Tuesday, June 02, 2015

UFOs - The Never Ending Saga

There was a time when I believed that once a sighting had been solved, once a real solution had been offered, we could eliminate that case from our files. We wouldn’t have to worry about it because we all knew what the answer was. That was back when I was younger and somewhat na├»ve.

Today I see us still talking about the so-called Philadelphia Experiment as if it wasn’t an admitted hoax. That’s right, the man who originated it, Carlos Allende, or if you wish to use the name he was born with, Carl Allen, admitted that he had
Carlos Allende aka Carl Allen
made the whole thing up in an attempt to stop Morris K. Jessup from writing any more UFO books. The Allende Letters, and the annotated copy of the Case for the UFO sent to the Office of Naval Intelligence, was a hoax. Allende even signed a statement for Jim Lorenzen saying as much.

In the October 1980 issue of Fate, Robert Goerman drove the final stake through this tale when he found Allende’s family (known as the Allens) and interviewed them. They said that Allende had been a strange man who always annotated everything he had including birthday cards and magazine articles. They confirmed the hoax and yet we still have to hear about this as if there is something to learn from the letters. For an overview see:


Or take the case of Thomas Mantell. Here was a man who earned a Distinguished Flying Cross during the Normandy Invasion as a transport pilot. After the war he transitioned into fighters and in January 1948 was leading a flight near Godman Army Air Field when he was asked to attempt to intercept and identify an object over the field. Mantell could not reach the altitude the UFO was operating at and he was killed in his attempt.

Thomas Mantell
It is clear from the declassified records that this was an aircraft accident. Mantell lost consciousness around 25,000 feet with his aircraft trimmed to climb. It rolled over into a power dive at 30,000 feet and broke apart long before impact. The object he was chasing based on the descriptions and drawings in the Project Blue Book files suggest it was a huge balloon and not an alien craft.

Unless you think that this is a phenomenon of the 1940s and 1950s, there are always the Gulf Breeze sightings. Here was a case in which the model used in the best photographs was found. The evidence offered seemed to refute the idea that there had been some spectacular sightings with photographic evidence. Nearly everyone believes the photographs are a hoax but there are still arguments about it.

And let’s not forget the Alien Autopsy. Here is a case that is an admitted hoax with photographs showing how the alien was created and showing the work in progress. There is just no evidence of a photographer, no evidence that anyone had kept this classified material to be sold to Ray Santilli later) but there are still those who
Creation of the Alien for the autopsy. Photo
courtesy of Philip Mantle. 
believe that some of the footage in the autopsy film is real.

And now we’re stuck with the Roswell Slides. It is clear from the evidence that the slides show a mummy. It is clear that someone in the inner circle had to know the truth about this, but it went forward anyway with some of the people simply ignoring the obvious. Once the mummy was identified by reading the placard, once the museum was identified by comparing the slides to other photographs in that museum, once the journal article was found corroborating the evidence, you would have thought that the debate would be over… but no, we’re told the placard doesn’t matter and the research continues to prove that the body is that of an alien.

David Rudiak is continuing to work to nail down the photographs and other scientific information so that we might put this, briefly, to bed. I have no confidence that any evidence offered will be accepted as authentic if it doesn’t show that the body on the slide is alien. The fallback position seems to be that the scientists from the May 5 presentation pointed out all these “nonhuman” characteristics so the evidence to the contrary is unimportant… just as the admission of hoax by those involved in the Alien Autopsy is unimportant.


The point is that no matter what evidence is presented, no matter who admits the hoax, no matter what is said and done, there are those who are going to reject the evidence and believe what they want. I simply do not understand how you can reject the evidence that you don’t like… oh, I get that sometimes the evidence isn’t as persuasive as it is in these cases and that there can be legitimate disagreements, but I don’t understand how you reject the words of those who participated in the hoaxes when they say they made up the stories or when the evidence clearly leads to a specific conclusion. But that is what we contend with day after day here.

143 comments:

TheDimov said...

This reminds me of the Loch Ness Monster - the best, and only halfway decent photograph of the "monster" turned out to be a hoax. The best footage of the monster by Tim Dinsdale, once cleaned up with modern technology, turned out to be a boat and its wake. The Robert Rhines sonar photos showing fins and dragon-like faces were shots of the seabed, heavily edited. Yet year after year there are scores of sightings, and there have been endless documentaries. But it is just so embarrassing that this thing persists, but people quite simply see things that aren't there, or want to believe, or the media brings it up once in a while when it has nothing better to do.

And Don, Tom et al might end up even surpassing the ridiculousness of Loch Ness the way things are going, who knows?

Keep it up boys, you are doing just great..

Larry said...

Kevin:

I realize this post is off-topic, but I need to get the message to you and I don’t have your e-mail address.

When I joined this blogsite some years ago, it was with the hope and intention to engage in collegial dialogue with knowledgeable individuals on the phenomena and epiphenomena of UFOs. It was never my intention to end up spending inordinate amounts of time on acrimonious heated interchanges over personalities.

It has always been clear to me that the tendency for discussion on this subject to devolve into simple ego contests is built in to the psychodynamics of the two main opposing positions. It would take conscious effort on the part of all concerned to avoid it, and that effort is just not happening. To me, this animosity is just one more additional source of entropy in an already chaotic situation. My typical response is to try to avoid or ignore it whenever I can. Of course, when anyone feels they are unjustly attacked they will usually respond with anger and often reply in kind. The original attacker will then feel that they are the victim of an unfair attack and respond in kind, ad nauseum. I have certainly played my part in this little danse macabre over the years--but with quite a bit of reluctance. In my professional world, an individual can go an entire career without being the target of this kind of bare-knuckles, barroom assault. In the UFO blog world, it is impossible to go more than 2 or 3 paragraphs. For some, the ego contest is the whole point of the exercise; far from avoiding it, they seek it out. When there isn’t enough of it, they manufacture more.

While the wallowing in ego-driven personality conflict is distasteful to me personally, I have been willing to tolerate some of it as the cost of of doing business here--as long as its amplitude does not grow to dominate every interchange. This whole “Roswell Slides” “discussion” has become nothing but shit-slinging. Moreover, in the last few weeks I have become the subject of increasingly nasty, heated, and persistent personal attacks by the usual handful of uber-debunkers, with Lance at the head of the lynch mob even though I had no substantial role in the trajectory that that episode took. In the normal course of events, this would be a stimulus for me to counterattack even harder, etc.

Instead, I have decided to be a conscientous objector. I don’t want any part of that happy horseshit. Lance and the others can enjoy it entirely by and for themselves. It is clear that I have irreconcilable differences with them, so I think it is best if we part ways.

It is my intention to stop posting here and at Rich’s website. I will cease to be an irritant to them and therefore no longer a subject for discussion. For your part, I would respectfully request that you use your capacity as blogsite editor to either block and/or delete any future postings that are either addressed to me or talk about me.

I personally respect and appreciate the time and effort you’ve put in in service not only to the country but to the UFO debate and I would be happy to have conversations with you personally and individually.

Brian Bell said...

@Larry

Even though you and I have disagreed on many subjects over the last 3 months of my only time ever spent here, both sides of the camps have repeatedly called me names, ridiculed comments, or asked me to leave. Both sides.

Don't worry about Larry, even though I often side with him he apparently hates me too. For some of these folks, apparently, they have lost their "open minds".

Regarding the subject of this series, hoaxes, all I can say is this little "hobby" or whatever people want to call it, is filled with hoaxes right and left. It's about the only "truth" that exists in this hobby.

Jim Bender said...

Nicely put Larry, the ego saturated debunkers remind me of the 14th century "the world is flat clan"

I feel this blog is heavily favored to the debunkers.

Wonder what the rebuttals would be to the following events "The 1997 Phoenix Lights, 830pm event" "Japanese airline pilot event in 1982 over Alaska" "the Ariel School event 1994 in S.Africa" There are many more but these events are SOLID

These UFO events are simply impossible to debunk or prove a hoax, but yet these events are never up for discussion on this blog.

Brian Bell said...

@Jim Bender -

Not certain about that...you call me a debunker but I am certainly not favored here at all. On your cases mentioned above..yes those are not so easy to debunk but also not easy to get hands on evidence for other than eye witnesses which we know can be tainted or exaggerated. Certainly they are not hoaxes.

CommanderCronus said...

I've always had a lot of respect for the Ray Santilli Alien Autopsy film. Not because I consider it authentic, (I don't since it's an admitted hoax) but for the degree of artistry involved in creating the alien. Here you have a being that is between four and five feet tall, with an oversized head, large black eyes, diminutive nose and mouth; one could even call it a classic grey given the black-and-white nature of the film footage. The setting is a clinical one, with the being undergoing what is meant to be viewed as an autopsy or dissection of some kind, by medical personnel. Sure, there are plenty of flaws in the movie, from the post-1940's telephone to the shoddy way the camera guy captures the subject, resulting in blurry close-ups, but let's ignore that for the moment.

For now, I wish to call your attention to the "alien" on the gurney. If you remember, many of the supposed witnesses to bodies from crashed UFOs have described them not specifically aliens or Martians, but as "little men", and it's important to take note of this distinction. If one were to make a composite of the crash retrieval stories involving bodies and combine them with the more popular alien abduction depictions from the 1980's, the end result would be something very close to what we see in Alien Autopsy.

The artistic genius I see is in the way Santilli achieves just the right balance; the being doesn't look entirely human, but at the same time it looks more human than any standard Hollywood special effects team would ever make it, and in doing so creates a figure that is beyond enigmatic...it's disturbing, so much so that I once toyed around with the idea(in my own head) that although the Santilli film was a hoax, the alien may have been real - an attempt by the government to discredit the true appearance of alien bodies, should any real pics ever surface. An unlikely scenario? Yes, but it makes for a fine conspiracy theory, and a fun bit of speculation. I won't take this notion any further because, again, the Santilli film is a known hoax. But in my opinion, it's a very nice one.

Compare all this, if you will, with the being depicted in the Roswell Slides. In that case you have a body that doesn't appear grey (at least not to me - to me it looks dark brown). The setting isn't a clinical one, nor is it military. It looks more like a museum display, but the most striking characteristic is that the body looks OLD, possibly over a thousand years old and not at all like something recently recovered from a downed spacecraft of any kind, unless that spacecraft had lain buried in the desert for well over a millennium.

In summary, I could easily forgive someone for believing the Santilli film...the Roswell Slides not so much. To believe the Roswell Slides depict an alien being requires a larger degree of self-delusion.

Anthony Mugan said...

Kevin and Larry...

Kevin I think you hit the nail firmly on the head. The lack of accepted standards in the debate is sickening. That covers both the level of rigour with ridiculous nonsense being parroted on both sides of the debate but also in terms of the level of uncivil behaviour Larry highlights.

I have been having similar thoughts to Larry. I am not sure if there is any practical way of restricting the discussion to address these problems and on balance I plan to stay in the discussion...but plan to try to largely stay out of the nonsense, so may be a less frequent commentator than before unless the topic lends itself to something I can usefully contribute to...

cda said...

Kevin:

The reason some people 'hold on' to famous UFO cases and want to keep them going is because they are classics. Maury Island is one, Mantell is another. Both involved loss of life. Thus they become important. I have seen long ago one writer actually say that the spacemen killed Mantell before he could reach and identify their craft. And Maury Island had the inevitable conspiracy ideas attached to it.

I don't know about the Philadelphia Experiment stuff. I do know that the same authors who first propagated the Roswell Incident tale had the previous year (1979) promoted the Philadelphia Experiment tale.

I don't know anyone who still maintains the Santilli alien autopsy is genuine, but dare say a few exist. Ditto with Gulf Breeze. Going back a while, think of those who promoted Stephen Darbishire's (in)famous UFO photo, on the grounds that it resembled Adamski's photos (!). Plus the fact that this 13-year old boy got invited to Buckingham Palace. Come to think of it, didn't Adamski once get to see Queen Juliana of the Netherlands.

Damn it, if you are allowed to see royalty, you MUST be genuine. Yeah?

That is the way some (a few) people's minds worked, and still work. Never mind any later admission of hoax.

Anthony Mugan said...

Larry
I will miss the quality of the comments you make. I hope I can tempt you to keep a watching brief and to perhaps chip in occasionally where your expertise can help inform the discussion...but totally sympathise with your point of view.

Lance said...

Jim Bender underlines the sad state of UFO fandom, citing some of his favorite cases.

Every one of those cases has obvious problems that Jim seems unaware of.

If those cases are solid, then I would hate to see the flimsy ones.

In just a quick google search, I was able to easily find articles that discuss the shortcomings, Some of the cases, I have looked into myself and am happy to discuss. I' have noticed that a certain level of UFO fan seems to operate without ever even considering negative evidence.

Hiding under the covers is something that children do, too.




Lance

cda said...

One of the ways ufology works is that if you present a batch of UFO cases that are 'solid' (to use Jim Bender's term), i.e. cannot be explained by any means, then someone comes along and begins to demolish them one by one by casting grave doubts over them. The originator then produces another batch of what he claims are 'solid' cases. The skeptic, if he is so inclined, again tries to refute them. Thus the game goes on and on.

What is so remarkable about the South African school case anyway? Who considers it 'solid'? Who has ever heard of it? I believe I have only once seen it mentioned in the vast UFO literature, and it sounds more like a case of mass hysteria to me.

What is solid to one person is liquid or even gaseous to another.

edward gehrman said...

The commander wrote:"I've always had a lot of respect for the Ray Santilli Alien Autopsy film. Not because I consider it authentic, (I don't since it's an admitted hoax)"

To all. Ray has never admitted or stated that the AA is a hoax. Ray has only said that because so much of the footage was damaged, he recreated the footage he had purchased from the cameraman, and mixed some of these frames with the original footage. (none of the "recreated" footage has been found; see if you can find it) Everything else about his story was the truth except when he tried to cover the identity of the cameraman. But there is a cameraman, a crash site, and real footage.
The photo in Kevin's blog was taken during the making of the Ant & Dec movie
directed by Jonny Campbell. The final 37 seconds of the Campbell film contains
some of the other footage purchased from the cameraman. The cameraman died in Aug of 1995. I know his name and the name of his son. The AA was a gift to the UFO community. Too bad they couldn't take advantage of it.
Ed

Lance said...

Brian,

I certainly don't hate you. I just often disagree with what you write and the way you form your arguments.

I don't take any of this stuff as seriously as some other folks do.

And if anyone thinks that I am being unilaterally rude to someone, please point that out to me. I am happy to apologize when I get something like that wrong.

Love,

Lance




Jack Brewer said...

Kevin wrote, "It is clear from the evidence that the slides show a mummy. It is clear that someone in the inner circle had to know the truth about this, but it went forward anyway with some of the people simply ignoring the obvious. Once the mummy was identified by reading the placard, once the museum was identified by comparing the slides to other photographs in that museum, once the journal article was found corroborating the evidence, you would have thought that the debate would be over… but no, we’re told the placard doesn’t matter and the research continues to prove that the body is that of an alien."

I listened to Jimmy Church's Fade to Black show last night in which Carey and Schmitt were guests. Suffice it to say I am now more convinced than ever that intentional omission and misrepresentation of information occurred. It is still taking place.

Circumstances as Kevin described above were repeatedly obscured and reported incorrectly during Church's show last night. Basically, an inaccurate picture of the chain of events since Cinco de Mayo was painted, with details distorted, incorrectly presented or omitted entirely. I think we have every reason to suspect such tactics have been employed all down the line, in addition to the examples that can be cited in which we know Team Slides hindered the research process.

Tom said...

Kevin & Jack -
Not wanting to be redundant on the hoaxes, I'll just say I concur 100%. This phenomena needs people of your integrity. I'm agnostic towards the ETH. Towards the UFO phenomena, I feel there is indeed something there worthy of serious discussion. I only feel this way because I had my own close sighting, over 30 years ago, of the strangest silent anomalous aircraft one could ever imagine. Not saying that ET was piloting it. I had/have no idea what it was or could be to this day. This is what piqued my interest in the topic.

So, for over 30 years the UFO topic has been an occasional hobby of mine. It's been a disappointing 30 year hobby. The sheer volume of hoaxes boggles the mind.

And to the few on this board who expressed frustration with the tenor of the conversation on this site, I respectfully disagree. I have lurked here for many years, just started posting a few months ago, & have found Kevin's & Jack's sites to contain some of the most cogent comments on this topic. Of course there will be a few ridiculous posts, but that is the nature of the beast. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.


Jack Brewer said...

Thanks, Tom. Your interest and support are appreciated.

I also appreciate Kevin Randle's facilitation of what has amounted to providing a central location for discussing ufology peer review of the Not Roswell Slides. 'A Different Perspective' has served a valuable purpose in that regard.

KRandle said...

Ed -

Thank you for proving my point. I almost added, at the time, I would hear from you supporting the Alien Autopsy... an admitted hoax.

Brian Bell said...

@edward gehrman -

You said: "....none of the "recreated" footage has been found; see if you can find it. Everything else about his story was the truth except when he tried to cover the identity of the cameraman. But there is a cameraman, a crash site, and real footage."

True....Ray has never "admitted"this was a hoax....why would he? The way it was staged and publicized was indeed deceptive (and intentional) which puts it squarely into the UFO hoax category.

He could have easy said he had recreated the film from the beginning but he didn't - he said it was the "real deal". No part of his film had original film elements at all. His film can't be found because he hid it or destroyed it after the "hoax"...after all you cannot prosecute anyone without the real evidence...just like a gunman throws his weapon into the river after his crime.

There is no known proven cameraman, crash site, or real footage. Just rumors of such.

edward gehrman said...

Kevin said:"Thank you for proving my point. I almost added, at the time, I would hear from you supporting the Alien Autopsy... an admitted hoax."


Kevin,
You keep saying this but you never supply any evidence. Where does Ray say that
the footage was a hoax. And why wouldn't you hear from me? I have evidence that
your statement isn't correct but you refuse to examine it. Have you read my article on the crash site?


http://www.outtahear.com/beyond_updates/Creatures%20With%20No%20Business%20Here%20By%20Ed%20Gehrman%20November%202004.htm

Ed

kamal jeet said...

Get over the fakes there are dozens of genuine sightings appearing every month on you tube. Of course there are fake ones too. I an sure not until an alien lands up on time square people won't believe but once you will see for yourself you will be in minority report and notice how naive you were

Alien said...

@Lance

You do believe in swampgas i guess.
Maybe you have some explanation for the Belgian wave too.
If so , i'm all ears.

Ps,the Ariel school mass sighting was in Zimbabwe, not South Afrika.

Greetings from Belgium

cda said...

Ed Gehrman:

" The AA was a gift to the UFO community"

The recent slides were as well, allegedly. If they or the AA had any real value to science, both should have been a gift to the WHOLE scientific community, not just UFO followers. Piltdown Man and the Cardiff Giant were also 'gifts' to science, at least for a period of time.

By the way, I don't recall the Piltdown discoverer (Charles Dawson) ever admitting to a hoax either. Perhaps the UK government silenced him.

KRandle said...

Ahh - Ed -

I long ago read your article and didn't find it persuasive. And those who created the Alien Autopsy for Santilli have long ago admitted it... and didn't Ray himself say that the tent footage was "recreated," and do you have a single document or witness to all this. Even with the Roswell slides we know the owner, we have a story that is somewhat verified in the guise of telling us about the Rays... with the Alien Autopsy we have a cameraman, oh wait, we don't know who it is. Sorry. This ship has sailed, as it has on the Roswell Slides and yet, here we are discussing it still.

Brian Bell said...

@Alien -

One solid eason for the Belgian UFO sightings has been offered before with a very terrestrial explanation. The "black triangles" might have been NATO alliance, US, or British survellience craft often referred to by some as the "TR3-B" or other variations in that supposed design.

Personally this is the best explanation to me
even though no one can prove it. $3.3 Trillion is invested in black box tech development in the US annually.

Technology to explain these craft does exist but doing an FOIA here in the U.S. will not provide any results to prove it. These craft are not alien in origin, they originate right here on this planet and there are humans flying them.

Larry Holcombe said...

Brian, are you serious...$3.3 trillion in black budget programs. Obama's budget request for 2015 was $3.9 trillion total. Try 50 or 60 billion in black ops programs without congressional oversight. When you get into trillions without accounting even in our present government that's a pill just big to swallow. The black ops programs have been well researched and reported and are in the range of the figures I mentioned above. If you have inside info to the contrary I'll be glad to read it.

Karen Purdie said...

You bring to fore notorious hoaxes and? what is the purpose? More prosaic way to explain the same weary chestnuts? In the spirit of fairness why didn't you give three or four examples that were not hoaxes and unexplained? God knows you have ample to choose from. Of more value to the reader would be citing two or three unexplained cases, there are many out there and provide a scientific explanation above mere moniker UFO. Beyond that your article is nothing but a lot of hot air. Business as usual for the blogging community. Garbage in garbage out. By the way old news Belgian triangle are TR3B. That craft by now is probably been scrapped for a newer model. Explain to my witnesses what was the massive inverted aircraft carrier type craft hovering silently 500 feet over the Sawmill Parkway in 1986? For many weeks? Any clue? Mirage?

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Brian Bell wrote re the Belgian Tringles: "Technology to explain these craft does exist but doing an FOIA here in the U.S. will not provide any results to prove it."

Why not, after a quarter of a century? Do you think the truth about the BT would dissolve NATO? What possible 'reason' could there be to deny FOIA requests about the BT Wave in Belgium?

Brian Bell said...

@Karen -

No not mirage - another black budget project.

@Larry -

Those numbers are from the break away civilization folks, often quoted by Schratt and Ferrell...main source is Ferrell. $53 billion alone is reportedly spent and publically acknowledged on space programs alone. The Trillion estimate (I believe) began in the Rumsfeld era. The theory supposedly says the inside power structure has been tapping a wide number of sources for the funding post WW2. What is publcally reported is not the entire story as they claim. A good legitimate source (in my opinion) is Catherine Austin Fitts.

Brian Bell said...

@Jeanne -

Quick answer since it may be off topic is that the FOIA will be denied on grounds of national security - I couldn't venture a guess on NATO impact, but the U.S. and its allies spy on each other all the time despite being "friends". Here in Texas the black triangles fly all over the state as do the so called "TR6 TELOS". California and Texas have the lion's share of black budget spending.

purrlgurrl said...

The answer is simple . . . as long as there is the possibility of making money from these zombie cases they will continue to walk among us, animated by unscrupulous con men, well aware that younger generations are ignorant of the past as well as the most susceptible to hyperbolic claims (that's why marketing is aimed at the 18-35 demographic).

The slides weren't an honest misinterpretation of questionable evidence, they were an outright con meant to defraud gullible Roswell true believers.

CommanderCronus said...

Back to Kevin Randle's original point: how many perpetual legends have evolved from known or suspected UFO hoaxes? The most obvious one is the Montauk Project, but I can think of a few more. One could surmise that nearly all crashed-saucer stories involving bodies owe at least a nod to the Aztec tale. The Men in Black phenomenon appears to have gained it's wings due to some rather dubious claims by Gray Barker, and let's not forget, it was the ramblings of Bob Lazar who, quite literally, put Area 51 on the map. I even hear Dulce mentioned now and again - an underground military base which, as far as I can tell, never existed. Who do we thank for that one...Richard Doty? So yes, many of these legends never die.

Jim Bender said...

lololololoo brain you got an explanation for everything hahhahahahahhh

1997 lights over Phoenix first event, triangle 1 MILE WIDE and fly's directly over SKY HARBOR AIRPORT turning inbound and out bound flights into total pandemonium!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I had a relative that saw the whole event, sorry to burst the EGO

Terry the Censor said...

Back to Kevin's original point.

It would be nice to see the MUFON journal have a regular feature called SOLVED! wherein definitively explained cases are laid to rest. Perhaps a panel could draw up a list of cases (as Kevin has done here) and commission an acknowledged "honest broker" to write up each one. The typescripts could be passed around for comment, to see that every significant detail has been addressed.

Would MUFON go for this? The mystery mongering of Hangar 1 suggests not. And the journal's June issue has not a word about the colossal Roswell slides fiasco. But I think it would be worth a try. The fandom would howl but MUFON needs to do more to bring credibility to ufology. Certainly, this month's apologia for Bob Lazar is shameful; that space could have been better used.

George32 said...

It's a month since Jaime Maussan’s May 5 extravaganza presentation of the “Roswell Slides” in Mexico City. The “slides” are undoubtedly a carefully devised hoax by people who consider themselves experts at “perception management”. The hoax was initially aimed at Roswell UFO researchers. A month ago it seemed possible Maussan had commissioned it himself but I'm now sure that's not so.
After the May 5 event, which most saw as an “epic fail”, the perpetrators steered us away from the alien explanation by introducing (through image manipulation) the false message: MUMMIFIED BODY OF TWO YEAR OLD BOY.
The truth of the matter is that the “dead creature”, seen in the images that we were allowed to see, was neither a mummified child nor an alien. Before I explain what it really was, consider the following:-
(1) From the beginning Adam Dew has been the visible front man though not one of the hoaxmasters. (2) There is no independent evidence that the two alleged slides depicting the “dead creature” --supposedly dated to 1947-- ever existed. All that's been seen are digital images allegedly from the slides. (3) The background story supposedly linking the 2 supposed slides to Hilda Ray and her supposed friendship with Mamie Eisenhower is transparently false without supporting evidence. Roswell supporters and the skeptics have been equally gullible in accepting an absurd story.
(4) What everyone has been allowed to see –even Maussan— was just digital images of the alleged slides. Investigators should be aware that at every stage digital images can be manipulated and altered though maybe visually appearing unchanged. Introduction of a deliberately blurred message is easily done. (5) In higher resolution versions of the images Maussan's experts could discern distinct non-human features. The body was of humanoid appearance and the right size for a supposed "Roswell Alien" but the non-human features precluded it from being a mummy. This convinced Maussan and others that the writing on the placard was fake. It likely is, and was intended to present observers with a stark false choice: Is it an alien or is it a mummy?
So what is the dead creature depicted in the slides? I've little doubt that it's a special effects (SFX) dummy carefully made to look like a "Roswell Alien" and prepared with great attention to the “non-human” details. The SFX Dummy was created sometime in the last 5 years and filmed with a digital camera on a set looking like a 1940s style museum. This is almost exactly the same sort of calculated deception as Ray Santilli’s “Alien Autopsy” scam of 1995. That hoax showed a staged autopsy of a SFX dummy that was subsequently nicknamed Alien HILDA. Not only that, but this new "Roswell Slides" SFX dummy had been fashioned by the very same people.
I know the hoaxers who did it and their names. They are John Lundberg and Robert Irving. They have been following some of the forums, such as this one, and even posted a few comments though without admitting complicity in the hoax. I notice too that a close associate of theirs --also visible on the forum-- recently pushed the line this was all about a Native American child mummy (knowing it to be untrue).
This carefully orchestrated hoax has been largely successful and unsurprisingly was accepted by Maussan and other Roswell Alien believers. Roswell skeptics now seem to accept the ridiculous background story as true but say what we see is a mummy. One can expect that the whole Roswell Slides saga will soon become the subject of a film documentary illustrating the success of disinformation exercises like this but without an admission it was the film-makers who created the hoax.
This the true explanation of the “Roswell Slides” and further pursuit of it --in hopes of discovering a supposed mummy or, alternatively, a genuine alien-- would be a wild goose chase. I'm quite prepared to explain all this in greater detail on the phone to anyone who is interested. --George Wingfield (Iowa, USA).

Brian Bell said...

@george32 -

No it's not a plastic dummy - I'll post segments of this again:

Tuesday morning I called the Mesa Verde park director at 9:30 am CST and he returned my call at 11:15 am CST.

He told me this:

1) FOIA has already been submitted by someone else more than a week ago pertaining to the mummy.

2) NPS, like all agencies, has a FOIA officer that is already researching information for disclosure.

3) Anticipated response time to that FOIA is estimated June 15 or close to it.

4) The mummy is no longer at the Mesa Verde museum but at a different park. It has not been reburied.

5) The mummy was on display about 1937-1938 then removed due to reasons unknown but being researched as stated previously.

6) The placard was produced at the museum and they believe the wording and text, as suggested by those who deciphered it, to be correct. It is a human boy.

7) They believe the image offered to the public had the text on the placard whited out for readons unkown to them. They simply said the text had clearly been whited out on the original image.

8) They do believe the body to be what the placard says it is based on what they know. human not alien.

9) The mummy was not on display long and as a result, since it was moved, they do not have any further info at the Mesa Verde museum - this is why they are researching it further via the FOIA request.

10) Once the FOIA officer has completed the research and gained NPS approval to release what can be released, all inquiries (there have been many by phone and email), will be responded to individually based on the info from the FOIA, but not before.

11) He did ask me to remind everyone, as I said previously, that they do have a park to run and this comes first, and inquiries of this kind are not staffed to handle immediately and take time. He asked me to tell you to be patient.

George, if it's a plastic alien mockup from 1937 and NPS is wrong, then maybe you are right, But it appears to be a child mummy used as a modern hoax from old slide images of the same.


cda said...

Before accepting what George32 writes, I should point out that when Dave Chorley and Doug Bower owned up to producing most of the crop circles in the UK (at a time when crop circle fever was at its height, i.e. early 1990s), this same George spoke on a TV forum telling us that Doug and Dave were merely government disinformation agents.

I notice that the two hoaxers he names above, Robert Irving and John Lundberg, are also experienced crop circle makers. I don't know if this qualifies them to fabricate mummified bodies that resemble ETs, but you never know. Maybe George32 is a disinformation agent himself, although I cannot think that either the US or the UK would employ him as such.

Brian Bell said...

I think it more likely that George32 would LIKE everyone to think he is a "government agent" or "insider". The notion of suggesting the slides were recently produced is ridiculous given that cardboard and film date to the 1940's and no, old unused 1940's film will not produce an image - that's why they have expiration dates on 35 mm film as they did back in the 1940's.

George32 said...

In response to CDA, it's absurd to suggest that I am an agent for either the UK government or US government though some people at UFO conferences like to accuse me of that when I disagree with their beliefs. I have frequently said since 1991 that there is no reason to think Doug & Dave had any UK government connection . The reason this was once suggested was because the claim was made in the TODAY newspaper (now defunct) that Doug and Dave had made ALL the crop circles in th UK which was patently untrue. Of course they did make crop circles but laid claim to some crop circles which they could not have made.

As for circlemakers John Lundberg and Rod Dickinson (+ Rob Irving) not being qualified as "Alienfakers" that is quite untrue. Despite what Philip Mantle claims, these three played a central role in the making of Santilli's Alien Autopsy footage in 1995. Lundberg and Dickinson at that time were expert SFX dummy and puppet makers and produced many of these props for a Channel 4 TV series called "Crapston Villas". They were the ones who created SFX dummy "Alien HILDA" for the Alien Autopsy film.

If some of the people who have been taken in by the "Roswell Slides" hoax had bothered to acquaint t themselves with the 1995 Alien Autopsy hoax, they would see many of the same deceptions that we have now. First and foremost is to fool Roswell believers into thinking that the images and the claimed photographic materials are from 1947. They are NOT -- we were told about 16 mm cine film taken in 1947 by Santilli then and no such 16 mm film ever existed --the hoaxed footage was all taken with a modern videocamera.

Let me repeat: the "Roswell Slides" have nothing to do with Roswell or images that were taken in 1947. They are a recent hoax and Lundberg and Irving are the hoaxers.


Jack Brewer said...

George32,

I've read about your Roswell Slides theory and found it intriguing, to certain extents. The name game is fascinating. I would also agree that it might be relevant that there have actually been no physical slides presented. Their existence has been heavily inferred but not established.

However, I have yet to see you present any conclusive evidence that Mr. Lundberg and company had anything whatsoever to do with the fiasco. If you have such evidence, I invite you to consider compiling a thorough and cogent report.

If you do not have such conclusive evidence, I'd invite you to consider that it is unreasonable for a person to expect others to agree with them and support their points of view when ample verifiable evidence is not provided to establish the validity of those points of view. That would be the case, as I see it, whether one is demanding we prematurely accept alien visitation or accusations about who is hoaxing it.

The name of the game should be 'put up or shut up', in my opinion. The slides saga, of all things, should further demonstrate that to be the case.

George32 said...

Brian, This is the whole essence to a Roswell Alien hoax like this: Make people think that these slides, film, video footage, photographic materials came from 1947 either by forging the materials or presenting only images that purport to originate from that date. Adam Dew made much of the fact that he had a box of assorted slides from that era (1940s/1950s) that supposedly came from a house clearance in Sedona. Maybe they did (or more likely he got them from e-Bay. That is all completely irrelevant. The only slides that matter are the two with images of the supposed alien on them. Did you ever hold those two slides in your hand? Did you have these two slides tested by an independent photographic expert? Probably not and we have to rely on the word of someone else who may well be involved in the hoax.

If these two slides did exist it is equally possible that the Kodachrome cardboard sleeves were of 1947 origin but borrowed from old stock and fitted with transparency film that --without edge markings-- would be difficult to date. Photographic materials like this can be easily faked by hoaxers who know what they are doing.

I am well aware of this as Ray Santilli lied to me repeatedly in 1995. When I interviewed him he showed me a letter from a senior photographic expert at Eastman Kodak who stared the piece of 16 mm film received from him was definitely of 1947 manufacture which could be determined from the edge markings. I could see the letter from Kodak was genuine and so I asked Santilli whether the piece of 16 mm film he had sent them actually showed the alien body that was in the autopsy room. He assured me that it did.

I found out later that he had sent them a piece of blank leader film with 1947 edge markings (which he knew all about) and it had no connection with the "alien" images. Santilli was a crook and he told me he also had film of President Truman standing beside the crashed saucer at Roswell and many other pieces of film which would show the "Alien Autopsy" was genuine. All of these claims proved to be untrue. Now, in 2015, we are being told of similar unverifiable claims with regard to the "Roswell Slides". The hoaxers have now steered this hoax towards making people think the dead creature was definitely the mummy of a two-year-old. I suggest that is also untrue.

George32 said...

Hi, Jack Brewer

I do have a lot more information that supports what I am saying about Lundberg and Irving being the authors of this hoax. If you let me have an e-mail address --or preferably a phone number-- I am more than willing to share this with you. It would be best if I could call you. The problem with posting this material on Kevin's forum is that I'm restricted to a mere 4096 characters with each posting that makes it difficult to tell all that I want to. Another problem as we all know is that if one tries to debate this on a foru

George (in Iowa City today)

P.S. Let me wish Kevin a Happy Birthday today.

George32 said...

(sorry, premature posting occurred there) .........forum one may have to contend with trolls and net-idiots and, indeed, the actual hoaxers themselves (using disguised names!) which may lead to endless futile arguments so it's better done offline. --George

Brian Bell said...

@George -

You said "The hoaxers have now steered this hoax towards making people think the dead creature was definitely the mummy of a two-year-old. I suggest that is also untrue."

Not certain about that George, the suggestion it was a mummy came up well before the slides were released and of course largely by "debunkers and skeptics" as some here would call them.

I can't see a timeline that suggests the slides were faked 3-4 years ago, given to Dew, shown to Carey and Schmitt et al, released, then self rebutted with an intention of steering to an ultimate goal of claiming they were that of a child mummy?

Would need significantly more info and details of who, what, why, and when to back that claim.

cda said...

So we now have the following, according to George32:

1. The slide hoaxers are two persons previously known as expert crop circle makers.
2. They initially created the plastic (?) dummy to fool gullible ufologists towards the idea that they depict an extraterrestrial being, presumed from the Roswell crash.
3. So clever were these two, that when the slides were identified, by skeptics, as photos of a mummified child from a known museum, these guys even managed to fool the skeptics into thinking they were genuine mummies.
4. The upshot of this is that these fakers fooled BOTH the UFO believers and the UFO skeptics, but in completely different ways.
5. Finally they managed to fool all parties regarding the date the photos were taken.

I propose that they be given knighthoods for their magnificent achievement.

Jack Brewer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jack Brewer said...

Thanks, George. My email address is available through my blogger profile.

To try to be clear, I wasn't suggesting you plead your case here or to me personally. I was inviting you to consider composing a detailed report and presenting what factual, verifiable evidence you may have, and publish it at an appropriate venue.

In my opinion, an important aspect of such reports is accurately differentiating between fact and opinion. It's okay to have opinions, but they should be clarified as such and not asserted as facts, a practice often lacking among those who investigate and report on UFO-related circumstances.

In contrast, facts can be presented with applicable documentation. One then need not lobby for a preferred theory, but simply present it and the accompanying evidence, and allow it to either stand on its own or not. Unsupported conclusions should be clarified as supposition. That's how it all stacks up from my vantage point, anyway and, I might add, why it was clear from the outset that the Roswell Slides were sensationalized, otherwise empty claims.

albert said...

@Brian,
@Larry,
.
A lot of research can be done for 'even' $50 billion/year. Look what NASA did in the 60's for ~$20B/year (in 2014$); they put men on the moon!
.
I 'got into' the whole UFO thing based on my interest in aviation technology, so I tend to lean that way when looking for explanations of UFO phenomena. IIRC, some group did a study years ago, that determined that sightings of triangular UFOs in the US, clustered around military bases, suggesting to me that military engineering might be involved.
.
Nevertheless, I can't discount the possibility, however remote, of ET technology existing. That's a very unscientific viewpoint. Still, it would be interesting to see how many 'true unknowns' would be left if all the worlds black projects were suddenly revealed....
.
...

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Brian wrote: "Not certain about that George, the suggestion it was a mummy came up well before the slides were released and of course largely by "debunkers and skeptics" as some here would call them."

Doubtless Carey and Schmitt had also recognized the mummy-like appearance of the body in the slides. That's why they sought expert evaluations by forensic anthropologists and other scientists of what is visible in the slides. The mummy-like appearance does not in itself, of course, establish the biological nature of the being behind this appearance.

To me, that body appears to be dessicated, the likely result of its having been laid out in the desert sun for a long period following death (as was the pre-burial practice in the culture to which it belonged). That would accord with the body likely having been discovered in the desert southwest of this country. I agree that this in itself should have led Carey and Schmitt to search for other photographic images of such mummies in the region, precisely in museums such as the one to which it seems to have been traced.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

I do not, btw, reject out of hand George's theory that Dew and his silent partner had help in deciding what to do with the 'Roswell slides'. Seven years passed between the year when the silent partner's sister discovered the two hidden slides (2008) and the presentation that took place on May 5 of this year. I read the following yesterday in Chris Rutkowski's article on facebook:

"She [Cathy] kept the box in her garage until she noticed the two slides (#9 and #11) of a strange body around 2008. They were 'wrapped and hidden under the rest of the slides'. She gave them to her brother, who gave them to his friend Adam Dew in 2012. The co-owners of the slides created the company Slidebox Media LLC in 2013 to produce the documentary 'Kodachrome'."

I think they had a larger goal in view -- ultimately to produce and sell a lengthy documentary video of some kind based on the slides. The five years between 2008 and 2013 were plenty of time for who-knows-what kinds of information-gathering, planning, and even plotting before Dew and partner formed their limited liability company and approached Carey and Schmitt, binding them by NDAs not to involve other researchers in their investigation.

Dew said earlier this year that after first seeing the slides he searched the internet for information about Roswell. Of course he found a battle royale, still going on after many years over how to rationally interpret the Roswell evidence. On the internet he would have readily found research conducted in good faith and vigorously contested, and he also would have found disinformation and hoaxes related to the Roswell case. He most likely found much to read about the Santilli hoax, including George's paper concerning it, which could well have led him to contact Lundberg et al. Especially if his and his partner's intent was to create maximum visibility and maximum profit for themselves in a documentary that might arouse the level of public interest generated by the alien autopsy hoax.

Was the Roswell slides investigation set up to fail, one way or another, and to create a disillusioning scandal in the field of ufo research? We can contemplate ways in which that might have been accomplished, but we might never know how it was engineered and who guided the engineering. I've heard that Carey and Schmitt indicated in a recent interview that they are looking for Adam Dew and having trouble finding or contacting him. Carey and Schmitt (and even Mausson) potentially have considerable grounds for a lawsuit against Dew and his partner, which would produce the very interesting kinds of evidence gathered by attorneys and their investigators, including legally binding testimony from all involved in the Roswell slides project. That's likely the only path by which any of us will ever learn the inside story of what happened during the seven years leading up to May 5.

Steve Sawyer said...

"...5. Finally they managed to fool all parties regarding the date the photos were taken."

Oh, I don't know about that. What did Old Abe say?

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

Yeah, I don't agree with George's "the mummy is a fabricated dummy" variation, either. I'm beginning to suspect it may just be a... child mummy.

Steve Sawyer said...

Sad news: "Larry," who posted here and elsewhere about the slides over time made a comment over on Reynolds iCon blog that he had decided to withdraw from making any further comments over there or here, due to the treatment he said he was receiving since the May 5th event in particular.

Which is really too bad, since Larry (I think a retired NASA scientist) usually made some pretty cogent and objective comments over time here and wherever, so I will miss his input. Maybe, hopefully, he'll come back at some point when things cool down more about the slides, and other topics he's knowledgeable about that will be covered later.

David Rudiak said...

When I am actually agreeing with Brian Bell and CDA, then hell hath indeed frozen over.

CommanderCronus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CommanderCronus said...

There are still a couple of loose ends to tie up with regard to the Roswell Slides. I'd be very interested to see if the actual, physical mummy is found and examined, and that may happen sometime in the next few months. But how will I know about it? Both Kevin Randle and the author of the UFO Conjecture blog have expressed their disgust with the affair, and are trying to avoid posting any follow-up information. Is there a resource somewhere that I can access to learn about future developments in the case? Any help would be appreciated.

William Strathman said...

b"h

@Jeanne

I've heard that Carey and Schmitt indicated in a recent interview that they are looking for Adam Dew and having trouble finding or contacting him.

I'd be interested to know of the info you have on this interview.

Neal Foy said...

Hi Kevin,
There's an interesting article on UFO Chronicles and Devoid by Billy Cox concerning UFO encounters during the Vietnam war.
I have a couple of questions, to your knowledge were there ever any real enemy helicopters involved in the war, especially below the DMZ? Do you know Barry Greenwood and is his research to be trusted? Do you intend to look into this further or do you think this is just another blind lead?
I know this may be a little off topic but I thought you may have personal knowledge that might be of some importance.

Jack Brewer said...

CommanderCronus,

I find Twitter to be a pretty effective way to keep an eye on what's happening. For those who don't currently have an account, it's an easy means of hearing about podcasts, blog posts and similar info on any given genre or topic.

Tom said...

On Jose Antonio Caravaca's site, Jose Antonio posted a letter which Maussan sent to him. Here is a portion of that letter -

"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."

I sincerely hope that Maussan is foolish enough to actually sue. The depositions from the Sliders crew would be gold. Of course this is just more childish bluster by Maussan.

Brian Bell said...

@Rudiak -

You said "When I am actually agreeing with Brian Bell and CDA, then hell hath indeed frozen over."

Actually, I think you smart for having looked at the Roswell Ramey telegram photo...I don't think anyone thought of it till you undertook it. I may not agree with parts of your conclusions, but it was the right sort of investigative question to explore.

Brian Bell said...

@Tom -

"Of course this is just more childish bluster by Maussan."

Watch out Tom, he might bring a "slander suit" against you...just kidding.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

William Strathman -- I did not hear the interview but read the following note about it on another forum:

"I listened to the Fade to Black Podcast with Carey and Smidtt last night and they claimed they were looking for Adam Dew right now. Implying he's not responding to them or closed shop?"

That was posted on Wednesday of this week, so the podcast must have been broadcast on Tuesday night. Perhaps it's archived. I haven't gone to the website and listened to it yet myself.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Here's a direct link:

http://www.jimmychurchradio.com/02-june-tues-7-10pm-pacific-live/

KRandle said...

FWIW -

Brad Sparks made the first attempt, that I know of, in 1985. Don Schmitt suggested something like this in 1990 and had someone else look at it. He could only identify a few letters as opposed to words. From that point many have attempted to read the Ramey memo, but the angle is slightly turned away from the camera, and the distance is just a little too far. David Rudiak has had some of the best success... as has Don Burleson, but there is no universal acceptance of the wording as there is with the Roswell Slides placard.

KRandle said...

All -

I know that the attention spans of some are nearly nonexistent, but I had published the link to Jimmy Church's show in the last posting... right in the middle, separated from the rest of text so that everyone could see it easily... Sometimes you just have to spend an extra two seconds to find the information.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Ron Regehr indicated in a recent Paracast interview that he and his coauthor have had further success in clarifying the text of the Ramey memo. Their new book on Roswell is expected to be published this summer.

Link to that interview:

http://www.theparacast.com/forum/resources/may-17-2015-ronald-regehr.59/

Lance said...

Ron Regehr comments on the Paracast revealed that he operates in the UFO-style. Virtually every sentence he uttered contained some sort of error or dubious UFO thinking.

He promises fantastic revelations though, in his new book so perhaps just this once a UFO author will actually deliver what he promises.

I have seen the work of his partner and found it to be in the Hoagland style of seeing things (symbols and such) that regular folks just can't see.

Regher's comments on attempting to use our method to Deblur the slides underlined that he simply doesn't know what he is doing. He couldn't follow the simple instructions that hundreds of other folks have used to replicate our results and essentially claimed that we were wrong,

But other than all that Mrs. Lincoln, I hope you enjoy the show.

Lance

David Rudiak said...

Brad Sparks made the first attempt, that I know of, in 1985. Don Schmitt suggested something like this in 1990 and had someone else look at it. He could only identify a few letters as opposed to words. From that point many have attempted to read the Ramey memo, but the angle is slightly turned away from the camera, and the distance is just a little too far. David Rudiak has had some of the best success... as has Don Burleson, but there is no universal acceptance of the wording as there is with the Roswell Slides placard.

Let us also not forget the AFOSI "attempt" in 1994 by sending to the CIA's National Photointerpretation Unit, who allegedly couldn't make out a single damn thing. Either this was a flagrant lie or they were given crap data, because certainly there are a number of things that CAN be read and on which there is even universal agreement.

This was followed in 1999 by the photographer James Bond Johnson assembling the Roswell Photointerpretation TEAM (RPIT). A key person here was Ron Regher, the first person I know of to read "VICTIMS". Neil Morris of RPIT added "WRECK", for the phrase "THE VICTIMS OF THE WRECK", now the strong consensus read.

It was Ron's "VICTIMS" that got everybody's attention, including mine. I got my own set of blowups and quickly added "'DISC'", "ROSWELL" and "RAMEY", now all consensus reads. However, Brad Sparks would later email me and say he was reading "'DISC'" way back in 1985, which I have no reason to doubt. He also independently of me picked out "ROSWELL".

There is actually strong consensus (at least 2/3rds of reads) on about 40% of the wording, some of it being unanimous (like "WEATHER BALLOONS" and "FORT WORTH, TEX."). About half of it has at least majority consensus. About three-quarters has at least a plurality consensus. I've done side-by-side comparisons of reads and run the statistics here:

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

Lack of "universal acceptance" in data interpretation is true of just about all fields of knowledge, and does NOT mean there is no agreement whatsoever.

Lance said...

David doesn't mention the MANY MANY other symbols that Morris sees in the aluminum and all over the pictures. Not exactly a source I woulld reference if looking for acceptance.

Lance

cda said...

Jeanne R:

"Their new book on Roswell is expected to be published this summer."

Did I read this right? There is to be yet another (umpteen to the umpteenth power) book on Roswell. Boy what terrific news! Further, I expect that the hype will say something like "It will blow the lid off...".

How many times does this lid have to be blown off before it finally falls back to earth on top of the pot it originally sat on?

albert said...

Just a guess, but I would think that any photo analysis software from the 90's would be hopelessly outdated by now.

Has anyone plans for a go at the Ramey memo again? Perhaps a 'team' effort, as was done with the Not Roswell Mummy Placard. Why wait for Yet Another Roswell Book. I've got a gut feeling that YARB will simply generate more controversy, or should I say, regenerate controversy.
.........
@Jeanne R,
Any secret technology in use by the gov/mil complex will never be revealed. IIRC, the maximum depths for submarines is still classified. When they become extinct, then it may be revealed. Seriously bad stuff is buried, with no intention of ever revealing it.
.
My €0.017994
.
...

George32 said...

For those who naively think that the Roswell Slides Hoax was simply a mischievous misidentification of a mummified child which was presented by Mr Adam Dew as a possible Roswell Alien, they should think again. This was a well designed hoax produced by people who are experts in deception and disinformation and it was obviously aimed at Roswell researchers and Jaime Maussan in particular. After Maussan’s “BeWitness” event which was a month ago today this ongoing hoax continued like some theatrical production using this forum and others as its stage. Apart from the dubious Mr Dew, the hoaxers and some of their supporters –including those in the know and those who were not—posted comments here pretending to be sincere Roswell skeptics who were now quite sure that this thing was merely the mummified body of a Native American child. I hasten to add that most of the contributors to this forum are indeed genuine sincere folk who are interested in Roswell research --and sincere Roswell skeptics-- most unaware of the presence of these hoaxers.

I asked Brian Bell yesterday whether he had actually held the two “Roswell Slides” in question in his hand or had them tested by an independent photographic expert. He gave no reply to that. Has anyone outside Mr Dew’s camp actually had access to the two supposed slides? I think not and all of us, just like Jaime Maussan, have simply been supplied with digital images of extremely dubious origin via the internet. We cannot even be sure whether the higher resolution digital images supplied to Maussan and seen by his experts are identical to those that the rest of us have seen.

The hoaxers now seem very keen to wrap it up and divert attention away from their grand deception by stampeding everyone into the “It’s a mummy” camp. Here are four very good reasons why it is not a mummy:-

(1) The mummy solution implicitly accepts Adam Dew’s background story regarding the provenance of the alleged slides and this is transparently false.

(2) Various non-human features of the dead “creature” (including the fact that its head is disproportionately large compared with its thorax) were confirmed by a number of experts who were shown the images by Jaime Maussan and his people. Are these physiologists, doctors, and also a mummy expert all charlatans or grossly incompetent idiots? Were they bribed by Maussan to say what they did? I think not. The only logical explanation is that the high resolution images showed an alien (which I don’t buy) or else they showed a custom-built SFX dummy alien with deliberately added non-human features.

(3) The deblurrable message on the placard “MUMMIFIED BODY OF TWO YEAR OLD CHILD” has clearly been faked and added to one of these images at a particular point –possibly just after May 5th. This was easily done by digital manipulation and sincere researchers who used deblurring software soon discovered this deliberate game-changer as they were meant to. There is no proof that the earlier versions of the image –downloaded in April, say, and removed from Dew’s control then show the same, if any, message when deblurred.

(4) The fact that Philip Mantle –who is well aware of the hoax and is a close associate of hoaxers Lundberg and Irving-- has been promoting the mummy solution is a sure indication that this solution is false.

albert said...

@George32,

1. There is no provenance for the slides, only hearsay..
2. Childrens heads are always disproportionately large for their bodies.... There were no 'experts' involved, only hearsay.
3. You have no proof of this. The placard says what one would expect it to say in a museum exhibit of a mummy.
4. Plenty of folks on both sides of the ET issue distanced themselves from this sideshow; it proves nothing.

This is silly. None of this is necessary.

The mummy explanation is the simplest and most logical. No expert on Earth (without ET experience:) can possibly say with any degree of certainty, that the mummy is not human. Anomalous genetic abnormalities do occur in humans, and indeed, some may occur only once in human history. The _digital_ scans could have easily been edited, but so what? Unedited slide scans were sufficient, so why bother? The slides accomplished their goal, caveat emptor.

The Draculas Dead Horse rises again...anyone got a wooden stake handy?
.
...

Bob Koford said...

Strange: comments intended to drag on a supposedly solved case, in an article about dragging on supposedly solved cases. Fascinating.

Neal Foy said...

Hi Albert,
Have you read George's theory on the Cash-Landrum case? If you haven't click his name and then his website. On the surface it sounds almost plausible.When you give it a little thought it begins to fall apart. While it's joked that military and intelligence are mutually exclusive words it's hard to believe they would be stupid enough to be practicing with a radioactive device over a populated area.

I'm kind of new to the world of UFO blogs and I don't know the players yet. I think I have a handle on this one and it's the handle that winds a cuckoo clock if you catch my drift.

Daniel Transit said...

George32,

You are completely certain, then, that Hilda and Bernard (Bernerd) Ray had nothing to do with the 2 photographs seen at the May 5th 2015 BeWitness event?

Did you watch the May 5th event?

If so, what is your response to the interviews with people who knew Hilda Ray (as stated)?

Can Hilda Ray's first name really be part of the hoax/perception management?

Would this not have to involve a sort of identity theft, drawing in her friends, also, for those interviews? Unless, you think they are actors?

You say people have been gullible in accepting the story re.HRay/BRay; but, who has really 100% accepted it?

Tom said...

Brian,

I know. I would love for him to sue me. I know that sounds nutty. But, I'm retired, have the time & money for this - So bring it on Jaime!

Bob Koford,

Yup. This whole thing has gone way off the ridiculous scale. Actually, I'm finding it fascinating. Schadenfreude to the enth power.

David Rudiak said...

David doesn't mention the MANY MANY other symbols that Morris sees in the aluminum and all over the pictures. Not exactly a source I woulld reference if looking for acceptance.

Merely citing the history of the Ramey memo. Neil Morris was the first to propose "WRECK" and Ron Regher "VICTIMS". Just want to give them credit where credit is due since these words are now the strong consensus reads.

They were also proposing "WEATHER BALLOONS" and "FORT WORTH, TEX." right at the beginning, unanimous reads by everyone now. Are you saying we should reject those reads as well just because Neil thinks there are symbols on the sticks where I see radar target foil-paper torn from the balsa sticks leaving small pieces where the foil-paper was glued to the sticks?

I have many disagreements with Ron and Neil about how they are interpreting the debris and other things in the various Ramey photos, but again I don't disagree with everything they say.

I could bring up how you have completely blown it in some of your arguments Lance and say this discredits everything you say about anything. Wouldn't exactly be fair, would it? Just because I think you are wrong-headed about about a lot of things, doesn't mean I disagree with you 100% or you are wrong about absolutely everything.

Lousy argument Lance.

Lance said...

David,

Well, if folks who also see fairies supported some skeptical position I had taken that was controversial, even among skeptics, I might give pause for a moment.

You mention that you were only giving the history of the memo, and that is fine.

But let's get real.

We are talking about someone who is claiming that there are symbols ALL over the debris in the photos: in every shadow, in every wrinkle. This isn't just another idea in the marketplace of ideas. It's UFO claptrap. In that Paracast show there was a whole new can of nuttiness opened as well with new dubious claims.

I didn't realize that the original guesses for victim and wreck came from such a silly place.

Lance

Don Maor said...

Lance wrote
"I didn't realize that the original guesses for victim and wreck came from such a silly place"

Being you a smart guy, I don’t think you are buying your own argument here Lance. It is more a propagandistic argument favoring the skeptic point of view.

The point is: the source is not important once you check the fact for yourself. If you are NOT able to check the fact for yourself, your opinions are worthless.

Furthermore, maybe silliness is somehow related to creative thinking and to new ideas. Even a silly guy can produce interesting ideas 1% of the time. Or even more, some degree of silliness IS required to jump from the established facts, to some new theory that may prove to be real.

And of course, fairies are NOT comparable to some writing on a piece of paper.

David Rudiak said...

Lance wrote:
I didn't realize that the original guesses for victim and wreck came from such a silly place.

Don't give up with lame, pointless, ad hominem arguments, do you Lance? The bigger point is the words they proposed have stood the test of time.

Morris' "WRECK" is now the unanimous consensus word. Reghers "VICTIMS" is the strong consensus word, and the computer read top-rated word by probability of other proposed words (FINDING, REMAINS). I guess the computer OCR program, which doesn't care one way or another about Roswell or UFOs, came from a silly place as well.

Similarly a web poll I've had on my website for a dozen years (nearly 3000 people voting) has 79% of people agreeing that "VICTIMS" is there. (However, to be fair, those voting also rate themselves "pro-UFO" by 85%, either definitely or maybe thinking some UFOs are real craft and nonhuman in origin.)

The rest of the phrase originally proposed by Regher, "YOU FORWARDED TO THE ????? AT FORT WORTH, TEX." is now the near-unanimous read. (Morris has CONVEY ON instead of FORWARDED, but means the same.)

Yes, I disagree with much else they originally thought the Ramey memo said, and some other of their notions, but VICTIMS and WRECK have been overwhelmingly confirmed since then, and they deserve credit for it.

George32 said...

Jack Brewer said: "To try to be clear, I wasn't suggesting you plead your case here or to me personally. I was inviting you to consider composing a detailed report and presenting what factual, verifiable evidence you may have, and publish it at an appropriate venue."

Jack --I accept your suggestion and will publish just such a report on the Roswell Slides Hoax in an appropriate venue in due course. Then some independent judge (like yourself?) can read it and comment on what I say. I do assure you that my only interest in this matter is discovering the truth of it rather than the line of other folk who desperately want to cover up the hoax and have issued further deception and disinformation with that intent.

I think that people are now beginning to see that what I am saying is the true explanation for this matter. However the hoax insiders and their allies continue in their attempts to cast doubt upon it with postings under false identities such as "commandercronus","daniel transit", "neal foy", "albert", etc. I will not reply to people I consider to have fake identities and who seem most anxious to divert attention from Lundberg, Irving, and Mantle.

Some will ask why this charge of hoaxing the slides hasn't been put directly to John Lundberg. The answer is that it has been. Archskeptic Robert Sheaffer of badufos.blogspot.com ran my piece titled "The Roswell Slides Depict Alien MATILDA" on his blogsite on May 1st. He then wrote to ask John Lundberg what he had to say about it. Robert says: [Lundberg] might have replied something like, "I had nothing to do with either the Santilli Alien, or the Roswell Slides." Instead, he chose to reply in poetic and evasive terms, which I read as acknowledging that he was involved in those matters, but was unwilling to say so publicly. But one never knows what is to be taken seriously when dealing with Mirage Men.

John also declined a recent invitation from Gene Steinberg and Chris O'Brien to appear on The Paracast and talk about his 2013 film documentary "Mirage Men". Gene and Chris had made it plain that they would ask him about the Roswell Slides too and it was obvious that he did not want speak about that or his involvement. "Neither confirm nor deny" is always the maxim of disinformation agents and Mirage Men like John Lundberg.

George32 said...

Jeanne Ruppert wrote: I do not, btw, reject out of hand George's theory that Dew and his silent partner had help in deciding what to do with the 'Roswell slides'. Seven years passed between the year when the silent partner's sister discovered the two hidden slides (2008) and the presentation that took place on May 5 of this year. I read the following yesterday in Chris Rutkowski's article on facebook:

"She [Cathy] kept the box in her garage until she noticed the two slides (#9 and #11) of a strange body around 2008. They were 'wrapped and hidden under the rest of the slides'. She gave them to her brother, who gave them to his friend Adam Dew in 2012. The co-owners of the slides created the company Slidebox Media LLC in 2013 to produce the documentary 'Kodachrome'."

*********************************************************************************

Jeanne, That's all very well but there is simply NO reason to believe any story from the dubious Mr Dew or his equally dubious silent partner Mr Beason --or, indeed, from his (most likely) dubious sister Cathy. You may indignantly say that women always tell the truth but I have sometimes found otherwise! (A good example of that is Linda Cortile, a.k.a. Linda Napolitano). If this sort of "evidence" were presented in court most judges worth their salt would throw it out immediately. As it is I think you will find that Mr Dew and Mr Beason have now vanished out of sight and will be most unwilling --rather like John Lundberg-- to be interviewed or answer any direct questions.

That means that we cannot be sure the two alleged slides or the images claimed to have been taken from them --allegedly depicting an alien or else a mummy-- even existed in 2008. It seems that all that the 'Roswell Dream Team' and Jaime Maussan and others have ever been shown are digital images of uncertain origin and uncertain date. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And despite what Brian Bell said, the NPS have not been able to link the image of this dead "creature" to any particular mummy which was in any particular museum. Until that is done --and such a mummy can be precisely matched to the image we have-- there is no reason to believe the image depicts a mummified child. If the images are recent fakes, as I suggest, the "creature" is not from 1937 or from 1947. It is a SFX dummy that was custom built sometime in the last 5 years in line with what John Lundberg calls the Roswell "narrative". It would have been made from modelling clay, foam latex, Mouldlife Plastsil Gel, etc., and it was intended to look like a small humanoid with some added non-human features.

albert said...

@Tom,

It seems unlikely Maussan hired lawyers in the US, unless his attorneys didn't know the difference between libel and slander, in which case, best of luck, Jaime!
.
Plenty of lawyers don't understand 1st Amendment issues, either. Personal opinions, like calling someone a douchebag, are protected speech here.
.

Daniel Transit said...

George32 said...

'...I think that people are now beginning to see that what I am saying is the true explanation for this matter. However the hoax insiders and their allies continue in their attempts to cast doubt upon it with postings under false identities such as "commandercronus","daniel transit", "neal foy", "albert", etc. I will not reply to people I consider to have fake identities and who seem most anxious to divert attention from Lundberg, Irving, and Mantle...'

Most anxious for you to divert attention from them?

How?

I couldn't care less if you spend 24 hours a day, 7 days a week thinking/writing/speaking/dreaming about them.

Neal Foy said...

@ Daniel Transit,
I can only speak for myself but I have no reason to divert attention from anyone. I'm looking for the truth.
Dew and associates certainly screwed the pooch on this whole mess and it's their fault that we now have stories coming out that are even more ridiculous than their story was. They could produce the slides and blow George's story right out of the water. Kevin asked for the slides to be produced quite a while ago and now it's more important than before.
Sorry to address this to you but George doesn't want to talk to us.

His story falls a part just for one reason, Kodachrome hasn't been processed in color anywhere in the world since early 2011. That may fit his timeline but we have a problem. Kodak changed the frame numbering system sometime in the 1950's to become compatible with half frame cameras like the Olympus Pen F and others. Any Kodachrome film produced before then with the frame numbers as 9 and 11 couldn't have been processed after 1962. Sheesh, let's get over this, it's a picture of a mummified child taken around 1947 period, end of story.

CommanderCronus said...

If a bunch of SFX experts wanted to create a fake alien body, why would they make one that looks like a dried-up thousand-year-old mummy?

If Brian Bell's information is correct and the Mesa Verde child hasn't been reburied, then we only need to wait until someone finds and examines it, and then we compare that to the photo. If it matches, end of story. If it doesn't, then and only then would I begin to entertain the "special effects" explanation.

Brian Bell said...

@David Rudiak -

You offered up that your website has 3,000 voters who you claimed of which 85% agreed the memo was talking about an alien crash at Roswell.

That's not really good data - to your credit you mention the aspect "to be fair"...but still.

It would be like proposing soccer is the #1 sport in America, but then asking 3,000 soccer players to confirm it and no one else. The data is skewed.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

George wrote: "Jeanne, That's all very well but there is simply NO reason to believe any story from the dubious Mr Dew or his equally dubious silent partner Mr Beason --or, indeed, from his (most likely) dubious sister Cathy. You may indignantly say that women always tell the truth but I have sometimes found otherwise!"

Oh, so have I. I was not at all impressed by Cathy's account presented in the video at the May 5 event.


"As it is I think you will find that Mr Dew and Mr Beason have now vanished out of sight and will be most unwilling --rather like John Lundberg-- to be interviewed or answer any direct questions."

That certainly seems to have been the situation so far. I did read in the Paracast forum a day or two ago that Alejandro Rojas (interviewed on Thursday for webcast this weekend) had indicated to Sentry (Curt Collins?) that he has now made contact with Adam Dew. Perhaps we'll learn more in this week's Paracast podcast. I do hope we're not going to be expected to take whatever Rojas conveys to us from Dew as reliable information requiring no further investigation.


"That means that we cannot be sure the two alleged slides or the images claimed to have been taken from them --allegedly depicting an alien or else a mummy-- even existed in 2008. It seems that all that the 'Roswell Dream Team' and Jaime Maussan and others have ever been shown are digital images of uncertain origin and uncertain date. Correct me if I'm wrong."

I think you're right about that. The entire box of slides, if it existed and Cathy had it, should have been exhaustively surveyed in a video documentary in the first place. We have only the Chicago Three's word concerning the origin of the 400 slides as a collection discovered in the cleaning out of a house in Arizona years ago.


"And despite what Brian Bell said, the NPS have not been able to link the image of this dead "creature" to any particular mummy which was in any particular museum. Until that is done --and such a mummy can be precisely matched to the image we have-- there is no reason to believe the image depicts a mummified child."

I've been wondering, and asking, for weeks whether such a hard and fast identification has been demonstrated. I noted in some post or other, here or in the Paracast forum, the statement that the mummy in question had been moved from one NPS museum to another, but no information concerning when or why, or indeed what archival records exist concerning this transfer and any forensic examinations of the mummy in either location. Until such evidence is forthcoming, your alternative theory of the nature of the mummy in the slides being a constructed SFX dummy seems to me to be viable.

A further note: I haven't seen (though it might exist) a demonstration by the NPS that the mummy in the slides is indeed the mummy turned over to the NPS in (was it?) 1968.

Tom said...

@Albert,

Nah, Maussan's not hiring lawyers here or anywhere else. Just a silly empty threat.

Lance said...

David,

"Unanimous consensus"? Hilarious construction.

You may want to look up one of those words. Or the other . Or both.

The memo words you overbearingly try to sell are certainly not the unanimous opinion.

The truth is not controlled by a poll, even in UFO land.

Lance

Jack Brewer said...

If I'm understanding the saga correctly, the mummy was reasonably identified by cross referencing the deciphered placard with info contained in some 1938 literature published by Mesa Verde National Park.

The placard as deciphered by the Roswell Slides Research Group and independently confirmed by others:

"MUMMIFIED BODY OF TWO YEAR OLD BOY
At the time of burial the body was clothed in a slip-over cotton
shirt. Burial wrappings consisted of three small cotton blankets.
Loaned by Mr. S. L. Palmer, San Francisco, California."

Source: http://www.anomalyarchives.org/public-hall/collections/files/roswell-slides/

From 'MESA VERDE NOTES, September, 1938, Volume VIII, Number 1':

"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."

Source: http://npshistory.com/nature_notes/meve/vol8-1f.htm

That looks like high hand at this point, unless I've missed something along the way, which is entirely possible. My primary point, please, is to suggest that substantial and verifiable information is required to suspect the so-called Roswell Slides images were hoaxed with the intent of misleading both pro-Roswell enthusiasts to incorrectly interpret an alien and skeptics to incorrectly interpret a mummy. A lot of work is left to be done to get that theory to fly, not to mention saddle anyone with specific responsibility.

That is not to imply all parties involved have acted with good faith and intent. That's not necessarily the case.

Nonetheless, if we have learned anything from this saga, it should be that facts must be established prior to being accepted as such. Prove the above info wrong, and I would be more than willing to accept that proof, but, please be advised, passionate arguments and deeply held convictions do not constitute proof.

Neal Foy said...

@Jack Brewer
I couldn't agree more.
George has presented nothing in the way of proof. Just a story he was told by persons of dubious reliability. As I said before all we really need is for Dew and associates to show the actual slides in question. If they are actually numbered 9 and 11 and not 9 9a and 11 11a then it proves beyond a doubt that George's story is untrue. If you have a developed roll of 35mm film on hand you can see this for yourself. Assuming that the film was manufactured after 1955 or so.

That's not a passionate argument, it's a fact.

cda said...

DR:

If the Ramey memo contains the words & phrases you and a few others claim it does (and thus helps towards confirming the ET hypothesis for Roswell) where do you think this document is now?

Surely something of this scientific importance (i.e. confirming the existence of intelligent ET life viisiting our planet) was not destroyed. It would be far too important to astronomy & science in general for this to happen.

So where is it? Still top secret, or what? As a follow up question, do you seriously think General Ramey took such a secret to his grave?

David Rudiak said...

Jeanne Ruppert wrote:
I've been wondering, and asking, for weeks whether such a hard and fast identification has been demonstrated. I noted in some post... the statement that the mummy in question had been moved from one NPS museum to another, but no information concerning when or why, or indeed what archival records exist concerning this transfer and any forensic examinations of the mummy in either location.

By looking through old NPS region monthly reports, it is possible to partially reconstruct the Trail of The Mummy:

Montezuma Castle, 1942
"Acquisitions. $108,000 worth of extruded aluminum framed plate glass mummy case arrived, which is intended to serve as permanent quarters for Oscar Fairchild, our famous mummy, and the baby mummy from Montezuma Castle, now in the museum of Mesa Verde National Park."
https://archive.org/stream/southwesternmonu1942depa#page/n157/

Sept. 8, 1942. NPS, Coolidge, AZ, Memo for the Custodians
Progress of Further Exhibit Plans and Exhibits.
"Further attempt was made to effectuate return to Montezuma Castle of a mummy now at another National Park Service area. The attempt met with a summary “No” for an answer, with no explanation how such a decision could be reconciled with long-established National Park Service policy."
https://archive.org/stream/southwesternmonu1942depa#page/n231/

(So the NPS was giving even their own people the runaround back in 1942.)

February 6, 1947:
"In January it was learned that the Palmer Collection at Mesa Verde may now be distributed through its various points of origin through permission by Mr. Palmer's son. This means that the mummy will be returned to Montezuma Castle, and Casa Grande and Chaco Canyon will receive their respective portions."
https://archive.org/stream/southwesternmonu1947depa#page/2/

NPS, Division 3, Santa Fe, NM
Memorandum for the Asst. Regional Director
February 6, 1947:
"In January it was learned that the Palmer Collection at Mesa Verde may now be distributed through its various points of origin through permission by Mr. Palmer's son. This means that the mummy will be returned to Montezuma Castle, and Casa Grande and Chaco Canyon will receive their respective portions."
https://archive.org/stream/southwesternmonu1947depa#page/2/

Montezuma Castle National Monument, Camp Verde, AZ
June 24, 1947
"Museum Exhibits[:] In 1896 the mummy of a two year old boy was found buried on the ledge just outside Montezuma Castle. The discovery was made by S. L. Palmer, Jr. who in 1936 loaned his collection of artifacts to Mesa Verde National Park with the stipulation that it be kept intact. After several years of intermittent negotiations it was agreed that the mummy could be returned to the Montezuma Castle museum where it was delivered June 7 by Messrs. Steen and Grant."
https://archive.org/stream/southwesternmonu1947depa#page/636/

January 24, 1948:
“Fact files at the Well were brought up to date, a few more artifacts were cataloged, and a label was made for the Mesa Verde mummy at the Castle."
https://archive.org/stream/southwesternmonu1948depa#page/80/

March 25, 1953
Monthly narrative report for March 1953
"A copy of the newspaper account (Mancos Times, Mancos, Colorado) dated March 20, 1896 of the finding of the small mummy on display in the Castle museum was received from Miss Jean Pinkley of Mesa Verde. The account was written by Richard Wetherhill who actually discovered the mummy. This information has cleared up a lot of questions which heretofore have remained unanswered."
https://archive.org/stream/southwesternmonu1953depa#page/304/

In summary, the Palmer donation of 1936 was broken up and artifacts returned to be close to points of origin. The mummy was returned to the Castle Museum in June 1947 and placed on display there through at least 1953. The museum also had another small mummy on display there through the 1940s, mentioned in other summaries, including concern with its rapid deterioration. (Why glass mummy cases ordered.)

David Rudiak said...

CDA wrote

If the Ramey memo contains the words & phrases you and a few others claim it does (and thus helps towards confirming the ET hypothesis for Roswell) where do you think this document is now?

Surely something of this scientific importance (i.e. confirming the existence of intelligent ET life viisiting our planet) was not destroyed. It would be far too important to astronomy & science in general for this to happen.

So where is it? Still top secret, or what? As a follow up question, do you seriously think General Ramey took such a secret to his grave?


From "Sense and Sensibility" to "Nonsense and Nonsensibility" all in one day. Well done CDA. Glad to see you back in the saddle again.

Believe it or not, in the REAL world, more than a few people have been known to take deep dark secrets to the grave (like most of the human race?). In the REAL world, the U.S. government can keep top secret material classified indefinitely, if deemed harmful of the national interest to declassify and release.

Ron Regher recently on the Paracast said he has made numerous attempts to find the Ramey memo using FOIA and come up completely empty handed.

Where is the memo now? Who knows. Could be in one of those guarded vaults at the Pentagon that Daniel Ellsberg mentioned in Congressional testimony housed the nation's biggest secrets (a few of which he had access to as a national security adviser, such as the Viet Nam War history. He called these secrets "Above Top Secret", as did then Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, not to mention Sen. Barry Goldwater in direct reference to UFO material--nobody but a select few could ever get into those vaults or at such secret material).

Could be anywhere. Could have been deliberately destroyed. That was the opinion of no less than Phil Klass in an email exchange I had with him a dozen years ago, saying it would be fruitless to look for it because something that sensitive would have been destroyed a long time ago. (This was after I taunted him to help look for it.)

Memo to Lance: Even ole Phil agreed "VICTIMS" was there, but tried to spin it into reading "NO VICTIMS" instead of "THE VICTIMS". Apparently couldn't even count letters correctly.

Jim Bender said...

Randy, The skeptics/debunkers are a dying breed, that is why you see Kimball's clan continually trying to twist the facts!!!!! (Ramey memo) take a look at Kimball's website and blog, CRICKETS!!!!!!!!!!!! A majority of the world population believes that we are not alone and there is intelligent life beyond our planet and not only in our Universe but in the Milky Way

It's time to remind the desperate debunkers/skeptics of the following facts:

#Randy's interpretation of the Ramey memo is 100% correct!!!!

#In our universe there are 200 billion galaxies and average of 200 billion stars in each galaxy, And On 4 November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way,

#There may be multiple universes

#Over 6,000 UFO's are reported worldwide, 2% of these are completely unexplainable

#There was life on Mars and there still might be today, its our closest planet and therefore easy to conclude life is abundant throughout the Universe

#There are Billions of galaxies that are older then the Milky Way and have more then chances of harboring more advance have civilizations.

#Launching the James Webb Satellite in 2018 will once and for all prove that we are not alone in the Universe. Kimball Clan your TV time is limited tic,toc,tic,toc, Just like the medieval closed mind thinkers that believed earth was flat and the earth was the center of the solar system lol

#Kimball's clan get F's in probability statistics!!!!!!!!!!

Jim Bender said...

Oh I meant David not randy

Bob Koford said...

David,

Thank you for staying the course, even when all gave you a hard time about it. It provides for a nice tutorial on how to go about difficult research.

Bob

cda said...

DR:

You talk about the REAL world. In such a world the discovery of intelligent ET life would be made public, after a period of verification by those involved in its discovery. It is only in the world of conspiracists and the like that such an important discovery would STILL be secret after 7 decades.

Yes, of course, the US would hide such documentation in secret vaults for decades, risk letting another country make their own discovery of intelligent ET life and announce it to the world. Then the US government could retort they had known it long before but.....

But UFO crashes ONLY occur in the US don't they?

Is that your real worldly view of things? It appears so.

I suggest, when discussing the Ramey memo, that you seriously consider who is living in the real world and who is not. In the meantime the scientific fraternity (and the US military) has far better things to do than to bother examining, or searching for, this scrap of paper, if it still exists.

As for what Phil Klass told you, was he not maybe having a joke at your expense?

cda said...

Jim B:

Do you think the number of exclamation marks you use increases the value of your arguments?

Do you know anything about "probability statistics" at all?

Jeanne Ruppert said...

David Rudiak, thank you for your continuing research on both of the subjects you're currently discussing here.

Taking up from your last paragraph concerning efforts to trace the mummy in the slides, it appears that this task is far more complicated for the NPS staff at Montezuma's Castle than has been generally anticipated.

“. . . Between 1894 and 1896, human remains representing, at minimum, eight individuals were removed from Montezuma Castle in Yavapai County, AZ, by S.L Palmer. In 1971 the remains and funerary objects were donated to Montezuma Castle National Monument by Gaylord L. Palmer. No known individuals were identified. The 14 associated funerary objects are 9 pieces of textile, 1 bowl, 1 wooden bow, 1 arrow, and 2 arrow mainshafts. . . .”

That paragraph is quoted from 17479 Federal Register/ Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Notices at this link:

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/04/01/2015-07394/notice-of-inventory-completion-us-department-of-the-interior-national-park-service-montezuma-castle

The article enumerates what is known about well over a hundred individual mummies or human remains ending up over the years at Montezuma's Castle, all of which are in the process of eventually being reburied at the appropriate sites in Arizona following opportunities already provided for Tribal peoples and organizations to register their claims to them. The details of all this are described in the article in the Federal Register.

Don Maor said...

CDA said:

You talk about the REAL world. In such a world the discovery of intelligent ET life would be made public, after a period of verification by those involved in its discovery.

Wait a moment CDA! The situation you are describing has not happened until now, so you must be using your psychic powers again, or you are probably using a supercomputer in your house basement to run hundreds of numerical simulations of "real" earths in which governments can't keep ET secrets for long time. In any case CDA, sadly, you are much ahead of us.

Steve Sawyer said...

*sigh*

Randy?

Now, about that mummy, and that placard... oh, sorry -- wrong post.

I'll bet in a year or so, the slides thing will be nearly forgotten.

A footnote in the "never-ending saga."

But, the question then is, who will try to move "Roswell" research forward in future?

I can think of a few people, no matter what they investigate and then write about, if it's on Roswell, who will never gain any more credibility than they've already lost. But, no matter.

Research on the UFO phenomenon abides, quietly, here and there. Dude.

Roswell was never the end all and be all in any case, nor should it be.

The UFO phenomenon still persists, and is still in need of serious investigation.

Sincerely,

Captain Obvious, PhD.

George32 said...

There were no satisfactory answers from the hoaxers yesterday to the four questions which I asked that show the mummy solution is not true. In particular no one has offered any satisfactory answer as to how Don Schmitt, Tom Carey, Jaime Maussan and his other experts could possibly have mistaken an ordinary mummy for an alien unless there were distinctive non-human features seen in the image of the “dead creature”. It’s obvious such features were visible in higher res images and it is probably rather less obvious that what these guys were looking at was a SFX alien dummy that I call “MATILDA”.

Hoaxers Lundberg, Irving and Mantle –who are all right here reading the postings on this forum (and also posting themselves under various fake identities) make no concession this is a hoax and they only ask silly irrelevant questions about “Hilda and Bernerd Ray”, the “numbering of the slides” (what slides?) and further untrue insistence the dead creature is a positively identified mummy from a museum in the Southwest. All we have to examine are 2 digital images –with no confirmation that any actual physical slides with these images ever existed-- and most serious judges of the matter should by now have concluded there isn’t a shred of truth to Dew’s background story.

There is however one of the hoaxers who has made some postings under his real name and that is Philip Mantle. Out of the blue Philip sent me a panicky e-mail on May 5 insisting that Irving, Lundberg and Dickinson had nothing to do with Santilli’s “Alien Autopsy”. That claim I know for a fact is untrue.

What an extraordinary thing considering I hadn’t had any contact with Philip for over ten years. He had doubtless been told by John Lundberg that I was aware of the hoax and he was trying to stop me from spoiling the fun. Not long after that the fake blurred/deblurred “MUMMIFIED BODY” message appeared on that placard and was inevitably found and revealed by one of the RSRG people. They assumed that it had been there all the time but there is no proof that the image with the deblurred message was identical to any of the images supplied to Jaime Maussan and others at a much earlier stage. And who was one of the leading members of RSRG? None other than Philip Mantle. And, if you check back, he was the one who --from that moment-- pushed hardest for everyone to accept the mummy solution.

Well, Philip, why don’t you step forward --using your real name-- and deny that the “Roswell Slides” was all a hoax and one in which you were deeply involved? You are the only “visible” hoax insider on this forum and I hope that you are willing to swear an affidavit that this is NOT a hoax to which you were a party. And maybe another affidavit saying that Irving, Lundberg and Dickinson had NOTHING whatever to do with Santilli’s “Alien Autopsy” production? And another affidavit to say that you genuinely believe Adam Dew’s background story is true and you had nothing to do with inventing it. Maybe you’d like to take an independently supervised polygraph test too?

The hoaxers’ sudden change of gear immediately after the Cinco de Mayo event --which many saw as an epic failure for Jamie Maussan-- may have been a deliberate policy. Having used images of a SFX dummy alien to fool Maussan and utterly discredit him as the "world’s leading UFO researcher" (at least in the eyes of some) it was time to persuade everyone else the “slides” merely depicted a mummy. That too was false but was a convenient way to cover up the unthinkable truth and may have been thought out well in advance. As we cheered the downfall of the much reviled Jaime Maussan, few skeptics realized we too were being deceived by the next stage of this ingenious hoax.

It’s no good asking Mirage Men John Lundberg and Rob Irving these questions but come on, Philip, what have YOU got to say? I will leave it to others to pronounce on the ethical and legal implications of this hoax but surely we should rate this new UFO/alien deception as one of the top ten best?

Larry Holcombe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ufodebunker said...

This thread is wearing thin!

Daniel Transit said...

George32 said:

'...Hoaxers Lundberg, Irving and Mantle –who are all right here reading the postings on this forum (and also posting themselves under various fake identities) make no concession this is a hoax and they only ask silly irrelevant questions about “Hilda and Bernerd Ray”, the “numbering of the slides” (what slides?) and further untrue insistence the dead creature is a positively identified mummy from a museum in the Southwest. All we have to examine are 2 digital images –with no confirmation that any actual physical slides with these images ever existed-- and most serious judges of the matter should by now have concluded there isn’t a shred of truth to Dew’s background story...'

Hoaxers (so-called) Lundberg, Irving and Mantle might be reading the postings; but they didn't ask the questions about Hilda and Bernerd Ray. That was me, and I'm not one of them. Nor am I friends with them or associated with them.

I did not go along with the belief in the placard. I've never said the figure in the 2 photos is a Mummy.

I do not even trust Philip Mantle, let alone want to help him carry out hoaxes - I've read what Jenny Randles wrote about him in Northern UFO News, Summer 1994.

Please stop making the idiotic, false statements. They will not help you achieve anything worthwhile.

George32 said...

“I've always had a lot of respect for the Ray Santilli Alien Autopsy film. Not because I consider it authentic, (I don't since it's an admitted hoax) but for the degree of artistry involved in creating the alien. Here you have a being that is between four and five feet tall, with an oversized head, large black eyes, diminutive nose and mouth; one could even call it a classic grey given the black-and-white nature of the film footage.” ---CommanderCronus

************************************************************************************

“CommanderCronus” --Good grief! If you’re not Rob Irving then I’m a Roswell Alien! You’ve always been so proud of your Alien Autopsy production and you’ve always regretted the unfortunate lack of recognition for the anonymous artistry shown by you and John and Rod back then in 1995. It really is a shame that you’ve had to get Philip to deny your involvement! You used to say just these things about Alien HILDA all those years ago. If there’s anything I can do to show my appreciation of your unflagging devotion to alienfaking excellence over the last twenty years, let me now nominate you for the Alien Hoaxers Hall of Fame. I’m afraid that “Roswell Slides” has to enter at tenth position but apart from that here are the winners of a nationwide poll of leading UFO/alien hoaxes taken recently in the United States:-

(1) Contactee George Adamski, his blond Venusian friends, and tales of flying saucers in which he flew to Venus and around the moon.

(2) The Billy Meier megahoax featuring “beamships”, contact with ETs from the Pleiades, hundreds of faked photos of UFOs, his Pleidean girlfriend Semjase, etc., etc.

(3) Bob Lazar’s 1989 claims of back-engineering flying saucers acquired by the US military at “S-4” (Area 51) & the aliens’ use of Element 115 for UFO propulsion.

(4) Ray Santilli’s 'Alien Autopsy' scam of 1995. Faked 1947 footage of an alleged autopsy carried out on grotesque Roswell alien HILDA (by courtesy of Irving, Lundberg & Dickinson)

(5) Bob Dean’s false claims re 'The Assessment' document at SHAPE (1964). That never existed. Also tales of abduction, an alien battle with US forces, etc.

(6) Ed Walters’ faked 1987 UFO photos at Gulf Breeze, FL, and his alleged alien contact story. (This led to a major UFO flap at Gulf Breeze and the arrival of Steven Greer and other UFO nuts who wanted to get in on the act).

(7) Whitley Strieber’s 'Communion –A True Story' (1987). This abduction tale is, without doubt, horror fiction that took place solely in Whitley’s head.

(8) Linda Napolitano, a.k.a Linda Cortile’s, ongoing alien abduction soap opera in NYC (1990s) co-created by her and abduction researcher Budd Hopkins, then published as: 'Witnessed::the True Story of the Brooklyn Bridge UFO Abductions'.

(9) Robert Willingham’s story of a 1955(?) UFO crash near Del Rio,TX, which is the subject of the book 'The Other Roswell'. His completely unfounded and discredited claim is undoubtedly fantasy presented as fact.

(10) The Roswell Slides. Faked images of SFX dummy “MATILDA” said to have come from an old box of 1940/1950s slides taken by “Hilda Ray” –alleged friend of Mamie Eisenhower. Hoax by courtesy of Lundberg, Irving and Mantle, with Adam Dew as front man. Film documentary and book soon.


CommanderCronus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steve Sawyer said...

CommanderCronos, you devil, you.

I knew it had to be you, all along. You broke my heart.

Yeah, George32, where you say:

"“CommanderCronus” --Good grief! If you’re not Rob Irving then I’m a Roswell Alien!"

Then, you are a Roswell Alien. Happy now? 8^}

Seriously, George, you should write up all you have on this "Santilli Redux" theory, with all the needed documentation, and post it somewhere. Start a blog. Something.

Don't argue the case here, piecemeal, and in parallel, allege that your suspects are here posting under various pseuds to further hype the hoax and frustrate you.

I doubt CommanderCronus is anyone involved in the 20-year old "Alien Autopsy" hoax, but don't let anyone here stop you. Present your hypothesis. Then we can see if it has any vetted merit. If so, or if not, further analysis should indicate which is which.

But, so far I see nothing convincing, concrete, or really evidential.

CommanderCronus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian Bell said...

@Jim Bender

"Randy, The skeptics/debunkers are a dying breed,"

Really? Doesn't seem like it to me. Evidence is actually the other way. More young people are skeptical than ever. And just because people say they believe in life in outer space doesn't mean they think Roswell was an alien crash OR the Ramey memo indicates so either....

KRandle said...

As usual, this has slipped off the rails and we run far afield. The original concept was that some UFO cases just never seem to go away, even when there are solid explanations for them. Now, we're into accusing each other of using fake names and creating the Roswell Slides as some sort of hoax, rather than a misidentification of a mummified body (which isn't to say there wasn't a little bit of manipulation to reach the alien conclusion). The point is that we slip right back into the nonsense of accusation without evidence... at least we seem to have moved away from calling each other names. Let's rein it it.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

"The original concept was that some UFO cases just never seem to go away, even when there are solid explanations for them."

Do we actually have 'solid explanations' for how the Roswell slides project was managed? I think we have evidence at least of manipulation of the ufo researchers involved in the project by Adam Dew and his partner. We need to hear from the latter, but it appears that they do not wish to speak with us. I still think that a lawsuit is the only way in which they will be forced to account for what they did with their control over the investigation.

cda said...

Please, please no lawsuits. Who is going to bring such a lawsuit anyway? Presumably a person or persons who feel they were swindled out of their admission money. They went to Mexico City expecting (?) to see a true alien and instead only saw either a fake, or a mummy of a child. Thus it is up to such a person to pursue the swindlers, if they so desire.

Strictly, any hoax, whether film, book or article that results in swindling people is a target for a lawsuit. Think of all the UFO hoaxes that have taken place - the number must be colossal by now. Should everyone who bought Adamski's books get their money back? Somehow I don't think so!

What about those who paid to see the Santilli film, the Cardiff Giant and even the Turin Shroud for that matter? And so on.

Caveat Emptor surely applies to all such things.

Tom said...

To Kevin's original point; I don't think this slides fiasco is going away anytime soon from the vox populi of those interested in this field. I know many want it to go away, quickly & forever, & I would be all for that. But, for whatever multitude of reasons, this case study in fraud is going to be firmly planted for some time, imo. Why? Dunno, but I think it has more to do with the who, what, where of this dealio. Wishing it goes away will not make it so. As evidenced on this site & others, i.e. The Paracast Forums & others, there continue, to this day, to be hundreds and even thousands of posts on this latest fraud or hoax or misidentification or whatever. Perhaps because there has not been much meaningful interesting new material lately. People need something to latch onto, & they sure as heck have latched onto this.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

cda: "Please, please no lawsuits. Who is going to bring such a lawsuit anyway? Presumably a person or persons who feel they were swindled out of their admission money."

I think it's possible that Carey and Schmitt (and even Mausson) have grounds for a lawsuit against Adam Dew and his partner for withholding information and data from them and thus placing their reputations at risk. You could have understood my meaning from the post you're reacting to.

I think such a lawsuit, if these researchers decided to bring one, would be beneficial to the progress of the field in which we are all interested.

xen jeti said...

Fascinating interview on Radio Misterioso and some of the other members of the Roswell Slides Research Group. The comments echo Guy Edwards, of bigfoot fame, five stages of a 'big' bigfoot hoax:

Number 1: The Announcement
Number 2: Defensiveness or Attack of Critics
Number 3: Postponement of Evidence
Number 4: Postponement of Evidence Again
Number 5: Claim, you are a Victim of a Hoax

George32 said...

Daniel Transit said:- Hoaxers (so-called) Lundberg, Irving and Mantle might be reading the postings; but they didn't ask the questions about Hilda and Bernerd Ray. That was me, and I'm not one of them. Nor am I friends with them or associated with them.

I did not go along with the belief in the placard. I've never said the figure in the 2 photos is a Mummy.

I do not even trust Philip Mantle, let alone want to help him carry out hoaxes - I've read what Jenny Randles wrote about him in Northern UFO News, Summer 1994.

*********************************************************************************

Daniel, I apologize if I lumped you in with the hoaxers. They are undoubtedly here and I recognize Rob Irving in particular. I know it's hard for some folk to see that this thing was a carefully organized hoax but I do assure you that it was. I intend to publish much fuller details soon on another site.

I take it you are British and you may have noticed that the 3 hoaxers are British too (apart from frontman Dew and his silent partner). Quite a few of the others posting about the "Slides" here are also British --not that that makes them hoax insiders! I've said before often enough that Americans are far too trusting and far too polite which makes them easy prey for hoaxers and those with false stories of alien contact, etc. Why would ANYONE want to believe the tall tales of people like George Adamski, Billy Meier, Bob Lazar, Stan Romanek, etc., etc? Jenny Randles was certainly right about Philip Mantle. I suggest it is very unlikely that Mantle will step forward (using his real name) on this forum and rebut any of what I said yesterday.

If you were the one asking about Hilda & Bernerd Ray I did advise that the background story for the slides supplied by Adam Dew is highly suspect. There may have been a real Hilda & Bernerd Ray of Midland, TX, but there is certainly nothing to link them to Dwight and Mamie Eisenhower --or indeed to the alleged slides. A recent letter from the custodian of the Dwight D Eisenhower Presidential Library in Abilene KS, says there is no mention whatever of these two people in all the papers and diaries at the library --not that anyone who is anxious to believe Dew's story will pay much attention to that.

Images of actual Kodachrome slides from back then --rather than the physical slides themselves which are claimed to show the "dead creature"-- are worth nothing. All the way along we have been solely dealing with digital images of uncertain date and uncertain origin. Trusting the word of Adam Dew and his friends that such real slides exist is foolish to say the least and some researchers have repeatedly accepted false assurances that there were definitely two photographic slides which could be dated to 1947.

George Wingfield

George32 said...

With all due respect, Kevin, the Roswell Slides were part of an elaborate hoax and some of the hoaxers have been present on this forum. This is not an accusation without evidence –there is plenty of evidence who did it. I will publish more information on this soon and I am confident that everyone will realize this is the truth of the matter. The main lesson to be learned by UFO researchers is that digital images of uncertain origin and uncertain date provided by extremely dubious people like Mr Dew should never be considered as hard evidence. There have been hundreds of faked UFO images posted on YouTube for years now and one can only hope serious UFO researchers are not still being fooled by those.

I know you are anxious to wrap this one up since the "Roswell Slides" had nothing to do with Roswell and they certainly do not depict a genuine dead alien. However it does demonstrate that hoaxes like this are never admitted by the perpetrators –even when everyone accepts that it was a hoax--and also that, in the final analysis, people will believe exactly what they want to believe one way or the other.

George Wingfield
(My real name)

George32 said...

Steve said: CommanderCronos, you devil, you.

I knew it had to be you, all along. You broke my heart.

Yeah, George32, where you say:

"“CommanderCronus” --Good grief! If you’re not Rob Irving then I’m a Roswell Alien!"

Then, you are a Roswell Alien. Happy now? 8^}

********************************************************************************

Steve –I don’t know who you are but I can assure you that I’m not a Roswell Alien! Your friend “CommanderCronos” is undoubtedly Rob Irving and he has not changed one little bit since his involvement in Santilli’s “Alien Autopsy” hoax of 1995. His biting sarcasm and his withering contempt for anyone who believes in UFOs or aliens is –as always—all too apparent. He justifies his hoaxing activities by saying this is “art” but I don’t think too many folk buy that line. Was the “Roswell Slides” production artistic in any way? I hardly think so.

I address this to you rather than to Rob himself as it would be entirely pointless asking Rob any serious question and expecting to get a straight answer. The reason for that is Rob Irving and John Lundberg are “Mirage Men”, just like Richard Doty who was the hero of John’s 2013 documentary ‘Mirage Men’. Have you seen that? If not, I do recommend it (look for it on Netflix). This film shows how Doty and various other AFOSI “Mirage Men” (plus UFO investigator Bill Moore) laid many of the foundations for the Roswell Myth during the 1980s. The film does a cruel hatchet job on Linda Howe who reluctantly agreed to be interviewed but in view of Lundberg and Irving’s recent Mirage Man activities dear Linda would now have every right to say one shouldn’t believe a word that John Lundberg says.

CommanderCronus said...

Just for the record, I am not Rob Irving, I do not know Rob Irving, and I had never heard the name Rob Irving until George32 mentioned him. My original post was merely an attempt to highlight the artistic accomplishments of the Santilli film with regard to historical UFO cases. I was under the impression that the history of UFO sightings, abductions, and conspiracies are an appropriate topic of discussion for this blog. I have never accused anyone here of being a hoaxer or a liar.

cda said...

Really all that was necessary out of all this hype and 'Roswell slides' fiasco was to establish that the two slides in question were NOT a photo of an ET of any kind, let alone an ET from Roswell. Anything else was, and is, highly unimportant as far as ufology is concerned.

I am happy to go on record to predict that nobody now or in the future will EVER produce a genuine ET (or a photo thereof) from the supposed Roswell event, for the simple reason that no such ET ever existed.

However, I agree that this will not deter current or future hoaxers and mythmakers from trying to trisect the angle, so to speak.

albert said...

@Neal Foy,

It doesn't seem implausible. Certainly more plausible than ET technology. That doesn't make it so. The chopper pilots may not have known what they were dealing with. The military isn't stupid, but they can be crazy sometimes (e.g. nuclear powered aircraft). For convenience, I include outfits like the CIA within the term 'military'.
.
...

Don Maor said...

CDA wrote:
I am happy to go on record to predict that nobody now or in the future will EVER produce a genuine ET (or a photo thereof) from the supposed Roswell event, for the simple reason that no such ET ever existed.

Useless prediction due to following reasons:

1) An obvious and easy prediction in the eyes of most scientists and “serious” people of planet Earth. In other words, “no risk, no reward”.

2) Very unlikely to be demonstrated any time soon. Who will tell you “congratulations!”? If you are right, we, as humans, will only know for sure that gray aliens don’t exist in the far future, when many other civilizations would be able to inform us that they have not seen any grey dudes out there.

3) Finally, who are you? A guy who calls himself “cda” with no capital letters. No name, just an acronym. A prediction by an acronym. This certainly does not count as going on record.

cda said...

"An obvious and easy prediction in the eyes of most scientists and “serious” people of planet Earth. In other words, “no risk, no reward”."

No risk? Oh really?

My prediction only relates to Roswell and is not a universal prediction about ETs. Further, it is me who is at risk, in that you, or someone else, may disprove me at any time by producing the said ET. My prediction can never be proved right, but it CAN be disproved. Even you might one day disprove me. Think of that.

Rusty Lingenfelter said...

Are you getting the general hint that folks are growing tired of anonymous cowards and their authoritative pronouncements? If you can't own your feedback, maybe you should go to youtube and make pithy responses to the videos. Maybe all of you anonymous cowards can start your own blog.

Neal Foy said...

@albert

The object may have been one of ours but I doubt it could be found listed in any inventory. So most probably secret. It just doesn't make sense to deliver this thing to the Iranians as a distraction. There was a good chance that they wouldn't be able to retrieve this thing once deployed. There must be any number of off the shelf unclassified options to use as a distraction. Remember the first attempt to rescue the hostages failed and Jimmy Carter caught holy hell from the press for that failure. I seriously doubt he would have signed off on such a flawed plan.

Bob Koford said...

Regarding items in the actual article, though I think it safe to say that it seems clear that Captain Mantell died due to Hypoxia, it remains very unclear why the two of them, let alone Mantell, never caught up, and actually passed the balloon, if thats what he was after. This because Vanderbilt University was tracking it. They say, and it is in the BB files, that it was viewed at 20,000 ft., drifting at a steady 10 miles per hour. The P-51 should have overtaken the balloon in a very, very short time. Some things we will never know, I guess.

George32 said...

Just for the record, I am not Rob Irving, I do not know Rob Irving, and I had never heard the name Rob Irving until George32 mentioned him. My original post was merely an attempt to highlight the artistic accomplishments of the Santilli film with regard to historical UFO cases --"CommanderCronus"

*********************************************************************************

Just for the record this WAS Rob Irving --one of the 3 Roswell Slides hoaxers. What he says is completely untrue. It is a good illustration of the modus operandi of "Mirage Men" who usually spout quite a bit of what appears to be reasonable comment and then lace it with barefaced lies.

Incidentally, thank you Kevin for deleting various abusive postings from the same source or from similar false identities which were presumably aimed at me by Irving and/or his friends.

George32

Brian Bell said...

@George32

With all due respect you can't really prove anybody on this blog is one of the hoaxers even if they were. There's no way to prove it. Besides, it doesn't matter - we all know the slides are not that of an alien so who really cares about "mirage men" anyway?

CommanderCronus said...


Incredible.

George32's logic is as follows:

1. I stated my opinion that the body in the alien autopsy film was well-made.
2. I use a pseudonym.

From these two facts, George32 has decided that I hoaxed the Alien Autopsy movie. That is his reasoning, and it is flawed.

Anyone who bothers to look at my YouTube account will notice I use the same pseudonym in discussing the merits of Japanese pop music videos. This does not mean I am a member of AKB48. That said, if George32 thinks he can deduce my identity by searching for clues within their music videos, I wish him the best of luck in that endeavor.

Gilles Fernandez said...

Hello,

Only to signal a vintage photograph of the mummy depicted in the slides have been found few hours ago.
The details should be available soon.
It will be denied. But...
May the soul of this little boy rest in peace, Mister Maussan.

Best regards,

Gilles

Jack Brewer said...

As Gilles mentioned, more of the trail of the mummy seems to be surfacing:

http://caravaca.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/diapositivas-de-roswell-fin-de-la.html

This brings a few things to mind for me, including strengthening the validity of the questions of what a supposed multi-year investigation could have included that failed to find (and consider) such circumstances.

George32 said...

Brian wtote: With all due respect you can't really prove anybody on this blog is one of the hoaxers even if they were. There's no way to prove it. Besides, it doesn't matter - we all know the slides are not that of an alien so who really cares about "mirage men" anyway?

********************************************************************************

Brian, That's not exactly my point. No one can 100% prove anything is genuine in this cyberworld --or indeed in the world of Ufology. Everyone has to make up their own mind --as with any court case where you are one of the jury. As you know, juries often enough deliver totally wrong verdicts. You will be glad to hear that I've decided you are a genuine person with a genuine identity. As for Irving's fake identity of "CommanderCronus" you can take it or leave it. It doesn't really matter but I know this man and I recognize his aggressive style without a shadow of doubt.

The "Roswell Slides" was a carefully prepared and well thought out hoax. We all know that the dead creature was not an alien but the hoaxers were even more ingenious by making everyone think it was simply a mummy and this was just a clever prank that was dependent on the sheer idiocy of Don Schmitt, Tom Carey and Jaime Maussan plus his experts in misidentifying it.

The lesson that should be learned is that the hoaxers have only ever supplied digital images of varying resolution to the targeted Roswell believers. These digital images appear to have been subtly manipulated as things progressed with the introduction of the mummy message on the placard at some point after May 5th. Since most Roswell skeptics like you and me were cheering so loudly when Maussan's "Be Witness" event turned into a fiasco they failed to notice that further perception management was still being carried out on everyone with this Roswell Slides soap opera.

As for fake identities I am told that Anthony Bragalia (who has now supposedly "positively" identified the actual mummy in question) is not his real name. His sudden conversion, after May 5th, from being an utterly devout believer that this was a genuine Roswell Alien to being an utterly devout believer that this was a mummified child is strange in the extreme. It's probably pointless to ask whether anyone can shed light on this. Chances are they will only shed more darkness.

George32 said...

Purely for entertainment value we have this from back in 1995:-

Article on the "Santilli Alien Autopsy" Source: Ed Gehrman

Summary: I was one of those folks skeptical of the Roswell Alien Autopsy footage. [Then in 1995, on Art Bell's radio show, I listened to] an expert on movie cameras explain film dating. The substance of his remarks and the subsequent wrap-up by Bell seemed to indicate that the Roswell Alien Autopsy footage, shown on Fox TV the previous week, was probably authentic. I decided to reexamine my assumptions about this potentially explosive but controversial film footage.

"From the start it was plain to see this was no Russian Spy Plane. It was a large disc "flying Saucer" on its back with heat still radiating from the ground around it...It was decided to wait until the heat subsided before moving in as fire was a significant risk, this was made all the worse by the screams of the Freak creatures that were lying by the vehicle. What in gods name they were no one could tell but one things for sure, they were Circus Freaks, creatures with no business here. Each had hold of a box which they kept hold of in both arms close to their chests" --The Cameraman.

**********************************************************************************

You may be surprised to hear that this "Ed Gehrman" has just popped up again on this forum still insisting that the Alien Autopsy was genuine. Does anyone really believe this sort of stuff? (well, maybe apart from Jaime Maussan and Linda Howe!)

More faked identities, I suggest, and this rather poor quality science horror fiction was probably written by Ray Santilli himself or else by CommanderCronus.

cda said...

I think George32 has shot himself. I am not Sherlock Holmes, but will G32 and others please look at Commander Cronus' last posting and note the spelling of the word 'endeavor' at the very end. The American spelling, eh?

Rob Irving is British. Of course he COULD be super clever and use the American version to disguise himself, or.....

Enough said.

Paul Kimball said...

So much crazy, so little time (and no real inclination) to get into the loony conspiracy bin with George, other than to make it clear that the following statement he made is completely wrong:

And who was one of the leading members of RSRG? None other than Philip Mantle.

Not only wasn't Mantle a "leading member"... he wasn't a member at all, and had nothing to do with the deblurring or the discovery of what was on the placard by my colleagues in the Group.

The inability of people in ufoology to get basic facts right continues to amuse.

PK

George32 said...

CDA --not at all! That's the way I spell "endeavor" and I'm British too. Rob is Commander Cronus although he doesn't want that known. He's also smart enough to use US spelling to disguise his identity.

George32 said...

Paul Kimball said : “The inability in ufoology to get basic facts right continues to amuse …”

********************************************************************

Well, Paul –since you are a REAL person— I feel I should respond to what you say and say that I entirely agree. All those people who naively believe in a simple “mummy” solution to this “Roswell Slides” nonsense seem to have totally swallowed the cockamamie Hilda Ray/ Mamie Eisenhower/ “Slide photos taken in 1947"/ story supplied by the dubious Mr Dew as if there was no question about Mr Dew’s integrity and that the source and dating of the alleged slides is beyond dispute.

No wonder you call the subject “ufoology” if you are going to accept this sort of false evidence –as did Jaime Maussan— just because it tells you what you want to believe. As far as I can tell, there never were actual physical slides showing the dead creature or Roswell Alien or mummy or whatever you wish to believe this thing was. All that has ever been supplied by Mr Dew and his friends (or others?) to Don Schmitt, Tom Carey, Jaime Maussan and to the rest of us were DIGITAL IMAGES of uncertain date and uncertain origin. The presumption that these images were originally taken by somebody’s camera in the late 1940s is completely unproven. Correct me if I’m wrong. Let’s see the physical evidence rather than taking someone’s word for it! (Has no one ever told you that in ufoology before? Has no one ever asked a hidden or anonymous witness to step forward and then found there was no response?)

Until we get satisfactory answers to this, the whole alleged case must be considered a hoax and there are very good reasons for believing that it is. With the evidence that we have been presented, we are merely dealing with DIGITAL IMAGES --most likely of recent date. These may well have been manipulated and altered before feeding them to Jaime Maussan and his people or other Roswell investigators. Can we even be sure that the images most of us now see on the internet are identical to those which led several investigors and scientists to say there were definite indications this creature was of non-human origin and it was not a mummy. The only logical solution –if, like you and me, we are quite sure it was not a “genuine” Roswell alien—is that it was either a manipulated digital image (of a mummy?) or else it was a (manipulated) image of a tailor-made SFX dummy.

Whichever solution, I have supplied the names of the 3 people who I am certain created this SFX dummy --or such an image-- whether you believe that or not. If Philip Mantle was not a member of RSRG --despite the fact that I have read he was more than once- I must apologize but I do know he was one of those most eager to embrace the mummy solution. If you doubt what I am saying about Lundberg, Irving and Mantle please allow me to contact you (via phone or Skype and I can give you far more on this). Irving and Lundberg were centrally involved in the Alien Autopsy production 20 years ago and from the time of that scam Mantle has been one of their closest allies.

Terry the Censor said...

George, did your hoaxsters upload this photo way back in 2008?

https://picasaweb.google.com/spadie34/Arizona19571967#5243459729619431298

George32 said...

Blogger Terry the Censor said...
George, did your hoaxsters upload this photo way back in 2008?


Terry, The whole essence of a "Roswell Alien" hoax is to deceive one's target victims into believing that the evidence being presented is from 1947 and that it is directly connected with Roswell. Once they have accepted that falsehood they can be played like fish which have taken the bait cast in their direction.

Let me say again that the bait presented consists only of two digital images of a supposed dead creature and these images are of uncertain origin and uncertain date. The preposterous Hilda Ray/Mamie Eisenhower/"private viewing of alien body" story is completely unsubstantiated and should have been tossed straight into the trash bin. One would then have been left merely to consider two interesting digital images which were very likely produced in the last few years. I hope you will agree with me that no one has been supplied with ANYTHING other than digital images of extremely dubious origin.

Although versions of the images might be superficially similar there were evidently various versions of them in low definition and higher definition and plenty of reason to believe that the images may have been manipulated using PhotoShop. Since there is every reason to believe the images were a hoax NO ONE (apart from, perhaps, Jaime Maussan, Don Schmitt and Tom Carey) believes they depict a genuine "Roswell Alien". The alternative explanation would be that they show either a SFX alien dummy specially made for the purposes of this hoax or else the mummy of a small child.

In either case these images may have been subtly photoshopped to add non-human features that would deliberately mislead Roswell researchers who had been supplied with higher resolution versions. Otherwise it is very difficult to understand that Maussan's experts could have been so completely fooled by an ordinary mummy of human origin. One of those who examined the digital images supplied to Maussan was a mummy expert who specifically rejected the suggestion that the creature was a human mummy.

A photograph of a mummy in a museum taken in the 1930s or the 1940s or the 1950s could easily have been scanned and then photoshopped (in the last few years) to produce just such results. Obviously such digital images that we are presented with do not have to be exactly the same as some photo of a mummy taken years before. I have previously suggested that the digital images show a SFX dummy alien as this is what the very same hoaxsters used for their "Alien Autopsy" scam back in 1995.

Terry the Censor said...

George, we have new information now. The US Parks Service has provided a photo of the exact same mummy taken in 1896.

Give up.