(Blogger’s note: Yes, I said there would be nothing more about the
Roswell Slides, but I also said that if there was a statement issued by Tom and
Don, I would publish it without editorial comment. There is a statement that
Tom issued. Before it was published elsewhere, Don had asked for a couple of
modifications. That statement was published before Don asked for the changes.
This is the statement, slightly modified from the original version. Don made
the changes.)
 |
| Don Schmitt |
We believe that the recently released "reading" of the
placard by the so-called "Roswell Slides Research Group" is still
open to debate. Ever since Don Schmitt and I became aware of the slides three
years ago, our modus operandi has been four-fold: (1) to authenticate the
age and integrity of the slides; (2) to obtain professional anthropological and
forensic opinion as to what the body on the slides represented; (3) to
find out as much as we could about Bernerd and Hilda Blair Ray, the
long-deceased owners of the slides; and (4) to "read" the placard
located at the foot of the body on the slides.
We physically took the slides to Kodak's historian, who is an
expert regarding Kodachrome., and, using several parameters of
interrogation, he determined that the slides dated from the 1947-49
time period (manufacture to exposure). For the most part, the American
anthropologists we contacted did not want to even look at the slides when they
learned that they might be "UFO-related." Those who did, however, did
so "off the record." They all concluded that the body on the slides
was not that of a mummy but possibly that of a congenitally
deformed child. Fortunately, we were able to secure Canadian and Mexican
anthropologists and forensic anatomical experts who went "on the
record" at our May 5th "beWitness" event in Mexico City. In
short, their detailed presentations concluded that the body on the slides
was: not a mammal, not a primate and not human. One, Richard Doble, after
a detailed morphological examination, concluded that the creature on the slides
did not evolve on earth. You already have Doble's report, and the report of the
two Mexican authorities is still in translation.
The Rays had no children or close relatives we could interview who
could shed some light on their activities. Bernerd was an oil geologist whose zone
of activity was the Permian Basin of west Texas and eastern New Mexico. He was
also the President of a geological society in west Texas. Hilda was an oil
attorney in Midland, Texas and an amateur pilot who, according a friend in the
nursing home where Hilda passed away in 1988, was also friends with Mamie
Eisenhower (General and later President Dwight D. Eisenhower's wife). There are
a number of color slides in the collection that do appear to show Mamie
Eisenhower in various situations. Prior to her death, Hilda Ray bequeathed
almost $1M to the American Association of University Women.
Regarding the placard, we quickly determined that (1) its content
would be key to interpreting the slides; and (2) we could not read it. So, we
sent copies to Dr. David Rudiak and Dr. Donald Burleson. Both had
done exemplary work in trying to decipher the so-called "Ramey
Memo" - a situation very similar to placard issue here. Both
responded to us that the placard was "unreadable." Through a contact,
we had the Photo Interpretation Unit at the Pentagon in Washington,
DC take a look at it. They said that it was "unreadable." A
copy went to a company in New York now requesting anonymity that
conducted the analysis on a major historical artifact. That
company's response to us was that the placard was
"unreadable." Another copy went to the people at Adobe,
Inc. (manufacturers of Adobe Photoshop and the Adobe Reader on your
computer). Their response? "It's unreadable." A copy also was
also sent to aggressive Roswell researcher Anthony Bragalia who
also reported to me that it was "unreadable." (Bragalia
has now aggressively joined in with our critics). Our own
computer guy says that he applied the "SmartDeblur" software to the
placard over a year ago without any success. He did so again this week to an
enhanced, sharper version of the placard with the latest edition of
the "SmartDeBlur" program, again without success.
Now, we are told (not asked) to believe that a cast of characters,
one of whom has clearly become unhinged and was himself party to a known UFO
body hoax some years ago, has used the same program (SmartDeBlur) on a
distorted, "screen-grab" of the placard and is somehow able to
"read" it when all of the above, some of whom had much more
sophisticated equipment and techniques at their disposal, could not. I ask you,
what's wrong with this picture?
 |
| Tom Carey |
Finally, lost in all of the vile invective being hurled our way by
the members of the RSRG and their fellow travelers, is what the analysis
of the physical body on the slides is saying. The RSRG has used a note from an
obscure late 1800's journal to weave their tale that the slides show the
"mummified body of a two year old boy" (the word "mummy" or
"mummified" appears nowhere in their alleged de-blurred
"reading" of the placard). In their excitement to play
"Gotcha!," it apparently has not crossed their thought processes (I'm
being charitable here) that a mummy of a two year old boy several thousand
years old would be less than half the size of the body shown on the slides!
So, what are we to make of all this? Jaime Maussan, Tom Carey and
Don Schmitt, relied on all of the above to reach the conclusions that were
reached. They were not our conclusions but those scientists we consulted. We
have, at this point in the proceedings, have sent out additional copies of the
placard image to third parties whose opinions we can trust to run the
SmartDeBlur application on it and are prepared to abide by their findings,
wherever the chips fall.
Tom Carey
(With modifications by Don
Schmitt who added, “As
I said to Tom this morning, if the independent analysis of the placard comes back
in support of the opposition's read, then I will accept that read. I will
remain a gentleman and concede that point.)
.jpg)
133 comments:
Unbelievably vile.
And pathetically transparent.
We released the info so that ANYONE can replicate our results.
Is anyone really stupid enough to accept any of this? If so, then you get the truth you deserve.
Lance
Ok, well the NOT Roswell slide team reimburse the revenues if results show MUMMY?
One of their colleagues that they refer to hear is David Rudiak. He has now confirmed that using the software in question that the placard can be read and it does confirm the findings of the RSRG and other independent researchers all of whom came up with the same results.
The game is up.
Philip Mantle. www.ufotoday.net
Wow, fair dinkum Tom you are not very bright. You don't even NEED any software manipulation at all to read "OLD BOY", and "OF" quite clearly, just for starters. Bragalia at least knew the game was up and quickly recanted so good on him, but perhaps you guys have a lot more to lose (and I am sure Don will be wiping some of those 50 dollar notes he gained feverishly on his brow at present leaving dark brown stains on them - please Don I still want to know what tanner you use because quite frankly its amazing).
This is like watching Gorbachev try to keep the Soviet empire together after the Berlin Wall fell. Events have moved faster than they can handle. History has passed the promoters by. They are irrelevant, and completely discredited.
PK
C&S: the word "mummy" or "mummified" appears nowhere in their alleged de-blurred "reading" of the placard
How serious are such two guys? They followed something of what the RSRG published they are "criticazing". Or? That's awesome to read it (or speacking well)...
Gilles
Further:
http://www.roswellslides.com/the-roswell-slides/the-child-identified/
All -
I said I would make no editorial comment, but the statement was written by Tom... I assume that Don knew about it and asked that it be slightly toned down.
Let's try to show a little class here despite the rhetoric of the statement.
I asked Carey to identify the person(s) at Adobe who allegedly couldn't decode that placard. I don't believe it.
Peace,
Gene
"For the most part, the American anthropologists we contacted did not want to even look at the slides when they learned that they might be 'UFO-related.'"
How would they know the slides were "UFO related"? Wouldn't the responsible approach been to show the slides to the experts cold?
"They all concluded that the body on the slides was not that of a mummy but possibly that of a congenitally deformed child."
This statement is gibberish. A mummy can be a congenitally deformed child, those are not mutually exclusive things. Mummies can also be adult humans, cats, birds, etc. If the "experts" consulted didn't know that basic fact, they weren't really experts. I'm also surprised that the "experts" didn't ever seem to rule on whether mummification was natural or artificial, as that was the most important thing to determine.
"In their excitement to play 'Gotcha!,' it apparently has not crossed their thought processes (I'm being charitable here) that a mummy of a two year old boy several thousand years old would be less than half the size of the body shown on the slides!"
Wut? If they think that the body in the slide is twice as large as a two-year old child (today that's ~33-35 inches tall, but let's assume it was a little smaller in the past, ~31-32 inches), that means the body is five feet long. If that's true, how big must the preserved head on the shelf behind the mummy be? Heck, that would make the placard close to a foot long! Does that seem likely?
There is no shadow of a doubt, the slides depict a mummified boy photographed within the Chapin Mesa Archeological Museum -
https://youtu.be/c4hteb7l2Yc?t=457
"Our own computer guy says that he applied the "SmartDeblur" software to the placard over a year ago without any success. He did so again this week to an enhanced, sharper version of the placard with the latest edition of the "SmartDeBlur" program, again without success."
The key to the solution was Nab Lator's blur model file. If you don't use it, you don't get good results. As Lance Moody himself said, creating the model is an "art form."
Here's the prior version of Tom Carey's statement that appeared today on Curt Collin's site, before being edited by Don Schmitt:
http://www.blueblurrylines.com/2015/05/roswell-slides-tom-careys-statement-on.html#gpluscomments
Question: who is being referred to here, "...one of whom has clearly become unhinged and was himself party to a known UFO body hoax some years ago..."?
I would also note Tom and Don's reference to Anthony Bragalia:
"A copy also was also sent to aggressive Roswell researcher Anthony Bragalia who also reported to me that it was "unreadable." (Bragalia has now aggressively joined in with our critics). "
Then Tom says:
"Our own computer guy says that he applied the "SmartDeblur" software to the placard over a year ago without any success. He did so again this week to an enhanced, sharper version of the placard with the latest edition of the "SmartDeBlur" program, again without success."
Considering the RSRG work done on the placard, their "open sourcing" of how anyone else can do the same with the placard scans only now being belatedly provided by Adam Dew, and the supplementary data on the Mesa Verde origins of the child mummy provided by Bragalia in his "mea culpa" [Ref. "September 1938 Volume VIII, Number 1 Mesa Verde Notes" and the name S.L. Palmer, which directly corresponds to the deciphered placard], for Tom and Don to issue this kind of statement, almost a week after this all became clearer, there is only one word that applies:
Unbelievable.
Some people apparently cannot handle the truth about their grievous errors in judgement, even when the facts are known.
Two "proverbs" apply: "There are none so deaf as those who will not hear. There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know" and "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
It is also time Adam Dew was investigated for his central role in this debacle. That is crucial.
If, as Bragalia indicates in his apologia, Dew supplied Don, Tom, and Tony with anything less than the highest-resolution copies of the slides, or an altered version of the placard element, then he misled the remaining members of the "Dream Team" with compromised imagery, and thus initiated this disaster. And Dew is still claiming on his slideboxmedia.com/placard/ website page that the RSRG decipherment of the placard is a 'shopped fabrication.
What an amazing maroon!
He's becoming Ufology's own Baghdad Bob.
Ok, well, Kevin said he would let those guys post a statement here. They did. Although I'm still interested in a few sordid details, I think it's time to put a bow on this thing.
Perhaps not from Schmitt or Carey, but there certainly has been a trail of deception here. I refuse to believe that at some level, that this was not a concerted hoax attempt, & not just misidentification.
That isn't entirely true, Frank.
Once you know how the software works, you can make your own blur model. I made my own shortly after I understood how the software worked.
But understanding how the software works ought be sort of a minimum requirement for anyone you are going to call "Photographic Expert", don't you agree?
David Rudiak doesn't call himself that and told me that he didn't know why they used that in their presentation.
Elsewhere, Frank Warren details how Carey/Schmitt made it very hard for David to even try to work on the image.
In the UFO world, hopefully there will be a gigantic backlash not only against these guys but against UFO-style "research".
I'm referring to the kind of research where someone is called an "expert" just to make a silly claim seem supported by science.
I'm referring to the kind of research where unsupported proclamations are made and critics are somehow tasked with disproving the claim.
I'm referring to dubious and discredited UFO personalities and their moronic conventions like the upcoming, Dumbasses in the Desert, convention, where not a word of truth is likely to be uttered.
The above unimaginably self-serving and delusional statement by Carey/Schmitt blames everyone BUT themselves for this idiocy.
I hope that some folks who write about UFO's will learn something from this.
Lance
Correction: Overnight, Dew modified his slideboxmedia.com/placard/ website page to delete the text that was included there, claiming the RSRG had fabricated the version of the placard text that shows "MUMMIFIED BODY OF TWO YEAR OLD BOY" -- I went to Google's cache option though, and the only text that still remains even there, along with two small versions of the placard scan, says the following:
--------------------------------------------------------------
The "Roswell Slides Research Group" fake placard
This is the photoshoped [sic] original that the group
is claiming they worked from BEFORE the claimed debluring [sic]
--------------------------------------------------------------
There was additional text on that page this morning, going into more detail as to why the RSRG version was allegedly a fake, but that too is now gone from even the Google cache version of the page. Hope somebody saved that additional text before it was deleted.
See: http://bit.ly/1bNB4Fr
I will also note that the most promoted slide (1 of 2) had the placard whited-out for the "Be Witness" event when it was displayed via live stream, and also in the version of the image provided by Richard Dolan to the Coast-to-Coast radio show website.
See: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/pages/slide-image-roswell-alien-body
Now, gosh, why would Dew do that? It had to have been deliberate.
Dew got some heavy-duty 'splainin' to do.
Tom's response to me shows that they simply had a defense for an argument so watertight that they could get out of it any which way but loose if need be, which is why he has re-hashed the whole thing as he has rather than simply say hmm. give me a minute to think this over. I unfortunately feel that they saw an opportunity, regardless of how they truly felt about the slides, and saw it as a hail mary to the whole Roswell saga seeing as though the last witnesses have passed away, and that because they had been in the trenches so long they might as well be the ones to sign it all off, and put a cap on it. But at any expense.. so whether it is total denial, or something more suspicious I don't know but all I can say is, they are two very smart guys, and for them to not see the light, and in rapid fashion after what has transposed, is simply preposterous.
"Richard Doble, after a detailed morphological examination, concluded that the creature on the slides did not evolve on earth."
That's a massive assumption based on a photo. Surely Mr Doble is not suggesting that life on another planet would be subject to similar evolutionary changes to end up looking very similar to us?
If we re-ran history, we would probably not end looking how we do now, or exist. For it all to happen on another planet?!
The NOT Roswell slides underscores the need to put the Roswell myth to bed for good!
That isn't entirely true, Frank.
"Once you know how the software works, you can make your own blur model. I made my own shortly after I understood how the software worked.
But understanding how the software works ought be sort of a minimum requirement for anyone you are going to call "Photographic Expert", don't you agree?"
Maybe yes and maybe no. It's a very limited use app and I had frankly never heard of it. You said creating the blur model was an "art form" not me. I agree with that point.
SMH... why on EARTH would a couple of old kodachrome slides be "UFO related?" The only thing "UFO Related" about the slides are the people looking at them.
I'm honestly sick to death of these people. Where ON EARTH did the UFO angle EVER first pop-up in relation to these things?
Beyond exascerbated.
beWITNESS - Análisis CientÃfico por el Dr. José Zalce / Scientifc Analysis done by Dr. José Zalce
English Translation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=18&v=0MruKIwI9kM
" I had frankly never heard of it."
Right, and the chances of me calling you a photo analysis expert are quite near zero.
But I would expect a real expert to know how to use the software and to be familiar with what software is available.
Lance
Even without the placard, how does one explain the animal head and bundle of hair/fur on the shelf behind the body? Was Bigfoot inside the flying saucer when it crashed? Sorry, but I'm just not that much of a believer. My brain just can't seem to make this fit into a Roswell context.
"Right, and the chances of me calling you a photo analysis expert are quite near zero.
But I would expect a real expert to know how to use the software and to be familiar with what software is available."
I think you're deliberately underrating the skills of this Nab Lator fellow in order to take cheap shots . . . something I freely admit you are an expert at.
Nice Frank. It's that kind of thinking that got us here.
Lance
You can see it coming now...these two loones are trying to get off the hook by forcing a draw so they can claim that the slides will forever remain unresolvable, each to their own opinion. It only took a few days of consult with their attorneys to hatch the plan.
Classy as always Lance. Enjoy your victory lap.
Frank Stalter wrote:
"Our own computer guy says that he applied the "SmartDeblur" software to the placard over a year ago without any success. He did so again this week to an enhanced, sharper version of the placard with the latest edition of the "SmartDeBlur" program, again without success."
The key to the solution was Nab Lator's blur model file. If you don't use it, you don't get good results. As Lance Moody himself said, creating the model is an "art form."
Like many things, doing it is "easy" once the answer has been spoon-fed to you.
I've been doing a little bit of an autopsy trying to understand where the deblurring efforts failed. What I've concluded so far is that you have to find the right settings in the particular blur program or you get lousy results.
Please also note that all and what I presume others were given was just the cropped placard area, and nothing around it, which might have provided additional blur information that would have helped.
I had no success with the previous deblurring programs I used. When I heard of SmartDeBlur, I downloaded the trial copy. I used Dew's website placard plus surrounding area scan, then cropped it down to just the placard area, just like what I previously received. Then I reduced it to 50% of full size to speed up the processing.
You can set different blur analysis areas in SmartDeBlur. Smaller speeds up processing, but too small might miss critical blur information. Not knowing what a good blur analysis area might be, I just set it to the entire placard.
First go I used the default blur size of 100x100, no aggressive detection of blur, medium smoothing of artifacts. Results were terrible.
So I arbitrarily set the blur size down to 60x60, or the half setting. Great results! Got a boomerang-shaped blur model kernel that resulted in top line almost completely cleared up, obviously all CAPS printed letters, not script, reading MUMMIFIED BODY OF TWO YEAR OLD BOY, clearer when I smoothed it to the 80 range. Could also read a likely "San Francisco, California" at the bottom.
Well, that was too easy, I said. Too bad I didn't do this earlier.
Today I decided to play around some more and discovered I had gotten lucky. Set the blur window even one up or down: 61x61 = much worse, almost unreadable; 59x59 = godawful horrible--badly smeared, unreadable. Both had completely different blur kernels from one step away and lettering that continues to look like script instead of print. I was extremely surprised that such a slight change in the blur size setting that gave good results instead resulted in poor to terrible results.
Similarly, setting it to 60x60 but using smaller blur analysis windows in various parts of the image also resulted in lousy results.
So even using SmartDeBlur, if you don't persist long enough (or get lucky) and hit the proper settings' "sweet spots", results are bad and can lead you to conclude that it can't be cleared up. It is very easy to get frustrated with repeated failures and just give up. This can be very time-consuming work.
I also read that Blurity does a good job. So I downloaded it today. There are more sliders to adjust (vastly more combinations to try) and the blur analysis window is much smaller than what can be used on SmartDeBlur. I have yet to hit the "sweet spot" on that program, if one exists.
Of course, if somebody figured out the settings that did clear things up and passed them on to others, it becomes "easy" again. But it's not so easy when you have to find things out by yourself, often through lengthy and tedious trial and error (maybe helped by experience), while waiting impatiently for the program each time to do its billions of calculations before seeing the end results of your latest settings--almost always bad.
David,
The tutorial on the SmartDeblur site helped me a lot when I was going through my first efforts.
I totally understand how easy it is to think that the thing just isn't working.
But just to be clear, I made my own blur model and got some great results (I see a lot of the images of the placard that I think are my blur model--or maybe Tim's--Nab's had watermarks on his).
We didn't even figure out that we could share blur models until the second day.
And all the stuff you mention about the default blur size we figured out is irrelevant--those settings are bypassed if you load a custom blur model. We learned this together.
But yeah, working alone, I might well have given up, too.
And that is really the point. It was the absolutely insane secrecy and non-collaboration that lead to this. By sharing information--we saw an amazing synergy take place where people built on others ideas. Exactly the opposite of how Carey/Schmitt operated.
Lance
I reserved judgment on the reasons I thought the slides team was intentionally obfuscating circumstances, but there is no doubt it happened all down the line. Also, it can be observed again and again that the so-called researchers failed to demonstrate an ability to differentiate between facts and unverified tales. To further complicate the process, they blatantly presented tales, hearsay and alleged statements of some yet to be named experts as if it should be accepted without question. It's still happening now.
Lance made a valid point on the May 10 episode of Greg Bishop's Radio Mysterioso. He noted that Carey and Schmitt were collectively considered among the top Roswell researchers, but have now been clearly shown to be absolutely terrible at conducting research. The point was well taken about what that implies about the state of the field and the Roswell meme.
I think that also leads us to the consideration that their remaining defense is to point fingers about who was at fault and that those alleged, unnamed experts gave them poor info. That's the equivalent of pleading idiocy rather than dishonesty. To now suggest it unreasonable to put a critical eye to this train wreck is offensive in too many ways to list.
Maybe Carey and company are idiots. But some people somewhere in all this were in all likelihood dishonest. The continuing demonstration of being either unable or unwilling to differentiate between fact and fiction is not helping their case for sincerity.
From a famous german UFO Board (in english) the same Statement byTom Carrey but with some more Information:
"Tom Carey
We believe that the recently released "reading" of the placard by the so-called "Roswell Slides Research Group" was faked. Some of the names in this group, in itself, should give pause and raise red warning flags do damage to anyone actually searching for truth. Ever since Don Schmitt and I became aware of the slides three years ago, our modus operandi has been four-fold:
(1) to authenticate the age and integrity of the slides;
(2) to obtain professional anthropological and forensic opinion as to what the body on the slides represented;
(3) to find out as much as we could about Bernerd and Hilda Blair Ray, the long-deceased owners of the slides; and
(4) to "read" the placard located at the foot of the body on the slides."
Source: http://www.ufo-und-alienforum.de/index.php/Thread/35954-Roswellphotos-aufgetaucht/?postID=447251#post447251
Why is that part of the Statement not here in the Statement? Oo
Especially these words:
"Some of the names in this group, in itself, should give pause and raise red warning flags do damage to anyone actually searching for truth."
I think he is right because i have also an an confusing experience with Gilles Fernandez at the UFOcon Blog. See at my posts and my Discussion with Gilles Fernandez here:
http://ufocon.blogspot.de/2015/03/kodachrome-alien-slides-side-tracked-by.html
At the End of the Discussion he lied to me...please read the Comments.
I wasn't going to say anything further on this sad situation but Mr Carey's and Mr Schmitt's statement is I feel a very sad state of affairs.
There can be no reasonable doubt that the 'read' of the placard presented by the group is essentially correct. The independent replication of the key results by Dr Rudiak and others, taken with the publication of the methodology used etc. concludes that particular debate.
Unfortunately it was clear months ago, following the suggestion by Giles Fernandez, that the image was very similar to the remains of many examples of mummified human remains and that was always the most likely result.
It was also clear months ago that there was no clear provenance.
The statements alleging that elements of the bodies' appearance suggested evolution off earth is frankly nonsense.
There is as far as I can see two broad sets of questions that arise from this fiasco:
a) Mr Dew's motivation for this affair - will this turn into a 'mockumentary' (if that is an actual word) or does some other motivation apply?
b. Implications for UFO research in general and the Roswell case in particular.
There may be factual statements within the various writings of the principals to this affair but everything will need to be rechecked, where possible, or discarded as tainted.
This is a good thing. I threw out Mr Dolan's books after reading them (shame I bought them both at the same time) and have never purchased anything by Mr Carey and Mr Schmitt...my impression of even reviews of their work was not favourable.
Someone mentioned that the younger generation demand hard evidence. I'm not sure if that is generally true...personally I think the entertainment show will resume in due course with the next wild set of claims, unfortunately, and not sure if I class as part of the younger generation anymore, but...
The number one key lesson for this is we MUST be totally rigorous before making ANY claim. There is hard data out there and there are tests that have been done or can be done. But 90%+ of the claims in ufology are rubbish fit only for the dustbin.
Hopefully we can start to rebuild now and focus on the hard data...and that (I hope) is the last thing I will ever feel it appropriate to say on this appalling fiasco, beyond one final 'thank you' to those who worked so hard to nail this shameful affair.
@Frank Stalter said...
"The key to the solution was Nab Lator's blur model file. If you don't use it, you don't get good results. As Lance Moody himself said, creating the model is an "art form."
Sorry..but these Words sounds to me like hacking. Maybe Nab Lator has hacked the Words "Mummyfied Body of two Year old Boy" in the Deblur-Model File and when People use the Deblur Model File it change the original Dia!
Or why can no one get good results without the Deblur Model File? Is that scientific Work?
No...it is not! Scientific Work is to get the same Result without using a anothers File to get the same Result like the another...or Nab Lator.
Show me the same Results with another Program and i will believe it..use Gimp or other Programs.
Michael Mu said : "why can no one get good results without the Deblur Model File? Is that scientific Work?"
Hi Michael,
I'm not sure you have been following all the (considerable) number of posts online about the slides in the last few days, so you may have missed that the results have been replicated (by several different researchers and teams) WITHOUT USING what you refer to as the "deblur model file".
The people that have duplicated the results (without using the "deblur model file") include researchers such as David Rudiak (one of the experts named in the presentation in Mexico) and Cristian Contini (a researcher privately sent high resolution scans by Jaime Maussan).
David Rudiak's comments were on this blog. Since I don't know how to link to specific comments in a long list here, for ease of reference I'll give a link to where I've quoted those remarks at:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1066804/pg6#pid19336686
Cristian Contini posted about his results at:
https://www.facebook.com/cristian.contini/posts/10153035497891865?pnref=story
Various other people have also duplicated the results (with and without the "deblur model file"), several of whom have posted in the discussion on ATS at the above link (and various other places online).
All the best,
Isaac
Hello,
2 Artefacts in the slide (second plan) probably identified by me/RSG:
Added in my blog article: http://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.fr/2015/05/the-roswell-slide-saga-epilogue.html
Mortem Foray shared the following video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1038&v=c4hteb7l2Yc
And look what I find in the video and I compare with some artefacts visible in the slide. Such artefacts are probably samples of "sandals made of Yucca fibers":
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/…/AAA…/XJOsvMVMA4g/s640/sandals.jpg
What do you think?
Regards,
Gilles
"So even using SmartDeBlur, if you don't persist long enough (or get lucky) and hit the proper settings' "sweet spots", results are bad and can lead you to conclude that it can't be cleared up. It is very easy to get frustrated with repeated failures and just give up. This can be very time-consuming work."
I would agree with that David.
The RSRG group solved the case but they are deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting the work put into the effort so they can stick the knife in. It's despicable really.
Admitting the clearly appalling work made by Dew, Carey, Schmitt and Bragalia., I still don’t see evidence of them being dishonest or criminal. They were very wrong and make an incredible number of errors ¿But intentional hoax? No evidence of that. Not yet, at least.
Not the same can be said of others aspects of this story. Let’s start by the hacking of Bragalia’s account. Who were benefited by the hacking? What about the strange fact that RSG got full resolution images before Dew posted them in his website? Nasty is not it? What about the nasty scandal created by Kimball himself, in which he(Kimball) released private mails he received from Kevin Randle. Kimball presented something like excuses for that, but he still should not be trusted.
Another strange thing comming from Kimball was his very strange "joke" of having the images, that suposedly were to be released on may 4th. Nasty.
@Don Maor
Thank you for your Comment and the Information about those sceptics Idiots! Unbelievable how they behave!
There are so bad sceptics assholes! :D
From the penultimate paragraph of Carey's statement:
"The RSRG has used a note from an obscure late 1800's journal to weave their tale that the slides show the "mummified body of a two year old boy" (the word "mummy" or "mummified" appears nowhere in their alleged de-blurred "reading" of the placard)."
Two factual errors here:
1. The "obscure" journal was from 1938 (close to the "1947" timeframe of the slides) though referring to the late 1800s.
2. The word "Mummified" appears in the deblurred title of the placard ("Mummified Body of a Two Year Old Boy"). The rest of the placard text uses the word "burial" twice, as one might expect when describing a mummy.
This information was obtained from the Bragalia apology posting 2 postings below Carey's:
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2015/05/tony-bragalia-and-end-of-roswell-slides.html
"The RSRG group solved the case but they are deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting the work put into the effort so they can stick the knife in. It's despicable really."
And your evidence for this?
Here we are in a thread where we are being accused of faking the results AND... well, whatever Frank is accusing us of, solving it too good? Having someone competent on our team? Don't know.
I should remind everyone that all this happened over the course of a few hours. And a lot happened in those few hours. We have been completely open about how it went down AND we have a timeline, which I suppose will be published, too. The whole thing is documented in our Facebook discussion.
I suppose that someday Frank's Bragalia-style accusations with no evidence (Frank has long been an ardent supporter of the dubious stuff that Tony has done) might be called out for what they are.: nonsense. Maybe someday that will even happen here?
Lance
Well, my hope that that was the last comment I would want to make was rather short lived!
I've been reading some of the comments with growing incredulity and utter horror. We have people criticising the slides group for getting onto the right track months ago and then nailing the issue within hours of the 'event' in Mexico. That is not despicable it is an outstanding piece of work.
Then we have people going on about inducing dreams to communicate with UFOs, characters such as Greer and other 'ooh wow' statements ( including going back over the previous thread)
Whilst there is a tendency towards over extrapolation and overstatement by some sceptical commentators the fact remains that the extremist believers making some of these comments are a disgrace and seem incapable of learning the lessons from this fiasco.
I have in the past said some harsh things about dogmatic opinions amongst sceptical commentators, and will no doubt do so again. Equally I feel the tone of the discussion to quickly degenerates into invective on many occasions, but...The utter delusional drivel of the 'true believers' is beyond tolerance however.
I return to the fact that there were claims of alleged efforts to decode the placard that include Adobe, publisher of Photoshop.
I asked Carey via email to explain who was contacted over there, because Adobe is a publisher of software, not a contract photo analysis firm. There are hundreds of thousands of people on the planet with decent Photoshop skills. I can manage, and there are pros associated with The Paracast and our forums who would have been delighted to look over a high resolution scan of these slides. There are loads of people out there who would have pitched in if given the chance.
Instead, we get BS.
Peace,
Gene
About the BeWitness Circus....
Let's be clear here, what has happened is Criminal, it's not a game, it's not a joke, it's not open to debate. This was a bait and switch scam that stole a huge sum of money from people many that live in Mexico where the standard of living is very low. Knowing this it makes it even more heinous. How many Mexicans spent their food money to get into this event?
What happened here is no different than any other Con. This is NO DIFFERENT than if these guys said they had the deed of ownership to the Brooklyn Bridge and then held a lottery to win the Bridge when they knew all along they had no deed of ownership, then when they were discovered not to hold the deed, ran off with the money and then started making soft thoughtful statements but refused to return the money! They promised to deliver proof of the Roswell alien and they stated the slides had been examined extensively.
They did not advertise that MAYBE they had the proof they sold this as THEY HAD THE PROOF OF THE ROSWELL ALIEN! Big difference in that. A HUGE legal difference in that. It doesn't matter at all if they claim it was mistaken identity. THEY CLAIMED and SOLD DELIVERY OF THE PROOF, just like in my example they claimed and sold delivery of ownership of the Brooklyn Bridge.
The build up, the blurring of the images, the whiting out of the placard, the withholding of any clear images until people paid to see them all lead to a prosecutable accounting of pre-planning, method, motive and executed fraud for financial gain. This would be a slam dunk for the Federal prosecutors. It would be a no contest HAMMER TIME.
The perpetrators of this scam would be well advised to return the money as soon as possible and with an apology and a monetary damage to each person victimized.
If they tarry if they stall, they will fall. Do you really think there was not a hungry attorney in the masses of the viewers? All it takes is one to spearhead a Class Action Law Suit and this is what should be done to these people for the victims.
It's probably already happening and we just haven't heard about it yet. Dolan didn't just go along for any ride, he was the closing Speaker and he stated emphatically that the claims made in the event were TRUE and that it was NOT a Mummy in those slides.
Oh and here is something else you all probably don't know... Just the plane ride, food, and hotel bill being paid by the event organizers is enough to convict him, even if he didn't get monetarily compensated at all or receive any actual money. That also applies to all the other speakers as well including Edgar Mitchell.
Ignorance of the Law never saved anyone from prosecution, especially when it comes to these large dollar amounts. If I was Dolan I would be hiring an Attorney ASAP, but then again I never would have done this to over 6,000 people.
The sad thing about this whole thing is that it calls in to question all the research done by the cast of characters involved with these slides. How can we trust their judgement when they want to believe something so badly they ignore all data pointing to the fact that this was a mummy. From the beginning they should have been asking what is more likely I have a photo of a mummy or a photo of an alien.
They didn't ignore it. It was about the money and an intentional scam. Stop being so gullible. They did it for the Money and unless the Feds get involved or an Attorney goes after them they are going to laugh all the way to the bank at people just like you that give them any benefit of the doubt. In a trial it will be easy to prove they intentionally set this up to cheat the public. It will be no problem to prove it conclusively.
If I were involved in this scam I would be scared shitless. They could see serious prison time for all of this. This was no conference this was a sold event to thousands that failed to deliver with a very clear trail of deception that can be put in front of a Jury and convict these clowns and destroy their lives and drive them all into bankruptcy.
Anthony Mugan wrote, "The utter delusional drivel of the 'true believers' is beyond tolerance..."
Reasonable observation. Studies have shown how some people tend to dig in their heels even deeper when confronted with irrefutable evidence contradicting a belief.
I think unbridled belief does more harm to the UFO community and repels away qualified experts that could make valuable contributions than any other factor. It is certainly more harmful in those regards than what we might term fundamentalist skepticism. Neither is desirable, and your point is well taken, at least by me.
Scott Lee wrote, "Dolan didn't just go along for any ride, he was the closing Speaker and he stated emphatically that the claims made in the event were TRUE and that it was NOT a Mummy in those slides."
I agree that more attention could be given to that, particularly as compared to topics like trying to figure out why we shouldn't trust tests being independently confirmed from a variety of sources. I think you brought up some valid points - thanks.
There are also several more attention-worthy comments being made. Too many to address, but thanks to you all.
I also appreciate Kevin Randle facilitating these ongoing discussions and what amounted to peer review, ufology style. If helpful to anyone to know, I contacted Kevin early on for comments on the developing story (I'm a blogger), and he provided prompt replies while circumstances would later confirm he was in a difficult and relatively complex position to do so. Suffice it to say my experience in such matters led me to observe some others in this saga were much less approachable and accountable for their public statements, and that's putting it very generously.
Anthony Mugan wrote, "The utter delusional drivel of the 'true believers' is beyond tolerance..."
This delusional exhuberance of the believers that have the inability to logically see and examine the truthg of any situation and just trust in people like Richard Dolan is exactly why Dolan was brought into this Circus.
I believe aliens exist they must somewhere, if they are here I have still seen no real true indisputable evidence for it.
The Con Men of this even preyed on these people like a Tiger preys on an antelope. They stole their money sure in the fact that people so want to believe that if they built up the Con and got Dolan to support it they would come, and they did by the thousands.
This is incredibly heinous and disgusting at least to me. If followers want to go to a conference and hear speculation and stories that is one thing, but this time they were sold promised proof and were delivered a hoax.
Dolan went in on this with them, he can not claim he was duped in any way. No one with a mind like his could have looked at those hi res images and not have known immediately it was a mummy in a museum. If anyone wants to think differently you are living in a fogged world full of fairies and leprechauns. Dolan is as guilty as the rest of them and used his credibility, (now lostpossibly forever) to bring in the largest audience for his own financial gain. The same can be said about Edgar Mitchell and the other speakers.
Scott Lee, do you think they may have held the event in Mexico to circumvent US law?
The other day I posted on my blog some excerpts from a 1955 newspaper column written by Dr. J. Allen Hynek that is particularly appropriate today. Hynek was writing about UFO Contactees and fraudsters like Frank Scully, but his comments are painfully relevant today:
http://www.highstrangenessufo.com/2015/05/ufo-hoaxsters-charlatans.html
ok,i must be quick bcause i have enough ,like some others even without the blurmodel of nablator.even with smartdeblur trial,i could see what is written on the placard,just use blur size 60or less, use 59-60 percent of smoothness and use editblur tryng to spotting next to the blurmodel pattern:try lose a little time and you will succeed as I did myself, and I did it because I did not understand what is a blurmodel thought was a file that falsified but I realized it was not so;and for anyone who doubts i took the image from adamdew's site soon as he has inserted.stop enough stop it!
I do think deception now more than ever, the more and more you think about the whole affair. Why did they blue contrast the alien slide in the event, what point was there in doing that? Why on earth make it strong blue when the real photo isn't, and looks just like... a child mummy? Why did the blurred photo that was released - or leaked - prior actually look more like an alien than the eventual photo? That blurry image looked like a small grey, and I think it may well could have been manipulated to look just that way. Because within 2 seconds upon seeing the real slide I could see it was a mummy. Also as mentioned above, was the event held in Mexico for more "legal" reasons, or more pointedly escaping such reasons. The only think unbelievably vile here, Tom, is taking - what, hundreds of dollars in some cases (?) off some people - in BeWitness, I mean is that fair dinkum? Can someone verify that some people actually paid in the hundreds to watch that complete trash?? To do that, to ask for that kind of entry price is absolutely despicable and I could never do that to anybody given the lousy "proof" that you guys had. Tom, Don, Adam should either be taken to court over this, because there is more than enough evidence of deception, in fact quite a bit of it.
If they held the event in Mexico to circumvent US Law they should fire the Attorney that advised them. The Event was broadcast into the US, it was sold into the US, it was doing business in the US, they likely used PayPal a US Company to receive payments. The defrauded US citizens and most of the people involved were US Citizens. They could likely be hit from both Jurisdictions in multiple cases. If they thought that holding the event in Mexico would keep them safe by what I know about Law, I think they are mistaken. The Federal Government has lot's on internet fraud to deal with and they have laws in place for this. Most of the parties involved would not need to be extradited into the US for trial.
Jurisdictional laws are based on many things, who contacted who first to do business, where the transactions took place, where the funds were transferred from but these rules I am familiar with are US laws for interstate business. As far as International business I would suspect they are the same or close to the same depending on the agreements between Mexico and the US. Being that Mexico is a neighboring Country it would only take one person a citizen of Mexico to start the suit and then Jurisdiction would be argued. If launched from the US also it could be argued. If launched by the Feds of the US a Mexican judge could easily rule to forfeit jurisdiction on the grounds that most of the Defendants are US Citizens.
All -
Let's stop with the legal speculation here... unless you happen to be an attorney with the emphasis in the proper field. Otherwise it is just wild speculation.
So wild speculation is bad? Tell that to Adam Dew and the Dream Team.
All -
Let's pay attention... the legal arguments have ended.
I felt the need to chime in here. Does anyone remember the old saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carey, Schmitt, Bragalia, Dew, and whoever else, should have done their due diligence. They are all either incredibly inept, gullible, or dishonest. When I saw high resolution versions of the placard certain words instantly jumped out without any programming. When I took a photo of a 3 year old child and compared it to the being on the slide- facial ratios matched nearly exact. The size of the head, the distances between features, etc. nothing alien about the being. The dream teams claims were completely unfounded. Here I am some amateur "researcher" and was able to make some conclusions within a day.
I think a good researcher should remain skeptic of the fantastic until solid evidence comes along to sway them the other way. It shouldn't be the other way around as it seems with Carey and Schmitt. I applaud the RSRG's work on the placard and identifying the mummy. I don't always agree with the folks from that group on things, but they did good on the slides.
I want the truth about Roswell, whatever it is.
I'm glad Tony Bragalia had the decency to step up and concede that the slides were that of a mummy. I just wish that Carey and Schmitt would do the same. Unfortunately they seem to be unable to either because they would have to admit to being incompetent or dishonest. It saddens me as I truly enjoyed their books and thought of them as solid researchers. Hopefully they will someday redeem themselves.
It must feel horrible to have wasted years of your life when they could have released the photos earlier with a question mark attached to them and have this matter solved in one day. The lesson here should be obvious
Hi, it may be a scam from Don, Tom, and especially Adam Dew and maussan, to withdraw money. But it can also be a well known psychological through. Do, at all costs, get a square tip, in a round hole. When we want so much to believe in something, we retain the elements that go in the right direction and reject the others irrationally, even justify this by improbable conjecture .. While outside observers who are not involved emotionally , pull the alarm, so that believers still deeper plunge to delay the moment when they will face the pain of the truth. We must therefore reconsider all the conclusions of authors Don Schmitt and Tom Carey on the Roswell case, since obviously they color the facts and imagine them with their own imagination. Long ago it is no longer a scientific gait of their own, while tracks proposed by the RSRG they are reproducible by anyone. I say this as an observer only.
Is Karan Singh the world's tallest toddler? Not-so-little two-year old is already 4ft 5in
By Daily Mail Reporter
Updated: 20:10, 30 September 2010
Weighing in at a burly 7 stone and standing 4ft 5in tall, two-and-a-half-year-old Karan Singh is believed to be the tallest toddler in the world.
Almost the same height as his 10-year-old neighbours in Meerut, India, Karan is twice the size of children his own age - and his giant mum believes this is just the start.
Dwarfing her husband, 7ft 2in Shweatlana Singh is Asia's tallest woman, and the proud mum is praying her baby outgrows her...
Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1316307/Karan-Singh-tallest-toddler-world-2-year-old-4ft-5in-tall.html
Can anyone please tell me why it is so important to these folks that alien visitation must be happening? Maybe they need to get a life!
"mmaNorway1 said...
It must feel horrible to have wasted years of your life when they could have released the photos earlier with a question mark attached to them and have this matter solved in one day. The lesson here should be obvious"
The lesson here is obvious there was no money in doing as you suggest. The Con had to be built the deception built and the defrauding of the people had to be developed.
The lesson here is they played the UFO community like a bunch or hopeful religion junkies and took a quarter of a million dollars from them dishonestly.
Why do you think they didn't release the slides? They did everything but release the slides. They built a big Mystery to net in as many gullible fish as possible and then sprang the trap. It's Called a Bait and Switch. The promised slides of a Roswell alien and delivered images of a dead child in a museum. It can't be any clearer. This was pre-planned and executed but not brilliantly. They got caught and there is a lot of back peddling and excuses but not a single mention from anyone I have seen of returning the stolen money to the victims.
SMH.... this ENTIRE argument is far BEYOND photo analysis of the slides. Are people being intentionally obtuse? Here's the flow of "logic" on display:
- I find old slides in an attic in Virginia showing a black man in the house of guy who used to work in Washington DC.
- the slides seem to have been taken somewhere around 2010.
What? 2010? Black man? House in Virginia? He used to work in Washington DC? OMFG... these must be photos of Barack Obama!!!!!
SMFH.
This is the sort of "logic" I heard six months ago in relation to these $#%^@&* slides. You don't need image processing to arrive at this conclusion. Anyone who listened to this pathetically weak argument figured out from the day these damnable things were first mentioned it was ridiculous. Forget about chain of custody, provenance, photographic analysis. The ENTIRE spectacle has been one gigantic sham. I had to come to Kevin Randle's blog to see Kevin was the first one to question the narrative AT ALL.
PATHETIC doesn't begin to sum it up.
Turgid is right on...I think it's even worse...they never pinned down a location.
It's more like "Miracle on 34th street came out in 1947" THEREFORE Miracle on 34th Street is about the Roswell crash.
Lance
"And your evidence for this?
I should remind everyone that all this happened over the course of a few hours."
"Roswell Slides : Solve the mystery in 1.5 minutes (Your independent verification welcomed)"
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1066804/pg1
Case closed in . . .well I didn't time myself.
You're making a fool of yourself, Frank.
I don't even understand what you are trying to complain about.
That isn't evidence of anything. We put up the tools so that people could try to replicate our results and se that we weren't faking anything.
Again--your silly UFO thinking is why these kinds of things happen.
Lance
Turgid:
Mr Randle already made the point that the provenance was next to nothing!
The point I would like to make is this. They intentionally blurred the images including the placard, who's to say the supposed hi res images they finally released did not intentionally by them still have an intentional blur on the placard that was not present on the original scans which they felt (wrongly) could not have been undone.
Everything about this screams foul putrid and stinks to high heaven.
As a Graphics pro, I assure you any expert in photography would have known about deblurring, it's a function of image digital processing they would use on a daily basis. I did however read above that the photo expert now denies ever claiming he is a photo expert so therein again we have intentional misrepresentation.
The people that deblurred the image have uploaded a video showing the process in real time and the results what more does anyone need? Others have verified the process on their own.
I have no idea how anyone can doubt that this whole thing was set up and intentional scam going back to the beginning of it all.
I just watched the forensic analysis with English subtitles and I have to say it's awful bad, leading to conclusions that completely disregarded that this could have been a growing child nor the fact that the features would have degraded over the hundreds of years. Missing patella, hello, without ligaments nothing there to hold it to the body... examples like this on and on. It's really terrible what has happened and again I say it was intentional. By there very nature of the claim selling it as solid proof of an Alien the whole thing is not and never could have been what they promised the consumer. The whole thing seems like a set up from the graphics used to the forensic evaluation. You could never conclude what was stated by simple scans of 35 mm slides. There is only one reason why they claimed conclusively to be able to and that is for the Money.
The remains of the child seen in the “Roswell slides” has been identified as one that was once located at the Mesa Verde National Park. The following text was discovered by the Research Group after the placard de-blurring in an article in the Mesa Verde Notes (September 1938, Volume VIII, Number 1) that was published by the National Park Service
“A splendid mummy was received by the Park Museum recently when Mr. S.L. Palmer Jr. of San Francisco returned one that his father had taken from the ruins in 1894. The mummy is that of a two year old boy and is in an excellent state of preservation. At the time of burial the body was clad in a slip-over cotton shirt and three small cotton blankets. Fragments of these are still on the mummy.”
The full text of the article can be found at the National Park Service History website.
Here is a statement from Chapin Mesa Archeological Museum sent to Research Group member Isaac Koi:
“Recently we’ve received inquiries based on internet reports concerning the ancient remains of a human child which used to be on display in the Chapin Mesa Archeological Museum. We consulted with our National Park Service colleagues, who gave us this guidance: Out of respect for this child and his/her family, it was taken off public display many years ago. Although it was common practice in the past to display human remains in museums, we now try to treat them with the same respect we give to our own family members who have passed away.
There are many historical reports in the public domain of human remains that were recovered from various archeological sites in the Southwest in the early years. Interested readers can research authors like Dr. Jesse Walter Fewkes of the Smithsonian Institution and Gustav Nordenskiold. It’s important to remember that, regardless of how the remains were treated at the time of recovery, each was someone’s parent, child, and/or sibling. All should be treated with respect.”
To get completely back on topic….. wow Tom Carey, wow! It would be great if you would come on here and answer some of the questions being brought up in this thread.
Your statement was similar to the evidence revealed at the event… Just put it out there and cross my fingers that no one will question it.
No rational person is staying on the Titanic with you! Wouldn't it be better to admit the truth, apologize and try to get your reputation back? That may not even be possible now, but you could at least try.
Frank, as I recall, the ATS thing was my idea, but I wanted to make it like competition cooking, instead of a bake-off, it'd be a blur-off.
This event cant be compared to the Alien Autopsy, I actually this its worse. Because you knew straight away Santilli was lying, and who was he anyway, so it didn't set things back all that much. But Schmitt, Carey, Massau, Mitchell, Dolan... these are, or were, respectable names in the UFO field, and now with this charade I am left questioning just how many lies have been perpetrated? With the exposure of the mummy and what it really entails, their lies have been exposed to great effect, so you can see clearly just how they go about their exaggerations. But they also do manage to get people onboard with them to go along with what they believe - is this by design or are there simply really bad "scientists" and the like out there, whom they "shop" for? Or.. bribe?! The questions are endless now.. but for me, this is much, much worse than the Alien Autopsy because to me Schmitt and Carey were leaders in Roswell research, and the debacle has left me questioning things a lot more than before, in a field where things are questioned deeply already.
All I know is I came into this thing a believer years ago and I started researching seriously about 5 years ago.
My awakening began when I watched Debunking Ancient Aliens. Since then I have watched and even attended the Citizen's Hearing. I was angry when I learned the lies told in Ancient aliens all the way back to Chariots of the Gods. Then as I continued, all I saw were people trying to cash in and making grand claims like Jim Sparks and Travis Walton.
Researching Walton I learned that nearly everything he claimed as in passing all lie detector tests and like were not true. It became infuriating.
One after the next videos exposed as fakes ie: alien autopsy, photos exposed and admitted faked, Billy Meir exposed as fake by his ex wife , and then CGI sightings exposed as fake but all along being again and again represented as real.
I am at the point now where it seems to me there is no Disclosure Movement, but rather and more honestly only a Money movement to suck as much cash out of the public as possible.
I had always thought of Dolan as the level headed one, the one that could be trusted and now that has been dashed against the rocks of UFO hoaxing as well.
I am damned pissed off. I supported Dolan and KGRA, did free graphics support for some of the shows for one of their Radio Hosts and all I got in return was pummeled the minute I started asking questions about the Money, why the info wasn't free like all researcher say it should be and asking for some proof.
I spent a lot of my time supporting these people and then I got dumped like a hot potato and was then labeled a debunker, when all I was asking for was some real proof that aliens are here and not one of the researchers had a shred of any.
And now this charade and fiasco. It's too much to take. Even the ones you thought would be honest with you turn out to be just out for the Money no matter who they hurt.
"You're making a fool of yourself, Frank."
Typical response when you've been busted.
The researchers made a fatal mistake. They focused so much energy on demonstrating the slide was from the late 40s time frame, which I seem to recall quite a bit of before the fact criticism, that they neglected to consider what the picture was actually of. They focused so much on the sophistication of the Rays they failed to consider they were also the kind of people who would visit museums.
@Scott Lee -
Fortune magazine once published an article entitled "Unidentified Flying Dollars". This was an expose on the money making aspect of the "researchers" touting world-wide government secrecy on alien visitors.
Scott your experience from a relative newcomer to UFOlogy says a lot - hard core ET'ers should pay attention. Most of the current folks prominent in this "hobby" they call their "professions" have dubious backgrounds, bad credentials, a passion for the obsurd, competition against their peers, in-fighting, character assassination, secrecy, lies, and even more than that.
It's a 21st Century version of 19th Century side show acts. Watch on YouTube 3-4 shows where Schmitt or Carey are speaking or interviewed...every word is rehearsed - every speach is the same - and they blend into their stage act statements that have never been proven or are just out-and-out incorrect as means to feed their followers with BS they want to believe.
Few of these guys are real researchers, and they claim to be investigative journalists while they slam mainstream journalists for failure to investigate. The clowns behind "BeWitness" are prime examples.
@ Scott Lee
I agree with a lot of that Scott. Dolan saw fit to get mixed up with the “CIA deathbed confession” nonsense… now this. Just another brandname personality in the cult of Ufology that can be tuned out.
The problem is… the phenomena are still there, and stripped of complexity, the skeptic position rests on one narrow assumption. It’s because of that assumption our debates aren’t “what do they want” or “why are they here” or even more intriguingly “how do they get here”… no… it’s because of that one narrow assumption we never have those debates. Every single debate devolves into name-calling, smears, ad hominem attacks and ridicule. Why? Because of that singular assumption.
We can’t go there.
That’s it. That is the entire enormity of the skeptic case in five words.
We can’t go there… so… they can’t be here. So… what you saw was a temperature inversion.. or swamp gas… Venus low on the horizon, flares… a mental delusion or a deliberately staged hoax by someone who craves fame, fortune and attention, because it is a well-known fact that staging UFO hoaxes is the path to the Fortune 500. Ask the gang that just spoofed us all with this Roswell slides bs, I’m sure they’re all at the Ferrari dealership right now picking out their new wheels.
We can’t figure out how to go there… so they can’t be here. Because surely if we can’t figure it out, no one else can. It’s funny how quick skeptics pull the anthropocentric bias card on little grey aliens, but the core assumption of skepticism is itself rooted in anthropocentric myopia.
Funnily enough, it is the evolution of scientific progress itself that almost dictates this silliness will eventually evaporate. 800 years ago the earth was flat, and the center of the known universe. Man was the sole intelligent life form in the universe. Two of those hallowed assumptions have been felled by science, and it is science itself that is slowly creeping to a grudging acknowledgement that the universe is likely teeming with life. Embracing scientific bias religiously, you can actually calculate almost to the decade the exact time modern science will embrace the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. That is… the day _we_ figure out how to go there and find it. Applause all around. We may not ultimately be the most intelligent lifeforms in the universe… but we’re the most intelligent lifeforms in the universe… in our own minds. Standing ovation for modern science.
@Gurkenstein,
No, the skeptical position doesn't rest on the five words:
"We can’t go there."
First off, because that is four words.
But be that as it may...
As far as I am aware, what skeptics like me say is that the evidence for the proposition is not convincing.
That's all.
Lance
Back to the point...
We solved the puzzle in short order.
We made our results and methodology freely available.
We even provided videos showing people how they could do it themselves.
Case closed.
PK
For Kevin:
It would be helpful in understanding all that has happened if you could relate for us any and all interactions/discussions/contacts you have had with Adam Dew during all this, if you would.
b"h
TC and DS said:
"We have, at this point in the proceedings, - sent out additional copies of the placard image to third parties whose opinions we can trust to run the SmartDeBlur application on it and are prepared to abide by their findings, wherever the chips fall."
Soooo??? Have the chips fallen?
"Back to the point...
We solved the puzzle in short order.
We made our results and methodology freely available.
We even provided videos showing people how they could do it themselves.
Case closed.
PK"
Exactly! The work is to be applauded. It's the accompanying trash talk I object to and that only.
Tony Stark -
All my communications with Adam Dew are posted to the comments section of the various postings about the Not Roswell Slides. I have had no private communications with him though I did sent him an email or two.
I thought that Carey and Dolan would have thrown this on Dew's lap at some point. Something like, "he never gave the the actual slides, so we just went with what we were given."
But, they didn't say that, when clearly Dew is a culprit here. They are still backing the slides, and disagreeing with facts!
So this says to me, a fan who has read many of their books and truly loves to read about this subject, that they were scamming me the whole time…with Dew….and still continue to do so.
Was this a retirement plan? Couldn't come up with anymore book ideas?
One final question that I would love to have answered, that would seal the nail in their coffin is:
If you were unable to "deblur" the slides in all that time, then why at the press conference, when a slide was shown, was the placard writing whited out completely?
Could the answer be because you didn't really want people to see what it said and have a better copy of it….because you already knew??
I guess one more thing that's driving me crazy…..Why the big connection to Roswell? That seems so forced. I get it, the time frame and being in New Mexico, but still it's a stretch with iust a photo that only shows a body with no reference to where it is (supposedly). Unless you were going to say it says "Alien from Roswell" on the placard, how could you know?
Oh wait, "Witness to Roswell" book…."now we found a roswell alien"….and the retirement plan. Got it.
Is a little parody OK to post?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10205569131739616&set=a.2681512249006.2126082.1592320862&type=1&theater
Richard Dolan can't say he never saw the original slides because he posted on his Facebook after he got there that he reviewed them and that "They Look very Compelling". I saw this myself on his page before the Circus Clowns took stage.
Also someone referred to Richard Dolan's continuing to support that the slide is of an Alien, Well??? What do you expect him to do open himself up to litigation further? Do you think he actually wants to return any money by any admissions???
What's amazing to me is one of the co-hosts at The Paracast Chris O'Brien wrote the quote below on May 14th. The reason I quote it here is he has been following this Roswell Slide issue for months now and posting to two main Roswell Slide threads at the Paracast forum he helps to moderate. I don't trust this guy, when he posts comments like this that contradict the skeptical position he has had opposing the slides. Bizarre:
Quoting: "It seems to me that everyone is gleefully accepting (at face value) what this self-appointed group of slide deniers is supplying to the public in the way of a translation of the placard. Ron Regehr was given a hi-rez TIF version of the placard and was unable to resolve the wording that the slide deniers claim they uncovered. When he used the version they supplied, he was able to re-create their results. Something is wrong w/ this picture! They were able to resolve the image in two days? Hmmm...
OK, I admit it: anything having to do w/ ufology that has Lance Moody and Tony Brasilia involved is beyond being merely suspect in my opinion. Those two (IMO) are nefarious characters bent on raping, pillaging and re-writing ufological history. I don't trust anything that either of them says and I would suggest that the jury is still out on the placard. I won't mention Kimball in the same breath as L & T, but he does seem to lust after fame and relevence and when this doesn't happen, he seems to get pissier and crustier. This may call his motivations and judgment into question as well IMO. [...]"
What's shocking to me about the above quote is Chris has been posting very skeptical comments about the Roswell Slides the entire time, yet he back-flips and writes that quote above???
Just one more example of the whacky world of Ufology and paranoia misdirected and aimed at skeptical viewpoints and findings such as the slide placard.
One another issue regarding what Don/Tom wrote: Where is the proof anyone contracted the Pentagon to analyze the placard too? Let's see EXACTLY what was contracted IF there even was a contract.
Paul Kimball said...
"Back to the point...
We solved the puzzle in short order.
We made our results and methodology freely available.
We even provided videos showing people how they could do it themselves.
Case closed.
PK"
Again back to the really Points:
You told that you "Solved the puzzle in short order." but did you that really, do you have really Evidence for that statement? Nope!
You made not your results and methodology freely available!
You demand People to dowload a dubious File that probably is a Hack-File that only change a original Slide in a Slide with a faked first Line!
You even provide Videos to showing People how they download the Hack-File from Nab Lator and then opened the Slide with the Hack-File.
Case Reopened!
MM
@Paul Kimball
And the really important Point is that one Member of your dubious Group lied to me before - it was Gilles Fernandez and you read it here in the Comments:
http://ufocon.blogspot.de/2015/03/kodachrome-alien-slides-side-tracked-by.html
And that and tells me that your Group is a Group of Liars!
Roswell Slide Research Group Case closed!!!
I think that Chris was just not understanding the whole situation. I am hoping that he will have additional comments.
Lance
Michael Mu:
When are you, in line with Nitram Ang (unless you are the same person) going to finally disclose your identities?
If you ever intend to present your knowledge & discoveries to the scientific world and be taken seriously, you will, I fear, have to reveal who you are one day.
No true scientist or astrobiologist is going to take these slides seriously; nobody at all. And if perchance a real ET body turns up on this planet you may be certain that the evidence will NOT consist merely of photos or slides. It will consist of the REAL THING and be available for study by interested parties.
Even Piltdown Man at least had a real skull to examine, and not some photograph thereof. So did the Cardiff giant.
How anyone ever supposed they could present two slides of a mummified child and from that demonstrate to the world that ETs crashed at Roswell (or anywhere else) simply defies belief.
So when is the next UFO fake due to appear? Any guesses, anyone?
Unfortunate that this Blog won't allow links added so you all can just copy and paste this URL below into your Browser.
Another little Parody for your enjoyment.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10205578171805612&set=a.1132326520331.2020543.1592320862&type=1&theater
Gen wrote, "If you were unable to 'deblur' the slides in all that time, then why at the press conference, when a slide was shown, was the placard writing whited out completely?"
That's a reasonable question. So are several more not being addressed by the sliders, like why Dolan thinks it's okay to suggest we all trust Maussan and company without vetting their claims, then suggests people are unreasonable to identify his actions, reflect substandard research-skills (at best).
And by the way, Michael Mu is making a fool of himself. His irrational points have been addressed competently and repeatedly, yet he persists, for whatever reason, as if his points continue to stand - a lot like the rest of the sliders at this point, I guess.
"TheDimov" wrote:
But they also do manage to get people onboard with them to go along with what they believe - is this by design or are there simply really bad "scientists" and the like out there, whom they "shop" for?
Or there were things really unusual about the body that made these scientists think it wasn't human. The scientists probably already made good money and worked long and hard to earn their reputations. Were they really going to risk their reputations over what would have been a relative pittance?
The most obvious anomaly is that the body was 5 or 6 pairs of ribs short of a normal human rib cage of 12 pairs. There were other anomalies pointed out such as the absence of a normal human pelvis and abnormal length ratios of arm and leg bones.
According to one of those Mesa Verde park bulletins, unlike most mummies, visitors didn't like this one, even though of a child, which might normally invoke some empathy. There was apparently something very abnormal or creepy about it.
According to Carey, other experts they consulted, who wouldn't go on record, thought that maybe it was a seriously deformed child. But it wasn't normal.
Again doing a post mortem on this thing, I think this is what Carey and Schmitt most based their claim on that this was an alien body. Several experts thought it was so abnormal in its anatomy that it couldn't be human. And this is why they may have overlooked some red flags, like the museum-like setting, that should have told them it wasn't something like one of the Roswell aliens in a lab or hospital setting.
Again let's go over the four lines of evidence mentioned by Carey in his statement:
1. The Rays took the pictures. Clearly the Rays MIGHT have been able to take the pictures since this was a public museum at a popular tourist location not that far from where they lived. Despite some earlier proclamations from some debunkers that the body and the slides were faked, these were real slides of a real body that we now know was on display at least in the early 1940s at the Mesa Verde Museum. Whether or not the Rays knew the Eisenhowers is also irrelvant, since this had nothing to do with gaining access to the body. So badly overreaching here in their conclusions, but no obvious “fraud”or lying.
2. Did the slides date to the right period? According to a Kodak expert, the slides dated to 1947-1949. There is currently no reason to believe they made this up. This was consistent with the Roswell timeframe. However, we now know it turned out to be irrelevant and just a coincidence, since the body dated to the time of Mesa Verede's occupation at least 700 years ago and was dug up in 1896, therefore clearly nothing to do with Roswell, even if the Rays lived not far from Roswell, which also turned out to be irrelevant. But again there is no evidence of "fraud" or deliberate deception here, just more overreaching from circumstantial evidence.
3. The placard couldn’t be deblurred and made readable by the people they used. True as far as I know, but doesn’t really support an alien conclusion. We now know when correctly deblurred it definitely does not support an alien conclusion. Not fraud, but nonevidence. This aspect of their investigation definitely could have been handled much better, as I know from personal experience.
4. According to experts, the body is unusual, seemingly deformed in various ways, maybe not on the standard charts of recognized birth defects and genetic syndromes, a reason why reasonable people, including some scientists, might be led astray and believe it to be nonhuman. If Carey, Schmitt, Dolan, Maussan, scientists, etc. all believed this to be true, then there was no actual “fraud” here, which legally requires deliberate, knowing deception.
HAHA REALLY? Then WHY did they advertise that they HAD THE PROOF? Not that they thought they had the proof not that they might have the proof. They ADVERTISED SOLIDLY WE HAVE THE PROOF! The Change in History as they tagged it.
That alone is solid deception. False advertising to bring in as much money as possible. Then you go back to all the Mystery they Built, the blurring of the slides, the Big Build up. The renting of a 10000 seat venue, the Pay Per View money suckling machine... Come ON GIVE US A BREAK!
You would never convince a Judge nor Jury that this was not a pre-planned scheme.
Gen wrote, "If you were unable to 'deblur' the slides in all that time, then why at the press conference, when a slide was shown, was the placard writing whited out completely?"
Maybe because they enhanced the brightness and contrast to bring out the whole slide? The lettering got whited out in the process. Darken the picture and you can still see some residual lettering there.
The lower res screen capture of the other slide that got out on the Net clearly shows the lettering on the placard. No "whiting out" here.
With the whole slide being shown, even if it was cleared up perfectly, you probably would not have been able to read the writing anyway. (Incidentally, I have applied SmartDeBlur to the whole slide and the blur kernel is different--horizontal streak-- from the boomerang-shaped one of the placard alone needed to clear it up. The actual camera movement was more complicated and subtle than could be detected from the full slide. Point is clearing up the whole slide did not automatically clear up the placard lettering.)
As usual, what I see here is yet another conspiracy theory and assuming the absolute worst: "They whited out the placard because they already knew what it said and they didn't want anyone else to know that they knew."
Yeah, right.
Any layman or Judge could and would see the distortions in the animations verses the actual Mummy to see they distorted the truth intentionally, they intentionally whited out completely the placard before the event and obviously leaked images that appear to have been modified to appear like a little grey and not the actual slide with a blur. NO FREAKING WAY! This thing was a pre-planned Con, accept it live with it and admit it. Why did they do it? FOR THE MONEY!
I saw this coming I warned Dolan not to attend, he didn't listen to me and unfriended me for my concern for his well being immediately after I asked him about the money and that this had all the markings of a scam and look what's happened... He's become the main target of the appalled and disgusted because he was the most trusted.
Scott Lee said...
HAHA REALLY? Then WHY did they advertise that they HAD THE PROOF?
Because the case that the body was alien was obviously built almost entirely on the expert forensic medical witnesses saying the body was nonhuman because the anatomy did not match.
All the rest was, at best, weak, circumstantial evidence (time frame of the slides, the Rays living near Roswell, etc.) Their whole case ultimately hinged on the medical testimony.
May I repeat that the body is indeed clearly abnormal? Go count the ribs yourself and see if they add up to 12 pair of the normal human ribcage.
Do you guys really think 220k after paying all thr expenses and split many different ways is a whole lot of money? Some even mentioned retirement? Give me a break.
Do you really think Carey and Schmitt would be brain dead enough to put 20 years into Roswell only to shatter their reputations and go down in flames upon releasing a mummy pic? Not even stupid people are that stupid. Give me a break.
And do you honestly think the placard was blurred to hide the words, knowing full well there were other versions already released which showed the words? This makes no sense at all. The placard was probably blurred to draw focus on the body.
I realize there is a lot of disappointment, and i'm also disappointed with what we've been given, the amount of time they made us wait, etc. I get it. I understand.
But in all fairness the slides were not held by Carey or Schmitt. They were only contacted by the owner to get a value estimate. And then, excited by a possible smoking gun, Schmitt held on tightly and eventually released the images in collaboration with the owner.
NOW THAT BEING SAID, the slides still look like a freeking mummy in a glass case. I cannot account for dream team reasoning as this case developed. BUT, the accusations are getting out of hand, and 90% of them make no sense at all.
David,
Here are some suggestions offered with peace and love!
One of the very first things I suggest you discard is the idea that simply because someone says that a person is an "expert", it does not follow that they actually are such.
You should know this better than anyone since the slides hucksters falsely called you as a photographic analysis expert. You told me yourself that you aren't and don't call yourself that.
Additionally, one of the "experts" they had on stage went on and on about how the body was reptilian and had evolved in much the way that a Gecko lizard evolved. Perhaps you might be willing to stipulate that this is absurd on the face of it?
He must not be so expert?
Their Kodak expert in his signed statement presented at the big show only said that he couldn't precisely date the slides but he saw no reason to think that they weren't from the 1945-1950 time period. This is considerably more tepid than what was initially being claimed: that the slides had be dated to 1947 precisely.
Additionally, the "experts" you cite are for the most part unnamed (and could still include Gecko-Guy, no?).
Do you have any names for the debunkers who said " that the body and the slides were faked,"?
This certainly was never anything that I heard from the regular gang of idiots (including myself).
You said:
"There was apparently something very abnormal or creepy about it."
Yeah, this is just speculation. This is the kind of thing that I would suggest that you avoid--it's exactly the kind of "connecting the dots" that got us here.
So anyway those are my unrequested suggestions. I know you love hearing them :)
Peace and love!
Lance
And I do agree with you that we do not see clear evidence of fraud.
Lance
Travis,
Agree with you about the $220k --seems pretty paltry if true (I've seen estimates double that but still that isn't much).
As far as I am aware, no one credible is claiming that they blurred the placard--the blurring is from whenever the photo was taken.
And one of the cool things about it is that the deblurring software shows you a little picture of how the camera must have been in motion at the time the image was snapped--it's sort of like seeing that moment in motion from all those years ago.
Lance
Scott Lee wrote:
This thing was a pre-planned Con, accept it live with it and admit it. Why did they do it? FOR THE MONEY!
So let me get this straight. When you count up the ticket and streaming sales, subtract out expenses, at most maybe the shindig netted around $200K, divided maybe 8 ways among the principles, for an average of $25K each.
Yep, for $25K "retirement" money, everyone risked losing their reputations FOREVER. Seems especially far-fetched for the medical experts, who had a great deal to lose here, going way out on a limb saying the body wasn't human.
Lance wrote: "And I do agree with you that we do not see clear evidence of fraud."
I think Adam Dew is a fraud, and there is no excuse for the slide team to have allowed him to withhold ANY ORIGINAL LOSSLESS High Resolution Scans of the Slides from other members OR CONTINUING TO WITHHOLD these from the pubic after May 5th. Why? Read on...
1) I have an HP scanner that I bought between 1999 and 2003 that can scan 35mm slides [these Roswell Slides] in 2400dpi OPTICAL QUALITY SCANS for less than $500 dollars. My point is we have NOT seen THE REAL high quality LOSSLESS SCANS yet!!! We are 12 years beyond what I could do in 2003.
We MUST KNOW what resolution these scans were made to begin with NOW!!! In 2015 and 2012. Otherwise, I think it is a HUGE mistake to suggest this is not fraud. Why? Read on...
2) Once ANYONE can see the REAL TRUE High Resolution Scans, THEN it will be immediately apparent these 2 pictures were from a museum setting. Also, that this IS a typical Human looking mummy with missing parts and/or deformities. Then add to this...
3) It is obvious there is another better preserved animal head with hair immediately next to the Human mummy, so this confirms it IS a museum setting with typical displays. It is definitely NOT the theme that it is a Roswell Alien ANYMORE. Lance, read this again. That is proof enough that this is NOT a Roswell Alien. Right???
4) They had three years to find the answers. Instead, they ONLY FOCUSED AND isolated their research to find people they could call "experts" to limit their proof to what was missing on the mummy to suggest it's not human. Buahahaha!... Come on Lance!!! Seriously? This IS a CLEAR EFFORT to play the trickster, especially, as of today, May 14th, and we still do NOT, I REPEAT, do not have the original lossless scans that are unaltered.
What are those optical scan specifications Adam Dew??? PLEASE get off your stinking butt and publish the specifications of what was the optical resolution anyone did of the scans of the slides... What is the highest optical resolution of the scans YOU STILL WITHHOLD from EVERYONE?
UNLESS the slide team PROVES what the HIGH RESOLUTION SCANS ARE AND RELEASES THESE IMMEDIATELY IT IS FRAUD. IMO. IT IS WILLFUL FRAUD. IMO.
This FRAUD continues!!! Period. IMO.
I wrote:
"There was apparently something very abnormal or creepy about it."
Lance wrote:
Yeah, this is just speculation. This is the kind of thing that I would suggest that you avoid--it's exactly the kind of "connecting the dots" that got us here.
It's not just "speculation". Count the ribs Lance and see if you get even remotely close to the normal human 12 pair. Won't even take you 1-1/2 minutes.
That alone is clearly HIGHLY abnormal and might be considered "creepy". The park service article mentions visitors, unlike the case for most of their mummies on display, not liking this particular mummy, saying it had a "negative personality".
http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/region_111/vol2-1c.htm
Not that I'm an expert in human teratology (birth defects and developmental abnormalities), but I don't know of any known condition where half the ribs would be missing.
What seems to be getting missed here in all the enthusiasm to trash Carey, Schmitt, and the Roswell case, is that this body is very abnormal. It might even be unique in medical annals, thus still of scientific interest, perhaps a previously unknown genetic condition. That could have confused the medical forensic experts and led to a bad conclusion.
Immediately below the item in the above-linked park service article mentioning "our" mummy, was mention of another small mummy, apparently also abnormal in its skeletal structure. Some medical experts argued it was a deformed adult, maybe a dwarf cretin, others a normal child of about 5. Finally a dental x-ray fixed the age at about 5. The point is even with an actual body in front of you for examination, there can be sharp disagreements among experts as to what it represents.
Lance wrote:
Do you have any names for the debunkers who said " that the body and the slides were faked,"?
Since, upon review, they ran the gamut from standard debunkers to even an old-time ufologist, perhaps a better catch-word would have been "doubters". A sampling:
http://www.blueblurrylines.com/2015/03/roswell-slides-or-fraud-prints.html
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-roswell-slides-matter-of-provenance.html
http://badufos.blogspot.fr/2015/05/guest-post-roswell-slides-depict-alien.html
George Wingfield (AKA “George32”)
Very elaborate conspiracy theory, including the supposedly hoaxed slides being cooked up by the same people who did the alien autopsy 20 years ago, including using “Hilda Blair” as an inside joke homage to the name of their alien autopsy dummy, “Hilda”. (That theory obviously went down in flames.)
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2015/02/roswell-slides-and-video-clips.html
DocConjure
“It's clear to me at least that the being in the slide is likely a deformed human child. It may even be a dummy as the hands look odd to me.”
“All this time I just assumed that the slides were authentic but just didn't show an alien as claimed. Now it seems that it's very well possible the slides are hoaxed, using unexposed film from the circa 1947 era.”
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-roswell-slides-video-interviews.html
CDA:
“It has all the hallmarks of a manufactured hoax, moreover one that has been perpetrated by someone who has followed the Roswell tale in its various forms since it first surfaced some 35 years ago.”
http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-kodak-slides-wait-and-see.html
Michael Mu, February 08, 2015
“Maybe the "Roswell Dreamteam" bought an old camera from 1947 - 1949 with a packaged and unused camerafilm and then they faked the Roswell Slides...my opinion.”
Nice theories but doesn't matter that none of them panned out the results were the same and so were their motives.... MO MONEY!
David,
Seriously, this is where things go off the tracks.
You cite a report that mentions the slides mummy and makes not ONE of the points that you claim make this mummy so spectacularly odd. Instead they refer to it as "an excellent mummy."Nowhere do they mention anything else physical or allude to the monstrous qualities that you see.
BUT they talk about another mummy and mention all sorts of physical aspects that made that one unusual.
And yet because of a vague mention of personality (!), you think this corroborates your claim that the mummy in the picture is wondrously and uniquely odd? I can't see how you get there EXCEPT by speculation.
Kevin showed the pic to several folks actually involved with the study of mummies. I can bring you other citations of other folks who did the same thing.
None of them said anything about the wildly unusual aspects of this particular specimen that you see. Why is that? Is it because only you (and perhaps other hardcore UFO believers), working outside of your area of expertise, see it?
Tim Hebert made some observations about the ribs (and lots of other stuff about the mummy):
http://timhebert.blogspot.ca
"The clincher in the anatomy structure of the image was the rib cage structures. Humans have 10 sets of ribs on either side that are prominent and being attached to the vertebral column and sternum What can be seen on the groups comparison mummy is 9 ribs with the cervical ribs out of view. The image in the Kodak slide deceptively shows only 5 sets of ribs. One should note that each of the 5 ribs are wide vs. that of our comparison mummy. What we are actually seeing is the lack of fine demarcation that is separating the ribs. This can be attributed to attached tissues and desiccated muscle, ie, the intercostal muscles. Thus we actually have the normal set of 10 ribs."
So forgive me for saying so but it is these kinds of flights of speculation that are EXACTLY what isn't needed if you actually want to determine the truth. I know you are smart but whenever you find yourself typing the word, "probably", you ought to pause for just a moment and think of the children and your dear friend, Lance!
Peace and Love!
Lance
Lance wrote:
Kevin showed the pic to several folks actually involved with the study of mummies. I can bring you other citations of other folks who did the same thing.
None of them said anything about the wildly unusual aspects of this particular specimen that you see.
Really, do you know that for a fact? What exactly were they asked to give an opinion on? Can you tell us?
Were they asked only if they thought it a mummy, or were they asked to comment more, such as whether they thought it abnormal in any way? How long did they study the photo? Was it 10 seconds, or did they do a detailed analysis? Do you know?
A quick glance would probably be sufficient to render an opinion that it looked like a mummy but not enough to rule out a mummy with abnormalities. Some BRIEF comments, e.g., from two experts reported by Philip Mantle, quoted by Kevin on his blog:
"I confirm that the photo is of a mummy of a child, possibly Peruvian or even Egyptian."
Salima Ikram
Professor of Egyptology
American University in Cairo
"Okay, it is a mummy, but very hard to tell if it Egyptian, South American or European. I see no wrappings of any kind, it appears to be a child or youth."
S.J. Wolfe
Senior Cataloger and Serials Specialist
American Antiquarian Society
Doesn't sound to me like they spent much time on it and were probably ONLY asked if they thought it a mummy.
None of them said anything about the wildly unusual aspects of this particular specimen that you see. Why is that? Is it because only you (and perhaps other hardcore UFO believers), working outside of your area of expertise, see it?
As usual, very vague and example of YOU overreaching. What isn't being said is how much time was spent on studying it or even if they were asked to render an opinion as to it being normal or abnormal. E.g., abnormalities can go unnoticed in a brief viewing, enough to say it looks like a mummy, but not long enough to determine if their were skeletal or other abnormalities.
Tim Hebert made some observations about the ribs (and lots of other stuff about the mummy):
http://timhebert.blogspot.ca
"The clincher in the anatomy structure of the image was the rib cage structures. Humans have 10 sets of ribs on either side that are prominent and being attached to the vertebral column and sternum What can be seen on the groups comparison mummy is 9 ribs with the cervical ribs out of view. The image in the Kodak slide deceptively shows only 5 sets of ribs. One should note that each of the 5 ribs are wide vs. that of our comparison mummy. What we are actually seeing is the lack of fine demarcation that is separating the ribs. This can be attributed to attached tissues and desiccated muscle, ie, the intercostal muscles. Thus we actually have the normal set of 10 ribs."
And now Tim Herbert is a medical pathological expert?
According to Tim Herbert, he is a former SAC missile commander and currently in psychiatric healthcare. I don't see him listing medical or pathological credentials of any kind here.
Does he see a full complement of human ribs because he (and perhaps other hardcore UFO "dis- believers"), is working outside of his area of expertise? Just a thought. These sort of criticisms cut both ways.
LANCE: "Do you have any names for the debunkers who said " that the body and the slides were faked,"?"
ME: "Since, upon review, they ran the gamut from standard debunkers to even an old-time ufologist, perhaps a better catch-word would have been "doubters". A sampling:"
To the list of "doubters" suggesting possible dummy and hoaxed slides, add ironically Nick Pope. There are probably more examples out there, but the point is made: there certainly were people suggesting the slides were a modern hoax instead of real slides of a real body.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/roswell-slides-unveiled-ufo-fans-5643962
Nick Pope, a researcher who headed up a UFO investigation wing at the UK Ministry of Defence, told Mirror Online he was "underwhelmed".
"It could be a model, or it could simply be a fake image, dressed up to look like a Forties slide," he said.
Well, my understanding is that Tim does have some medical expertise (not that he is an expert, necessarily). Was just sharing his view on it in the off chance that you might consider another idea other than your own.
Let me see if I can find anything else about the ribs.
If I do find some convincing evidence that Tim's assessment is correct, you won't move onto another feature will you? Are there other features that you find super monstrous but that no one ever mentioned or noticed until UFO believers got involved?
Lance
Oops bad link. Here you go...
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10205580857992765&set=a.1132326520331.2020543.1592320862&type=1&theater
Note: I did respond to David about the ribs two threads up--he repeated his apologetics for Carey/Schmitt there.
Lance
And yes, I am pretending that anyone cares!
@David rudiak
Not making up a conspiracy. Someone posted in one of these blogs that the slide was literally whited out.
Perhaps they will read what you wrote and comment.
The placard in the slide was totally whited out is what you read most likely.
I have to congratulate Don Schmitt on moderating somewhat Tom Carey's idiotic and wholly unwarranted whining. Many commenters have done a good job of hammering at the irrational statements that somehow survived.
> our modus operandi has been four-fold:
Did the slides team execute a single one of these?
#1 seems sound but can it be verified independently? We do not seem to have this expert's report, just a hearsay version.
#2 makes forensic claims about a body -- even though no one examined the body!
#3 pretty much a complete failure, in that a few facts were carried away in a maelstrom of innuendo and speculation (Kevin has documented this quite well)
#4 total fail
> Prior to her death, Hilda Ray bequeathed almost $1M to the American Association of University Women.
Did she donate any papers?
> Regarding the placard, we quickly determined that (1) its content would be key to interpreting the slides
But when the placard was read, Carey abandoned this key principle and he went into denial mode.
> what the analysis of the physical body on the slides is saying.
This statement is so absurd, I cannot believe it survived the revision process.
You have a slide, NOT a physical body!
Cronus asked:
> Was Bigfoot inside the flying saucer when it crashed?
Now we're talking!
And David R., please stop saying the body in the slides is abnormal. Just stop. It's a photo, NOT A BODY!
As for the money, David R., a Mexican newspaper article posted by Frank Warren claimed the pay per view had 2.5 million subscribers, which at 19.99 pesos each runs to over $3 million USD. I asked Maussan to verify this, but he has not responded (he responded to all my other Tweets to him -- but not this one).
https://twitter.com/TerrytheCensor/status/600839389967704065
eBikesRC is quite right that we have not seen the real hi-res scans.
@Scott Lee
"Dolan's Nightmare at the Museum" cracked me up!
Terry,
Although I'm skeptical about the figure, and attempts are being made to verify the author's numbers, for clarity–the author wrote "dólares" not "pesos."
Cheers,
Frank
Terry,
The author wrote:
"2.5 millones de usuarios por internet pagaron la cantidad de 19.99 dolares por la transmission en vivo del evento."
which translates to:
"2.5 million Internet users paid the amount of 19.99 dollars for the live transmission of the event."
Cheers,
Frank
I appreciate Frank trying to straighten the BeWitness streaming take.
I'm related to an accountant, and it compels me to mention that the $19.99 price supposedly went into effect for the last the day of the show. Prior to that, the streaming cost was $15.
@Terry the Censor, et al:
"As for the money, David R., a Mexican newspaper article posted by Frank Warren claimed the pay per view had 2.5 million subscribers, which at 19.99 pesos [sic - US dollars] each runs to over $3 million USD [sic -- $20 x 2.5M subs = $50 million, the original ridiculous claim in the Mexican tabloid press article]"
As Curt notes, the price of the live stream was only raised to, actually, $19.90, in the last couple of days before the "reveal." I've read various online estimates from a few sources that the live stream only had between a few thousand to maybe 4 or 5 thousand subscribers at most, certainly not "2.5 million" -- that's an absurd figure. That also means, except for late "last minute" subs, the great majority of live stream subs were at the lower price of $15.
In addition, there were between 6000 to maybe almost 7000 attendees of the "reveal," not "over 7000," and the majority of those folks paid an approximate average of around $30 to $35, since the basic cost was $25 for a seat, and up to $100 for the best, limited up-front seating, and I have to think the vast majority of seats sold were at the basic $25 price.
So, as I have noted before, the probable gross income (not net) from both the event and live stream was likely between $250,000 minimum to possibly around $350,000+. That's a rough estimate, since unless the parties involved disclose their finances related to this, and an independent forensic accounting were done to confirm the figures provided (which ain't gonna happen), it's hard to tell what the gross or net really was, but it sure wasn't $50 million USD.
The rental of the auditorium was around $85K alone, and probably the biggest single expense. Then there were the other expenses, which included fees for the "medical experts," and round-trip air transport, hotels, per diem, and likely relatively small "honorarium" payments for those who appeared on-stage.
Add in the fees for the live stream company cut, and technical support for overall event production costs (lighting, staging, ushers, security, etc.) for the Mexico City "reveal," and it is possible, as Maussan has claimed, that he lost $100K on the event, although I find that at least questionable, considering the source, Maussan.
Bottom line is that not much profit, or net, was probably realized after expenses, and the article that claimed 2.5 million stream subs, and a $50 million gross, has to be wildly exaggerated.
I traced the link in the UFO Chronicles article about this by Robert Salas, who referred to the Mexican press article where these claims were made, to the "source" (?) article, and interestingly those financial details in the link Salas provided in the current, online Google-translated article are now missing. [It also appears the link does not go to the original article, but an edited re-publication of the article from a different Mexican online press site. (!!)]
But, all that financial trivia aside, that's not even the main point -- whatever amount of money was realized, or lost, is relatively inconsequential compared to the ethical and academic principles violated, in that whoever (DS/TC/AD?) brought Maussan on-board for this kind of sensationalized public event was seemingly more interested in potential profit and personal publicity than any kind of adequate or proper scientific peer-review and more formal or objective presentation of what the promoters thought was "smoking gun" evidence of a dead Roswell alien.
Maybe because most people, when viewing the version of the slides (still not the best) released after May 5th, see a child mummy, as confirmed by subsequent documentation noted by Anthony Bragalia in his "mea culpa."
That's the real "pisser" in all of this, among several others.
Post a Comment