Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Another View of the Roswell Slides Mummy

(Blogger's Note: While I fully expect there to be more push back on this, a close examination will show that the mummy in the top picture is the same as that in the second. Clearly it had been moved from one display to the next, but the documentation available shows that it is the same mummy. I know the argument will continue, but I would hope that rational thought and a dispassionate examination will resolve the issue for most.

It should also be noted that the original information was developed by Jose Caravaca and published on his web site. Tony supplied the following article, based on that research and I found the information included in it to be of value for those who wished to see another view of the mummy.  Some of the commentators on this blog thought that too little credit had been given to Caravaca and the Roswell Slides Research Group for their work in locating the new photograph. For those who would like to see the original, it can be found here:

Ahh, will the updates never end... According to several, including Tony, the person who found this is is Jorge Peredo. As Tony wrote, "That is right, Jose posted it, but the individual who actually found the image is a man named Jorge Peredo." 

And to keep this going, here is the original post about finding the mummy.

As Rich Reynolds said, this is where this all began... and see the post to learn what Jaime Maussan had to say about it. Those over at The Anomalist (( also provided a link to the original article.)

By Anthony Bragalia

Photographic proof that the infamous “Roswell Slides” body is not extraterrestrial has finally been found. The above photo of a child mummy, once speculated to be related to the UFO crash at Roswell, conclusively matches a photo taken at a National Park Service- operated museum in the American Southwest. In the above photo, the similarity of features between this known photo of a child mummy and the one shown at a May 5th presentation and promoted as unearthly, is undeniable. They are photos of the same child. The photo even has another placard behind the mummy that reads “From S.L. Palmer Collection.” S.L. Palmer was the person who donated the child mummy to the Mesa Verde Museum in 1938.

Mummy as seen in the Roswell Slides seen here for comparison.

National Park Service archives indicate that the mummy was transferred on June 7th, 1947 from the Mesa Verde Museum, Colorado to the Yavapai Culture Center at Montezuma Castle, Arizona. The reference to this transfer can be found here: 


Southwestern Monuments Monthly Report

The entry  under “Montezuma Castle National Monument Camp Verde, AZ, June 24,1947” reads “Museum Exhibits: In 1896 the mummy of a two year old boy was found buried on the ledge just outside of Montezuma Castle. The discovery was made by S.L. Palmer Jr. who in 1936 loaned his collection of artifacts to the Mesa Verde National Park with the stipulation that they be kept intact. After several years of intermittent negotiations it was agreed that the mummy could be returned to the Montezuma Castel museum where it was delivered on June 7 by Messrs. Steen and Grant.”

According to an Orlando Sentinel news article found from December 11, 1988 by reporter Vera Foss Bradshaw, a travel reporter, of her visit there, “Of particular interest in the mummified body of a two year old child. It was found under the floor of a room in Montezuma Castle.”

The photo has another placard behind the mummy that reads “From S.L. Palmer Collection.”

Another photograph the comes from a private Palmer collection shows another child mummy. Palmer excavated eight mummies in the Mesa Verde and surrounds. Here is a picture found of one of them. It’s similarity to the “Roswell Slides” mummy features a mouth in an open position that duplicates that of the slides’ mummy. The compressed small nose is also very similar as is the very high forehead.

Thanks to Jose Caravaca from Spain for the mummy photo, thanks to “Ralf” from Germany for the Orlando Sentinel lead, and David Rudiak for the NPS archive information on timelines.

For Jose Caravaca's original posting see:


Gilles Fernandez said...


What's this title? "THE “ROSWELL SLIDES” MUMMY FOUND By Anthony Bragalia"

Yes, I know that the "by" is concerning who wrote the article. But:

AJB found nothing, it is not his work or finding, nada from him...
That's really disguting, because it will become "AJB solves the Roswell slides" or something like this. How to come back clean after such a fiasco...

Well, that's ufology after all.


RRRGroup said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kristofer said...

I think there has been a mix-up here. Bragalia was the one claiming that the slides showed an alien.

KRandle said...

Gilles -

What would you like to see here? The important point is that another picture has been found. Should we really derail this important find this way. Tell me what you would like...


What is shameful here? Isn't the point to provide information about this and I put up the link to Jose's article as well.

RRRGroup said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gilles Fernandez said...

What I wanted to see here?

For example, Kevin, the credit to who found or provided this new photograph first. It is absent in the article (as in José'one).

You well know like me that AJB article will be read or be shared by some as if AJB did something regarding this new finding. When he apologized, some media transformed it as "AJB solves the Roswell slides".

No, the Roswell slides have been solved by the RSRG when the placard have been decyphered.

From the start, AJB defended an alien being depicted in the slides, laughted when first people like me pointed to a child mummy lead, called us "debunkers", that it was stupid to propose the child mummy hypothesis without the slides in full rezo, insulted several of us using party time photographs and claimed "alcoholic!", used appeal to authority argument (you know the bizarre forensic experts for who 2 slides were like an inkblot projective test to state hallucinating things - and using an adult as referential to claim bizarre head versus body proportion - see my blog -, claimed false things regarding mummies, museum displays, red-ink placard, army blanket, count of the fingers, and so more, etc.

Easy now that AJB have all removed (even if Google cache is my/your friend ^^).

AJB reads the news in the morning of this day (European time) and "recovers" the work of others. It is called "the inspector of finished work" in French and to stole the works of others in order to become clean(er) after such a fiasco...

For the rest, yes, I agreee that the essential is that another picture have been found, but how AJB is using it for a come back and to become clean, maybe too.



Dr Tim Brigham said...

Thanks guys. Finally! Although I suspect some will still hold some desperate smelling hope that this is an alien, and will maintain so publicly.
My question is how will Jaime's $5k be spent? Or was it in Pesos? ;-)
Oh I see, he's already said he won't honor that bet.

JC said...

The source is Jorge Peredo?

Capt Steve said...

Guys, I think you're misinterpreting something; the "by Anthony Bragalia" is a byline because AJB wrote this posting/article.

I find it highly unctuous that AJB, who defended the slides as NOT being a mummy, is now posting that the slides depict a mummy.

Anthony Bragalia said...

Capt Steve-

You are forgetting that it was me that had correctly identified the slides body as that of a Mesa Verde Museum display. I was the one who, when provided clearer versions of the slides, within 72 hours found the NPS Mesa Verde Notes finally confirming the identity of the slides body. And what you do not know is the Jose Caravaca and I have been having several civil, private email dialogs relative to the slides.


KRandle said...

All -

Can we take a step back here. I believed that the important point was to get the information out that another photograph had been found and that documentation linked it to the image in the Roswell Slides. At the end of the article, there was a statement thanking those or crediting those who had done the actual work. Given that I have had my work published by many others with neither credit nor attribution, I wanted to be sure that everyone got credit. This was seen as inadequate, so I added another note at the top of the article to make it clear.

I also thought, that given his defense of the slides as that of an alien, and given that some of that defense was published here, those reading this would see that Tony had been a defender of the slides, sometimes slipping into confrontation that was unnecessarily harsh... I saw this article, not as some sort of attempt to regain his reputation as it was important information about the slides and what they actually showed.

But we live in a world where everyone is taking offense at everything else regardless of the intent. So, if you are offended because Tony put a byline on the article he wrote, then that's tough. He did assemble the information from sources that he acknowledged in the article so the byline was justified but it should have been made clear that the information was assembled from the work of others.

Now, can we get to the important point here... documentation was assembled that show the image on the Roswell Slides was a mummy and that mummy had been photographed by others. It was not an alien creature, regardless of what had been said prior to May 5th, including much from Tony, and it is the image of an unfortunate child who was exploited by a long list of people.

TheDimov said...

Honestly, Thank God for this. Now Don will have to flip, once again, and realise that indeed, money is not everything. And Massaun, well he will likely still say its still an alien and say the photo is doctored, knowing him. No sleepless nights for him, that's for sure.

Anyone with the tiniest shred of brain knew this was a mummy after seeing the photo for like, 2 seconds, and hopefully those involved in the whole fiasco will retire, once and for all. They wont, but it would be the very best case scenario.

No : giving back the money they stole from people would be the best case scenario, and then retirement.

Chances of that happening are less, though, than a UFO landing on the White House lawn.

Gilles Fernandez said...

The "Homeric" heros (AJB) wrote: I was the one who, when provided clearer versions of the slides, within 72 hours found the NPS Mesa Verde Notes finally confirming the identity of the slides body

No, you are lying as usual and trying to become cleaner despite all your curious and stupid claims during monthes.
It is because RSRG decyphered the placard, and with the text we offered, you changed your opinion for a mummy and Mesa Verde. Without our decypheracion, never you will have post the link to Mesa Verde.


Anthony Bragalia said...

Are you really a PhD Gilles, because your name calling and misleading statements belie that of an educated individual.

You may have deblurred the placard, and I acknowledge this in my apology piece, but it was my source and my efforts that found the specific museum, Native American tribe, years of display, etc. I was the one who found documentation within three days to corroborate the text on the placard.

And the placard versions that I was provided that were generated by Dew were deliberately of low resolution, had color-contrasts applied, and in many other ways were altered by him. I was dealing with a deceiver and with images that were not true images. When presented with the deblurred images, I immediately went to work in deep research for corroboration. I found it. It is as simple as that.

And Richard Reynolds-

You are one to call somEone shameful. You were delighted when I sent you the apology piece for publication- and even published it briefly. You deleted it when you found out that Kevin was also running it. You also deleted 62 articles that I have done for your blog out of spite. And you are so desperate for inserting yourself into this story that you are probably at this moment typing a new, nasty article about me. Petty...

And by the way, not only do Jose and I correspond regularly on this, but it was not Jose that found the image!

That is right, Jose posted it, but the individual who actually found the image is a man named Jorge Peredo.

JC said...

Why didn't you mention him -Jorge Peredo- in your article?

JC said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anthony Bragalia said...

Just did...and just learned this from Jose in an email sent to me privately just a few minutes ago. He is to be commended for his find.

Gilles Fernandez said...

Are you really a PhD Gilles, because your name calling and misleading statements belie that of an educated individual.

Please AJB "je déteste tirer sur l'ambulance"... FACTS have proven you as a bad investigator. Period.

Do you want I quote YOU regarding YOUR past monthes statements regarding the mummy hypothesis? You are a bad investigator, a candid, a mass deluded guy cause your UFO-myth and Roswell particulary. PERIOD.

Do you want I share (our emails) how YOU when facing a YT video decided a B2 was "morphing" and then Roswell reverse engineering? Despite I explained you it was only due to YT or general compression of a video?

Go ahead!


KRandle said...

Gilles, Tony -

This is bordering on rude... and in a couple of cases moves beyond that. Rein it in or I'll delete the posts. If you wish to debate the issues, remain civil...

KRandle said...

All -

Again, this should be about the images in the photographs and not about personal vendettas. The Roswell Slides Research Group is to be commended for debluring the placard so that we all could read it... Their higher resolution scans came from Adam Dew and his web site. Tony and one of his European colleagues pointed us all to the museums in Mesa Verde. We now know who found this important image... So, let's concentrate on that, which is important and remember who took what positions before the slides were released into the public arena.

Gilles Fernandez said...

Dear Kevin,

The true is that AJB simply googled our decyphering of the placard and came to Mesa Verde. Period. And now he is trying to be a sort of heros solving the case. Pffff...

Few hours (well 8 or 12 hours) before he appologized -sic- (but AJB removed all in the effort to play the clean guy in disguise) RSRG members have been called by him "rabid skeptics" and he offered an article accusating us to have photoshopped the placard!

All is recorded and sorry for facts.



KRandle said...

Gilles -

I have no problem with facts. I don't care for allegations. I will note that I too suggested that some of the RSRG group were rabid skeptics, but that was to make a point in the context of my posting. Tony did cross the line a couple of times and there were pieces from him that I did not post and suggested that he might want to reconsider them. His postings to my blog, both before and after the May 5th boondoggle are still up so that people can see his defense of the slides. They can see that he claimed it was not a mummy and he described the efforts to prove that point. Nothing has been sanitized or cleaned here.

Tom said...

Kevin -Thank you for sharing this information from Jose Antonio's site. I usually stop by your site first, then go onto to Gilles', Jose Antonio's, Paul Kimball's. Curt Collins', Mark OC's, Jack Brewer's, SMiles Lewis' & a few others. Phew, just typing that made me realize I may need a new hobby, this one is exhausting.

Many thanks to every member of The RSRG for all their fine work in exposing the hoax. Many thanks to Jack Brewer for providing excellent commentary and analysis of this hoax. Many thanks to High Strangeness Mark OC for outstanding humor in lampooning the hoaxers.

Lastly, many thanks to Kevin for providing great updates & historical perspective; a sort of centralized clearinghouse for all to gather & share information & opinions.

Daniel Transit said...

Regarding the linked article, does anyone know what the last two sentences here mean?

'...If Jaime’s honest, he’ll going to pony up the five grand to Jorge. But there’s no way in hell Maussan’s going to shell out the ten grand, unless some enterprising amateur archaeologist wants to be $90,000 in the hole and play hide the pickle in a federal prison. A scam worthy of James Randi...'

TheDimov said...

Daniel I think its that Maussan offered the bigger reward for if someone actually found and presented the actual body of the mummy.

Apparently now he has tweeted "The picture that is circulating showing a being similar to beWITNESS, was painted over a photograph of a shelf."

if that is the case, and I am dead serious, the guy should be imprisoned. The guy is absolutely beyond a joke.

TheDimov said...

The ironic thing is that now the smoking gun HAS been found..

Unknown said...

"if that is the case, and I am dead serious, the guy should be imprisoned. The guy is absolutely beyond a joke."

Actually, it might be both easier and better serve social justice to seek imprisonment of Carey and Schmitt.

They ARE the joke that Maussan only wishes he could get beyond!

William Strathmann said...


For me the alien slides claim was over a long time ago. Nevertheless, to actually properly "end" this saga, the physical evidence that Jorge Peredo has in his possession must be validated - unless this image is also online somewhere else at a reputable site. The Peredo image looks convincing, but only the validation of the original physical media will drive the final stake in the heart of this episode.

Brian B said...

I'm waiting for what Don and Tom have to say given their recent resurgent effort to still claim the body as Alien.

Tom said...

Brian -

Well, we'll have a chance to her them at Maussans next Slider event coming up. The following quote is from a statement Maussan sent to Jose Antonio Caravacas - (please excuse the imprecise nature of Google Translate)-

"On 23 June, the National Institute of Forensic Sciences has invited to an analysis of a non-human body, which include specialists from all areas in Mexico at the National Medical Center. The event will be broadcast by streaming. I must also tell you that I have hired lawyers to initiate lawsuits in the United States, Britain and Spain to all those who have slandered me without showing his saying. I also want to reiterate that the event did not produce a profit, but that is prejudicial losses and ensure that large amounts of money won and that was the reason that made ​​this event. I am prepared to continue here as long as necessary.

Thank you.

Jaime Maussan "

Yup, the clown car is driving towards yet another location in Mexico, and Carey & Schmitt are sure to roll out of it. The circus continues.

albert said...

I commend you for keeping your blog reasonably civil, fact-based, and honest (as far as can be done in UFOlogy, anyway) You know where that expression "rein in" comes from.
Fighting for credit, name-calling, personal attacks... those things don't bother me. I am disappointed in how often you need to scold the class, and make some folks stand in the corner. It shouldn't be necessary.
IANAL, but I would like to point out a few facts. Those of you who continue to call folks liars, frauds, scammers, etc. are skating on thin ice. Courts are not blogs. 'Free speech' has limits. Calling someone a 'fraud' without proof*, is libel (in print) or slander (in speech). A judges idea about what constitutes 'proof' _will_ be a lot more rigorous than the malarky I've seen here. Thanks to the Web, everything is preserved, and easily retrieved. Guys, get some advice from an attorney with experience in 1st Amendment cases. CAUTION: This is an area where many lawyers fall down.
Just sayin'...
*In some countries (not the US), a plaintiff only needs evidence of offensive statements, even if they're true, to win a case.

Al12 said...


Can this man be stopped legally from going ahead with this second presentation?

I mean this is more of peoples money he is going to scam here, and i cant believe anybody would even go now

Why arent people being given refunds and why on Earth on Tom and Don still carrying this on.

Why are Tom and Don doing this now? when its been proven beyond any doubt this is a mummy.

KRandle said...


What would be your legal theory for this? And if you are going to hold them all to such a high standard, then shouldn't we hold everyone to the same standard? I believe MJ-12 to be a hoax without a single legitimate document. Should those who are supporting MJ-12 be required to pay refunds to people who have bought into it? The point, I think, is that one man's truth is another man's hoax, especially when the evidence is there to prove the point. I have repeatedly pointed out the fatal flaws in Mj-12 only to be ignored... but if I'm right and it is all a hoax, then shouldn't we all avoid paying good money to listen to the proponents talk about MJ-12? Shouldn't we not attend their lectures or buy their books?

And if we're going to hold that position, then who is to say if a controversial point is fact or fiction? Who arbitrates that? Who is the ultimate authority?

So, if you believe that the Roswell Slides show a mummy, then stay away from paying anything to those promoting them. And if they truly believe it is an alien, then they are stating their opinions about something and who are we to deny them the right to do it?

Yes, I believe that we have the answer and have had it even before the May 5th fiasco. Once the RSRG provided the text on the placard, most of us understood that the game was over. Some have just invested too much effort in believing in the slides to let them go. They hang on even when their position seems indefensible. That is their privilege. The rest of us can, and should, ignore their message because they refuse to see the truth... but as I say, it is their right to ignore the evidence and it is our right to pay no attention to them ever again.

ufodebunker said...


I think you are comparing apples to oranges. In the mj12 issue, presumably we have believers selling to others what they legitimately believe is true. In the slide case, we presumably have someone who knows the slides are not a real alien selling to deluded believers. If the proponents know they are perpetrating a lie, its fraud plain and simple. If someone could show that they knowingly lied, a valid charge of fraud can be filed in a court of law to seek redress.

Best Regards

albert said...

@ufodebunker, @AI12,

"...If someone could show that they knowingly lied, a valid charge of fraud can be filed in a court of law to seek redress...."

Good luck proving that, and good luck getting 'victims' to register a formal complaint. I'd like to hear what a DA would say if folks complained about being scammed by some folks claiming to have pictures of an 'alien' body from a UFO crash.

"...Can this man be stopped legally from going ahead with this second presentation?..."
LOL, what planet are you guys from?

Perhaps lie detector tests are the answer...
My recommendation to future hucksters: 'Study P.T. Barnum, and learn from a master'.
My recommendation to everyone else: Caveat emptor


ufodebunker said...


You missed my point. I was trying to point out that in the case of those deliberately trying to deceive the gullible and those with no such intention are not judged by the same standard. The former are guilty of fraud while the latter are guiltless though they may be fools. I wasn't advocating prosecution.

Best Regards

albert said...

I take your point, but...

I'm not against the prosecution of hucksters. There's at least one in UFOdom who has been convicted of fraud (but not because of UFO-related 'work'). But it's hard to prove intent, unless you got a sheaf of conspiratorial emails (or telephone recordings, call the NSA:) at hand. That's what it boils down to: intent. One can offer the opinion that reasonably sane folks wouldn't buy the 'Roswell alien' theory; that's my opinion as well. I have to draw the line there. Accusing folks of fraud (without proof) could be a legal nightmare. We have a legal system, not a justice system. It's a good habit to acquire; to make sure one's statements are 'protected' speech. Calling someone a douchebag is legally protected speech, even though it will likely arouse the Wrath of Kevin, as well it should.

If I were to engineer the perfect scam, I would suck in some True Believers to act as spokesmen, be careful not to take money, then sit back and watch the fun. Not all scams are about the money.


Daniel Transit said...

Seems that the last sentence in the linked article (quoted in an earlier comment), '..A scam worthy of James Randi...' refers to hoaxes that James Randi undertook:

'..From 1979–1983 two young psychics named Steve Shaw (Banachek) and Mike Edwards demonstrated their paranormal abilities to a team of parapsychologists in a laboratory. However, these “psychics” were really mentalists/magicians, and their participation was a hoax orchestrated by James Randi. Named Project Alpha,1 the hoax aimed to disprove complaints that a lack of funding prevents parapsychologists from undertaking useful experiments. Randi also wanted to show the need for a magician in the laboratory. Edwards and Shaw were selected from some 300 applicants to participate in the research project. They underwent over 160 hours of “scientific” testing that never revealed that their “paranormal” powers were mere magic tricks.

In 1988 American psychic José Alvarez arrived in Australia, claiming to channel a 2,000-year-old spirit named Carlos. With his incredible ability to stop his pulse he developed a fast following, save for a few narrow-minded skeptics who were convinced he was a fake. Alvarez boasted an impressive resume of appearances on (fake) television shows and radio stations and in (fake) magazines and newspapers, because he was a fake. The Carlos hoax was devised by Randi to demonstrate the ease of creating a cult and to reveal the gullibility of the media and public.

The Carlos hoax and Project Alpha are the most infamous “skeptical hoaxes,” although there are many other examples of this kind...

Skeptical hoaxes are social experiments. They reveal human behavior under natural conditions. Their purpose is to test media reporting and gauge the response of the public...

There are valid arguments against creating skeptical hoaxes. By staging a hoax the skeptical hoaxer can seem as bad as any other hoaxer.....'