Tuesday, March 08, 2016

Roswell Slides - Is This Still a Thing?

There are some things that I believe have been resolved and then something happens and I realize that the issue isn’t dead. I believed that after the placard in front of the mummy had been “deblurred” by so many in so many locations that it proved that the Roswell Slides showed an unfortunate child who had died several hundred years ago (I still refuse to post more pictures… it seems to be disrespectful).

I would have thought that when the documentation showing the excavation of that child, seen first as he was first uncovered and later on display in a museum, that any question would be put to rest. It was clear from other photographs that this was a museum setting and that museum had been identified. Given that, we could now say without fear of contradiction that this wasn’t an alien creature, but the body of a human child.

Of course I have been proven wrong on this (meaning the issue there is contradiction). Apparently there are those who do not wish the issue resolved. They continue to make ridiculous statements such as it is an alien put on display but the placard was written to cover the actual identity of the alien. It was a test to see how the general population would react and this might have been some early attempt to gauge the panic that might ensue from such a revelation. This is nutty in the extreme because there are better ways to answer that question and the last thing the government would do is display something in plain sight, “The Purloined Letter” notwithstanding.

Recently, in the last few weeks, we have been treated to another “expert’s” opinion on why the mummy is not a human, how those who suggest otherwise have not applied the proper science, that the mummy is bigger than claimed by the skeptics and the debunkers. Those who had examined the slide carefully are now able to state, apparently with no fear of opposition, that this is not a mummy and is an alien.

I, of course, must ask, how can you make these precise scientific measurements from a slide… and is the actual slide available, or are these scientists working from scans of the slide… and if the actual slide has not been reviewed, then aren’t all these alleged scientific conclusions based on evidence that might have been manipulated? Is it not possible that the placard can actually be read on the slide but has been altered on the scans to obscure the truth?

I believe that those making some of these pronouncements in the world today have not seen the original. I believe that they are seeing what they wish to see rather than what is actually there. And I believe that the documentation is overwhelming, proving that this is a mummy and not an alien.


The point is that the evidence, gathered by skeptics (and on this I count myself among them), is ignored by a misapplied label. This debate ended about forty-eight hours after the “Great Reveal in Mexico City.” And it is the reason the science won’t look into anything connected to UFOs. It is because when a rational explanation is offered, it is ignored by those who have some sort of stake in keeping that particular aspect of the case alive. I can’t say that I blame them. We really shouldn’t be talking about this anymore.

22 comments:

TheDimov said...

Couldn't agree with you more Kevin. Quite frankly I think if anyone still claims this child is an alien is, not mincing words, an idiot. Over desperate to believe. Or simply, wanting to cash in or too afraid to admit they might be wrong - or both. Not mentioning any names.

Interesting thing is, in Carey and Schmitt's latest Roswell book there is not a SINGLE mention of the smoking gun they proclaimed, not even the one. But I ask, did they give the money back that they made? OF COURSE NOT.

Daniel Transit said...

'..And it is the reason the science won’t look into anything connected to UFOs. It is because when a rational explanation is offered, it is ignored by those who have some sort of stake in keeping that particular aspect of the case alive. I can’t say that I blame them...'

For this contention to have any possible validity, there would have to be significantly less interest in UFOs among scientists than there is among non-scientists. Has anyone got any evidence that this is so?

The non-scientist proportion of the world population, that want to study UFOs at length, in depth, is quite small. Likewise with the proportion of scientists who are seriously interested, surely. No major difference.

Gilles Fernandez said...

Hello Kevin (and all),

I suppose it is the same forencic sciences expert who contacted some of us (of the RSRG) or I'm exchanging with from two days now via Facebook. (?)

Taking into account I have no time (or motivation) to reply in every internet places he shared his new "findings" and called us as "not rational", "binded", etc., I wrote a short article in my blog or I invited him to discuss in one network.

So, for those maybe interested by something I believed solved (and soooo boring now), here is the article where "I" adressed several his (not very new) arguments. It is in French, but translator tool top-left.

http://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.fr/2016/03/la-saga-des-diapositives-de-roswell.html

Best regards,

Gilles.

cda said...

Kevin:

You have touched on an interesting point. Yes there are still people who believe the Roswell slides are of an alien. I could extend this further and there are plenty of people who still believe the Roswell 'crash' was of an ET craft.

But rather than going down this tiresome and boring theme, I will say that there are still people who think we never went to the moon (and once upon a time there were some scientists who 'proved' no rocket could ever reach the moon anyway). There were once people who 'proved' a heavier-than-air machine could not fly. Even today there are a few who believe (and have even done it!) that you can trisect an angle or square the circle. Not many to be sure, but still a few.

So what to do with such people? I don't know the answer. Do you? Yes you can simply ignore them, but their voices are always lurking somewhere, and they can always find some sort of 'evidence' to backup their claims.

Paul Young said...

It seems the way of the world, increasingly, is that people no longer take responsibility for their mistakes. Not just within Ufology, but politics and all other walks of life.
This has been a spectacular sows ear for Carey, Schmitt and a host of others. Yet instead of falling on their swords, they fight for their undefendable view point to the bitter end.

El Sopa Cartoons said...

It is if people keep talking about it, sadly....

edward gehrman said...


The Reys (the folks who owned the box of slides), for some unknown reason, had taken two slides of a museum display of a human-like creature that had been labeled as a native American child. It wasn’t connected to the Roswell event in any way. Everyone wanted to call the creature a mummy, but the slides team called in Doble and others and they convinced the team that the creature wasn’t human or a mummy. The Slides Team are still sure that their experts are correct and that the creature is not human and not a mummy.
Why the Rey took these photos in 1947 isn’t known at this time; maybe we’ll never know.
Rey was a trained Geologist (the geologist at Socorro?) who might have seen the same problems with the bones as the experts hired by the Roswell dream team. They all came away with the impression that the bones were not human but couldn’t match them to anything on earth. Doble suggested a converged gecko.

The actual history of the creature fascinating, and the connection to Hopi myths
even more so. Because of the special placement of the burial, unlike other Hopi, and the grave goods and the mat used to keep out debris, and the arrows, this person was a special person, and not a two year old boy. The Hopi might have thought it was an Ant Person and they gave it an honored burial, and then hid the burial from all outsiders by covering it with other collected ancestral bones.

By a strange quirk of history and luck, we’ve somehow found a creature that isn’t human and is likely connected to the Hopi sky god. The Sky God has three arrows in his hand and was known to have six fingers and toes?
Is it possible to learn where this display is now located?
Ed

KRandle said...

Ed -

The overwhelming evidence is that these were the remains of an unfortunate child exploited by Dew and Beason for personal gain. I would suggest that it is nearly scientifically impossible to draw some of the conclusions about the image from a scan of a slide without having the mummy to examine. It is this sort of pseudo-scientific analysis that gives us all a bad name and your constant harping on the ridiculous doesn't help.

The remains were returned to the native peoples of the area as required by law. The child is no longer on display, and please note here, I refer to the mummy as a child and not some sort of ant person or alien creature. And yes, my mind is closed, based on all the relevant evidence.

All -

Although Tom Carey and Don Schmitt are often singled out as the culprits in this, their role, compared to others was minor. That does not absolve them of responsibility for being taken in so completely, but the majority of the blame can be laid at the doorstep of Dew and Beason. Had they been honest up front, there wouldn't have been the disaster in Mexico City... I believe that if these people were shown the slide as opposed to scans, they would have known what the placard said. And the placard explains it, as does the documentation from the Park Service. We do not need speculation from those who had only seen scans of the original image.

TheDimov said...

Kevin I think Schmitt and Carey are equally as responsible, they pushed it hard, called it the 'smoking gun', and are more or less the chief spokespeople of the Roswell case if not self-proclaimed, and with their bestselling books, lectures, and BeWitness they should have been far more careful. They took the ball and ran with it - really ran with it, and I think in a way are most responsible of all because if you are going to proclaim you are the head of something then you have to take more responsibility, and Ive heard Schmitt on a number of occasions say he and Tom are the frontrunners now of the Roswell case as they are "in the trenches", digging around Roswell. They should have been more cautious, and I still maintain they saw dollar signs too quickly - there are a multitude of reasons why but the blueing of the alien in BeWitness speaks volumes to me, because as soon as I saw the original colour slide, within a second one could see it was a mummy. And those guys aren't stupid, they are two very articulate men, and I think know that the field of ufology can be, still, easily exploited so long as there is no disclosure.

KRandle said...

TheDimov -

I bow to your reasoned argument. While we can certainly point fingers at Dew and Beason, without Carey and Schmitt to beat the drum, the whole thing might have died right there. I have even asked Tom in December 2014, months before the great reveal is it was a mummy and he told me that had searched hundreds of mummies looking for this one. He said it wasn't a mummy... Yes, I think their will to believe overwhelmed their common sense, and even as many of us provided commentary about this whole process we were ignored. So, yes, you are right, their role was essential in promoting this and their response afterwards has been less than cordial, conciliatory, and apologetic.

edward gehrman said...

Kevin,
You wrote: "It is this sort of pseudo-scientific analysis that gives us all a bad name and your constant harping on the ridiculous doesn't help."

There is an excellent analysis of the differences between a human child and
the Roswell slides creature at this site. Why would anyone have a problem with these facts and figures? There are English subtitles so it is quite easy to follow.
Everyone who has called the slides a fraud and hoax might want to reexamine their assumptions.
Ed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efgvvBf5QWE

KRandle said...

Ed -

Have you established that the man making the comments in the video you recommend has no fiduciary ties to Jamie Maussan? Have you established his credentials? Did he make his examination from a scan of the slide or the slide itself? Wouldn't you think that not having the actual remains to examine might taint his opinion? Have you established that he is a disinterested party? Have you bothered to look at the mountains of evidence, including the documentation that goes back to the nineteenth century, which proves that the mummy is an unfortunate child? How do you get around that the placard on the display tells us it was a two year old boy? Do you have any actual evidence or are you just relying on only the information that fits into your rather narrow view of the world? Anyone who believes that the slide shows anything except that it was an unfortunate child might want to have his head examined. (And yes, that was unduly harsh, but what the hey, you continue to spout nonsense and it grows tiresome.)

Oh, and what has happened to Dew and Beason? Why aren't they out there defending this? Is it because they have the slide and know the truth?

Rusty Lingenfelter said...

And while we are at it Ed, there is no proof that the Rey's took the photo of the mummy. Again, speculation based on the word of fabricators. The only consistency in this whole debacle is the lack of truth.

KRandle said...

Rusty -

To be fair, and although the chain of custody seems to have been broken at a number of points, and we only have the word of Dew and Beason that the slides were part of the collection they had from the Rays, there does seem to be some circumstantial evidence that the Rays did take the pictures... though I confess I don't know what difference that would make at this point. Clearly the photograph was taken in a museum setting and just as clearly it shows the remains of a poor unfortunate child. Of course, there is no concrete proof that the slides were part of those taken by the Rays and it might just have been convenient cover. But, again, it matters not at this point.

edward gehrman said...

Part one

Kevin wrote:
Have you established that the man making the comments in the video you recommend has no fiduciary ties to Jamie Maussan?
Ed answers:
I don’t think he was the type of person who would be influenced to say something he didn’t believe. It seems to me that he believes the information he’s giving to the crowd of 5000-6000. I don’t think there is any evidence that he is a fraud.
Kevin wrote
Have you established his credentials?
Ed answers:
He was “José de Jesús Zalce Benítez, a medical examiner who among his several specializations and degrees, including forensic anthropology, is also a lieutenant commander in the Mexican Navy. Alvarez made it clear to the public that the INACIF had not asked any money for their work and neither had Zalce, who spent 2 months analyzing the slide. It was not only to avoid 'payola' suspicions but because, as Alvarez stated, they had warned Maussan beforehand that "you might not like what we find."”
Kevin wrote
Did he make his examination from a scan of the slide or the slide itself?
Ed answers:
I don’t know. Whatever it was he studied, there was enough information for him to think he could make a judgment.
Kevin wrote
Wouldn't you think that not having the actual remains to examine might taint his opinion?
Ed answers:
Yes, of course it could, but do you have any reason to believe it did?
Kevin wrote
Have you established that he is a disinterested party?
Ed answers:
Yes I think he has tried to make this clear.

edward gehrman said...

Part two:

Kevin wrote
Have you bothered to look at the mountains of evidence, including the documentation that goes back to the nineteenth century, which proves that the mummy is an unfortunate child?
Ed answers:
Yes, I think I’ve gathered most the information now available. The creature was buried around 1350AD because it was wrapped in cotton cloth which wasn’t common until then. When it was found,it was not buried like a child. Usually they were placed in a cliff crevice and covered with stones, without grave goods. The creature had been wrapped in valuable cotton and placed east to west and then covered with a woven matt which was placed on sticks to make a secure covering. By its head was a bowl and by its side were three arrows and a bow. It was then covered with other bones and stones so it would be hard to discover. It was buried with honors!
I haven’t found any indication in the records that this creature has been closely studied or examined so most of the gender and age determinations are primarily educated guesses. Now that we know what we know, the remains would tell us a great deal.
Kevin wrote
How do you get around that the placard on the display tells us it was a two year old boy?
Ed answers:
The “placard” was just repeating the information someone thought was true and the writer had not counted the ribs or examined the skull or noticed that the arm was at a strange angle.
Kevin wrote:
Do you have any actual evidence or are you just relying on only the information that fits into your rather narrow view of the world? Anyone who believes that the slide shows anything except that it was an unfortunate child might want to have his head examined.
Ed answers:
“The more one studies this slide the more obvious it is that this creature is not from this earth. 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.” (Richard Doble)
Kevin wrote:
(And yes, that was unduly harsh, but what the hey, you continue to spout nonsense and it grows tiresome.)
Ed answers:
I don’t “spout nonsense”. I have opinions that might seem contrary to you or the majority of your readers but they’re never “nonsence”.
Kevin wrote:
Oh, and what has happened to Dew and Beason? Why aren't they out there defending this? Is it because they have the slide and know the truth?
Ed answers:
I don’t know Dew or Beason and I don’t understand your question. I don’t believe this event qualifies as a hoax or fraud. Have you read this:
http://www.dailygrail.com/Essays/2015/5/The-Roswell-Slides-Chronicle-Mummy-Foretold
Ed

KRandle said...

Good God, Ed -

Did you actually read the entire document that you provided the link to? It is not a ringing endorsement of your point of view... and to answer your question, of course I had read it. Where to you think I learned about the relation between Maussan and one of his experts or the relation between Tom and his college pal?

Of course you spout nonsense, otherwise you would see that the "creature" is an unfortunate child, and that it was in the museum prior to May 1947 which rules out Roswell. The placard tells you exactly what it is and the remains have been returned to the proper native people.

And my question about Dew and Beason, the two men who dropped this on the rest of us and who are no longer around to answer questions about this wondered why they were defending the slide... They knew what they had from the very beginning... And we don't even know for certain that the slides came from the collection of Hilda Ray because they are not stamped with her name... and given what is shown on the slide, there was no reason for her to hide it in such an elaborate way, other than to make the story sound better.

There is so much wrong with this tale that I'm surprised that anyone still excepts it as authentic... but then there are people who believe that no one has walked on the moon, so there you go.

Brian Bell said...

Ed -

It doesn't seem to me that you are basing your continuing belief this mummy isn't human on facts well supported by the evidence.

To me, your desire to reinforce your belief in an indigenous race of insect people connected to Native Americans is blinding your objectivity as though you can't see beyond your own desires.

Human beings throughout history have often displayed anonymous features due to genetic birth defects. Is a person born with six toes an alien? Is the unfortunate person born with incomplete limbs an alien? Medical documentation has proven beyond any reasonable doubt humans often display unfortunate birth defects (and genetic diseases) that shorten their lives and distort their appearance.

Time to move on....

marea roja said...

Estudió comparativo entre especímenes de la fotografía de S. L. Palmer (1896) y la diapositiva de Hilda Blair Ray (1947) del Museo Arqueológico de Chapin Mesa Verde en Colorado, EE. UU.

http://humanoidemacrocefalo69.tumblr.com

marea roja said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
marea roja said...

Estudió comparativo entre especímenes de la fotografía de S. L. Palmer (1896) y la diapositiva de Hilda Blair Ray (1947) del Museo Arqueológico de Chapin Mesa Verde en Colorado, EE. UU.

http://humanoidemacrocefalo69.tumblr.com

marea roja said...

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1254847954529533&id=100000130215323