Saturday, August 08, 2015

Tom Carey Doubles Down on the Roswell Slides

Like so many others, I had thought we were done with the Roswell Slides. It seemed that the reading of the placard, the discovery of the documentation that supported all of that, and the retreat of some of the experts would be enough to kill it. It seemed as if we had all the answers, documented to a level that is rarely achieved in UFO research… and it appears that I would be wrong because there are always those diehards out there.

Tom Carey, a major proponent of the Roswell Slides, appeared on the Paranormal Podcast 393 hosted by Jim Harold a couple of days ago. You can download the program here:


Carey did make a couple of comments that I thought to be of importance. At about 4:55, while discussing the slides he said, “It was one of the Roswell bodies.”

Tom Carey in Roswell.
At 18:40, he said, “To me it was one of the Roswell aliens. Considering the time frame and what it looked like. It looked exactly like what had been described to me as to what the body looked like from the crash.”

Why are these two quotes important? Because prior to May 5, they, meaning Carey and Don Schmitt, had insisted that they hadn’t tied the slides to Roswell specifically. Schmitt, on The Conspiracy Show with Richard Syrett on April 12, 2015, said, “What I personally resent is that so many of the skeptics… somehow they have done everything they can to link them [the slides] to Roswell… They’re the ones who have labeled them the Roswell Slides. We haven’t done that…" He went on to say that they were not linking “these images to Roswell… It is possible there is a connection.”

To sort of underscore this, Carey said during this most recent interview that the owner of the slides, whom he did not identify (Joe Beason) “wasn’t a Roswell guy or UFO guy but it looked like the body of an alien.” I am still not clear why anyone would jump to that conclusion, but according to Carey, that is what Beason did. The point is that Carey mentioned that Beason was not a Roswell guy shows the connection being made.

The other point that Carey thought of as important, as he was discussing the “deblurring” of the placard, was that the placard seemed to have been written in cursive but when finally deblurred, it was in block letters. This bothered Carey and to him it suggested that something in the deblurring process was flawed. He mentioned that he wasn’t a computer guy but he just couldn’t understand this.

The answer, however, was simple. David Rudiak, who had first suggested that the lettering was in cursive said that his observation was based on the way the lettering looked in the scans he had been given. They were of the placard and little else which masked the true nature of what he was seeing. When he was given a higher quality scan that had more background detail, it was clear that the lettering was not in cursive. The deblurring of a higher resolution scan provided the answer which Carey seems to dismiss.

Of course this argument about cursive, doesn’t explain why the floor as shown when the whole slide frame is revealed matches that in the museum and why other placards visible match the one in front of the “alien” image. Or, in other words, the slide was not taken in some obscure government lab, research center or facility. It matches the floor in the museum at Mesa Verde that was open to the public, and given the timing of the events, was probably taken prior to May 1947, which, of course rules out Roswell.

Nor does it explain the other exhibits that are seen in the background of the slide. Clearly this is a museum setting and not the controlled environment you would expect if this was an image of an alien creature. It would not be out on display for everyone to see.

I could go on in this vein, but is it really necessary? Carey is grasping at straws. The evidence that the image is that of an unfortunate child is overwhelming and the suggestions that it is something alien nearly nonexistent.


But I want to make one thing clear. I do not believe that either Carey or Schmitt were participating in a hoax that they created. They might have been overwhelmed by their own enthusiasm and their desire to find some evidence of an alien UFO crash at Roswell, but they didn’t create a hoax. Fooled?  Yes. Na├»ve? Yes… but not the creators of a hoax. We all get fooled sometimes and this is one of those times for them. Oh, it is certainly time to let it go, but once you have committed to something so deeply, it is extremely difficult to admit the mistake.

73 comments:

TheDimov said...

I don't care what anyone says, Carey is either playing the fool or is, quite seriously, a moron who should absolutely not be penning books of any sort. Cursive? Just take a look at it and see that if indeed it was written in cursive script it couldn't possibly be English because there would be long-stemmed letters all over the place, far too many than there should be in any sentence. Perhaps if it was written in Voynich-ian there might be a case, but that he still maintains the child's body is an alien is, quite simply, an embarrassment to him and everyone who knows him, and I for once cannot believe his naivete/ignorance/arrogance, well, all three.

Gilles Fernandez said...

Tom Carey: "And these fellows, I had another name for them but I won't use it on your show..."

Coming from a guy who have a friend and expert he have consulted (Richard Doble) commenting a Native American mummy as "an evolved gecko", personally I have no name to call Carey too. :p & ;)

Regards,

Gilles

Tim Hebert said...

And least we not forget, Tony Bragalia was the one that made the claims linking the photos to Roswell. I'm not aware of the skeptics doing so until post-Bragalia.

Curt Collins said...

The most interesting thing to me was when Tom described a visit to a female Anthropologist in NY, who questioned what they had, the size of the body in the photo, and said it was within range of deviation of a hominid. They didn't like it, and thought the meeting was a waste.

It also brings to mind this portion of Tom Carey's post-placard exposure statement:

"..the American anthropologists we contacted did not want to even look at the slides when they learned that they might be "UFO-related." Those who did, however, did so 'off the record.' They all concluded that the body on the slides was not that of a mummy but possibly that of a congenitally deformed child."

He was making another point, but it's clear that expert advice indicating the Slides were of a child's body was willfully ignored.

KRandle said...

Curt -

I noticed that too, and thought about the comments that American anthropologists refused to even look at the photograph... most because they wanted a context, but here was a case where one did look at it, but Carey didn't like the answer so he left. This is not exactly what we had been told about it.

Brian Bell said...

And so when an investigator gets an unbiased opinion from a neutral expert and doesn't like it because it doesn't support his belief, or agenda, or plan of action, then goes to others who will agree with his plan and will help carry it out that is called "hoaxing". You can defend these guys all you want Kevin, as someone just making a silly unintentional mistake due to "committed passion", but the rest of us are clear on their motives. I think you're too close to both men on a personal basis to have objectivity on this aspect of the charade.

KRandle said...

All -

I knew that there would be some out there who would have to comment on that last paragraph. But I believed it necessary because I do not think that either Tom nor Don knowing participated in a hoax. Oh sure, their will to believe was strong and clearly they ignored the evidence that went against their point of view, but they had no malicious intent. They wanted some sort of new evidence, some sort of documentation that would underscore their beliefs that they allowed that to cloud their vision. They should have known better because nearly everyone who looked at the slides thought of mummy immediately.

There was another key phrase in that interview. I had the impression from my communications with Tom prior to May 5 that they all had searched pictures of mummies. Apparently that research was left to Tony and he didn't find the exact match during that search. I would have thought that some of the mummy photographs that have been posted to the Internet would have suggested that while there wasn't an exact match, there were many with the same sort of features. I wouldn't have looked for the exact mummy but one that looked enough like it that I could say that there is a strong possibility that the image on the slide is a mummy.

Don't misunderstand, as some of you will do no matter what I say, but there is plenty of criticism to be directed at Tom and Don. They didn't follow the evidence, they didn't ask the difficult questions, they didn't ask to see the slides themselves rather than scans (and I believe that if they had seen the actual slides projected on a screen, the placard could have been read) and then ignored all the red flags. They blew it here, big time, but I do not believe that they knowingly committed a fraud. They allowed themselves to be dragged into this and they didn't preform a proper investigation. They hide behind the secrecy and the non disclosure agreements to the detriment of their research.

And even if we understand their motives, that doesn't make them hoaxers, just overly naive. The final paragraph was not a defense of them, but a suggestion that they did not create the hoax... they willingly went along with the story line, but they didn't create it. If you all believe this is sufficient to reject all their research, and it is certainly a strong indication that we should, then do so.

Remember, I have been quite critical of this whole slides fiasco from nearly the beginning, and I have called into question other aspects of their investigation, so, let's keep this about what happened with the slides.

TheDimov said...

Well written Kevin, very well stated. I too have come to feel that this is the case; that Tom and Don were over-eager, and wanted to put their own full stop on the case since they had been in the trenches so long, as Don has always been so keen to tell us all at his conferences. I think they got into the case in the first place because of the tantalising nature of the mystery and wanted so desperately - as many of us do - to put closure on the case once and for all. And this desperation led to being persuaded that they had indeed come across their holy grail, their smoking gun.

But to still maintain, in the face of everything that the mummy is an alien is just mind-blowing to me, just insane. Don is a very smart guy and his talks are very well presented as are his publications. And I am glad that he initially admitted he was wrong in his assumptions after the placard was deciphered. But has he since maintained that stance? I hope so, for his sake. I haven't listened to the podcast yet but I will, to see if there is any mention of it. Don should in my opinion distance himself from Tom and save some sort of grace, show he has some semblance of integrity. If he has once again jumped on board with the alien hypothesis then I think he needs some assorted multicolored tablets, immediately.

erickson said...

I don't think it was a hoax, if so it was not a very good one. But that the will to believe overrides what was evident from the beginning, an d leads to a fantasy story not only about aliens, but the basic providence of the slide, with the Rays somehow being so close to Einsenhower that one of the greatest security breaches in history must have occurred, says much about the nature of "research," "investigation" and the state of the Roswell and Ufology today.

You don't have to label someone as a hoaxer to realize that basic credibility is at issue and wonder how long people connected with the slides will continue to have an audience. Given how certain people have decided that it is time to move on, and still find those willing to listen, I suspect they will be around for a long time.

Jack Brewer said...

I think a lot of UFO researchers jump the shark and report utter nonsense due to relatively honest subjectivity. I think some others are blatantly and intentionally deceptive. Yet others, I suspect, behave the ways they do because they are afflicted with conditions that would require treatment by qualified mental health professionals.

As far as the quality of information goes that is produced by such researchers, the reasons listed above don't make that much difference. It's BS no matter why they publish it.

In the case of Carey and Schmitt, I am personally less inclined to embrace naivety than KR. While I do not claim to be able to conclusively identify motives involved in any given set of actions, I do have the abilities to listen to podcasts and note when guests repeatedly misrepresent and distort chains of events. Carey and Schmitt were guilty of just that on Jimmy Church's 'Fade to Black', which requires more than innocent naivety from my angle of vision.

charles tromblee said...

Regardless of whether these two men believed that this was a mummy or they hoaxed the whole thing, one thing is for sure: complete loss of credibility due to either bad judgement or dishonesty. This means that I for one will never, ever read or listen to anything from these two.

charles tromblee said...

excuse me: i meant "believed that this was an alien..."

Rusty Lingenfelter said...

My sense is that Dew and his partner along with the Mexican P.T. Barnum are the hoaxers. The rest are just incredibly deluded and unprofessional. While it is unfortunate that Tom and Don got involved, it is certainly a reflection of their methods and body of work. For having hid behind an NDA and been so vehement in their claims without even a first hand look at the slides, much less heeding the feedback of experts, they deserve to reap the criticism. That Tom has hit bottom and pulled out a bigger shovel to keep digging just reinforces that point. As for Tony, I had never seen any of his work that demonstrated any rigor or credibility so really no loss here. His conduct here probably did him more harm than his association with sliders. His near psychotic rants and paranoid delusions will prevent me from ever taking him seriously on any subject.

Brian Bell said...

@ Rusty

Amen brother.

KRandle said...

Rusty -

I can't think of a thing to argue with you about. To me, just looking at the slides seemed to scream mummy. I don't know what neither Tom nor Don seemed to think it was anything else. They allowed their will to believe and to fine the ultimate Roswell proof to drive them forward rather than taking a step back and look at it dispassionately. I'm not sure how many of us could do that if we were that caught up in something in which we truly believed.

Yes, Tony's rants were clearly over the line, but again it was a will to believe that drove him... and an angry that the rest of us didn't just climb on board because they had the evidence... but when evidence is hidden, for whatever reason, I think we all should be aware of coming problems.

They blew it big time on this and Tom's continued defense is not helping them at all and certainly reflects poorly on the rest of us.

edward gehrman said...

All,
Are we going to ignore Richard Doble's comments and the comments of the other
researchers the team used for advice. Is Doble correct in his observations?
If so, what are the implications? The creature in the slides doesn't look at all human: No teeth or hair or mammary glands.
The burial seemed staged to honor the creature, not just put it in the ground.
It's clear to me that the team was making their judgments based on what their advisors were telling them.
Doble writes:
"It has the equivalent of ribs. There are fewer of them and they are broader—probably 2 pairs that go right across and 2 pairs of floating ribs beneath them. Its left side is not all that clear. Its right side is much clearer. Humans have a sternum or breastbone and a dozen ribs that mostly attach to the sternum and floating ribs beneath them. We have clavicles or collarbones on either side and a scapula or shoulder blade in the rear but none is visible in this slide. The top pair of ribs appears to act as a combination clavicle/scapula.
What remains of a pelvis look nothing like our own.
The equivalent of the foot and ankle or tarsal bones is again radically different from our own. The right foot is hidden and the left foot is not all that visible. Its running patterns would be different from ours. It probably walked in a less smooth fashion. The kneecap or patella is different. "
Does any of this sound like the creature is remotely human. Is Doble delusional?
I think it would be more productive to try to figure out what this all means,
rather than constantly calling "hoax" so the hard questions are never answered.
Ed

Curt Collins said...

"Are we going to ignore Richard Doble's comments..."

Yes, since he made all those fantastic observations and speculations, but didn't notice or point out to Tom that the body had a lower leg missing.

edward gehrman said...

Curt,
Look at the creature? Do you see any teeth? Hair? Mammary glands?
I'm not implying that the creature is the Roswell creature?
But these are questions that need answers.
Just answer this question: why no teeth? Also I'd like to add one other
fact. The creature is only 28 inches long. Short for a two-year-olds
who average 36 inches with teeth.
Ed

Nitram Ang said...

Hello Dr Randle

I think the only mistake you made about this whole slides saga was somehow believing (sometime ago) that you had written your final post about the Roswell slides.

Regards
Nitram

Brian Bell said...

@ Edward:

Teeth? It's a mummy, they fell out long ago. Hair? Same deal. It's a mummy. Mammary glands? What are you hoping to see?

The "creature" is a human being. Old, shriveled, bald head...etc. Human....

DrZachSmith said...

I think medical science has now shown us that Tom Carey is but an innocent victim of sonambulistic circumstances:

https://www.yahoo.com/health/the-best-sleep-position-for-your-brain-126105337202.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma

KRandle said...

Ed -

You seem to cherry pick your information... Did you listen to the podcast? Tom said that he visited with an American anthropologist who seemed to believe that the image was terrestrial based. He left because she had pictures of monkeys on her computer. Are you familiar with Dr. Richard O'Connor who had once thought the slides showed an alien image but changed his mind upon further review?

All your questions were answered by various experts in the field and many who saw a higher resolution scan of the image have said that it is a mummy. Did you notice that there were other exhibits seen in the background, the tiles that matched the museum floor and the placards that identified other exhibits? The evidence that it was a mummy on public display is overwhelming and if it was actually an alien creature it would not have been in a museum.

edward gehrman said...

Kevin,
I agree that the creature was a museum display and that its shriveled and distorted
body seems mummy-like. I think the physical differences Doble noticed may have been overlooked by the museum folks. It doesn't seem human to me, and I think that the Hopi found it a little unusual, too, or it wouldn't have had the burial it was given.

The three arrows and mat covering the creature's body connect it to the Sky God, Sotuknang, and the Ant People.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends-americas-opinion-guest-authors/ant-people-hopi-00927

It could be a pile of bones found in the desert that the Hopi recognized as being different and made the connection to the Sky God, or it could have been a being
living among them. For whatever the reason, it was buried with honors then hidden.
Maybe we should put some effort into finding where the creature is now and if it could still be examined. Is anyone working on that? Do we know its final destination?
Ed

Gilles Fernandez said...

Edward,

I think the physical differences Doble noticed may have been overlooked by the museum folks.

Excepted the "museum folks", including scientists, examined a body, Doble and Co, photograph/slide.
Only one example to demonstrate how to examine a photograph is "subjective" regarding "anatomy": R. Doble (Gecko man) counts not the same number of ribs than Maussan expert counted in May the 5th conference.
In other words, from the same photograph, our "experts" are not abble to find a consensus for the number of ribs!

==> http://i18.servimg.com/u/f18/19/01/83/59/finhan10.jpg

Myself, and there is a thread in Kevin' blog, stated early in February that the slide (I have only very bad reso from A. Dew trailer at this period) that the body in the slide looked like a child mummy, probably a meso-american one and I received a wast of bad comments by the experts Tony Bragalia. Well, I mistaked only several miles^^

Regards,

Gilles Fernandez

Rusty Lingenfelter said...

@Kevin, as you know these folks, I bow to your first hand knowledge. If their passion for the ETH is what is driving them, that is one thing. However, having spectated this mutual admiration society where people are dubbed "experts", "researchers" or "investigators" simply for the frequency of their posting and their ability to get on an agenda, I suspect the desire for notoriety may have also clouded their judgement. Defending the slides was not what led to my comments, it was ridiculous rants on the "hacking" and "putting pictures of houses online" that motivated my comments. That whole line of silliness was just too much and the invective that went along with it was over the top. As I don't consider you part of the collection of wannabe-experts, hence my suggestions to continue to elevate the discussion here.

@Ed, yes Dobler is delusional. Seeing what he wants to see despite all the evidence to the contrary. Can't be much clearer than that, thanks for asking such a straightforward question. It is disappointing to hear discussion of further desecrating this child, but at least you don't seem to be motivated by a desire to rehabilitate your or your friends reputations as others here clearly are.

Brian Bell said...

@ Ed

As Gilles stated, the archelogists and anthropogists who have studied this specimen have long since concluded that it is human. That outweighs any conclusions made from photos alone.

You forget that many tribes of people over the centuries practiced inbreeding as means to foster pure lines of blood and heritage. Unknowingly they also produced over time children with deformities such as this one.

The tribe may have given it a special burial because the child was cared for deeply because of its condition. Then again it was buried with other humans too and found with them.

You cannot attribute indian legends to this mummy as something which explains its deformed nature. This is not a sky God or ant person - it is a child.

Gilles Fernandez said...

There is imho a total "failure" in the Maussan/Carey team cognitive dissonant reaction (even if I had prefered to not deal anymore with such guys and I prefer my native tong) : The mummies, exhibits, excavated objects found by Palmer and Co. have been exhibited here or there in a museum (Arizona, Colorado, etc.).

If the Palmer's child mummy doesn't match the "Roswell slide" body, where Palmer child mummy photographied by Palmer team was exhibited if not in Mesa Verde museum? Again, many things proove the slides were taken in Mesa Verde Museum cause the other artefacts, the placard, the soil, the bench, and so on.

If the picassa photograph doesn't macht the Roswell slides, there were two mummies/bodies exhibited in the MV museum?

Chess and Mat?

Gilles Fernandez

edward gehrman said...

Brian, All,
You can repeat "human Child" as many times as you'd like but that still doesn't make it so. Mummy teeth do not just "fall out". This mummy wasn't damaged from falling rocks. It was protected by a woven mat. This dummy had a bowl and three arrows and a bow, although grave goods are seldom found with Hopi burials.
This creature was buried with head to the East when most Hopi burials are in the seated position. This mummy was buried under many other human bones and skulls
so its location would never be found. Don't you find this strange? Don't you think we should at least try to answer these questions before we move on.
Ed

KRandle said...

Ed -

You avoid my questions to you and repeat the same nonsense over and over as if that will make it accurate. This is a mummy of an unfortunate child that is being exploited for financial gain by some and to prove alien visitation by others. Reputable scientists have identified it, full documentation from discovery to presentation in various museums is documented, and they had the opportunity to view the remains, not just a photograph of it. Dr. Richard O'Connor, who at one time said that it was not human, reversed himself when presented with the documentation... now if you have something of value to contribute, please do so but do not continue to ask the same questions (which have been answered) over and over.

You make assumptions that you cannot support including that the child is of Hopi origin and that there are defects that are not explained by the circumstances in which the child was found. We know what happened to the display and where the child is today... in possession of its descendants.... so, again, if you have nothing new to contribute, stop repeating yourself here. It doesn't matter how often you make the statements, they are simply not going to magically become true.

David Rudiak said...

Kevin wrote,
The answer, however, was simple. David Rudiak, who had first suggested that the lettering was in cursive said that his observation was based on the way the lettering looked in the scans he had been given. They were of the placard and little else which masked the true nature of what he was seeing. When he was given a higher quality scan that had more background detail, it was clear that the lettering was not in cursive. The deblurring of a higher resolution scan provided the answer which Carey seems to dismiss.

This is not quite correct as stated. The lettering looks like cursive because of complex motion blur which smeared the letters in at least two different directions. It became clear that the lettering was not in cursive when the program SmartDeblur was able to figure out the complex motion blur and correct for it. This had nothing to do with a later released scans (after the May 5 event), the placard scan, of which, was actually at much lower resolution (not higher). The same deblurring process can be done with the original (higher resolutions) scans if you use the right program. It was the deblurring program, not that resolution of the placard, that was critical.

What a later release of the FULL slide did do was reveal better the nature of true blur (two-direction blur) that couldn't be clearly seen with just a scan of the placard with everything else cropped out. This might have been helpful had it been available from the start.

Of course, having the full slide available also makes it obvious that this is a museum-like instead of a lab-like or medical-like setting, which puts the slides in a very different context.

Lance said...

David,

You are incorrect on this point:

"What a later release of the FULL slide did do was reveal better the nature of true blur (two-direction blur) that couldn't be clearly seen with just a scan of the placard with everything else cropped out."

No, we derived the blur model using only the cropped scan of the placard. The full slide did nothing to help this.

Lance


KRandle said...

All -

The real point is that the idea that there was cursive on the placard came about because of David's observation of the placard. Carey is using this to suggest that those reading the placard are somehow involved in a manipulation while the truth is that the scans being used early made it seem the sign was in cursive when it was not.

Stephen Jackson said...

I suggest that from now on that anything said by those associated with the slides fiasco is totally ignored. Remove their ability to reach more audiences with their spin.

The slides are done, underlined, finished. The only people interested in them now are the ones you think it's an alien, the kind of people that stunt the growth of humanity

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

Lance quoting me:
"What a later release of the FULL slide did do was reveal better the nature of true blur (two-direction blur) that couldn't be clearly seen with just a scan of the placard with everything else cropped out."

No, we derived the blur model using only the cropped scan of the placard. The full slide did nothing to help this.

Yes, I know, but I think you are not understanding what I wrote. In the full scan (not deliberately blurred more), you can actually SEE how the camera moved during the photo. Look at the white support with holes, showing the multiple images of the holes as the camera was jerked in two directions while the shutter was open.

With most deblur programs, you have to guess the actual direction (and degree) of blur (which was two-fold in this case), not something easy to do when all you have is a highly cropped image of the placard.

Yes, with Smart DeBlur, you don't have to know the direction(s) of blur, because the algorithm (with some work and luck in setting parameters), eventually figures it out on its own. But my point was that it MIGHT have helped having the full, uncropped images showing the actually blur directions when working with other deblur programs, as I did. So my comments stand as originally written.

The eventual deblurring, however, had nothing to do with the quality of the original placard scans, which were actually better than what was eventually deblurred. It eventually hinged on the right program, not the image quality. This is what I was correcting in Kevin's post.

Lance said...

David,

Smart Deblur did not figure out the model on its own.
It took careful trial and error drawing the blur model--erasing it and redrawing it and trying again. Nab did this first and shared his work with us.
That is how we got to the hockey stick shape of the blur.
At that point we knew the character of the blur.

I haven't seen your results with other software . Have you shared that? Which software did you get good results with after seeing the full scan?

Lance


Steve Sawyer said...

Speaking about the placard, I just noticed that at slideboxmedia.com/placard, where the edited, modified digital version of the placard posted by Dew to his slides promo site once was, now only shows a blank page -- no placard photo!

Sort of reminds me of the slowly disappearing grin of the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland -- soon the grin will, too, disappear.

Gilles Fernandez said...

Steve,

The slideboxmedia.com/placard page (modified, the accusation / legend we, RSRG, faked the placard have disappeared for a moment now) is working for me, despite the page is a little long to "download".

Signifying Nothing said...

Hopefully we can end the painful chapter of discussing Ant People on the blog.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ykWPyaqbebo

Don McCoy said...

LOL! Come on! The more we dignify this OBVIOUS fraud by giving it our continued attention, the longer and longer this stupidity will continue to taint the field of UFology. Let's stop talking about it and be DONE! The worst part about the whole story is that it was an obvious fraud from the very start...

David Rudiak said...

Lance,

Smart DeBlur CAN get the hockey stick (2-jerk camera blur) model "on its own" (meaning without hand inputting the direction of blur). I've done it with Smart DeBlur on auto deblur, but I was lucky, getting it on the second try after setting the blur size. Other blur sizes (even only slightly different ones) I tried turned out to give horrible results.

Smart DeBlur also enables you to refine the blur model by hand-editing the blur kernel, which I believe is what you are referring to. But it isn't absolutely necessary.

Unlike most deblur programs (at least the ones I tried, like the one from Topaz Labs and Focus Magic) with a little luck and persistence, Smart Deblur CAN automatically figure out the basic blur kernel, even the more complicated "hockey-stick" one of the placard slide. My misfortune was not knowing about this and trying other programs, which gave very poor results (require you to guess motion blur direction and probably don't deal well with more complex motion blur, as was the case here.)

Smart DeBlur also works well on higher resolution placard scans (like the ones I was given), and the lower resolution one your group worked with. The settings are different, but both resolutions can result in deblurring the placard. So the main issue in determining that the placard lettering was resolvable and non-script printing ISN'T the resolution of the placard scan but the deblur program used. That was the point was was addressing and correcting in Kevin's post.

Gilles Fernandez said...

Hello,

Roswell Slides Research Group – The Paranormal Podcast 394
As a rebuttal to last week’s Roswell Slides episode, we are joined by two members of the Roswell Slides Research Group to discuss why the slides do NOT depict an alien.

Tim Printy and Lance Moody, two skeptics, join us and provide details on their research and their perspective. We also have a spirited discussion about skepticism and belief.


http://jimharold.com/roswell-slides-research-group-the-paranormal-podcast-394/

Regards,

Gilles Fernandez (still listening, very fresh online episode).

edward gehrman said...

Nothing,
you wrote:"Hopefully we can end the painful chapter of discussing Ant People on the blog"
I hadn't thought much about Ant People until they happened to be mentioned by Nick Redfern and then, through more research I realized they just weren't a pipe dream but actual critters who assisted the Hopi ancestors during times of trouble. Don't you find that interesting? How could you find it "painful"?
During a volcanic eruption, The Hopi followed a moving cloud and a light. The Ant People gave the Hopi mats to cover their heads from the volcanic dust and debris. When Winter came in the Summer, the Ant creatures took them in and fed them and denied their own wants.
Why would you want a discussion like this to end?
Ed

KRandle said...

Ed -

No more ant people. Period.

cda said...

Kevin:

"The evidence that it was a mummy on public display is overwhelming and if it was actually an alien creature it would not have been in a museum."

Whilst accepting the frist part of your sentence, I do not accept the second part. Are you saying that an alien creature would never be displayed in a museum? Where do you think such a thing would be? On what grounds do you say this?

A discovery of this nature, once it was scientifically verified and accepted by the scientific establishment as genuine, would certainly be publicly displayed. It might take some time to do this, but to say it could not, or would not, happen is against everything we know about the progress and advancement of science and studying the origins of ET life.

KRandle said...

CDA -

Sometimes I wonder about the thinking processes of some. In this particular case, given the government reaction to flying saucer sightings, if an alien creature had been discovered by the military, the very last place it would be is a museum on public display... had an alien been found by civilians and they had attempted to put it on public display, given the orders in force at the time, it would have been removed. I was speaking of this particular case and given those particular set of facts, an alien creature would not have ended up on display. If we accept the testimony of the late Brigadier General Exon, the bodies were removed for study... they weren't in a museum.

cda said...

Kevin:

I have the same thoughts about the thinking processes of some. There were no "orders in force at the time" about the display of ET craft and there are none today. (If you dispute this, find them). And there is no way the military of one country could prevent the display of a new scientific discovery such as this, once it had been verified as true (and thereby risk another country displaying it first!). I am not saying the public display would have been immediate, but it certainly would have come. So you cannot use that excuse (i.e. the conspiracy or cover-up thesis) again to prove your case. What you can use is plain common sense.

Certainly we can reject the slides as ETs, and we can further wonder why on earth ANYONE ever assumed they depict ETs, or might depict ETs, from Roswell or anywhere else. What sort of minds would suggest such a conclusion? Are Carey, Schmitt & Bragalia, by any chance, planning yet another book?

One day, Kevin, there WILL be an ET, and maybe its spacecraft too, on display at a public museum, maybe in the US, maybe elsewhere. And when it happens, there will be no mistaking it for a terrestrial mummy, either. But I do not care to predict when that day will be.

Needless to say I do not accept the testimony, at least as far as the so-called 'bodies' he talks about, of Brigadier General Exon.

Brian Bell said...

And if bodies were removed for study, just how long does one need to study an alien corpse to understand its physiology? Need it be sixty or seventy years? I know I know...they are all hidden in the "blue room" or at least they supposedly once were. Now S4....blah blah....or Los Alamos...etc.

Interestingly very little about alien anatomy has ever come forth given the claims these things are being "studied". Nothing. Rumors and claims yes, but no documents that explicitly detail the supposedly complex systems these creatures are said to have. For example, it is claimed the don't speak (no vocal cords), they eat very little to nothing (supposedly they have bodies like plants), no musculature at all (bones yes, but without muscles they couldn't move their limbs).

I think if they were really being hidden and studied at length someone would have leaked documents that are medical in nature and rightfully complex in the medical sciences given these claims. But no....nada.

KRandle said...

CDA -

You have missed my point which was about the Roswell case and the Roswell Slides. IF we accept that Roswell was alien, then the military grabbed it, cut out the civilians, and removed the dead and injured. In that case, none of the organic material (bodies) would have ended up in a museum in 1947. They would have been taken elsewhere. For this part of the discussion it doesn't matter if you believe Exon or not because he tells us what happened to the bodies, and they didn't go to a museum.

This holds for this particular case... there is no way that alien bodies recovered at Roswell would have ended up in a museum in Mesa Verde since that it clearly where the slide was taken... and given the documentation, the slide had to be taken prior to May 1947 when the body was moved.

Or to make it clearer... my line, "The evidence that it was a mummy on public display is overwhelming and if it was actually an alien creature it would not have been in a museum," could be rewritten to say, ""The evidence that it was a mummy on public display is overwhelming and if it was actually an alien creature recovered at Roswell it would not have been in a museum in Mesa Verde."

edward gehrman said...

All,
If you listen to Richard Doble and read his report at this site,
you'll see that he hasn't recanted his belief that the creature
in the slides is a non-human.

http://www.blueblurrylines.com/2015/05/the-roswell-slides-anthropologist-from.html

"Its upper arm musculature is somewhat different from our own. The carpal or wrist bones are radically different from our own. The left arm appears to have the skin removed and the joint between what would be our ulna and carpal bones is quite demarcated. There are far more of the equivalent of carpal bones visible in the left wrist."

If Doble is correct, then the creature couldn't be a human, no matter where or when it was found
He also makes an observation about the creature's skull and how this proves that
the creature isn't a child.

I think his criticism's need to be discussed by his peers, not by a gang of closed minded skeptics who seem to be able to ignore evidence:

"As for where it is from and how it got here, who knows? It is definitely not human nor is it even Mammalian. Rather it has evolved convergently by interacting with an environment similar to our own. It only looks superficially close to us. "
Ed

Curt Collins said...

Say goodnight, Edward.

cda said...

You mean good morning.
There are people who say the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. For all we know, the being shown in the slides comes from a planet where this happens.

Brian Bell said...

Ed:

Doble's claims are wishful thinking. No one can look at a set of 60 year old slides and make the conclusions he has without having seen and inspected the corpse first hand.

Also he is not an MD and therefore cannot properly diagnose or recognize human deformities no matter how rare they might be.

His claim is no different than a photographer who also claims that his photography experience gives him the ability to analyze Moon and Mars surface festures concluding definitively that there are ancient buildings and faces made there by inhabitants of Planet X.

You can't interpret such physiological complexity from blurry images and simply conclude "it's not human".

KRandle said...

Ed -

Why don't you listen to Dr. Richard O'Connor's statements. We all have listened to Doble and we don't find his analysis persuasive. You listen to one man, we listen to many. Understand the difference?

edward gehrman said...

All,
Of course I've listened to O'Conner. His statements do not criticize Doble's findings. But we have much better photos now of the creature so we can make some simple observations. There are no suture lines in the skull. Do you see any?
If the creature is a two year old, they should be there. How many ribs can we count? Where is the shoulder blade? If you find a single difference, then the creature isn't human. The problem with this creature is there isn't any part that you can call human. It has eyes and a nose but they are only human-like. I think the slides group has presented enough evidence to certainly question the creature's humanness and it's up to the detractors to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the critter is a human. And mummy teeth don't just "fall out".
Ed

Daniel Transit said...

erickson said...

'I don't think it was a hoax, if so it was not a very good one. But that the will to believe overrides what was evident from the beginning, an d leads to a fantasy story not only about aliens, but the basic providence of the slide, with the Rays somehow being so close to Einsenhower that one of the greatest security breaches in history must have occurred, says much about the nature of "research," "investigation" and the state of the Roswell and Ufology today.

You don't have to label someone as a hoaxer to realize that basic credibility is at issue and wonder how long people connected with the slides will continue to have an audience. Given how certain people have decided that it is time to move on, and still find those willing to listen, I suspect they will be around for a long time.'

Tom Carey seems convinced that the Ray couple knew the Eisenhowers. He, or someone else, needs to put out the evidence that they have found to demonstrate this. If this is done, then there isn't simply a 'fantasy story' there with regard to the 'providence' (double or alternate meaning may be applied). At least, a significant part of the stated circumstances related to the photographs will be true.

There isn't a need to exaggerate and say something is completely wrong, in order to successfully challenge the overall picture. It is better, in principle, to acknowledge the parts of the picture that are correct.

A new, different picture could surprisingly reveal itself utilising parts of the research that are correct and new information that is found (i.e. 'Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater').

Brian Bell said...

@ Ed....you said:

"Where is the shoulder blade? If you find a single difference, then the creature isn't human. The problem with this creature is there isn't any part that you can call human. It has eyes and a nose but they are only human-like."

If you find a single abnormality in one human compared to other healthy individuals then the first human isn't really human? Really?

You don't seem to have a clue about human anatomy or medical disorders. Based on your reasoning a great number of human beings in this world aren't really human because they have some type of genetic abnormality.

And....the burden of proof actually rests with those claiming the PHOTOS are of an alien. Burden of proof rests with those making the claim not the other way around.

I fear you may have drank too much UFO Kool-Aide.

edward gehrman said...

Brian,
I say that the knee, ankle, wrist, shoulder, teeth, and ribs are not like those of a human. The skull proves that it's not a child.
The photos are all we have along with a description of the burial.

You can say that it is a human because of what? What makes it a human?

I've told you why I think the creature isn't a human and you insist that it's human but can't find or express any specific reasons for that belief?

We know the creature was buried by humans, but that doesn't mean that it was human.
It could have been a pile of magical bones, found on the desert, and reburied in a special place. It may have been any number of things, but we know it wasn't human because it doesn't have the basic bone structure and other requirements. And don't act so confused. If you and I were walking down the road and we saw a Ford pass by and I said it was a Dodge, you'd be able to point out why is was a Ford. Do the same here.
You insist that the creature is a human child. I've told some of the reasons why it isn't; you should be able to tell me reasons why you think it is.
I'm not trying to prove the creature is an alien. I trying to prove that it isn't human. Don't you see the difference? I don't know what the creature is, and neither do you.
Ed

Brian Bell said...

Ed -

On the contrary I do know what the "creature" is. My source? The litany of documents about its discovery, excavation, evaluation, comparison to other such human mummified remains, analysis of the slides in question, including the recently released FOIA documents testifying to the same.

What makes it human? All of the above.

And if your point is, Ed, that you are not quote "trying to prove it's an alien", then what ARE you trying to prove? I know...but I think you have already been warned about that by Kevin.....

edward gehrman said...

Brian,
You said:
"Ed, that you are not quote "trying to prove it's an alien", then what ARE you trying to prove?"

I'm trying to show that there are enough inconsistencies in the creature's
physical makeup to cause us to take another look at our assumption that it is a human child. Once we determine that it isn't a human child, then we can discuss what it might be. We should also discuss another topic Doble mentioned: convergent evolution. Are you familiar with that concept?
Ed

Brian Bell said...

Ed -

Knowledgable and reputable scientists began examining this archeological find when it was first uncovered. Their conclusions have been consistent over the last many decades - it's human. No need to second guess their findings especially when the challenge to their findings are being made based on what some claim to see in a 60 year old blurry slide.

Convergent evolution? Yes I know it. But understand that even today, as did Darwin himself did claim, the ability to explain and replicate spontaneous life remains unknown even to the smartest of scientists who study it. That means convergent evolution would also be in question, at least in the theory that multiple creatures will evolve into the most efficient physiological and anatomical model and that being humans.

In addition, the average person has very little understanding of evolutional theory from Darwin's perspectives or the many theories that have since expanded upon them. They are simply told that humankind evolved from a murky primordial soup but exactly how is anyone's guess.

So, you would have us believe that a clearly nonhuman animal of another earthly species of reptile just so happened to evolve into a super intelligent alien looking humanoid species parallel or coexistant with homo sapiens?

This is the same and widely rejected theory that aliens from other worlds would have also evolved into humanoid creatures just like us.

Kool-Aide.....

Nick Redfern said...

I noticed my name was brought up in this comment thread. For the record, all my speculations were made before the Mexico fiasco. There's no doubt in my mind (and there has been no doubt in my mind since Mexico) that this is a mummy. It's in a museum. And it's in the museum we are told it was in. This should all be over now. Aside from a good debate on what Ufology can learn from all this crap.

edward gehrman said...

Brian,
you said:

"So, you would have us believe that a clearly nonhuman animal of another earthly species of reptile just so happened to evolve into a super intelligent alien looking humanoid species parallel or coexistant with homo sapiens? This is the same and widely rejected theory that aliens from other worlds would have also evolved into humanoid creatures just like us."

Yes, convergent evolution does suggest that two different species could look and act like the same species, and all this would come from the total environment acting on the organisms. Have you ever seen a hummingbird moth?

If you're so sure of yourself, show us the humanness of this creature.
I think it's a perfect example of convergent evolution. Where are its teeth?
The skull sutures? Are your sure you understand convergent evolution?
Ed


Ed

Brian Bell said...

@ Ed

"If you're so sure of yourself, show us the humanness of this creature."

They already have Ed, as stated in all of the documentation on this artifact.

KRandle said...

Ed -

Please explain why you reject the evidence provided by those who exhumed the body, those anthropologists who examined it, and the museum staff who were on site in favor of one man who only studied a slide of the child. Please explain why you accept the information of those who studied the slide and reject what was written on the placard seen in the slide. And please don't repeat Doble's claims because there are very few who find them persuasive in light of the documentation and photographic evidence that has been presented.

edward gehrman said...

Kevin,Brian,
The creature was found by pot hunters (Palmer, Witherill)and not examined
again (as far as we know) until sometime in the late nineteen thirties. There isn't any record of
how closely they looked at the creature during that inspection. They did measure its length (28 inches)
and somehow (guessed) that it was a male (probably the bow and arrows).
I don't think they examined it very closely. They certainly didn't mention the lack of teeth or hair, or suture lines.
Two other experts examined the slides for the team and I think came to the same conclusions as Doble. I don't know how you can dismiss his findings when they are consistent with what two others have found. Hopefully other experts will examine the body and draw the same conclusions.
Ed

Stephen Jackson said...

Ed-

How exactly can you accept anyones findings based solely on looking at photograph? How exactly can you dismiss the findings of people that actually handled what is in the photograph?

Your desperation to believe it is an alien envokes deep sympathy from me

KRandle said...

Stephen -

You have hit the nail on the head.

edward gehrman said...


All,
Ouch!
If the creature isn't human, what is it? If there is nothing that identifies it as human, and so far, no one has shown any connections, then there's a good chance that this creature isn't human. I just can't imagine how you all can conclude that the creature(critter)is a human, two year old, male child simply because we know for certain it was buried by humans: ancient Hopi. Yes it would be better if we could dissect the real creature, but we don't have access to the remains, so all we have are some photos, but the new photos are much sharper than the slides,
and they also don't show human-ness.

The folks in the UFO community, who do have the skills to examine the photos,
will soon see what Doble is saying when he sees converged critters, not humans.
He has not changed his mind. Everyone needs to listen to his skipe at Blueberry
and read his written report and if you plan to argue with someone, why not him?

Ed






s

Steve Sawyer said...

**sigh**

Ed, you have no evidence.

No proof.

No... oh, never mind.

Wind Swords said...

Ed said:
If the creature isn't human, what is it?

But it is human, that's the point. And that point was made by all the documentation and all the folks who looked at the actual body, vs the one guy who looked at a picture. Doble was wrong, that's all. Sincere but wrong.

As for Tom and Don I hope that they were also sincerely wrong but I am not 100% sure. I know that I will not trust anything they say from this point on.

edward gehrman said...

Steve,
The evidence is in the photos of the creature. From them we're able to see that
the creature doesn't have a human shoulder, or wrist and no teeth
or hair, and many other missing parts. Three "experts"
all agree that the creature isn't human and why. Where are the experts
who will testify that the creature is human and why? There's not any evidence in the record so far that shows the creature was examined closely by anyone.
All we have are the photos, and some standard forms that were filled out and a few letters. I realize that they are limited, but Doble and his two peers
came to the conclusion that the creature wasn't human. Where are the experts who will go on record to explain how the creature is human and why they've come to this conclusion.
Steve, does the creature look human to you? If you came upon these bones in the
desert, in isolation, how could you prove that they were human bones. If you can't answer that question, then you might keep an open mind to the possibility that they aren't.
Ed




KRandle said...

Ed -

I asked you nicely to refrain from repeating what Doble said because very few find his remarks credible even with his credentials. You overlooked that others quoted are pals of Jaime Maussan and there might be some fiduciary entanglements there. Many others, who have examined only the slides say that it these are human remains. Those experts are on the record explaining it and they range from those who have studied Egyptian mummies to those who are familiar with the cultures of the Southwest.

So, reject the documentation if you must, overlook the opinions of those who actually handled the remains, but stop now, of repeating the same questions because it is tiresome. We get that you think this is somehow evidence connected to your long held and unproven beliefs but the slides show an unfortunate child who died hundreds of years ago. But any more postings that say the same things will be deleted. Come up with something new and we'll see if it makes any sense...