Before
the big show tonight, I thought I’d point out something that I have learned.
There is talk of a dating code that showed the film was manufactured in 1947,
but I wonder what film code they were looking at. It seems that the code for 35
mm movie film is different than that for 35 mm slide film.
They
have yet to release the code, which is, of course, in keeping with most of
their silence on anything related to the Not Roswell Slides. I know that the code doesn’t
appear on every frame so they were very lucky that the one slide they took out of the
sleeve had a code on it. I just wonder what that code is… and figure that it
will be revealed tonight. I will note that if the code is the same as that on
movie film, then the first flaw has appeared. If it is the code seen on slide
film, it will not provide a better clue as to the manufacture because those
codes were recycled more frequently than that used on movie film.
We
have seen the argument that rejected 1927 and 1967 because of the printed cardboard
sleeve. But if we have a code from 35 mm slide film, the code might not limit it
to 1947. The date of manufacture might be more of an open question.
So,
tonight, if they reveal the codes, we might have a partial answer. For those
interested, Google Kodak and you’ll find enough information to verify this. You’ll
be able to see what the experts have to say.
To
start, see:
or
or
or
This
should get you started on your own search. I can’t imagine that those with the
Not Roswell Slides will have failed to take this elementary step but we’ll find
out later today.
43 comments:
You'd call THAT the first flaw? ;-)
Cheers
Tim
http://saucerbeer.tumblr.com
You are too negative, Kevin. You need to be far more positive in your outlook, both for your own benefit and for the great universe we all inhabit.
the stream tonight is pay per view?
Humm.....those symbols on the Kodak Guide to Identifying Year of Manufacture look oddly familiar to me......wait.....wait! I've seen these before....but where? Humm....strange hyroglyphics on....what were they again?....oh yes......
I-beams from a crashed saucer!
"I just wonder what that code is… and figure that it will be revealed tonight."
Based on what I've read about the slides from various sources over time, and after doing a little research online, the Kodachrome 35 mm slide film stock "edge code" that would indicate a manufacture date by Kodak in 1947 would be a square and a triangle, as shown like this:
■ ▲
Since Kodachrome slide film was not introduced by Kodak until 1935, the slides concerned would not be from 1927. In addition, a kind of varnish Kodak used in processing slides, which is on the two slides involved, was discontinued in 1965, so the slide stock under consideration here would also not be 1967.
That basically narrows down the most probable date of manufacture of the slide stock in the two "Roswell slides" to 1947.
Of course, the two most pertinent issues beyond the date of manufacture are 1) when the apparently 1947 slide stock was actually exposed, which I don't think has been scientifically determined and may not be able to be forensically determinable to a timeframe as narrow as 1947/48, and, most importantly, 2)the actual nature of the "entity" shown in the two slides.
(Even the fuzzy and enhanced photo derived from the "Kodachrome" teaser/trailer made by Adam Dew does not suggest to me a mummy, but something else.)
These latter two crucial issues are the primary factors that I suspect will remain unresolved, regardless of the circumstantial and incomplete provenance, and thus the claims of the body shown in the two slides being a Roswell ET will also remain ambiguous and unproven, or an ongoing mystery, unless some other info surfaces about the slides after today's "reveal" in Mexico City.
For the majority of interested parties, opinions on what the slides actually show will most likely depend on whatever pre-existing confirmation biases or presumptions already exist in the mind of the observer.
But the bottom line is that the two slides do not and cannot establish objectively or logically that they are true evidence of any "Roswell ET" or other, actual recovered alien being. Those that claim otherwise are making a profound error in judgement, IMHO.
I'm a bit surprised Nick Redfern hasn't weighed in with an opinion that the two slides might show a deformed Asian progeria or hydocephalic victim, as per his "Body Snatchers in the Desert" scenario from several years ago.
My own suspicion, or guess, is that the "entity" shown might possibly have been a kind of "dummy" or fabricated body created as part of an early Cold War psyop or ploy directed against the Soviets at the time, or for "personnel security testing," similar to the claims of Annie Jacobsen in her "Area 51" book regarding her source, Alfred O'Donnell, for a story about a manufactured "alien body" and "spacecraft debris" he was exposed to, which seems to me was a test to see if O'Donnell could keep such a "secret" prior to being read into actual nuclear weapons research programs or "black projects" at Area 51 as an early EG&G employee.
But, of course, that too is just speculation.
Steve -
My point was that the edge code you refer to is clearly labeled as 35 mm movie film and other sources suggest that the 35 mm slide film has a different code and those codes were recycled more often than those on the movie film...
If you followed the first link, you'd see the pdf file that gives the information about the film codes but it says it is for movie film. One of the other links takes you to codes assigned to slide film... so the question will remain unanswered until all is revealed later this evening.
So cat is out of the bag.
The presentation is over. It was unimaginably dull and stupid. And full of discredited UFO stories and space brothers, etc.
They saved the slides until the end (3 hours+)
The slide looks almost EXACTLY like the low res version that has been on the web for months. NONE of the alien features that have been crowed about by the dull believers were evident in HD.
The dumb thing looks JUST like one of the mummy images discussed by skeptics elsewhere.
In other words, everything about this was a silly farce.
And those who worked so hard to support this should be ashamed of themselves.
The best part was that Rich Dolan didn't get to speak!
Lance
No, it does not look "exactly" as the low res pictures, that is not true at all from the picture I have just seen, there is more definition, so why say that for?
He has debunk/skeptic syndrome disease and has had his mind made up for 3 years running.
Any thing else from the presentation DIMOV? I don't trust one single statement from Lance and the Kimball clan.
I said almost exactly.
And that was surprising. I never imagined that anyone would destroy their reputation (pretending that these guys had reputations worth keeping) over the dumb image we have been seeing for the past few months.
The one they displayed at the event does have slightly (very slightly) more resolution but the original seems to be quite blurry and was clumsily manipulated in Photoshop with far too much sharpening. There were quite a few artifacts in the image I saw. No sign of why the hucksters said there was specifically an Army blanket. And I can't see any of the stuff that they imagine are alien features.
In short, I don't learn anything more from the "HD" version last night that I learned from the screen capture one we have had for months.
Maybe you have to click your heels three times, however for the magic to work.
Lance
So, Lance, just to be clear, you're saying that you believe this is a real photo from circa 1947 showing a mummified human?
Still working hard for the hucksters, huh, Larry?
No,I think that is a good possibility but not yet proven.
Lance
Also, it appears that Dolan did speak--apparently after the everyone walked off stage, the show returned at some point and he spoke then.
I missed this latter portion of the show.
Lance
Well...
That was a joke. The broadcast was terrible and I can't believe I payed to watch that. The only thing I can say is odd about that body is that the arms do seem too short for the body. But that is clearly a picture of a childs mummy in a double sided display case. you can even see what looks like scraps of fabric wrapping on the shelf behind the body as well another display card. Tom Carey's career is OVER.
Full Res here:
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/pages/slide-image-roswell-alien-body
Oops and to be a bit more on topic, despite the claims to the contrary, their photo expert (I am assuming it is Robert Shanebrook) was much more circumspect in "authenticating" the dates.
He (assuming it was Shanebrook, the expert apparently didn't want them to use his name--the signature was blacked out) said in a signed statement:
"...With only a visual examination it is not possible to specifically establish the date that the film was exposed and developed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, It is my professional opinion there is no reason to believe that the film was not exposed and processed between 1945 and 1950.
Shanebrook said something similar to this to me on the phone and in an email (which I have shared with anyone who asked, including Kevin).
Lance
After watching it, my first thought was that it was a lucky thing that Messrs. Randle, Rudiak, and Bragalia were excluded from the broadcast stream event.
Since they all have, over years, done research and investigation on Roswell, placed their conclusions online, and then engaged in debate with their critics, I consider them to be sincere in their beliefs, which is worth respecting.
Sadly, Carey and Schmitt have never been forthcoming or open in this manner.
I have to wonder "Why?"
I watched the entire presentation, including the almost hour and a half Spanish-language pre-show, which was a complete waste of time.
The presentation via live stream was glitchy, with numerous audio cut-outs several times for up to minutes at a time, got started late, had an initial 20 to 25 minute failure due to technical problems in Mexico City, and there was about 40 minutes of "dead air" between the initial "pre-show" and before Maussan took the stage. Really lame.
Only one of the two slides was shown, and only in the last 5 minutes of this tedious, amateurish production.
Then, at the end, computer graphics enhancement was used to make the photo look more "alien" than it actually appeared in the 2 or 3 minutes the one slide was briefly displayed.
I've withheld comment on this whole affair for the last few months, thinking it was best, as an honest skeptic (as opposed to debunker/pseudo-skeptic or advocate/believer) to see the actual slides in original form before making a judgement and offering an opinion. However, the resolution of the photo shown at the "beWitness" event, at least on a laptop, was still relatively poor. And why show only one of the two slides?
But, now that I've seen it, I can only say that the body appears to be of an 8 to 10 year old human child, the corpse is dessicated and seems to have been autopsied. The child may also have had progeria, hydrocephaly, and/or other genetic defects. The very short arms (especially the forearm relative to the hand size) and lower body extremeties seem really peculiar.
See: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/pages/slide-image-roswell-alien-body for the best image online so far and judge for yourself.
This whole affair comes very close to being a deliberate hoax, and an intentional fraud.
All of those who have promoted this image as being of a dead Roswell alien are either delusional, incompetent, or suffer from deep confirmation bias, or are knowingly only in it for the money and "fame." Which makes them unethical, amoral fools.
I agree with Lance they should be ashamed at bartering whatever integrity, honor, or reputation they may have had for the dirty pieces of silver they got out of this tawdry,
corrupt affair. It belongs in ufology's "Hall of Shame."
Steve they showed both slides but it was hard to distinguish them.
The skeptics that I was associated with (including folks that aren't hardcore skeptics like me) just tried to assess the claims as they were made. As far as I am aware, we were all still waiting to see the real thing and no final judgements were made (although the leaked image was pretty damning).
For instance, a claim was made that somehow the image was confirmed to have been shot in 1947. I knew this seemed impossible. And I searched out an expert (their expert as it turns out--I wasn't sure if this was really the same guy or not and he denied it). He confirmed that the claim was nonsense.
But I talked with Tim Printy prior to the show tonight and told him that I was thinking that there MUST be something in real images that we just can't see in the leaked version. Surely there must be something we are missing. No one is that willfully ignorant...
So I was far too kind to the hucksters...
Lance
You are a disgrace, Lance. Just an abject human being.
"Steve they showed both slides but it was hard to distinguish them."
Was the second slide shown in the part that continued after what initially seemed to be the end of the presentation, when the participants walked off stage? I left my laptop on, and was surprised to walk by a little later and see what appeared to be a "Part 3" running, where they showed a hokey "holographic" animated version of the slide body.
There was no indication in the live stream presentation that more was to come after the initial brief showing of the slide at the end of the two hour onstage presentation, just a long-running, rotating "beWitness" logo, so I thought the show was over, and went to get a snack. Again, that shows just how amateurish the presentation was.
The whole thing was just so ineffably stupid, IMHO. It really pissed me off that after two and a half years of closely following the developments of this controversy online that it all came down to this ridiculous, amateurish swindle.
I had thought once, "...well, maybe..." thinking I should keep an objective, open mind, and reserve judgement until I saw the actual slides in full resolution, but when I saw the higher resolution (and still inadequate) version of the one slide, and the version on the coast to coast site I noted above, I realized "well, damn, this is not an alien body by any means. It looks like... a child mummy. There are no physical characteristics which would place it beyond human morphology, especially if genetic mutations were involved."
Although I never thought the photos would show anything undeniably "alien," as I noted above in my speculation about what the body might be, a possible fabrication, when I saw the presentation, and the C-to-C photo that Dolan supplied, I then fully realized what a terrible sham the "Roswell slides" controversy amounted to. Which made me angry and very disappointed that all this time and verbiage has been wasted on a couple photos which prove nothing and most probably never will. I was repulsed and disgusted.
There wasn't even any mention of date or edge codes of the photos to establish film stock manufacture year in the first two parts of the presentation I saw -- was that even mentioned in "Part 3"?
I also note that not only did Shanebrook back out of being publicly identified as one of the two photo experts, but also that Dr. Edgar Mitchell did not appear. Did anyone in the RSRG try to warn him off, or what?
So much time in the presentation was wasted by talking heads recapping the Roswell back-story, when it would have been better to have documented the slides investigation itself, and to have provided much better info on the research and expert sources involved, but then I also realized that the presentation was directed at a more general audience, and that if there was real evidence, it would have been presented. But, it wasn't. Which means there is little to none.
So, the focus became a mundane, boring exercise in disinfotainment, an aspect of this endeavor that Jaime Maussan is a well-practiced expert in. For Schmitt / Carey to have approached and engaged Maussan in promoting this affair, because he offered them a lucrative "package," when Dew couldn't get anyone in cable TV to do a "documentary" on the slides for broadcast (which really says something, given ludicrous shows like "Ancient Aliens"), shows just how poorly planned and developed this whole thing has been conducted by the primary parties involved from the very beginning.
Well.....The image posted on Coast To Coast is clearly NOT an alien if there ever was one.
This image does have more detail than the original blurry teaser release...but the detail only helps establish that this is a child mummy in a museum somewhere.
Scmitt and Carey currently promote alien beings who supposedly have longer arms than legs - this is not the case with this mummy - it's the exact opposite! This is clearly a child unfortunate with birth defects.
Schmitt and Carey should be deeply ashamed of themselves...more promotional junk. It's even more ridiculous than I thought.
It seems these guys will grasp onto, exaggerate, and sell ANYTHING that promotes their version of Roswell (even if they claim now it wasn't from Roswell).
This Mexico event and the entire story of dead Roswell aliens has me thinking this is simply the modern day version of a 19th Century circus event side-show event.....bearded women, Siamese twins, and the like.
These guys are hucksters and charlatans for sure. Quackery at its best.
Kevin,
The date codes appear to be a moot point now but I took a look at my archive and found that Kodak was inconsistent with the use of date codes on 35mm still film.
I found one roll of film that had a date code for 1972 consistent with the motion picture chart. It was from 1972 according to notes on the envelope made at the time. The rest of the film had codes more consistent with the other link you posted.
I looked at the image posted on C2C and voted in the poll. My vote was "no" only because "hell no" wasn't offered.
Amazing that the poll showed an almost even split between yes and uncertain with no being the top vote.
The presentation was pretty poor.
For goodness sake, in the image Dolan supplied one can see a lock of human hair and other material from a museum exhibit in the adjacent case!
Lance:
I also still think it's a good possibility but not yet proven that this is some sort of museum display.
The point of my question was to try to figure out which other possibilities you have considered and rejected, and why.
For example, this explanation is inconsistent with the suggestion by George Wingfield from a few days ago that these slides are the result of an elaborate scam that involves the manufacture of a simulacrum for the deliberate purpose of deception.
Everything I've read and heard so far tells me that I am happy I didn't spend anything for the on-demand video of this train wreck.
Peace,
Gene
Ok...i have change my opinion about the Roswell Slides after seeing it because ancient Mummys have no black eyes like the ET on the Roswell Slide.
So http://cdn.meme.am/instances/25103267.jpg
I'm actually kind of shocked, because as Brian said, the colour version of the photo does quite clearly depict a child mummy, I mean the colour of the desiccated body itself shows it is human. It is also practically identical to the Thebes mummy, apart from the head which is a bit unusual, and the arm length. But to call it a smoking gun.. biggest event in history or whatever.. well that's just terrible to hear from Don and Tom and greatly disappointing. It seems like a late-attempt cash grab and why weren't they just more honest about it rather than hyping it up with all this smoking gun nonsense, its all about money isn't it, always, always about money.
LOl the slide was a joke and so was the presentation,(I didn't sign up) heard from reliable viewers, although the circus act won't damage the UFO event that happened at Roswell in July of 1947.
This will crush don and Tom, lol They all through!!!!!!! IMO
Amazing they would back this farce , hope they made NOTHING
I didn't see the original presentation, and I wouldn't have paid to watch it.
.
What I would like to see are _unedited_, _high resolution_ images of the original slides, not some crappy 81KB jpegs.
.
Will this ever happen? Do such images even exist?
.
I'll reserve my opinion until then.
.
...
Hah hah, Albert--you "reserve" your opinion ! Pretty high quality slides are available on the internet. They show a thinking person everything they need to see.
Lance
@Lance,
Got a link?
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/pages/slide-image-roswell-alien-body
I have been an open minded skeptic about Roswell for awhile now and this slide does nothing to convince me that it an image of an alien. First why would a recent body be so aged looking, this looks very old and dessicated not something from a recent crash. Secondly I work in the museum field and have installed many an exhibition and this is clearly an exhibition case, if this were a military photo it would more likely have been photographed in a hospital or operating room environment. My conclusions this is a photo of a mummified child at a museum exhibit.
Lance,
It depends on perspective. I wouldn't call the image on C2C high quality, it falls apart rapidly when enlarged in Photoshop. But on the other hand it's good enough to see what I needed to see. One thing that struck me was the teeth in the mouth look very much like the teeth of a young child.
I used a variety of filters, channels etc. to try to get a better look but it really wasn't much help.
I do think that something very strange crashed at Roswell but these pictures have nothing to do with it IMO.
A lock of human hair? Are you kidding? I don't know what I'm seeing in the image, but I don't see how somebody could ascertain anything in the background except for the womnan in the blue dress. And what is that other object behind the alleged alien's head? I don't know? It could be a prop head left over from King Kong or it could be a piece of a spaceship that crashed near Roswell. I don't see how anybody can conclude with certainty that this is a mummy. It could be, but I have never seen one that looks quite like this. I challenge anybody here to point me to a picture of a mummy that looks just like this. This could be the body of an alien being. I don't know. And I don't think anybody from either side of this debate will be able to prove anything about this photograph one way or the other. I take that back. If the government someday decides to fess up about an alien reality, they could conceivably present evidence that corraborates the notion that an alien is indeed pictured in the slide. With all that said, there is absolutely nothing anybody can do say to prove or disprove what is purported in the slides. Kevin, Kimball, CDA, and all the other armchair experts can pout all day but they'll only succeed in uselessly expending energy. The slides have been verified by experts that date the slides to 1947. That's all anybody knows for now, despite the cries of some who wish they could prove this is not the case. This is no hoax, no con game ... it is simply what it is. Take it or leave it, but no credible arguments have been offered anywhere from anybody to disprove the slides do no depict an alien being.
You may be able to suggest it was manufactured in 1947, but not when and where it was taken. Or whether the holders were changed at some point in time.
Peace,
Gene
Jim -
I'm not sure that the slides have been verified as from 1947. They offered no real evidence of that. They only thing we do know is that the cardboard sleeve dates from 1941 to 1949, and I'm not even sure that we know that.
Kevin,
I found it interesting that they didn't include the edge of the film. The scanner shown in the preview video is known as a drum scanner, it requires removing the slide from the mount and the scan would include the edge. I'm familiar with much larger commercial drum scanners but the principle is the same.
As I said in another post I did find a date code consistent with the motion picture codes on a roll of 35mm film in my archive. The code was on the edge and repeated every three frames or so. Naturally, that doesn't mean that Kodak did the same thing in 1947.
My thought is that this is a case of mistaken identity more than a hoax. The person who found the slides let their imagination carry them away IMO.
And please stop calling the mount a sleeve, they are two completely different things in the world of photography.
Jim - You wanted to see something similar, here is something :
http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/05/the-roswell-slides-revealed-but-what-did-they-reveal-photos-included-2469660.html
@Lance
Thanks, I did see that image. The image on the web page is scaled down from the 'enlarged' one, which is a higher resolution(481.3KB), than the 81.1KB one I was bitching about. So I take that back.
..................
.
It looks like that's the best we're gonna get.
.
It definitely looks like a mummy on display. If it's in a museum, it's a pretty shabby one. (It'd be funny if was in Mexico)
.
I'm not going to reiterate all the arguments for that. They are clear. The biggest factor is the condition; it takes a very long time to mummify a body. Those who want to reach can theorize all they want, but it can't be associated with Roswell. I haven't heard any expert opinions on the mummy being of ET origin, either. The way this whole thing was handled, it wouldn't surprise me if the promoters had this planned from the very beginning; knowing they had nuthin'. Nuthin' ain't a cool hand.
.
If there's any value to this escapade, it escapes me.
.
It ranks somewhere between "Ripley's Believe It Or Not", and a P.T. Barnum Sideshow.
.
Where's the Egress?
.
I gotta go.
Neal -
Picked up the term from those with the slide... sleeve, mount, I don't care as long as we all understand we are talking about the cardboard case in which the actual slide rests or is mounted.
Post a Comment