Tuesday, March 03, 2015

Who is the Man in Adam Dew's Video?

The question that is being asked is who is the man in the Adam Dew video? Is there enough of him visible for us to make any sort of guess? I have studied this, compared it to the Richard Dolan video of a man who claimed to have been in Roswell and saw the bodies and to the picture of Eli Benjamin who appears in Tom Carey and Don Schmitt’s Witness to Roswell and it seems to be the same man.

Benjamin was a member of the 390th Air Service Squadron, which was part of Edwin Easley’s command, meaning that they had the mission of security on the base. The 1395th MP Company was used for patrolling the town and the like according to what Easley told me.

Of course, Eli Benjamin does not appear in the Roswell Yearbook and I would argue that doesn’t mean that he wasn’t there, only that he isn’t in the Yearbook. But, it turns out that he is under the name of PFC Eleazar Benavides.

The excuse for using a pseudonym was to protect the witness, and this I understand. As I have said before, there are too many people out there who have no sense of ethics or respect for privacy. They’ll call someone in the middle of the night to ask questions. They’ll say and publish rude things about the man because he said that he had seen an alien body. They’ll want to tell him why he is wrong.

But you really can’t have it both ways, especially once the man has agreed to a videotaped interview that is now on the Internet. It was conducted by Richard Dolan and you can view it to see if the man in the video reminds you of Benavides.

If you are going to cite the man’s story as evidence of the crash, then you have an obligation to provide the name of the witness. Anonymous testimony in the world today is useless. Highly places sources and insiders and others often used to provide a view of a story don’t help us much. We have reached the point where the names are required for the evidence to be worthwhile.…

Benavides was concerned that his pension would be revoked and while that might be a real concern to him, I know of no one who has lost a military pension because he or she talked about flying saucers, UFOs, crashed disks, or alien bodies. It would be interesting to see how the government would revoke a pension without revealing what crime the soldier had committed was. There would simply be no justification for it.

So, the point here is that I believe that the man on Adam Dew’s video clip, the man who ties the creature in the slides to Roswell is Eleazar Benavides. He seems to be sincere, but then so did Frank Kaufmann and Glenn Dennis. In the world today I don’t know how this will be received other than to say that it will take more than one former member of the 509th to corroborate the appearance of the creature on the slides.… and yes, I get that this happened a long time ago and that those who actually saw bodies, if they existed, are probably now beyond our ability to interview them.


Kurt Peters said...

Adam Dew's video claims the man is a Lieutenant, but obviously Benavides was a PFC.
Why would Dew make a claim like that?
It reminds me of Kaufmann's false claim of being an officer with an enlisted 'cover' for intelligence purposes.

Lance said...

He's anything you want him to be!

This name, etc. has been well known for quite a while. Paul Kimball released the name at his blog several days ago.

KRandle said...

Kurt Peters (if that really is your name) -

That is why I took a little time to review the materials... but I think that many people who were never in the military just don't understand some of the customs, courtesies and protocols...

Anthony Bragalia said...

The man was assured of his privacy in order that he may give testimony.

His name was not used in the documentary.

He was given a pseudonym in the Witness to Roswell book.

His name was found by an illegal act- stolen information from my hacked emails.

Paul Kimball posted the man's name, location and pictures of his home online.

Posting pics of his home serves absolutely no journalistic purpose whatsoever and puts him in physical danger.

There are many nuts out there. If this 90 year old man is harassed and harm comes to him- people such as Paul Kimball and Tim Printy are solely to blame.

Lance Moody has threatened a 'road trip' to Albuquerque to grill the man. Lance now says he was only 'joking.' Sick behavior from a sick individual.

Using information from my stolen emails and posting pictures of an elderly man's home and threatening to harass the man- if this is what 'Ufology' has come too, I shall quit. Vile, nasty behavior reminiscent of hate groups.

And the new 'anti-Roswell slide group' is laughable. They have never even seen the slides that they are 'studying.' And if they have, they were stolen from team members through the illegal act of hacking- a federal offense.

KRandle said...

Tony -

I will say it again. I learned the man's name years ago. He is being used in the documentary about the slides. You simply cannot use an anonymous source to prove a connection to slides that have no provenance.

The name was out there before the hacking took place. If you wished to protect his identity, then he shouldn't have appeared in the documentary and he should have told Richard Dolan that he didn't want to be seen on tape. Did you really think his name would not be learned?

Tim Hebert said...


Doesn't Adam Dew have some degree of fault to this? He plastered the man's image and home on video trailers...all this prior to Tim Printy and Paul Kimball coming up with the real name which appears to be quite legal and easily accessible on numerous Roswell sites. And its pretty easy to do an on-line check doing process of elimination as far as those in the Roswell year book.

You need to start by twisting Dew's tail...

Besides, what are you worried about? Come May 5th we will all be treated to undeniable truths linking the photos to Roswell...right?

Anthony Bragalia said...


adam Dew never used the name of the elderly Roswell serviceman in his video.

And using a man's image means nothing and reveals little.You could have used Google Image search and never have found him, prior to Kimball's illicit release.

As an example,if I walked into a room and you saw me, you would have no idea who I am. My image has never been included along with my name on the Net. An image in a video trailer was not enough to ever find the elderly man.

And I beseech you and Kevin and Lance to explain to me here and now:

What journalistic purpose does posting the pictures of this man's home online have? Yes, he was shown in front of his garage in Dew's video, but that does not equate to what Kimball did which was to post multiple whole-house pictures of it as well as the location of the elderly man.

Let me remind everyone that the use of pseudonyms is a time-honored practice which enables reluctant witnesses to come forward and for us to obtain testimony that might otherwise be unobtainable. That is why it was done in the Witness to Roswell book.

Kevin, you did know his name and never released it. Tim, the name was stolen by a hacker and released by one Ross Evans, who was working with the hacker. Sorry guys, this is the real way it was obtained. If you think it was not found that way and made public- you are wrong.

And Tim, what am I worried about? You must be kidding. Paul Kimball -who has a history of making public private things such as Kevin's emails- laid a 90 year old man bare to home intrusion, nuts and kooks who will harass him with night calls and unwanted visits from 'researchers' such as Lance Moody.

Call me old-fashioned, but I respect privacy and the very elderly. It is how I was raised.

If harm comes to this man, his blood is on the hands of those like Kimball who try to insert themselves into the slide saga at any cost.

Gilles Fernandez said...


You teach to others what you dont apply to yourself.

When you revealed Jacobsen's source in your blog, where was the "ethic" you teach now?

"Revival" in you are suffering false-memories:

Ms. Jacobsen’s source about this Roswell story is unnamed by her in the blockbuster book. He wanted to remain anonymous. Annie Jacobsen kept her promise. I did not learn her source from her or from anyone associated with her publishing company. His identity and his background is revealed here and now
This author has identified and located Annie Jacobsen’s anonymous source. I have also decided, after much consideration, to “out” him. In this article I will openly name him.

Double-speech, double-standards at their bests, no?


Gilles Fernandez said...


And for your knowledge, Tony, "the witness of the slide/ Elie Benjamin", have his picture in the RAAF 1947 Yearbook presented in a Canadian TV UFO documentary about Roswell and is pointed/interviewed as Elie Benjamin...

So, to be short and out psychodrama, no need to hack your email as you seem to believe/imagine to retrieve/dig-in his real name if you have (as I have) the RAAF Yearbook... There are 50 pathes for this, you choose it was found hacking your emails... Come on, Tony... ;)



Anthony Bragalia said...


I am so glad that you brought this up as I replied to Kimball's post on me on this very thing. Kimball -very strangely- refused to publish my comment.

The essential difference is this:

Alfred O'Donnel's name can be found at least twice in Jacobsen's book. I simply deduced that it was him as he was the only one still living that she mentions in a group of EG&G names in the book. That is to say, his name appeared in print in the volume.

This is wholly unlike what Tom and Don did with their elderly witness.

He was not named and he was assigned a pseudonym.

I await your response and also am eager to hear how you can justify the publication of the serviceman's home and address. A 90 year old man who you all have likely terrified.

In the winter of my life, I hope to be free of harassing night calls, threats from people to visit my home (like Lance Moody has threatened) or the online publication of my home and address.

Gilles, what kind of moral compass do you have that you condone this kind of behavior.

And again, if you, Printy, Moody or Kimball have the slides, they were obtained illegally. Of that I am certain. Tom Carey's system was cyberlocked recently. Someone is trying to steal, and if any of you are in possession of stolen goods, you are criminal.

Anthony Bragalia said...


You are showing your ignorance. Eli Benjamin was the psuedonym given by Tom Carey and Don for this elderly man! You make my point. Neither the Canadian documentary, nor the Witness book, nor the Dew video give this man's actual name!

To do otherwise -as others have done- and reveal his actual name (even if it has been published before) is wrong and serves only to endanger the man. The excuse the 'someone else already did it so why can't I' is the way children think. Wrong is wrong.

Gilles Fernandez said...

Concerning your "essential difference" and particulary Alfred O'Donnel's name can be found at least twice in Jacobsen's book.

As pointed in my previous PS, the real name of Elie Benjamin is then one time in a Canadian TV documentary.

I simply deduced that it was him

Same did "I".

In essence, your "essential difference" is counter-argumented in 2 seconds. Sorry again...

Please, avoid to call me "criminal", thank you. that's only ufology, after all ;)

I have not the slides, "I" worked, (as our team) only from the blurred images of Drew teaser or some your claims and how you discarted mummies and several prosaic leads/pists, and more. Period.

But well, when the slides released in May, we will see if it is an "Alien" as your team have claimed/teased for a while now.

If you are so certain of this, they depict an alien, sleep softly, you will give a good lesson to the "skeptics" or circonspect of your team claims.
Question of weeks, then.

Cool, zen...



KRandle said...

Tony -

First, his name can be deduced from Tom and Don's book. I was able to do it. They weren't very clever in using the pseudonym.

Second, when his story was printed in the book, it was one of many, not as important as it has become today.

Third, you have slides that you don't know when they were taken, you don't know who took them and you don't know where they were taken. To link them to Roswell, you have the testimony of one man who said he was there and he saw bodies. He confirms that the bodies he saw look like that in the slide. He is the sole ssource on this and that has elevated his importance to the story. You simply cannot have an anonymous source telling us this is real and have us believe that testimony. Without his name attached to his testimony it is virtually useless... and with it attached, there is, at the very least, corroboration the guy was in Roswell at the right time.

And there is one other thing that has been bothering me, but has nothing to do with this. Did anyone see the slides in their cardboard holders before Dew took them out? Were they examined carefully before they were pulled apart because it is clear that the film has been removed from the holder... and I'll add this. If you cannot prove that the slide holders were intact, then you have lost another valuable bit of evidence.

Anthony Bragalia said...

Kevin and Gilles-

Show me precisely how it can be deduced that the elderly man's real name can be had by simply reading Witness to Roswell. What clues are provided that will lead one to know the exact identity of this man? Carry me through that process.


You are wrong.

-O'Donnell did not request anonymity as did the elderly serviceman nor did he receive it. Though i refer to Jacobsen's source as 'anonymous' - in reality only his connection to the Soviet-Roswell story was.

-O'Donnell is the only still-living EG&G employee referred to by (actual) name in the book, so it had to be him.

-O'Donnell allowed his real name to be used in the book, the elderly serviceman did not.

- also I await how you excuse Kimball publishing whole-house pics of his house with his location. How does that benefit anyone, and does it not just potentially endanger an old man? I am still waiting your response but I believe you have none.


In answer to your question about the slides and a tie to Roswell-

1)We have 1947 slides of a big-headed, 3.5 feet tall being with overly-long, spindly legs and arms and neck and large eyes that appears humanoid and is not- sorry- a mummy. Let's see...do I hear Roswell?

And yes, I have read that you believe that such aliens were talked about in '47 -but i fail to see it, not with all of those characteristics just listed. Simply, this creature looks everything like what the witnesses to the Roswell bodies reported and nothing like what the popular culture at the time had in their psyche as an image of an alien. Though you think differently, I fail to see a good example, including the one you provided on your blog a week or so ago. Not the same.

2)Bernerd Ray worked the Roswell region as an exploration geologist in the 1940s and published on his travels in the Permian Basin- more than curious.

3)Bernerd Ray essentially quit the field after 1947, resigning his post in an organization that led New Mexico oil explorations and never published again. More than curious.

4)The slides were hidden and packaged separately away from the other 400 slides in the chest, giving them special meaning and significance.

5)In the actual slides (not dumbed-down video grabs) it is evident that these were not well-framed photos. They are shot askew, as if taken surreptitiously.

Gilles Fernandez said...

That is why it was done in the Witness to Roswell book.

I think, Tony you missed our point.

In Drew's teaser, not well-informed people regarding the Roswell modern and contemporan myth could have the impression this witness is very "new" and then none social contamination/contagion variables regarding the Roswell myth may be or are at play regarding him and his claims regarding the slides.

The true (your real quest, I doubt?) is that he is not a "new", not "immune", not a "virgin" witness, but already well immersed in the Roswell myth, several previous appearances in TV documentaries, and "closed" to Carey and Schmitt "storytellers", when he made claims regarding the slides.

Period and Human Sciences contextualization of this witness.



Gilles Fernandez said...

O'Donnell did not request anonymity

So, in 2 seconds and the time to write you will point us when he agreed you publish his real name.

Tic tac tic tac...

KRandle said...

Really, Tony?

Walk you through the process?


They tell us that the man is a member of the 390th ASS. We could eliminate everyone who was not a PFC. Granted there were a lot of them, but there was only one with the initials of E. B... And I know from experience that those making up pseudonyms often stick with the proper initials. There is a single entry in the Yearbook who met all those requirements. True, I was taking a flier by assuming that E. B. was the man's initials, but then, I wasn't wrong, was I?

The point is in all of the Yearbook, there was a single man who met all these requirements and if I could figure out, so could others.

But, as I say, his testimony wasn't all that important when he was one voice in among many... but since he is the glue that binds the slides to the Roswell aliens, his importance has been elevated, not by any of us, but by those who are attaching that importance to his role.

Gilles Fernandez said...

PS to Tony:

When you claim 1) to 5) CLAIMS, please source them, or it is only claims. and not FACTS. And then, well that's ufology after all.

Thank you very much.


Capt Steve said...

"Bernerd Ray essentially quit the field after 1947, resigning his post in an organization that led New Mexico oil explorations and never published again. More than curious."

Tony, can you explain why this is pertinent to the validity of the slides? I'm not seeing a connection...

Gilles Fernandez said...

Tony Wrote "Kevin and Gilles-
Show me precisely how it can be deduced that the elderly man's real name can be had by simply reading Witness to Roswell"

You missed all again. Again and again
There was 50 pathes to identify him. "I", or Paul pointed ONE of them.

In the Canadian Roswell documentary, his photo in the YEARBOOK was presented. So UFO "geeks" like us (well me), it is so easy to associate a real name to Eli Benjamin when the yearbook photo pointed in a Roswell myth documentary...

Wake up Tony, we are in 2015, and all the storymakers will present is now easy to debunk...

Welcome in 2015 if you are in 1947 and the Roswell Mythmakers pseudoscientific methodology used in the 90's.

Now, you are facing not the debunkers of UFO of the 50's 60's, but people/skeptics well immersed in ufology.



Anthony Bragalia said...


I was unaware that "often" pseudonyms use the real initials of a source. Your 'Steve MacKenzie' was Frank Kaufmann for example...

And just because you could deduce his name does not give license for anyone to publish it, and his address, and pictures of his home and incite people on a road trip to 'visit' him as Moody has done, and potentially jeopardize a very elderly man's health and safety and well-being. The means do not justify the ends.

Very importantly, the elderly witness was found, he did not come forward. He did not approach anyone about this, it was he who was contacted. And he was at first very reluctant to discuss this at all. He was not eager to do so. He did not have a 'made-up story' at the ready.

And just because the story of the Roswell crash is out there does by no means whatsoever mean that all witness testimony related to it is false or fabricated or 'contaminated.' This makes no sense at all. By this faulty logic, anyone who has anything to say as a witness to Roswell is confabulating. Did it occur to you Gilles that some people do in fact tell the truth...the unvarnished truth because it really happened?


That he would quit his professional life the very year of the crash and the very year of the slides of a creature in his possession looking like the creatures reported at Roswell is telling indeed.

Something life-changing of real significance had to have happened. Many changed after they witnessed Roswell...many became alcoholic, many became 'changed.' I have written about this very thing extensivley. Sheriff Wilcox, for instance, was widely reported to have 'changed' - and he never ran for office again. Sheridan Cavitt's attorney son Joe reports that his father 'was never the same.'

Gilles Fernandez said...

Tony wrote "And just because you could deduce his name does not give license for anyone to publish it, and his address"

Please send me FACTS that his address was published by us (and Paul is particulary).

Again, 2 seconds for you and the time to write. Again, you will fail...

I already wait "O'Donnell did not request anonymity
So, in 2 seconds and the time to write you will point us when he agreed you publish his real name."

Tic tac tic tac...

Gilles Fernandez said...

"Blablabla" Tony,

In Dew's teaser, the witness of the slide is presented like a "Virgin". Dew teaser failled to present the true regarding this witness, and how already involved in the Roswell myth.

We have contextualized who is in reality this "magic card". So, nothing new.

Eli Benjamin is a master piece of the Roswell myth for years.

Period and FACT.



Gilles Fernandez said...

Tony wrote: "Something life-changing of real significance had to have happened. Many changed after they witnessed Roswell...many became alcoholic, many became 'changed.' I have written about this very thing extensivley. Sheriff Wilcox, for instance, was widely reported to have 'changed' - and he never ran for office again. Sheridan Cavitt's attorney son Joe reports that his father 'was never the same."

Again totally stupid claim to proove scientificaly something extraordinary:
Many not extraordinary persons became fat, alcoolic, lost job, hearth attack, and so on.

In other words, you use ordinary (statistical) common, usual, life changes to proove something extraordinary.

It have ZERO value in Science. Wake up, Tony!

Zero pointed again and again regarding EVIDENCE, excepting your confirmation biases playing at the best.


KRandle said...

Tony -

You asked me to walk you through how I deduced the name and now you want to argue the point with me? I am well aware of amatuers who used the real initials of the witnesses... that is why I didn't do it.

The point you seem to miss here is that this witness became more important because he is the lone voice attaching the slides to the Roswell aliens. You must expect everyone to want to be able to vet this guy. Adam Dew injected him into the conversation and now you want us all to pull back. We didn't create this mess...

Oh, and just so you know, he actually visited the Roswell UFO Museum... it was his wife who told the story about the bodies... so he did, sort of come forward (and yes, I delight in splitting that hair).

Gilles Fernandez said...

Last comment (for today):

You, the storytellers/mythmakers of the Roswell myth are telling us an omnipotent power is hidding the true, making threat against civilians, and so on.. Brrrr!

Well, or so, only ONE question:

Did Carey, Schmitt, Randle, Rudiak, Bragalia, Friedman, and others threatened by the omnipotent power you have imagined and offered in your publications? NOWHERE. You have free cards for a while. Because that's ufology, after all ;)

Did your books, sites, YouTube things, TV documentaries, and pseudo-revelations, etc. suppressed by the malevolent you have totally imagined?

Where are the MIB and the super power and malevolents you have imagined concerning your best-sellers, TV appearances, blogs, etc.


It is time you may (must) realize, you wrote and are mythmakers of a modern myth. And nothing other, valuable for SCIENCES. Excepted Human Sciences;)

you saw what you wanted to see



Anthony Bragalia said...


No, I do not "expect everyone to vet this guy." That would be wishing his very demise. That would be cruel. Would that 'everybody' include the likes of a Lance Moody or a Paul Kimball, people who question his truthfulness and would no doubt be accusatory.

Strangers coming to visit a 90 year old man's home is not at all what is needed. Strangers calling him at all hours is not what is needed. His veracity being questioned on the Net is not what is needed.

And Kevin, what do you question about this man? His service to his country, that he was really at Roswell?

He was talked to by three people to my knowledge...what do you want? 30? 300? What?

This talk is dehumanizing the man as an object of ridicule.

When I found the last living Roswell City fireman from 1947, I called you to talk to him and confirm his story. We did not use his name. You believed his story. He did not want more calls as he was extremely elderly. How is this any different...I really want to know...and you know what I mean Kevin.

And finally, if we never offer anonymity ever, the pool of witnesses would have been reduced by half, you know this. Sometimes it is essential...

Gilles Fernandez said...

Tony wrote: "Strangers coming to visit a 90 year old man's home is not at all what is needed"

Because none Roswell mythtellers/makers never interviewed old men and women?
Wow, you have bizarre memories...

Double-speech, standards again...

Again, you are teaching to others what you dont apply for yourself/ves, and to the Roswell mythmakers...

You want a revival of Carey and Schmitt coming to Bessie Brazel for the 2009 re-edition of the (2007) best seller, or do U are suffering again false-memories?

You want "I" explain (again) how Haut affidavit was signed but redacted by Carey/Schmitt? How there is now a museum co-founded by Dennis, Haut?

How Haut presented Kauffman a master piece of the narrative of this modern myth and how Roswell team BELIEVED all Kauffman said as golden?

So please, stop to teach to others what you dont apply for yourself, and, mainly, about what you (your team) DID concerning old men/girls for years now and the Roswell myth.

Our "team" have no lesson to receive by the mythmakers, believe me. We well know the myth from A to Z. (Alien to Zero evidence).



Tim Hebert said...

Tony, as of today, has anyone attempted to contact, visit, and/or harassed this elderly gentleman?

If so who?

Tim H.

Anthony Bragalia said...


We don't publish multiple whole-house photos of witnesses, you do. We do not accuse people of being liars before we talk to them, you do. We do not pass judgement on things like photos unless we are actually able to see them, you do. For a supposed PhD, Gilles, you are perhaps the most 'unscientific' individual with whom I have ever discoursed.

And make sure you are not the one to call him- no one can understand you. This 90 year old gentleman surely would not be able to!

Anthony Bragalia said...


Why don't you call him and ask him yourself? After all, one of your minions -Ross Evans- early on emailed me the man's listing on Intelius, as if to threaten he that he would.

And why are you being civil with me on this blog, yet you name call and denigrate me on Kimball's?

And ask Kimball why he refused to publish my reply to his story with the screaming headline "Anthony Bragalia is a Hypocrite" will you?

And ask him -as I have asked Gilles thricely now- what journalistic insights it provides anyone to publish multiple whole-house photos of a 90 year old's home on the Net? How does this help us and can you understand how it might frighten an old man?

Being skeptical does not mean that you need to lose any sense of being a human- of caring for another. What is really the matter with you and your ilk? No sense of moral decency, no filter, uncaring, mean-spirited and mostly, laughably unscientific. You and your 'group' fail on every level.

Gilles Fernandez said...

"For a supposed PhD, Gilles, you are perhaps the most 'unscientific' individual with whom I have ever discoursed."


Well Tony, you forget to reply "my" humble questions as "I" have prooved your double speech, standards. I'm so sorry to debunk you and your methodology.

After all, the new Galileo Galilei you are playing have maybe no time for me... In May it will be presented in Mexico the scientific discovery of all times! Remember this date!

If a not English tong cant so easy to debunk U, imagine how it will be or can be by someone full of English language.

BTW, you claimed one more time "3.5 feet"

Well noted and screenshooted again, concerning your photography forensic abilities... Wow...



Gilles Fernandez said...

Bragalia wrote"No sense of moral"

"I" already have pointed how you named Jacobsen source without what you are teaching to us, today. You teach to others what you are not applying for yourself.


You tried false excuses to do it, which have been demonstrated in 2s as a Bragalia rethoric.

Eli Benjamin real name is/was easy to find, and not because one your other dream, aka we hacked your email! Wake up, Tony...

Epic fails again and again , sorry...


Capt Steve said...

"That he would quit his professional life the very year of the crash and the very year of the slides of a creature in his possession looking like the creatures reported at Roswell is telling indeed."

That's speculation *at best* and not any sort of evidence that the slides are the genuine article.

Tim Hebert said...


For the most part, I've always been civil with you. You need to check Kimball's site again as my comments have been about the slides and the planned showing in Mexico City.

I do use a lot of sarcasm at times.

Ross Evans? Only know him by his comment postings here and on Reynold's site.

Ask Paul himself as to why he refused to post your comments. I've nothing to do with as it is his site, not mine, but perhaps it has to do with content of your comment...again, take that up with Paul.

So, based on your diatribe of an answer, I can assume that no one has attempted to contact or harass E.B.

No, I've no need nor desire to contact E.B. That serves no useful purpose at this point in time.

You will further take notice that I'm not spamming you with E-mails threatening legal action as you have been doing to Kimball and Printy.

Nor have I attempted to hack your's or anyone else's E-mail accounts...I have a harder time figuring out all of the crap that's on my smart phone.

KRandle said...

Tony -

What you don't seem to understand here is that you cannot present testimony from an anonymous source to valid the slides. You can't just show an older man saying that it looks like what he saw and not expect everyone to ask questions about it. Now that the name is out, part of the vetting process is completed. He was in the 509th in the summer of 1947 which puts him ahead of people like Robert French. But you have to expect those of us on the outside of this circus to want to know if one of the witnesses was in a position to see what he claims to have seen.

Second, you seem to believe that we all should stand back and nod in agreement... but your witness agreed to the interview with Richard Dolan which also tends to negate this claim of privacy. If he is willing to go on camera, which he has at least twice, you must expect people to want to know if his claims are legitimate.

And finally, the name of the Roswell fire fighter was in Karl Pflock's book... but all he was saying was that someone had visited them at the fire station to tell them they needn't respond. He was not being used to valid slides that have no provenance and a broken chain of custody. It just doesn't work that way.

Al12 said...


It would be better to ask Paul why he has published pictures of the house of an elderly person to which he has no right, or why he allowed someone else to do so.

Tony is right to say that this elderly witness has a right to remain anonymous, he was seeked out, he never came forward.

To print pictures of where some lives because there desperate to insert themselves into the story ( you know who you are ) is pretty low, but then thats debunking for you, when all else fails, attact the person, you people never change, same dirty methods.

Tim Hebert said...


And you should fill free to go to Kimball's site and ask those questions.

Is E.B. anonymous? I think Kevin has commented on this a few times. E.B has never been anonymous.

Kimball and Tim Printy did a search based on a process of elimination form the Roswell year book and came up with the real name. BTW, read Kimball's latest concerning the totality of E.B.'s wish to be anonymous.

Further, Paul stated, that it was easy to come up with E.B.'s address and phone number...but intentionally DID NOT publish it.

Some of these questions should be asked of Adam Dew, who seems to be getting a free pass...assuming he is laughing his fanny off at this point.

Don Maor said...

Anthony Bragalia wrote:

"Something life-changing of real significance had to have happened. Many changed after they witnessed Roswell...many became alcoholic, many became 'changed.' I have written about this very thing extensivley. Sheriff Wilcox, for instance, was widely reported to have 'changed' - and he never ran for office again. Sheridan Cavitt's attorney son Joe reports that his father 'was never the same."

Hello Tony, it is a speculation; it is possible but unlikely in my opinion.

I would aim to a possibly more global explanation, which is also speculative. It goes like this:

Bernerd Ray was an exploration geologist with experience in the Roswell zone, who very likely had good contacts with some government or military people.

Therefore, if a group like MJ-12 (let's call it that way), would have wanted to study some geologic topic regarding the Roswell Crash, Bernerd Ray would have been a very good candidate for the job.

Eventually, Bernerd Ray would have been hired by a MJ-12 type group, starting his work in 1947, which would have made him abandon his traditional work and his publications.

Therefore, my hypothesis is that from 1947 and later, Bernerd Ray would have been probably working for a military or government agency, possibly MJ-12 or any other equivalent. Possibly, at the start-up of his new job he would have been permitted to see the bodies, and as a good photographer he took some photos and stored them.

In any case Tony, congratulations for your work and good luck.

Anthony Bragalia said...

Thanks AI12 and Don, it is nice to know that there are some people that 'get it.'

And interesting theory Don. Bernerd becoming a ghost professionally after the year of the crash and the slides is indeed interesting and more attention needs to be given the implications of this.

John's Space said...


Let’s just say for arguments sake that you are right. The slide are pictures of aliens taken in 1947. I think you have a lot of evidence for the 1947 part anyway. So it doesn’t seem that much of a stretch to given the general area of operations of Mr. Ray that it is the Roswell alien if it is in fact an alien at all. After all do we know of any other credible alien spacecraft crash in 1947? My line of thinking is in the world “if” so I hope the critics understand that.

But if Roswell happened and that is a picture of a real alien then if follows that government agencies have been working to cover this up from the beginning given everything else we know. So doesn’t seem reasonable that those agencies keeping the lid on this have been fully aware of the slide story? The investigators have been subjected to cyberattacks since this has become known.

So do you think that the agencies involved in the cover up could be the ones behind the cyberattacks? After all once the word got out they would want to know if these slides are the real deal or not.

CommanderCronus said...

I wish someone could more clearly define the term "alien" in this discussion. By alien do we simply mean not human? If so, does that include explanations such as highly-evolved time travelers, genetically altered humans, demonic entities, extra-dimensional beings, crypto-terrestrials, angels or robots? Or are we limited to the extra-terrestrial hypothesis with regard to this mystery?

starman said...

The ETH is most parsimonious. We know there's a big Universe out there with innumerable planets, some much older and roughly earth-sized (see my latest blog post). We've done some space exploration and travel ourselves. In contrast, "demons" and "angels" aren't valid scientific concepts, nor time travel AFAIK, while other dimensions, let alone travel between them, aren't verified to my knowledge.

Paul Young said...

Just getting back to the slides for a minute...

Considering this is summertime, in the middle of a desert...Didn't someone think to put the damned thing on ice, at the rush, rather than parade it around in a glass case?
I'd have thought that immediate preservation of something so scientifically valuable, would have been the very next priority after recovery.

Or are glass cases easier to muster up in New Mexico than a few bags of ice?

Anthony Bragalia said...

John's Space-

We considered the possibility that the cyber-attacks were initiated by a 'three-letter agency' but rejected that for a few reasons. The hacker used a well-known commercial encrypted email service called safe-mail.net An intelligence agency would not use such a service. When I contacted the CEO of Safe Mail, his security team essentially 'unplugged' the hacker's safe-mail address.

It is far more likely that these attacks were initiated by either a disaffected young person who gets a perverse pleasure from such cyber-intimidation or they were initiated by people who want to see the slides so very badly that they will do anything to see them. This would include the anti-sliders group members or those who are pro-Roswell and just need to see the unearthly now.


Makes the point eloquently for ETH. I agree with him in every respect on this.

Paul Young-

I understand your point and I do not have a clear answer. Just when ice was introduced, autopsy conducted and placement in a glass tube done, I do not know.

My sense is that the recovery team did not bring ice with them. It is possible that -to avoid further necrosis and deterioration from predatory action- a partial field autopsy may have been conducted to learn more about the internal structure of the creatures. The being does appear not only to have wounds to one eye and a severed neck, but the chest and abdominal cavities have been removed. I feel that we are viewing a temporary set-up allowing observation by various parties before the creature is transported elsewhere for further study and for permanent storage. This is admittedly though, speculation.

SlideBox Media said...

A couple of notes Kevin (disclaimer for grammar police I'm typing this on my phone):
1. One of the body slides is still in the cardboard sleeve, one was cut free. I made the call that if we wanted to read the placard we'd need to cut free the one that appeared to be a clearer look at the text and run it through an old-fashioned drum scan (you see this process documented in the trailer). Outside of a change in color temperature, a slight focus shift and a different person standing just beyond the glass case the two photos are otherwise very similar.
2. EB told me he was a lieutenant. Maybe he didn't yet have that status in 1947. It's my understanding he rose beyond the rank of PFC. Based on his telling he was higher than a PFC in July 1947. The most important detail is that he was onsite in July 1947. To me what's most intersting when talking to EB is that, while seeing the bodies was traumatic for him, he experienced things during his service that scarred him far worse than seeing the ET bodies. If not for his wife trumpeting his Roswell bodies experince, I doubt his story would ever have been made public.
3. I'd argue that your opinion matters enough to most around here that you could have pretty easily vouched for EB's general background (and made your other points about the investigation) without naming him. I realize he was named elsewhere but based on my limited experience with your work, I'm surprised you felt compelled to name him here.
4. I've said before that one of the most intersting parts of this process has been the stories I get from people off the record. Regular people leading regular lives don't generally want to be sucked into the vitriol and scorn that comes along with all of this. I have pretty thick skin and enjoy a good fight, but I now have the pleasure from personal experience to be able to tell you that it's not worth it. I don't know you personally Kevin, but I'd think one of your primary goals would be encouraging people to come forward and share their stories. But maybe I'm projecting.

Loki said...


"Who is the Man in Adam Dew's Video?"

My considered opinion is that the question you really must ask is:

"Who Adam Dew?"

Our operative conclusion here at Asgard HQ is that "Adam Dew" is a "stagename" used by this poor, pitiful creature, hence his running away from his initial ill-considered offer to post his diploma (NU '98).

(for the IQ-challenged "AJB"s: the diploma shows a different name)

Lance said...

So you have evidence that the witness told you something that was not true? But you think the important thing is what he told you about alien bodies?

Thanks for encapsulating the time-honored methodology followed by Roswell "researchers" since the beginning.


Jack Brewer said...

I continue to think that, overall, the process we are observing via the slides saga is better for ufology than not. I realize there are numerous personal sidebars, but all in all I appreciate the similarities to peer review currently unfolding. I envision such circumstances improve the field as a whole as it encourages people to think critically, discourages researchers from presenting info that was poorly compiled and so on.

Here is a link to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics:


Perhaps some will find that helpful in formulating their opinions of who falls on which side of the proverbial lines drawn in the sand (and where responsibilities lie) re such issues as unnamed sources, what happens once a story is published, etc. Perhaps it will also help interested parties identify the differences between objective reporting and marketing, and why the industry views such differences in the manners it does, both now and in the future, whatever each of our opinions may be on such issues from one argument to the next.

Loki said...

"Anthony Bragalia said...

You could have used Google Image search and never have found...

As an example,if I walked into a room and you saw me, you would have no idea who I am."

So, honey, just WHICH of your "The Dream Team" fellows have ever actually met you face to face, so that they would, upon walking into a room, have an idea of who you are?

KRandle said...

Lance -

You leap to conclusions here. You have a snapshot of Benavides career in the summer of 1947 and you assume from that he was never promoted beyond PFC. Do you have any evidence that such is the case? And yes, such evidence could be found. It is possible that he was commissioned at a later date which means he might well have been a lieutenant. We just don't know... and the records search I have begun on this question might not be answered for several months (which is something that should have been done years ago).

Lance said...


Please read Dew's account:

" Based on his telling he was higher than a PFC in July 1947. "

That seems to disproven.

Additionally your esteemed teammates and colleagues, in their book, call him a PFC.


Gilles Fernandez said...


"I" have an humble question to Dew (or to Tony, Carey, Schmitt, and Maussan - well not Maussan nor Schmitt after considerations-).

What was the scientific protocole you used regarding Eli Benjamin "recognition" that the slide was/were depicting what he "saw" in 1947?

Did you use more or less standardized/basic protocoles used in Human Sciences or Criminology concerning "recognition"? I meant something close to blind experiments protocoles? After all Carey is a Ph.D...

Or, oups, we did (it again) not think to do it, and well that's ufology after all.

Please, explain us how you proceeded...


SlideBox Media said...

Kevin do you know the publication date for the 1947 base yearbook? Could he have been promoted after publication?

Gilles- I didn't use any scientific protocol when I showed him the slides. I opened my laptop and asked his opinion. What scientific protocol are you using when you spend so much of your time on this blog showcasing your personal biases and belittling people? That's science after all?

Lance said...


He could have been promoted afterwards. I am sure that your co-conspirators already know the answer. Can't you ask them? If he was a Lt., it is virtually inconceivable that even at the low level of Carey/Schmitt that they would have missed that.

Why don't you show us all just how honest you are and ask them and then let us know the answer?

You have already said that he told you that he was an officer in 1947. This seems to be disproven.

Your, frankly, terrible methods of finding out what you wanted to find out is exactly why these witnesses have to be contacted and questioned by non-involved parties in order to determine the truth.

Fortunately, you seem to have already discredited this one. Thanks for that!


Daniel Transit said...

Anthony Bragalia wrote:

'..And yes, I have read that you believe that such aliens were talked about in '47 -but i fail to see it, not with all of those characteristics just listed. Simply, this creature looks everything like what the witnesses to the Roswell bodies reported and nothing like what the popular culture at the time had in their psyche as an image of an alien. Though you think differently, I fail to see a good example, including the one you provided on your blog a week or so ago. Not the same...'

Figures resembling concepts of the appearance of aliens of recent decades can be found in art & sculpture from the late-19th century through the first half of the 20th century (also, flying discs/saucers): in mainstream, avant garde and science fiction art. For some reason, this subject hasn't been much featured in UFO literature up to now, though I did see a Henri Matisse painting in an old Japanese flying saucer magazine.

Here's one example of alien-type imagery from a famous artist:


Unknown said...

" Blogger SlideBox Media said...

Kevin do you know the publication date for the 1947 base yearbook? Could he have been promoted after publication?

Gilles- I didn't use any scientific protocol when I showed him the slides. I opened my laptop and asked his opinion. What scientific protocol are you using when you spend so much of your time on this blog showcasing your personal biases and belittling people? That's science after all?"

...so our dear "Adam Dew"... since you have the time to comment on this obscure UFO blog, maybe, perhaps, if you have time, pussycat, MIGHT you give us your BRAG(alia)ed-about supposed "NU BSJ 98" diploma, you sad high-tilt Diva?

SlideBox Media said...

Why would I deny the intrepid blog posters here the chance to expose my false credentials? I leave it up to the Dream Team 2.0 over at RoswellSlides.com

Lance said...

Your credentials aren't the issue, I don't think.

Now that you have discredited your own witness, do you have other folks who will say that the slides show a Roswell body?

Or was that it?


Paul Young said...

@ Anthony... Thanks for your answer. I have to say though, that it would have been an extremely self-confident field medic who would have taken the,off the cuff, decision to perform a field autopsy on a strange looking being that was lying beside a strange looking disc. "Using your initiative" was something drummed into lowly Royal Navy ratings, like myself...but I think anyone deciding to "field autopsy" an hitherto unknown creature,off his own bat, had better have a bloody good excuse at "Captains Table" the next morning.

I have visions of the old Monty Python sketch


@ Gilles... Anthony Bragalia has asked you a very good question that you have tried to slip from.

What possible use would it be for Paul Kimball to actively make this "witnesses" house more highly identifiable to the potential internet masses...other than to be trying to intimidate the poor bloke?

Gilles Fernandez said...

Gilles- I didn't use any scientific protocol when I showed him the slides. I opened my laptop and asked his opinion. What scientific protocol[etc]

Ok, Thank you very much, Adam, for your answer and to have devoted your precious time to respond my humble question.


Lance said...

@ Paul Young --how do you know Gilles tried to slip anything?

You do realize that Paul has a blog and I'm sure he would be happy to answer.

I think Paul was just proving that he had the right Lieutenant (or Private or whatever he is today). Paul matched up the house, which is clearly seen in the trailer with the address of the actual witness.

It's called research

In other words, it's sort of the opposite of walking up to an old man in his driveway and saying, "Colonel (or is it General?), are these the aliens you saw?"


Lance said...

And it wouldn't have been necessary if this entire thing was conducted as an actual search for truth instead of a grab for cash.


KRandle said...

All -

The Yearbook, according to the Unit History was started in 1947 and I believe that it was submitted to the publisher in August and returned in November 1947. So, it is obvious that he could have been promoted. No one, apparently, has taken the simple step of checking with the records center in St. Louis. It might answer some very interesting questions.

Lance -

If you are using this to discredit Benavides based on what might be a simple misunderstanding of a question by a man who is 90 or a misunderstanding by a man who hasn't served in the military, then wouldn't a simple lie by Moore require you to ignore him. Moore said they didn't know the name Mogul in 1947 but it is clear that they did... is that a case of his merely forgetting the name or is it a conscious lie... double standard.

And Lance, you are becoming unnecessarily snarky at this point... you don't know if he was ever commission because no one has checked his records... something that I have started but will probably take months to answer.

For all of you... I was not involved in this investigation, as I have outlined and I haven't been involved with the team since the summer of 2013.

Adam -

Thanks for the answer about opening the slide cardboard. It is an important point that everyone here seems to have missed.

I think that's all for now but I'll check back.

Lance said...

Sure, sure, folks are accusing other folks of working with hackers to steal emails (or something like that), being criminals and wanting to hurt old people but you think I'm being snarky?

Oh, I see, because I'm a skeptic. Understood.

"No one, apparently, has taken the simple step of checking with the records center in St. Louis. It might answer some very interesting questions."

And by nobody, I assume you include your former Dream Team members, the very folks who were said to be the best in Roswell research (which, sadly, is probably true).

When you step back a moment and look at this debacle, is it not possible to think that some snarkiness is warranted?

I'll tell you what Kevin, If their witness was a Lieutenant in 1947, then I promise that I will never say another word about Roswell.


Paul Young said...

I'm a bit baffled over this arse kicking contest about what Benavides' rank was.

It makes perfect sense to me that when he was first interviewed over this Roswell thing, he would have stated his rank as it was when he left the service. That's what counts to any serviceman.

By not mentioning that he was below that rank in, say, 1947, probably didn't even register with him to be even slightly important.

If Benavides left the service as an lieutenant...then that is how he is always (quite rightly) going to refer to himself. He'd consider that it would go without saying, to any inquisitor, that he had to work his way up to that rank.

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

@Paul Young:

Read Dew's account:

"Based on his telling he was higher than a PFC in July 1947."


jim bender said...

If it's such a waste of time and you think the slides are a scam, why in the world would you spend Time posting on this blog and calling 90 year Olds in the middle of the night. Hmmmmm

Terry the Censor said...

Anthony Bragalia said, "Don, it is nice to know that there are some people that 'get it.'"

Don invoked the MJ-12 hoax to square AJB's circular logic...and AJB thinks Don gets it?

Is there no bottom to this well of credulity?

Anthony Bragalia said...


What an excellent point!


Let me be clear: MJ-12 is a hoax. You have misread what Don said. He said an Mj-12-like group. And he offered a possibility. That is all.

Unknown said...

"SlideBox Media said...

Why would I deny the intrepid blog posters here the chance to expose my false credentials? I leave it up to the Dream Team 2.0 over at RoswellSlides.com"

Gee, Costanza, I don't know... why do you do anything that you do, Dude?

Gilles Fernandez said...


The comment of Jim remembers me a question/sarcasm often adressed to me in our country: why do you are so interested/immersed by/in ufology if you not believe in UFO (aka as ET crafts)?

1) Well, in an or my humble academic point of view, because ufology can be and is a subject of study/ies for Human Sciences I'm a PH. D.
Paollo Toselli (to illustrate my point) made is making a catalogue of the universitar/academic papers/theses about UFO, abductions and so on. For example this (old) version: http://www.euroufo.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/UfoTheses2010.xls

2) Ufology, even if for an UFO-Skeptic, is a very fecond "crossroads", between many many academic fields, from astronomy, physics, photography, forensic sciences, History, to Human Sciences. And then an hobby which becomes a powerfull generator of knowledge even if you dont believe in ET crafts (or at least the so-called evidences presented by ufologists pro ETH).

3) As UFO-skeptics, sometimes, witnesses prefer to ask "us" and not pro-ETH defenders about what they saw or may have seen. I have many "anecdotical" examples where future or young mums were affraid by some things. Explaining/demonstrating them it was Venus, Jupiter or a balloon gave her to not be never scarred. It made my days!

4) A linked thematic to UFO is abductions. I think it is really important that (few) academic psychologists are devoting or devoted time regarding this thematic in order to avoid people go to abductionists like Mack, Hopkins, Jacobs and many more, people encouraging patient to their own beliefs -the ones of the so-called therapists), and not really helping the patients/victims. Elizabeth Loftus, Susan Clancy, Newman, Beumeister, etc., wow that's cool they offer and offered real concern and explanations, despite not believing in abduction in the ufological sens.

Only 4 points (can continue and devellop) maybe explaining why even if "you dont believe in UFO", it is however a very interesting and fecond/ludic topic/thematic you are devoting time and ressources.



Don Maor said...

Terry the smart guy said:

"Don invoked the MJ-12 hoax to square AJB's circular logic...and AJB thinks Don gets it?"

I was referring to a group that can be named MJ-12 or any name you may like. Almost every researcher who believes that Roswell incident was an ET craft crash believes that such a kind of group most likely existed, whatever it name was.

Thus, it strongly seems that you (Terry) have serious problems of reading comprehension.

Terry the Censor said...


You wrote, "possibly MJ-12 or any other equivalent."

And MJ-12 is a hoax.

Don Maor said...

Yes Terry, yes. I wrote that, and I also wrote this “a group like MJ-12 (let's call it that way)”. And you failed to read it. I also wrote that it was speculation, also two times. Again you failed in reading.

I am not the first one to notice that Terry the censor has problems understanding what he reads.

He seems to have some of the components of a 16 years old teenager. These are: Bad reading comprehension; Thinks he is smartest in the world; Thinks he is smart just because he makes cynic or suspicious comments, etc. Apparently only his beard is from an adult man.

Terry the Censor said...

Don, don't traffic and hoaxes and delusions and perhaps you won't be challenged.

Your sarcasm is laughable misplaced.

Brian B said...

So this is what Ufology is all about, a bunch of people attacking each other based on their theories and written books that they've all made money from? It sounds like professional jealousy to me. If you all cooperated with one another and withheld judgment you might find that you would discover facts in all of the stories. If the government is watching, I'm sure they're having a good laugh about this one.

Oswaldski said...

Bernerd Ray did not quit the business in 1947. He is mentioned in “Oil News” in The Abilene Reporter-News on Saturday May 28th under heading “New Pay Found in Sprayberry Area”.

Also in The Odessa American published Sunday August 23rd 1959 under heading “Scouting The Basin”.

Anthony Bragalia said...

Oswalski is correct...

There is an extremely obvious and huge gap of over a dozen years between 1947 -the year of the crash and the slides- and 1959, when the first and only time we see him again 'professionally' in the literature. Only after 12 years do we see his re-emergence, and only for a moment.

Oswaldski said...

Re previous - my omission. He was mentioned in the Abilene Reporter-News in 1955.

Anthony Bragalia said...

Call the West Texas Geological Society as I did. Ray was very active in the organization -even serving as its President in 1946/7 but thereafter appears to have abandoned his involvement, holding no posts in the Society of any kind in subsequent years.

And the references that you make is to a newspaper article. I never said that Ray fell off of the face of the Earth. I am referring to scientific, peer-reviewed professional journals. Ray published in geologic study in such journals, but not in the years after 1947 as best as I can determine.

In examining his professional life -i.e. involvement in professional organizations, publishing, etc. - there is no doubt that he became a virtual professional ghost in the years immediately following the crash and the slides. His output and visibility markedly decreased in the years after the crash.

Oswaldski said...

I'm not challenging you. I'm adding info.

Anthony Bragalia said...

And I much appreciate it...

Any new information is needed and welcomed.

Unknown said...


What do you think is so telling about Mr Rays decreased visibility after 1947?

Anthony Bragalia said...

Hi Stephen-

It fits a pattern. Some who witnessed the aftermath of the crash were 'changed.'

Two examples:
Sheriff Wilcox, neighbors like Rogene Cordes said, were 'different' after the event and Wilcox never ran for the office again even though most thought he would be a County Sheriff 'lifer.' CIC agent Sheridan Cavitt, according to his attorney son Joe, 'was never the same again.' Some, like Jesse Marcel (according to his son) became alcoholic.

For Ray -who was once so very active professionally- to become so very much less so after the year 1947 could hold similar meaning.

Unknown said...


This is what confuses me though as the Kodachrome clip kind of states the opposite.

There are photos taken at the 1948 golf tournament and a 1948 air race. So we know he was still getting around and doing fun things. There could be a lot more slides from there on in of him just travelling, taking time out from work

Curt Collins said...

There's a new video advertising Jaime Maussan's Cinco de Mayo slides show. There's a glimpse of new footage of Benavides being interviewed by Don Schmitt.

marea roja said...

Estudió comparativo entre especímenes de la fotografía de S. L. Palmer (1896) y la diapositiva de Hilda Blair Ray (1947) del Museo Arqueológico de Chapin Mesa Verde en Colorado, EE. UU.


marea roja said...

Descripción de un espécimen con características de reptil en la diapositiva de Hilda Blair Ray (1947) del Museo Arqueológico Chapin de Mesa Verde en el estado de Colorado, DE. UU.


KRandle said...

marea roja -

I'm afraid you are behind the power curve on this. All the information we sought has been found and published on this blog long ago. For example, we learned, through the military records, that Benavides had served in the military long enough to received a pension and that he retired as a staff sergeant. He was not commissioned and therefore was never a lieutenant. I don't know how that bit of misinformation started.

We learned within days of the reveal in Mexico City that the image was that of an unfortunate child, that it had been displayed in a couple of museums (the flooring and display placards allowed us to identify the museum) and given the history of the mummy we learned that the picture had been taken prior to May 1947.

This episode is closed given what we learned in 2015 during the aftermath of the Mexico City fiasco.