light colored upright rails that seemed to be perforated metal struts of the type that are often used to support shelves in a laboratory. I made a guess that they were 1 inch wide (because that is a commonly used dimension in US construction), and on that basis, I would estimate that the bodies would be closer to the 3 foot length. However, if the struts were 1 1/4 inches wide, then the body would be 25% longer, and so on.
So I guess you could say that my current best estimate for the length of the body would be about 3 1/2 feet plus or minus 15% error. However, I’ve never recommended that anyone take that estimate to the bank, nor do I see that it is necessary to do so. After the images are publicly released, I am sure that someone will perform a more accurate estimate based on actual metrology. For all I know, someone has already done so and I just don't know about it. In other words, my estimates were and remain evolving approximations, filtered through a lot of uncertainty, imprecision, and memory loss.
As I wrote elsewhere, the length of the head (chin to crown) seemed to be about the same as the length of the torso. (That is simply comparing one part of the body to another, without saying anything about the absolute size of either the head or the torso.) And yet, the long bones seem to have started to develop. One interpretation of this combination is that the cadaver has an abnormally short torso. Another is that it has an abnormally large head. The first interpretation would lead to the speculation that the age at time of death was greater than the body stature would indicate, in a normal human. If the estimated body length is 3 feet, that would imply a chronological age somewhat greater than 5 years. An estimated body length of 4 feet could imply a chronological age close to 10 years. On the other hand, the interpretation of an abnormally large head would push the age estimates to numbers closer to normal humans’. So I would say that the height range of 3 to 4 feet corresponds to chronological ages between roughly 5 and 10 years, depending on which interpretation of the head-to-torso length ratio you want to adopt.
David, I kind of feel sorry for Bernard/Bernerd now. His name had been spelled incorrectly by many while he was alive, and since. I feel some compulsion to figure this out, and get it categorically correct, out of respect to him.
The subtlety of the license plate (that I viewed online) is that in 1945 and 1947, they placed the numbers 19 before "Kansas", and 45/47 after "Kansas". In 1946, they put only the last two numbers ("46"), after the word 'Kansas", with no "19" at all. In 1948, the license plate seems to have changed to a black background, and in 1949, they added "The Wheat State" to the bottom of the plate. In all the Kansas license plates I found online, I had not seen any, from 1945 or 1947, that included a letter(s) before the numbers, separated by a hyphen. At first, I thought the D might designate "Doctor", remembering that in many states, contemporary license plates for physicians have "MD". Then, I saw examples of dealer plates, from numerous other states, from that era, that had a "D", and were definitively designated as dealer plates. I may be wrong, of course, but believe it to be a dealer plate. However, other than that associated with the pheasant hunt photo, I have yet to see a picture of a plate, from Kansas, from that era, that includes a "D" followed by a hyphen.
I believe that I have had some success in possibly identifying several of the men, although, given their attire, caps that throw shadows over their faces, and the fact that the sun is in their eyes and they are all squinting, I place a probability of accuracy at maybe 50%. If anyone sends me an email, I would be happy to provide a MS Word doc that includes the names, some background information and a picture from that era, which I used to try and identify them. They are all political figures, professionals, from Kansas, who enjoyed some profile and were considered leaders during the time the photo was likely taken. For what it's worth, they are all Republicans. I welcome debate, and/or alternative identification of the hunting party.
I still have no idea why the Rays might have spent time in Kansas though.
The photo of the little dog, with the little brass tag around his neck, has me intrigued (as much as a dog tag possibly can). I'm trying to figure out if "Manhattan", is:
1. Name of the dog;
2. Name of the city in Kansas that issued the tag;
If you're inclined to conspiracy theories, and think that the Rays had some sort of connection to the military, you might be inclined to think the dog was so named as some sort of inside joke: connecting the Rays to the Manhattan Project, in bordering New Mexico (1939-1947). Naw..... If the tag was issued in Manhattan, Kansas, then we have an additional connection to Kansas.
Somebody please release more non-alien slides!
One of the first places I took the slides was the Mutter Museum. Their head of public relations saw them and spent an hour with me. He showed me some specimens (even some things in the back not on display) that he thought might explain what was in the pictures. I left understanding that the human body is capable of stunning things. But I didn't see anything resembling whats in the slides. For what it's worth.
Gregory,
Reviewing 1940s and other Kansas plates on eBay, I believe you are right. There are two dealer plates from the 1960s and 1980s with "D-" as on the Ray photo car. Almost all of the 1940s plates I see there seem to have one or two numbers (perhaps coded by county) followed by a dash. One from 1947 starts with "T86-", another from 1945 with "T31-", three from 1950 start with T, one indicating that "T" stands for "Truck". The leading number again probably is the code for county.
In 1951, the leading number code seems to have been replaced with two letter vertical county codes (first letter at top, second at bottom). DK, e.g. is Dickenson County; FO is Ford County, etc.
Now that you've given the clue that the men in the picture may be Republican Kansas politicians, the man at the far right resembles Andrew Frank Schoeppel, the Kansas governor from 1943-1947 and U.S. Senator from 1949-1962. The man at the far left has a large chin and resembles Schoeppel's successor as governor, Frank Carlson (1947-1950), and U.S. Senator 1950-1969. The man in the center with the orange hat may be Frank L. Hagaman, Lt. Governor.
Assuming this is partly right and Bernerd Ray was out with the boys hunting and took the picture, instead of his wife, this would indeed indicate he was politically connected. If we could ID the partial license plate, we might be able to verify some of this.
David, I reiterate that if you want to email me (phipps.gregory@gmail.com), I'd be happy send along my document with pictures of the hunters, for your expert eye and opinion. I have (tentatively) identified them, from left to right as: James B. Person; either Charles D. Stough, or Will Townsley; either Orville C. Walker or Merl Lemert; John Wilbur Ripley; C.T. Henderson (greatest confidence of accuracy), and the last (far right) remains a mystery. At first I thought it was Edward Arn (governor of KS from 1951-55), but I've lost confidence with that identification. Really, it's hard to view those names without a corresponding picture to link them.
On another note, I have just received email confirmation, from Dr. David Vail, Public Services Archivist in the Morse Department of Special Collections, Kansas State University, that the photo of the "army" trailers, is indeed a photo, from 1946, of "trailerville" at K-State, located at the corner of Claflin Rd. and Denison Ave. These were placed in an area carved out from pasture to accommodate GI's, with families, that had just enrolled at K-State after returning from the war. It was known then as West Campus Courts.
This places the Rays in Kansas, and adds depth to the connection between the Rays and the State. We now have a dog tag with Manhattan Kansas issuance; a hunting photo clearly taken in Kansas, and a group of trailers at Kansas State U. I should add that Milton Eisenhower was President at K-State (in Manhattan) from 1943-1950 and his wife Helen was from Manhattan.
I'm headed down a research path now that may link the Rays to Milton/Helen mores than Dwight/Mamie, although they may have been connected to both, through a professional relationship and/or as close friends. On that note, I might have a (little) smoking gun that I'd like to share for consumption, review and opinion. Stay tuned to my next post.....
Helen, Milton Eisenhower's spouse, died July 10, 1954, at age 50. I have found a video clip from her funeral (without audio). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E_Z4vJk50o
I scanned the video repeatedly looking for the Rays. One of the pallbearers caught my attention time and again. He's on the right side of coffin (far side in the video), second from front. With screen shots in hand, I compared to pictures of "Al" Ray from the Geological Society yearbook, and damn, they match up pretty closely, to my eye. I'd appreciate some additional eyes on this.
If this is actually Al Ray, then we've got pretty strong confirmation of close personal ties to at least Milton/Helen Eisenhower, if not also Dwight, during his Presidency. If we take that "leap" (cue onslaught of criticism), I will remind you that February 20-21, 1954 was the date(s) of Eisenhower's purported meeting with aliens entities at Muroc/Edwards, in California. While still a stretch, that (potentially) creates a link between Eisenhowers-aliens-Rays-photo slides.
So someone at the Mutter who looks at this kind of thing for a living thought that it looked like a human specimen? Very interesting.
And you spent a whole hour there and then moved on. Nice!
Yep. Sounds like a UFO investigation.
Regarding Ike's alleged visit to Edwards AFB to view aliens on Feb 20, 1954 has anyone ever consulted the Ike library to see the archives there?
The official spokesman at the time said something about Ike having a painful tooth extraction whilst in California. Presumably this would be given in the archives (perhaps without mentioning the "painful").
Gregory,
Don't know the Ray's possible Kansas connection, but the families were generally from the Midwest, according to 1930 U.S. census on ancestry.com. Bernerd Ray's father was from Iowa and his mother from Minnesota. Hilda Blair Ray's parents were from Kentucky and Illinois.
According to ancestry.com, city directories place the Rays in Midland, Texas during the 1950s.
Yes, David Rudiak, it's generally accepted that the Rays lived in Midland, Texas during the 40's and 50's. I'm told (but can't confirm) that they divorced in 1960 and Hilda moved to Sedona, AZ, where she died, in 1988. Al remained in Midland and (I'm told) remarried.
If the slides were indeed found in home in Sedona, that previously belonged to Hilda, then it gives rise to another mystery (to me, at least). When couples split, they usually divide matrimonial property of any value. Given the significance of the slides, I wonder what happened during that split. They must have understood the significance of those slides. Even to the uninitiated, these would have been pretty impactful. Were the slides originally conveyed to Hilda so she believed that she maintained a right to them during the divorce, and Al accepted that? Did Al just not care? Did Al just up and leave the home and all its contents? Here's an interesting thought. Given the perceived value of the slides, did they split them? In other words, are there more slides out there somewhere? Two for Hilda, two for Al.........Maybe there's another box full of slides from the late forties somewhere in an attic, in Midland, right now, awaiting discovery.
cda, regarding Ike's purported visit to Muroc, Feb, 1954, there's been a bit of research done by numerous people, over the years. Depending on who and what you believe, there are many discrepancies and gaps in the record for that period, that remain unsolved. Of course, I have not personally been to the Eisenhower library to confirm. Here's a couple of URL's linking to background of the "event".
http://exopolitics.org/Study-Paper-8.htm
http://www.ufocasebook.com/1954eisenhoweraliens.html
I had visited your website which was really good slide products
Post a Comment