Is
there a connection between the Roswell UFO crash and the alleged crash at
Aztec? Is there a reason to believe that the Roswell slides and Hilda Ray are
that connection and is there documentation to prove it?
It
seems that the connection had been made. It seems that Hilda Ray, an attorney,
had represented Silas Newton in a 1946 court case. She was on the defense team
that represented Newton. Documentation with her name on it had been found by someone and
forwarded to various UFO researchers. It was speculated that Ray, because of
her relationship with Newton might have mentioned something to him about the
Roswell UFO crash and the alien bodies that sparked Newton’s claim of a crash
near Aztec in March 1948.
This
seemed to be a rather nebulous connection based in part on speculation. We don’t
know when she might have been introduced to the Roswell case, if the slides
that might have been hers were, in fact, of an alien killed in the crash or
that she had any sort of inside knowledge. It also suggests that an attorney,
who understood keeping secrets, would be discussing something like the crash
with a man who was being defended engaging in a con… But I digress.
The
problem? The court case cited, when accessed through independent sources has no
mention of Hilda Ray as being associated with the defense. That site (or cite
for those who have a pun oriented nature) can be found here:
Like so much of the UFO world, we are now encountering forged
documents to derail the investigation into the slides. This doesn’t mean that the
slides show an alien creature. That has yet to be proven to all of us out here.
What it means is that someone out here, maybe with an interest in the Aztec
case, is attempting to provide some legitimacy for Aztec. Not necessarily that there
was a crash there, though there are certainly a number of people who believe
that, but that the Aztec case is the Roswell case repackaged. Aztec is Roswell
but with much of the information in error.
All
that is interesting, but the truth is that currently, there is no connection
between Hilda Ray and Silas Newton. Because Ray’s husband was involved in the
oil industry, and because the Rays made it to some high profile golf tournaments
(Newton, according to the records, was quite the golfer, winning a couple of
tournaments) it might mean they ran into Newton at some oil function or at one
of these matches, but that connection would be much more difficult to prove.
Not to mention that Newton operated out of Denver and the Rays were in Midland…
a fairly wide circle, so wide that their paths might not have crossed but if
they had they might not have met each other.
Nick
Redfern provides much more information on all this, including a column
published on March 15, 2015 and a follow up published on March 16. You can read
it here:
At
any rate we can now close the book on this particular diversion. It doesn’t
prove anything other than document forgers are still running around inside the
UFO community.
21 comments:
First Redfern said the "document" was genuine. The next day he realized someone had altered the real court case document involving Silas Newton to make it appear Hilda Ray was his defense attorney.
Since Redfern also said: "Information has now surfaced demonstrating a pre-Roswell connection between the Rays and none other than Silas Newton. We have Rich Reynolds to thank for this."
Does this mean Reynolds is the hoaxer or was he passing on a hoax without doing any sort of due diligence on the "document" to see if it was genuine?
We also know that Reynolds has been pushing a Newton/Ray/Aztec connection for over a year on his blog. Previously he claimed there was another document linking Newton to the Rays, in fact claiming Newton was Bernerd Ray's "boss", and provided a broken link to it. I finally found it elsewhere and discovered it said nothing more than Newton was exploring the Sedona, Arizona, area for gas and oil, with nothing about either Bernerd or HIlda Ray.
Hilda Ray much later moved to Sedona, where supposedly the slides were found, but that hardly shows a connection between Newton and the Rays.
When I pointed out to Reynolds that his document showed nothing like what he claimed, he launched into an invective blog against me, claiming I just didn't get it.
What didn't I get? Oh, he was just "speculating", not actually claiming as fact that Newton was Ray's boss. He then immediately changed his blog title to "UFO Conjecture's".
Rich Reynolds has a long history of inventing documents that supposedly support his "conjectures," whether it be Socorro, Aztec, or Roswell, then they turn out to be totally irrelevant. In this case, he was apparently pushing a hoaxed document. And the only question is did he hoax it or somebody else?
"First Redfern said the "document" was genuine. The next day he realized someone had altered the real court case document involving Silas Newton to make it appear Hilda Ray was his defense attorney.
Since Redfern also said: "Information has now surfaced demonstrating a pre-Roswell connection between the Rays and none other than Silas Newton. We have Rich Reynolds to thank for this."
Does this mean Reynolds is the hoaxer or was he passing on a hoax without doing any sort of due diligence on the "document" to see if it was genuine?"
As far as I understand a second documentation appeared, which was faked.Mr. Redfern still thinks that those documentation, which Mr. Reynolds found is genuine.
If a link could be made between the Rays, and either Arthur Rapp, Wilkie Conner, or Harold Watkins, then maybe you'd have something. As I have stated several times over the years, the Conner story came first, before all others (of the Aztec case).
In fact, Ion between the publishing of Wilkie's story, and Rapp being shipped off to serve in Korea with the Army, someone detonated a rather large explosive device on Arthur Rapp's front lawn. It was so loud, neighbors came from miles away to see what happened. That coild be significant to the saucer recovery story.
People are getting hugely confused on this matter. Rich R has been looking into the Newton/Ray issue and made intriguing breakthroughs regarding this.
However, the document that Kevin says is a fake is indeed a fake. I wrote about it at my blog being a fake!! Here's the link:
http://nickredfernfortean.blogspot.com/2015/03/roswell-slides-murky-development.html
Rich has his original research on the Ray/Newton link which is genuine.
He was then sent a document that was clearly doctored and intended to support the good material.
Of course, had Rich published the doctored document it would have raised questions about the legitimate info - so he didn't publish it, which was very wise of him.
I pointed out to Rich that the document was hoaxed when I read it yesterday - it took me about 2 minutes to do so.
I told Rich it was faked and should not be used to support his case on the Ray/Newton issue.
But, it's important to note that the fabricated document and the good material is 2 entirely different things.
It's NOT the case that the original material is now proved a fake. The original material and the new fake are separate data.
How can there be a fake document that supports a "real" document, if only Rich Reynolds and a couple other people know what the real real document says?
And why keep the "real" document secret? If it's real, why not get as many eyes on it as possible, to prove it's authenticity? You can't say you're worried about the Illuminati or whoever covering it up, because the fake document would prove THEY already know about the document and all you're doing is giving them time to purge whatever paper archives they need to.
This is a non-event and non-story. A false start.
Rich Reynolds was emailed this document by someone, and it turned out to be fake.
He never published the document and instead waited to see about what could be learned. It turned out to be a doctored copy of a real court document and he wisely never wrote that it was.
Instead, he emailed the document to a couple of other people who informed him that it was not real and that's it...
Much ado about absolutely nothing.
Scott, I have no doubt that everything WILL be published. I think you're saying it should be published NOW. It's my understanding that Rich's research into Ray and Newton is ongoing. When he's ready he will reveal the info. Remember, it was me that revealed the story. Rich stayed quiet. Plus, he never ever published the bogus, doctored document, he only shared it with me and Tony B. We were both able to prove very quickly it was fake. But, again, the faked data and the good data are separate issues. And Rich will show what he has under his terms - which is when his research is complete or when it's at a point that it can't be taken any further.
Scott, re your Illuminati statement: I don't think at all that this fake has any connection to any government entity. It's just some nut stirring the waters for kicks.
David -
There is no evidence that Rich Reynolds faked any document. What I know is that in one specific incident it seemed to show Hilda Ray had a pre-Roswell connection to Silas Newton based on a specific court case. There is no evidence that Hilda Ray was involved in that case.
What we have here is a single document that has been altered (shades of MJ-12) that has been rejected as authentic by Nick Redfern, which is why I linked his article in the one I posted. Nick reported that he had seen the document in question and that it was apparent that it had been altered. As he noted, it took him only about two minutes to find the document to be faked.
Is there other evidence of an Aztec-Roswell connection? I don't know. It was this single piece of alleged corroboration that underscored this connection, which in and of itself meant nothing.
I though it important to reinforce what Nick had to say and that is another reason for the link. Here is a case where Rich Reynolds used his resources (Nick) to attempt to verify the legitimacy of a document before it was circulated to anyone with a note saying that it was real. Nick provided the evidence that it was not.
One thing's for sure: the controversy surrounding these slides isn't going away any time soon. Those hoping for a quick debunking or authentication will be disappointed. Even those who try and wash their hands of the issue, like Nick Redfern, seem to get pulled back in. This whole affair is turning into a long and crazy ride.
Commander, Ufology is a "long and crazy ride" - period. The entire subject!
Holy cow. That's a lot to process. Or it seems so. Aztec and Roswell are both in New Mexico. Seems to me the similarities end there.
@ CommanderCronus
.
"...Those hoping for a quick debunking..."
.
It is an interesting study, isn't it?
.
It is interesting to note how the skepti-bunkers jumped on film dating and hoax 'theories' (which hardly deserve the term) in a desperate attempt to break the 'Roswell connection'.
.
It is interesting to note how the proponents of the slides would even bring up a 'Roswell connection' at all, having absolutely nothing to base it on.
.
We've got two camps, and there's no apparent middle ground.
.
It's a tempest in a teapot, a very small teapot...better keep stoking the fire, boys, 'cause that tea is gonna cool down real quick...:)
.
...
Albert,
Which skeptics are you talking about who "jumped on film dating and hoax 'theories'"
While there are still some open questions about the dates (which may well be answered), most skeptics I know (people with names, that is) agree that the picture as we have it looks very much like a child mummy or corpse.
So the working idea among skeptics is not a hoax per se but a misidentified image taken well into the realm of hyper-exaggeration by breathless, biased hard core, unquestioning and completely unreliable believers (incredibly, the same folks that Kevin was perfectly fine being on a research "team" with)
Ironically, these guys probably ARE the best believer "researchers" on Roswell. That should give you an idea of the squalor that makes up Roswell "research".
Looking forward to May 5th!
Thanks,
Lance
@Lance
I'm not trying to link the slides to Roswell, nor am I trying to disprove such a link. I Am suggesting that debates about the film itself are fruitless, which is exactly the sort of thing debunkers latch on to, and, to be fair, extreme believers as well.
.
IMO, the film dating shows some concurrency with circa 1947 time period. This alone proves nothing. The slide could have been shot anytime up to the last documented use of the lacquer coating by Kodak, etc., etc. It's not likely, but certainly possible.
.
Debunkers were quick to criticise the dating, when all they needed to do was a little research on Google. IIRC, some even claimed the slides to be a more contemporary hoax. This is an absurd and totally unnecessary claim. Debunkers have nothing to lose by this approach, other than their credibility.
.
I have limited my discussion to the film, because that's an area I have some knowledge of.
.
I, too, await May 5, and, as you no doubt, _without_ breathless anticipation. :)
.
Best,
Lance -
Seems to me here that you managed to get a few shots in without being deleted and that includes one at me. At least you were civil even if somewhat misguided here.
"Debunkers were quick to criticise the dating, when all they needed to do was a little research on Google. IIRC, some even claimed the slides to be a more contemporary hoax."
Again, which skeptics are you talking about?
If you are talking about some anonymous BooBoo666, it is pretty unfair to paint all skeptics with that brush.
I interviewed the person that Tony claims is their photo expert and he directly contradicted what the Slide Team is claiming about manufacture date both on the phone and in an email. So there are still some questions on the dating. When it comes to this team you CANNOT underestimate their ineptitude or bias.
Lance
@Lance:
"I interviewed the person that Tony claims is their photo expert and he directly contradicted what the Slide Team is claiming about manufacture date both on the phone and in an email."
Interesting.
By "manufacture date" do you mean the year the raw, unexposed Kodachrome 35 mm film stock was manufactured and produced by Kodak, which for 1947 in the U.S. was indicated by the "edge codes" of a square followed by a triangle (like this: ■ ▲), or did you actually intend to mean when the film stock was photographically exposed to capture the "entity" imagery concerned?
I'd say that's a particularly important distinction, since there's quite some controversy about how, even if the film stock of the two slides is 1947 vintage, just when the two slides might have been then later exposed could be determined with accuracy as to a particular timeframe, such as 1947 or possibly later, so I'd like some clarification on that question.
In other words, what did the expert actually and specifically tell you that so "directly contradicted" what the "Slide Team," as you term them, has claimed about any "manufacture date"?
Sorry I missed you comment here, Steve. I did respond to your email.
Thanks,
Lance
The biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the Ufology community was by Ray Santilli with his 'Roswell Autopsy' film. What did he call the alien in the film? Hilda. What's his first name? Oh yeah it's Ray. Who is the alleged owner of these slides? Why Hilda Ray!!! I think that about says everything.
Post a Comment