Tuesday, April 14, 2015

The Roswell Slides ARE NOT the Roswell Slides


So now we’re told that the Roswell Slides might not be linked to Roswell and that the name, Roswell Slides was invented by the debunkers and is not a term used by anyone on the inside. For the latest interviews with Don Schmitt and Tom Carey, see The Conspiracy Show hosted by Richard Syrett which can be found here:


The segment with Carey and Schmitt starts at the 1:04:20 mark of the show and they are on for about thirty minutes. You’ll just have to fast forward through the first hour to get to the Carey and Schmitt interview.

Here’s what we learn by listening to this. According to Tom Carey, the couple who took the slides was well connected to the Eisenhowers. The wife was a “high-powered lawyer in Midland, Texas and the husband was an oil field geologist.” Part of his territory was New Mexico. Please note that Carey is suggesting that the Rays, whose name he does not use, were the ones who took the photographs though all that can be said is that they may have owned the slides at one time decades ago. The provenance of the slides is still very shaky.

Carey then went on to explain how the slides were originally discovered. He said:

Current owner came into possession of the slides around 1990. The husband [Bernerd Ray] died in 1982 and the lawyer wife [Hilda Ray] died in 1988 [though not mentioned, it seems that they had divorced at some point]. During a clean out of their house, in their garage, one of the people who was part of the cleanup crew discovered this huge box of color slides, Kodachrome slides, and she said, “Oh, these look interesting,” so she kept them. She took them home instead of taking them to the dumpster. She took them for herself because nobody wanted them… so she kept them and didn’t look at them for a number of years [which seems strange after she had determined they were interesting, but never mind]. She finally looked at them and these two slides… were separate from all the others. There were over 400 slides in total. But there were these two that were taped in an envelope to the underside of the lid to the box. So she looked at those and she got spooked… She shipped the whole box to her relative who has them now. He was no UFO guy but he looked at these two slides and he says, “I don’t know what this is…” he had heard about Roswell… So he looked at them and I better contact somebody who knows something about this.

Of course, in his position, my first thought would have been to search for someone who knew about the Roswell UFO case. Carey said that the man had gone to the Internet (which is something I bet we all do now a days) and looked for something about Roswell. Carey’s name came up and the man set an email.

During the interview, Schmitt suggested that the “debunkers” had labeled them the Roswell Slides and they had not made that connection meaning that the slides were connected to Roswell. Syrett, in recapping some of this said that Carey and Schmitt weren’t linking these images to Roswell but there was a possibility that there was a connection (or in the words of nearly everyone else, let’s beat around the bush some more).

All though the interview, however, Carey talked as if it was an already established fact that the slides were from the Roswell case. Continuing in that vein, Schmitt said, “The dating of the slides is from 1947 to 1949. As we will be demonstrating at the event in May, there were specific areas that the photographers visited… both worked in west Texas and New Mexico… the circle of friends were closely linked to Eisenhower.” Or, in other words, this is connected to Roswell even though these people lived in Midland, Texas and had pictures of Eisenhower in his uniform.

The link to Eisenhower seems to be based on the fact that some of the slides in the box of 400 were of Eisenhower, which doesn’t link them to him personally other than they were in the same place at the same time… Just as I was in the same place as David Letterman and I even have a picture of me standing next to him, but we are not closely linked.

During the interview, Carey was asked about what linked the eyewitness testimony to other alien bodies. He said:

[The] woman standing by a glass slab… the body lying on it appears to be 3½ to 4 feet tall… large inverted pear-shaped head but there is one item on it, on top of the head that was described by one of the first-hand witnesses, one of the first ones to the crash site… the local fireman named Dan Dwyer who described when he got home that night and he told his family about it… they asked him, “What did it look like?” Instead of giving a detailed description he just said, “Child of the Earth.” [Which is an insect also known as the Jerusalem cricket]… It’s something on the head, I don’t want to give anything away here… there is something on the top of the head that one of the eyewitnesses described and it’s on this particular creature on the slide… That’s why Dan Dwyer called it the Child of the Earth.

But what Carey doesn’t say here, and which is extremely important is that Dwyer was never interviewed by any of the UFO researchers and calling him a first-hand witness without explaining the circumstances is misleading. Dwyer died before the interest in Roswell was renewed. Contrary to the impression that this is first-hand testimony, it was relayed by Frankie Rowe, Dwyer’s daughter. While I believe that Rowe is telling us what she believes to be the absolute truth, it is second hand from her so anything deduced from the testimony is shaky at best.

Apropos of nothing, Carey did mention that this ranked as a “smoking gun,” slightly better than the “smoking gun” of the Ramey memo. Both, according to Carey, are extremely important bits of evidence and, of course, the Ramey memo is directly related to Roswell.

What have we learned here?

Well, the Roswell Slides don’t necessarily show a creature from the Roswell crash, at least according to Schmitt. But then both he and Carey talk as if it was already proven that the creature, whatever it was, is from the Roswell crash.

The slides were apparently in a vacant house for two years before they were found, and then the woman who found them and took them, didn’t look at them for a number of years. She was so freaked out by them that she sent all the slides to her brother…I mean a relative, who apparently did nothing with them for years. Then about three years ago this fellow, who lives in Chicago, looked at them and thought he had better find someone who knew something about Roswell. He emailed Carey.

We also learned that when they attempted to interest American scientists in the slides, no one would come forward. The news media was equally unimpressed, but foreign scientists have examined the slides and made comment about them. Two of them are Canadian anthropologists who were not named but whose analysis will be part of the Mexico City show. They will be named there. All this data and much more will be presented in Mexico City.

And, although they suggest that the slides aren’t linked to Roswell, when they begin to talk about them, it is clear that is exactly what they think. And if they don’t, then why bring poor old PFC Benavides into it so that he can say that the creature in the photograph looks like the bodies he saw in Roswell? While they might not like the name the Roswell Slides and don’t refer to them that way, it is what they believe. All we can hope for is that they’ll have some better evidence about the slides than they have mentioned in the various interviews so far. The story of how the slides ended up in the hands of UFO researchers doesn’t allow for evidence of who took the pictures in the first place or for an unbroken chain of custody. There are still too many loose ends. I do hope they can do better in Mexico City.

74 comments:

Gilles Fernandez said...

Hello,

Schmitt suggested that the “debunkers” had labeled them the Roswell Slides

I ignored Adam Dew was a debunker...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fMAXurg25Ls/VSIu51Q6Y7I/AAAAAAAABpA/PQK1RJWx9DE/s1600/0000%2Bcode%2Bsource.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QOgY0NbXyEo/VR-wjxwEQ0I/AAAAAAAABoY/n89DEJMDWJI/s1600/Dewlies.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bhogJJtaHHk/VR-zb2gzVaI/AAAAAAAABos/EBHu9DcA0co/s1600/adam%2Bdew%2Blies2.jpg

source (In French): http://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.fr/2015/03/the-roswell-slides-saga-claims-versus.html

The husband [Bernerd Ray] died in 1982

Hum 1983, no?

There would be other things to comment, but later in further articles.

Regards,

Gilles Fernandez

KRandle said...

Gilles -

I think you missed the important point... the tale of Dan Dwyer, first-hand witness. This was misleading at best and suggest some of the trouble with this whole slides fiasco.

Gilles Fernandez said...

Hello Kevin,

I dont think I "exactly" missed the point.

Remember, as I point in my humble French article, Adam Dew claimed in an interview I've never called them the Roswell slides. Not once.
But look at the previous captures/screenshoots when you examine "closely" his site and the "code-sources"...

The "kodachrome documentary" is then becomed (or have already been) devoted/labeled to the Roswell slides, but this crew is stating that it was the Debunkers who "coined" it, and Dew making in disguise to be not in the "controversy". Seriously...

Google cache shown to that Tony already linked them to Roswell, as Adam have gone to the Roswell dreamteam early in the process, clearly. But that's the debunkers who coined the "Roswell slides" labeling...

Regards,

Gilles

cda said...

I am more baffled than ever. This brother, or other relative, of the woman who first found the box of slides did nothing with them for many years after he received them in c.1990.

OK, so what was it that caused this guy to link the two special slides to UFOs or to Roswell at all? You say "he was no UFO guy". Yet suddenly, after many years of doing nothing, he decides that maybe, for some strange reason, the two creatures depicted in these slides are, or may be, connected with the Roswell crash! (My guess is that he had just read one of the Roswell pro-ET books containing descriptions of 'bodies', looked again at the two slides and made the connection at this point).

So, although not a 'UFO guy' he got converted into one by (i) reading a Roswell book and (ii) recalling those two slides he had seen years earlier.

The rest follows from this. The (non)involvement of fireman Dan Dwyer looks irrelevant to me.

So who exactly is this man who was "no UFO guy" but later became a 'UFO guy'? And what was his true relationship to the woman who sent him the box of slides, and what is her name?

Perhaps, come May 5 we shall find out. Perhaps.

Brian Bell said...

Humm...so now we are back once again to Frankie Rowe and her dead father's testimony which remains dubious at best. Furthermore, are these "aliens" or simply large superintelligent space traveling intergalactic insects?

Or are we to presume Schmitt and Carey are now endorsing insectoid aliens from the hollow earth? Funny...

Schmitt claims something unique on the head of the cadaver in the slide - in case you're wondering what that is, it's something specific to Jerusalem Crickets which are native to the South Western states:

"The head of a Jerusalem Cricket bears unique marks, and with a little imagination, they form the image of a smiling face".

Source: Ask the Bugman: Environmentally Safe Ways to Control Household Pests, by Richard Fagerlund, Johnna Autumn Strange, Johnna Lachni.

This is laughable - Schmitt is not only a proven liar, but he thinks we're all stupid.

Gilles Fernandez said...

BTW, did you, Anglo-Saxons friends recognize the female voice in the Adam Dew trailer?
Or?
Adam Dew 400 slides "project" have had nothing to do from the early start with "Roswell": Roswell (concerning the slides) was coined by the "debunkers", you know...
;)

Gilles

Lance said...

"So now we’re told that the Roswell Slides might not be linked to Roswell and that the name, Roswell Slides was invented by the debunkers and is not a term used by anyone on the inside"

Interesting.

I remember one of the very first stories on this that I read was:

"THE PUBLIC REVEAL OF THE ROSWELL ALIEN SLIDES
BY ANTHONY BRAGALIA"


Jack Brewer said...

Thanks, Kevin. I had similar thoughts as I watched the interview. I was so certain Anthony Bragalia proclaimed the slides proof of aliens at Roswell that I double checked at Frank Warren's UFO Chronicles just to give them the benefit of the doubt. But, of course, there was AJB early on asserting it was "true" that slides had been obtained depicting an "alien humanoid creature." AJB, as all of us who have paid attention already knew, added that "it is equally true that [the slides] may represent the first genuine physical evidence in support of the reality of a crash of a extraterrestrial beings [sic] near Roswell, NM":

http://www.theufochronicles.com/2013/09/authentic-aliens-images-from-roswell.html

I also took issue with the chain of custody. I recall reading somewhere, I think this blog (and I don't feel like finding it right now), that it was suggested that we really don't even know who's house was reportedly being cleaned out when the slides were located. If it can be conclusively demonstrated, it obviously should be. Carey once again suggested it was Hilda's house, two years removed from her death, I think it was, but the story seems to keep changing depending on who you ask. Like with the rest of it, the original people are not available to comment, only spokespeople who do not seem to be able to agree on who did and said what when.

I'll say it again: The people who have presented the slides are either unaware of how unprofessional the saga has been conducted or they are not. Either possibility relegates it to meaningless from a research perspective.

Gilles Fernandez said...

Lance wrote: "THE PUBLIC REVEAL OF THE ROSWELL ALIEN SLIDES
BY ANTHONY BRAGALIA"


Stop it! It is "the debunkers" who labeled the slides "the Roswell slides", Don claimed! Never a Roswell mythmaker!

Adam Dew labeled them as this (despite to claim "I've never called them the Roswell slides. Not once.").

More to come ;)

Gilles

Wade Ridsdale said...

The only thing missing...besides the slides...from this ongoing melodrama is a virgin birth.

Glenn said...

Nothing has changed so far as I can see. "Roswell Slides" was used as a general term.

Glenn said...

Kevin, you strike me more and more as being desperate for these slides NOT to represent an alien being. Sad, really. I guess, like Stan F and MJ12, you have painted yourself into a corner by announcing right from the beginning that the story was "nonsense".

Brian Bell said...

To Glenn's point, and I stated this several weeks ago on this blog, I sense a great deal of professional jealousy over to guys making a boatload of money, where a bunch of other guys wish they were making the same amount of money too. If only you had some slides too. 👽

Stephen Jackson said...

Glenn -

Im sure Kevin can speak for himself but come on, doesn't want them to show an alien being? He has spent years researching Roswell looking for the truth. Proof of this magnitude would finally solve the puzzle

What Kevin seems to be doing like many others, and rightly so, is stepping away from jumping on the band wagon and risking his reputation without knowing the whole facts of the slides.

Stephen Jackson said...

Brian -

Stanton Friedman was offered the opportunity to be involved in this. He could have made money from this himself yet he turned it down.

There is making money and then there is gambling a reputation. Notice those getting involved have dubious reputations anyway.

Brian Bell said...

More on the Don and Tom Show - I listened to their interview again and noticed that Tom clearly associated the findings of the slides with Roswell when he states that he had "been studying this case for 25 years" (meaning Roswell) and that the depiction of the marks on the head coincide with "Roswell witness testimony".

Don on the other hand makes multiple statements that "It won't be the end of us (meaning he and Tom" and that "Roswell won't go down" if these are found to be something other than what they think they are.

I believe what they are doing is now posturing themselves in the event all the negatives do result in a crash and burn senario in Mexico. They are more than aware, by their comments, about skeptical doubts on the slides even from within the UFO community.

Furthermore they are playing more games to a gullible public when Don points out Tom's soon to be finished PhD in Anthropogy and how that makes Tom an "expert" in identifying non-human characteristics. For the uninformed out there, Anthropology is a multidisciplinary track with many sub classifications of which only a few would prepare one to be an expert in body identification - Tom would need to be an expert in Bioanthropology and specifically Paleoanthropology to even come close - which is more about mummies and study of human archeogical remains.

He is not a medical doctor or medical specialist which is what is required to do what he claims is possible with his pending PhD.

Most people assume an Anrhropogist is one who studies human anatomy and medical conditions which it isn't. It has more to do with sociological aspects relating to humankind and its advancement of civilization over time from the archeological record.


Jeanne Ruppert said...

Jerusalem cricket, native to New Mexico and southeast region:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_cricket#/media/File:Mahogany_Jerusalem_cricket.jpg

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Brian wrote: "Furthermore they are playing more games to a gullible public when Don points out Tom's soon to be finished PhD in Anthropogy and how that makes Tom an "expert" in identifying non-human characteristics. For the uninformed out there, Anthropology is a multidisciplinary track with many sub classifications of which only a few would prepare one to be an expert in body identification - Tom would need to be an expert in Bioanthropology and specifically Paleoanthropology to even come close - which is more about mummies and study of human archeogical remains."

Whatever Tom Carey's specific specialization in Anthropology, by the end of a doctoral program in that field he would certainly know who to consult regarding the human or other nature of the being appearing in the slides and would no doubt have brought them into the investigation of the slides as a knowledgeable consultant.

KRandle said...

All -

Let's see if I understand this. I raise what I believe to be legitimate concerns about the Not Roswell Slides and I've painted myself in a corner or I'm jealous of all the money that they're going to make. This is really what you take away from this? You aren't concerned with the glaring problems with the story as we've been told to now?

If the questions are anwsered and the evidence presented, I'll be among the first to point that out as well. I had hoped that by pointing to some of the issues with the slides, that both Carey and Schmitt would be prepared to answer the questions. So far, the answers have only seemed to make it less likely that we'll learn anything. And didn't those of you who listened to the interview notice that they have sort of retreated from the position that the slides show an alien from Roswell... though in truth they seemed to be convinced.

Oh, and Brian, my understanding is that Carey's area of expertise in Anthropology was in Physical Anthropology, which does suggest more expertise than most people have.

So, can we move away from the attempted analysis of my motives and on to a discussion of what was said in this interview... no one is concerned that Dan Dwyer is presented as a first-hand witness when no one talked to him... all the information came from his daughter which was not mentioned. Shouldn't that be of some importance?

Don Maor said...

Kevin:

I don’t think they (The slides team) desisted from the Roswell idea. Nobody in this world could desist, not even you. Thing is easy, if the images really show a strange looking being similar to what we call a gray alien, it is most probably one of the victims of the Roswell wreck. Period. On the other hand, if it is a mummy or a deformed Jap, it is not from Roswell. Period again. There is not much complexity on it.

I was frankly impressed with the description of the "Jerusalem cricket" detail. Here, it does not really matter whether the Fireman recount is fourth hand or ninth hand, I believe your interpretation that it was merely the color of such an insect is wrong. The color of the insect is not so peculiar, and certainly is not what anyone would remember or compare with other thing. I think the head and eyes of the bug resemble the head and eyes of the stereotypical gray alien. Notice also how the Smith (Canadian) Memo tells of beings that resemble insects.

Kevin, I don’t think that you are jealous about the money they (the slides team) will earn. But I think that professional jealousy might real regarding your actions. In any case, your skepticism might be healthy for the team in order to provide increasingly better answers.

I believe the slides team has spent a lot of money with travels and expenses, so to recover some money is healthy enough for their life.

Curt Collins said...

A lot of what was said in the show was not new statements, but just the first time we were hearing them directly from Tom Carey, and especially Don Schmitt. They seem committed, but it sounds thin, hopes, and dreams, mostly.

The mention of the placard analysis by Studio MacBeth is interesting, since they do 3-D CGI modeling. A strange contributor, but perhaps they are supplying the animated alien for the hologram presentation that Jaime Maussan has promised.

It was strange that they didn't mention Adam Dew, but then again, he seldom mentions them, either.

Don Maor said...

Kevin,

Please, it was yourself the one who stated that second hand testimonies are shaky at best. I don't know why then you interpret so directly the "color" explanation mentioned by Frankie Rowe. Maybe the "color" explanation was only the rationalization that Rowe, by Rowe's own (shaky) interpretation, was able to infer regarding what Dwyer told her.

The point is it seems very unlikely that the color was the issue. Why invoke such a strange shaped bug to define a color?

Do you have transcripts of the interview with Rowe?

Jim Bender said...

Yes its common knowledge, that gilles is so engrossed in his beliefs and book that there are NO UFO's or ET's he will make up crazy stuff in his mind. He is part of Kimball's clan. Can hardly wait for May day to serve raw crow to the nay say baggers

KRandle said...

Don -

I have gone back through the transcripts and irony of ironies, in an interview I conducted, Frankie Rowe does say that her father compared the face of the Child of the Earth with the alien creatures he saw... but, all the information is derived from Frankie Rowe so I don't understand how you defend one of her statements and reject the other.

Don Maor said...

Kevin,

Because: Why evoke such a strange shaped insect to define a color?

I am not saying that this proves that the slides show an alien, but well, we have to see the images.

Don Maor said...

I said previously that the insect like description of the beings was in the Smith Memo, but in fact it appears in the letter from Sarbacher to Steinmann (1983).

http://www.roswellproof.com/Sarbacher_Nov1983.html

Jack Brewer said...

Kevin wrote, "So, can we move away from the attempted analysis of my motives and on to a discussion of what was said in this interview... no one is concerned that Dan Dwyer is presented as a first-hand witness when no one talked to him... all the information came from his daughter which was not mentioned. Shouldn't that be of some importance?"

Of course it should. We have a second hand account obtained by you, Kevin, and selectively interpreted by Carey to mean things the woman never actually said, much less the man of whom Carey attributed the message. I unfortunately do not find it surprising that the circumstances would be questionably implied as an eye witness account of something that was never even stated. I'm not surprised because anyone recognizing reasonable research protocols would know that photographed images are absolutely useless in conclusively establishing the physiological composition of apparent bodies contained in photos. So of course they're trying to build value into things that do not merit attention and never even happened. If they didn't and they followed reasonable protocols, they'd have nothing to talk about, other than informing us they have a couple photos they personally find interesting, but have no idea what they are or where they even came from.

cda said...

I repeat my questions raised a while back:

1. Who is the woman who supposedly discovered the slides amongst the things left behind in the house?

2. Who is the brother, or other relative, she sent the slides to?

3. Why did this man, who was "no UFO guy", ignore them for so many years then suddenly decide they might be connected with the alien being(s) allegedly found at Roswell? What caused him to ever imagine the 'beings' depicted in the slides had ANYTHING to do with either UFOs or Roswell!?

The story, as summarised by Kevin, makes no sense at all, UNLESS we are told how this "no UFO guy" suddenly got interested in Roswell and the associated 'bodies'.

Curt Collins said...

CDA, #3 remains a mystery.

Jack Brewer said...

If I am understanding cda correctly, which I think I am, all three of his questions posed remain mysteries: We don't know any of that, we only know what we have been told. None of it has been conclusively demonstrated or presented in manners that can be independently verified, at least not yet. Kevin has touched on that theme as well in previous posts.

All we really know is that a group of men championed slides of unknown origin as conclusive proof of something the images do not, in fact, conclusively prove. Then they backtracked on the claims and denied even making them. That's what we know and can, ourselves, verify took place.

We cannot, as of yet, verify the origin of the slides, anything remotely resembling a chain of custody or even their current general whereabouts. As a matter of fact, the general public does not even know who owns them.

And, again, it's all relatively smoke and mirrors from the perspective of trying to scientifically identify the physiological composition of what the images represent. Can't be done.

In the land of critical thinking and professional research protocol, there are no reasons - none - to think such images represent alien visitors. Such unfounded leaps in logic are completely an influence of pop culture (myths, media, sensationalism, etc.).

It's at best a potentially interesting aside. If it had been presented that way, as something the authors personally found interesting, rather than sensationalized and misrepresented to the extents we have observed, we might be having a completely different discussion.

Don Maor said...

CDA asked

"Why did this man, who was "no UFO guy", ignore them for so many years then suddenly decide they might be connected with the alien being(s) allegedly found at Roswell?"

CDA, I stress am not a psychic, but I guess that most people are NOT obsessed with UFOs and extraterrestrials, like you for example, or like me, to be honest.

And there was a time in which I was intrigued by UFO tales on UFO TV shows, but many years (about 10) passed until I started to spend _some_ of my free time studying the topic. I later become obsessed, just like you.

So the answer to you is simple, the guy probably was not obsessed with UFOs, but as any normal person who see a strange photo, waited until having some available time to see what the hell it was..

Of course, given that you are (clearly) obsessed with denying extraterrestrials and very paranoid on believing that every high impact UFO witness wants to deceive you, if the slide owner were to have shown the slides to ufologists immediately after finding them, then you could easily have labeled him of being a UFO fanatic or a desperate hoaxer, without even moving from your armchair (again).

Brian Bell said...

I believe a very simple answer can be applied to why "this guy" got interested in UFO's after seeing the images - mostly the iconic image of an alien in today's society is that of a Grey. Large head, big eyes, small mouth, short body, etc. Ask any 3-4 year old child in this country what that depicts and they will say "an alien". No doubt he thought the same and starting diggin on the web. Sometimes the best explanation is the simplest one.

cda said...

Don:

In other words you are obsessed with ET bodies, or ET beings, as depicted in those slides. Perhaps, therefore you can suggest a reason why Sarbacher, in his letter to Steinman in 1983, referred to insect-like creatures when recalling the events of c. 1950 (Wilbert Smith's great era).

I have a good idea, but you will certainly disagree. And yes, I do not have to leave my armchair (or any other type of chair) to give a perfectly reasonable answer, even if it displeases you.

And no, Sarbacher neither examined these insects himself, nor did he need to meet anyone who did. Nor did he ever need to see these slides, or any similar slides.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Sarbacher seems to me to have been at pains to convey the impression that, despite being a member of a significant insider group evaluating the ufo evidence, he rarely attended the group's meetings. I find that hard to believe. I think it's likely that he would have made the effort to attend those meetings to keep up with events as they occurred, especially since he was evidently of the opinion that what was known should have been publicly disclosed. He might have been the only individual in that group who held that opinion. Claiming not to have attended most of the group's meetings enabled him to insulate himself from pressure to disclose information and theories he might have heard at those meetings, even information visible in photographs shared with that group.

Glenn said...

Stephen -- exactly. Kevin doesn't know "the real facts of the slides", yet from day 1 was confident enough to call them "nonsense".

Don't you find that odd?

Blind scepticism is no different from blind faith.

Stephen Jackson said...

Glenn -

I don't find it odd anyone would call b.s straight away on someone claiming to have a photo of an alien from Roswell.

In fact it should be the first response anyone should have. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

KRandle said...

Glenn -

I didn't say the slides were nonsense, what I said was, "And now for a few observations from my end. I’ve sort of remained neutral on all this, but this preliminary nonsense is getting out of hand. A trickle of information leading to the big reveal on May 5…"

This meant the drips and drabs of information being dropped on us, the changing nature of some of the tale of who, how and when the slides had been found, and things like the "Roswell lieutenant" who said the creatures in the picture looked like what he had seen.

I will note that others took offense that I suggested I had tried to remain neutral in this, pointing out problems with the story, with the provenance and the chain of custody, but not that the slides were nonsense. Clearly there are slides and clearly they show an unusual creature that may or may not be alien.

Although I have commented on the slides and will again before May 5, at that time we'll have some real answers. What we have been served to this point is less than convincing.

David Rudiak said...

CDA wrote:
In other words you are obsessed with ET bodies, or ET beings, as depicted in those slides. Perhaps, therefore you can suggest a reason why Sarbacher, in his letter to Steinman in 1983, referred to insect-like creatures when recalling the events of c. 1950 (Wilbert Smith's great era).

I have a good idea, but you will certainly disagree. And yes, I do not have to leave my armchair (or any other type of chair) to give a perfectly reasonable answer, even if it displeases you.


Sarbacher's letter to Steinem spells it out, saying both craft and beings were of low mass to lower inertial forces from high acceleration/deceleration observed in these objects:

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Sarbacher_Nov1983.html

"About the only thing I remember at this time is that certain materials reported to have come from flying saucer crashes were extremely light and very tough...

"There were reports that instruments or people operating these machines were also of very light weight, sufficent to withstand the tremendous deceleration and acceleration associated with their machinery. I remember in talking with some fo the people at the office that I got the impression these 'aliens' were constructed like certain insects we have observed on earth, wherein because of the low mass the inertial forces involved in operation of these instruments would be quite low."

What I take away from this is not that they necessarily looked like insects, but their mass was low, like that of insects, which can withstand much higher inertial forces than we can.

In addition, Sarbacher suggests that the "aliens" (which he puts in quotes) might be artificial beings, also calling them "instruments" (twice) and speaking of them being "constructed", perhaps more like an android, part machine, part biological.

Don Maor said...

I am more inclined to believe that these beings, the "grays", indeed have some light resemblance to insects, which is not to say that they are necessarily insects. Their described limbs are thin, which evokes insects. Their heads are bald and their eyes are big and apparently black, which resembles an ant or a "Jerusalem cricket" as Frankie Rowe told.

It is likely that the guys in charge in 1947, 1948 and later, were prompted to hypothesize. They were probably ordered to think hard on the recovered material and bodies. So they probably related the insect resemblance of these small guys, to a potential compatibility with the real insects capability of withstanding the high accelerations (notice for example how an ant does not even care about gravity acceleration, being able to walk in the roof, in the wall or wherever.) all of which would speculatively have “explained” how the aliens could possibly were able to withstand the crazy maneuvers reported for UFOs.

However, it must be noticed that resistance to acceleration in insects is almost totally the result of their extremely small size (an ant weights much less than a millionth the weight of a human), that leaves the hypothetical “grays” and humans with virtually the same acceleration resistance. So Sarbacher’s friends were speculating wrongly.

Don Maor said...

CDA said:

"I have a good idea, but you will certainly disagree."

Let's hear it then.

John's Space said...

One of the issues that I have on the negative side of Roswell is the focus on everything being so light. Paul Hill who put a lot of analysis of a host of UFO evidence concluded from the ground imprints of landed UFO that they are in fact rather dense compared with our aircraft. He also concluded that their propulsion systems must be based on some unknown (to our science) field effects. So when all of the debits in the case is light weight like balloon debris this raise questions about this being a real UFO crash.

Of course it is possible that not all of the UFOs are from the same ET civilization and they may have different constructions, etc. Any way I doubt that the nature of the aliens bodies is the reason why the can withstand the 100g maneuvers that are observed. It is more likely they never fell the accelerations because of the “field effect” propulsion system the craft must have (if they really exist).

Glenn said...

John's Space --

Indeed. It is highly unlikely that we are being visited by only one species.

Brian Bell said...

Don -

Not that it matters - but acceleration resistance becomes a non-factor in electromagnetic field propulsion systems because the result is an artificial gravitation field within the envelop surrounding the device. Hence no need to be concerned over what would normally be a disastrous crushing splatter for any living creature outside the envelop.

The rest of your comments Don are all speculative "probably" statements which is pure conjecture on your part and not based in any known factual information on Roswell.

Don Maor said...

Brian wrote
Not that it matters - but acceleration resistance becomes a non-factor in electromagnetic field propulsion systems because the result is an artificial gravitation field within the envelop surrounding the device. Hence no need to be concerned over what would normally be a disastrous crushing splatter for any living creature outside the envelop.

Yes, It has always been a speculative explanation, but sounds good in terms of physics.


The rest of your comments Don are all speculative "probably" statements which is pure conjecture on your part and not based in any known factual information on Roswell.

I was not speculating regarding that Sarbacher’s insider friends were wrong about the acceleration capabilities of alien bodies.

Oh, speaking about conjetures and speculations, what is about your highly wild and speculative theory of an unspecific secret project, or the unspecific sensitive and horrible experiment, with ZERO evidence for it, and ZERO witnesses for it?

bobsc said...

Yeah, I don't know, but my understanding was that gravity and electromagnetic forces are independent and not related, one dependent on mass and the other on charge and velocity, so it's not obvious to me how electromagnetic propulsion could shield an occupant from inertial forces. But this is a question for physics experts to chime in on.

But there is another proposed propulsion method, the 'warp drive' made popular by Star Trek – there is a Mexican physicist, Miguel Alcubierre, who developed a theory that used the concept of creating a warp bubble that could be used as a basis for propulsion. Maybe it’s possible for an occupant inside a ‘craft’ within the bubble to be not subject to inertial forces since the warping is actually bending space-time around the bubble. The other thing that makes this type of propulsion a holy grail is that theoretically it would be possible to travel faster than light.

It’s all very speculative at this point but NASA has actually some work as a proof of concept experiment to create a very small warp bubble.

Interesting stuff;
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/science/faster-than-the-speed-of-light.html?_r=0

Brian Bell said...

Don – on the contrary, the entire thread about Ferebee and Fulton is a good example of the non interviewed witnesses of which there probably are hundreds who could balance out the reality or false speculations and lies of the so-called witnesses who propose the alien explanation for Roswell.

It is not wise to hang your hat on dubious and lying witnesses and only a few data points that would indicate something truly exotic and alien crashed at Roswell.

I am not the only person who has proposed that another highly classified project was operating in New Mexico in 1947. Despite the fact that you claim there is zero evidence for any type of military testing programs in New Mexico in 1947, there are in fact thousands of witnesses and documents that prove that New Mexico was a hotbed for all types of military testing in the post war US. Denying this is a truthful fact is ridiculous. I do not need to produce the documents they already exist in the public domain.

There are dozens of still classified projects and information following post world war two discoveries. I doubt you have even investigated chemical or biological warfare and it's evolution both pre-World War II and after.

There is at least one well known highly classified project in which the CIC collected information from an underground facility in Nazi Germany in 1945. That information happens to be classified until 2045.

No doubt you will probably state it's classified because they found grey alien beings working with Nazis to produce flying saucers. When in fact what German and US Army witnesses claim is that they were developing the equivalent of not an atomic bomb but a chemical plasma bomb that could reside on weapons that fly on short range rockets, can be dropped by aircraft, and potentially used in a suborbital rockets for intercontinental warfare. And that those weapons platforms posed such a security risk that they chose to "cover up" the findings as part of a broader plan for US defense.

Of course to you, none of that could be true, and if it were then all of that technology would've had to come from a bunch of aliens.

The Roswell case remains largely unresolved - the alien hypotheses took a significant blow in the late 1990's when the star first hand witnesses to which the entire premise of alien bodies and a crashed saucer were proven to have lied for whatever reasons they had in their distorted minds.

Brian Bell said...

Bobsc - And so the theories contend that by whatever forces are in play there is also a mass cancel effect which until recently would have been unknown to Einstein - this is why we sometimes hear defense specialists attached to Ufology state something to the effect of a "loophole" in his theory or better yet "he missed something in the equation". There are in fact several methods by which to create mass canceling effects or "antigravity" which is not really a good term.

If you continue to research this you will find videos and clear examples of physicists who have experimented in all types of antigravity mechanics producing very good results which they themselves state they cannot yet fully describe the interrelated effects.

"Antigravity" may seem exotic - but it really isn't. We don't need aliens to teach us how to do it since we began working on it back in the 1900's.

For the record the US military does in fact have vehicles that utilize this or some other variation of the technology. We also use visual cloaking devises which create the appearance of invisibility. Much of what people claim are alien spacecraft are in fact advanced survellience aircraft mistaken for alien spacecraft because they disappear quickly, vanish from sight, and move silently.

KRandle said...

All -

At this point I end all discussion that is not concerned with the original topic... no more Nazi secret weapons, no more highly classifed experiments and no more speculation about warp drives and the like. Comment on the topic, fine. Deviate and it will be deleted.

Capt Steve said...

Well, Carey and Schmitt have a point: it's tough calling them the 'Roswell Slides' when there's literally no way they can be linked to Roswell. That hasn't stopped them from insinuating that whatever is depicted in the slide is related to Roswell. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too.

The provenance is broken and probably can't be repaired unless the where and when of the discovery can be proven AND the intervening ten years of sitting around can be proven AND it can be proven that the slides were, in fact, in the box from day one. Having someone merely state this isn't good enough.

The sad thing, to me, is that if these slides DID actually show a recovered alien corpse the investigation seem to be so sloppy that the evidence has been ruined.

Glenn said...

Capt Steve --

We don't know that yet. The presentation of the evidence hasn't happened yet. That's May 5th.

Stephen Jackson said...

Glenn -

There really isn't much need to wait until May 5th. Some questions asked may get answers but the main question of all, "Do the slides show an alien being?" Can be answered now.....no

Why no? Without the body or parts of it to accompany the slides, it can never be proven it was once a living breathing alien from another world.

I would love it to be an alien but a photo with tantalising stories is hard proof of nothing

Capt Steve said...

The problem, Glenn, is that by their own admission the slides have a dubious provenance: taken home instead of being thrown away, sitting around for ten years, the 'Roswell' slides being separate from the rest of the slides, and so on.

There doesn't seem to be a way to prove the origin of the box of slides themselves, never mind the subject in the 'Roswell' slides.

(As an aside, I go to yard sales and estate sales and I've run into boxes of slides. How hard would it be to buy them, claim a different origin, etc? Answer: not very. The slightest break in the chain of evidence opens up all manner of possibilities.)

I'd also feel better if the slides were in the hands of people with better reputations.

Glenn said...

Well, I'm someone who is naturally curious, and very interested in UFOs. Many people here don't seem to have that same interest. So I am looking forward to the presentation of all the evidence, and the testimony of the many experts who have analysed the slides. I find the notion that "the slides can never prove it was once an alien being so let's just move along" ... utterly ludicrous.

cda said...

Glenn:

You hope that "many experts" examined those slides. The likelihood is that maybe one, possibly two, such "experts" examined them. I assume they will remain anonymous, but we shall see.

Unless they are named, and present at Mexico City for interview on May 5, their testimony will be virtually worthless.

Whatever happens, you better be prepared for a big disappointment on May 5.

Neal Foy said...

I have to agree with those who say this story is full of holes. One of the largest holes is the question of how did these people gain access to such a restricted area. Gaining access with a camera is even more doubtful.

I've been a working photographer for over 40 years. One of my jobs was with a NASA subcontractor at a manufacturing facility. This was hardly a top secret facility yet I was required to carry a camera pass allowing me to have a NASA issued camera in my possession, let alone using it to take pictures. I wasn't allowed to have a personal camera at all without special permission and documentation.

It's always been my opinion that no picture will ever prove the existence
of UFOs to everyone. That would apply in spades to proving alien existence.

This entire slide thing has been handled poorly from the beginning. As much as I would like for it to be true I see no way of the participants digging their way out of the hole they created.

albert said...

@cda, Glenn,
.
'Expert' testimony in UFO cases is always a problem. The majority of qualified experts in any field (i.e., scientists) are reluctant to have their names associated in any way with UFOs. This is understandable. Then there's the group of scepti-bunkers that can always be counted on to proffer mundane explanations (debunk) any UFO case. Finally, the small group of believers who are more amenable to UFOs as 'true unknowns'. (I left out the group that believes every ET theory).
.
Given the overwhelming marginalization of the UFO phenomenon by the MSM (especially here in the US), it's hard to see how _any_ objective evaluation can be accomplished. Most scientists knowledge of UFOs comes from the MSM; it's incidental, but unavoidable modern life.
.
Say a body is found. It looks like the stereotypical 'grey'. The world's expert scientists agree that it isn't related in any way, to any earth mammal, either by evolution, or mutation. And to top it off, the beings DNA is identical to ours.
.
What can we learn from this?
.
...

albert said...

@Neal
.
Who were 'these people'?
.
Where was the 'area', and why was it 'restricted'?
.
...

Neal Foy said...

@ albert

These people would be the people who took the pictures, a man and a woman from the description given.

Where? who knows.

You got me on the restricted area, I made an assumption that an alien body would be in a restricted area. My bad LOL

Neal Foy said...

@ albert

Oops, should have said alleged alien body.

I do like what you said in your earlier post. Love scepti-bunkers.

I had a huge black triangle fly over my car very low, slow and silent. I have no idea what it was, where it came from or who was flying it. So count me in the first group you mentioned.

Brian Bell said...

Kevin - In advance of the slides reveal in just a few weeks, I listened to Don Schmitt's 2014 "Contact in the Desert" workshop of 1 1/2 hrs length.

Can you explain why he constantly says "We" when referring to yours and his coauthored books, movie consult, and Oprah TV interviews? He speaks as though YOU are in the room in continued and ongoing partnership regarding everything he has ever done on Roswell never mentioning Tom at all.

What's the story there? When he speaks of Roswell, which is all he speaks of by the way, are you somehow still involved with him and it? He sure makes it sound like it. I suspect not, but can you explain this behavior still present in 2014?

Furthermore - he makes a lot of off hand incorrect references to other important facts to stress his points about the Roswell "conspiracy". Ones that even you would disagree with outside of the Roswell incident. Thanks.

KRandle said...

Brian -

These seem to be questions you should ask Don Schmitt... I wasn't a participant in that program.

Glenn said...

But we don't know who has examined the slides. Why not wait to find out before mouthing off in the negative?

Bit of common sense?

Brian Bell said...

Kevin - No actually the question was directed to you - not Don. If I wanted his opinion I would ask him. So nice of you to defect the question.

Point being that avoiding the answer leaves pretty good suspicion that your ties may still be strong in certain areas despite your so called "disassociation" with Schmitt. If not then your obvious choice to challenge his slides has something to do with your discontent. He certainly is making his continued association with you known in the way he speaks about Roswell - everything but using your name directly.

Seems to me that you must not mind too much that he is still referring to your collective work together as "we did this and we did that", which no matter what you say permanently connects you to him.

But I guess it's your blog so you can selectively choose what to answer while attacking your guests on other matters.

So regarding the slides then, and mentioned not by me but another contributor (more than one by the way), it certainly does suggest that there is some professional jealousy over this thing which is why you seem so consistent in pointing out aspects about the slides you have issues about. After all, as a proponent of the ET hypothesis you would think that you would embrace the slides as having some potential.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

You seem to have serious issues with personal boundaries and basic civility, Mr. Bell. Why wouldn't Don Schmitt or any other civilized adult use the pronoun 'we' in referring to works he had coauthored with another researcher?

It's clear that you raised that first question as an occasion for cross-examining KR about his professional relationship with Schmitt, which is none of your business, and further to cross-examine him concerning his viewpoint on the slides, going so far as to impute imagined petty motives to him.

If that were not enough you accuse KR of “selectively choosing what to answer while attacking [his] guests on other matters.”

Maybe you're from another planet in whose society guests are not expected to treat their hosts with the same courtesy they expect to receive from them? KR, being an evidently patient and civilized man, probably won't ask you to leave the forum and go back where you came from, but if this were my forum I would be showing you the door.

cda said...

I think Kevin is showing far greater respect for the slides (although generally inclined towards the negative view) than Stan Friedman ever did with that notorious 'alien autopsy' film of 1995.

Stan lambasted that film right from the start. Both Kevin & Stan are strong Roswell pro-ET believers but that does not necessarily mean they go along with EVERYTHING presented as ET evidence.

Let's face it, everyone draws the line somewhere.

KRandle said...

Brian -

My blog, my rules... This discussion is about the Roswell slides not being the Roswell slides...

albert said...

@Neal
Things aren't always what them seem to be. I had an encounter with a black triangle, which turn out to be an F-117 :) While driving on the freeway one sunny day, we noticed a loud sound overhead, much like the crackling truck tires make when going through gravel. I recognized it immediately when it became visible as it headed away from us, then turned, head in the opposite direction. With the exhaust facing away from us, it was much quieter than a conventional jet. As it turned it's silhouette assumed various bizarre shapes.
.
Nothing beats a 'live' sighting. I'm not suggesting that you saw a F-117, or any other earthly craft, but now I can see how some folks might be fooled by 'unconventional' aircraft. And I wonder just how far 'we' have progressed in 'silencing' propulsion systems.
.
Finally, in a feeble (but well intentioned) attempt to keep this on topic:
Here's to hoping the slides depict a hitherto unknown humanoid...
.
...

Neal Foy said...

@ albert

I'm hopeful too, I have a negative view of the process,(provenance, investigation and the planned presentation) from what we have been told so far. I'm hopeful on the product (the images on the slides) which we haven't seen.

On my sighting, little chance that it was a known aircraft. It was slow, think school zone speed. The movement was odd, zero yaw, pitch or roll. And I do mean zero.

It was low, using an estimation of the height of the roadside trees as a reference it was about 200 feet above the ground. It was at least that wide at it's widest point.

A total of nine lights, five equally spaced on the leading edges and four in a square centered outboard of the trailing edge. The lights were all the same large size, white in color, not blinking and bright but not blinding. Best description is that they were diffuse and didn't project light on the trees or the hood of the car. Nothing at all like normal landing lights on a plane. Altogether this thing displayed a high degree of strangeness.

It wouldn't bother me at all if it turned out to be some secret craft. I would like to know the truth.

John's Space said...

What can one say. If we have picture of what is claimed to be alien bodies that were taken circs 1947 the connection to Roswell is obvious. However, it could be some similar event that has somehow missed public notice. Perhaps an unknown crash on a military reservation that didn't have any public interface.

@Neal,

Where did your sighting occur? It sounds a lot like the craft in the upstate New York flap back in the 1980s.

albert said...

@Neal
.
Cold, objective investigation and analysis in UFOlogy is drowned out by sensationalism and marginalization in the MSM, often bitter infighting among competing believers, and the mostly absurd debunking by the military and professional skepti-bunkers.
.
At this point in time, the Roswell Slides have nothing to do with UFOlogy.
.
They should be considered a medical/anthropological issue, and investigated as such.
.
...

D.J. Mahar said...

Like Don Maor earlier in the thread, I also found myself intrigued by the "Jerusalem Cricket" comparison.
Wish the slides reflected that more than the sickly-looking mummified "Bat Boy" graphic featured in the "Roswell Slides" video promos. We'll see...

Neal Foy said...

@John,

The sighting was in Louisiana in 1997. I read a book on the Hudson Valley sightings a few years after I had mine and yes, there are a lot of similarities. Some people reported boomerang shapes and others triangles. According to authorities all were ultralights or light aircraft flying in formation. Yeah right, but the mainstream media bought the story hook line and sinker.

@ albert

I agree, the team hasn't presented enough information to make a valid copyright claim to the slides let alone prove a link to Roswell. Just speculation on my part but maybe that's the reason they want to make the money in one go.

A quick explanation, legal ownership of the slides doesn't automatically make them the owner of the copyright any more than legal ownership of a book or even the original manuscript of a book makes someone the owner of the copyright. Under Intellectual Property Law the medium is separate from the content.

I could speculate further on who might actually own the copyright but I fear I'm already pushing Kevin's patience. My apologies to Kevin if that's the case.

Neal Foy said...

I should have added a disclaimer to my post regarding copyright of the slides in this discussion.

I am not an IP attorney and make no claim to be. I'm a photographer with a fair knowledge of current copyright law. I don't want to be accused of practicing law without a license.

Terry the Censor said...

Glenn wrote:
> I'm someone who is naturally curious, and very interested in UFOs.

Glenn, your interest in UFOs seems to be confined entirely to redefining diligence as "jealousy" and doubt as "blind scepticism."

Come off it. You are not curious, you are merely partisan.

And regarding jealousy, those of you who psychically perceive it in Kevin, please desist. What you are forgetting is that at least one of the slide researchers has, in the past, made representations to Kevin that the other fellow knew were not true. Kevin is too polite to bring this up when discussing the slides, but his caution is well-informed and prudent.

Those of you who don't value diligence and prudence, shame!