Wednesday, August 24, 2016

The Great Not Roswell Slides Coding Fiasco

Given our discussion about the date code on the Not Roswell Slides (which I sort of initiated), I did a little extra digging, though I’m not sure it was worth the effort, and discovered a few things. Tony Bragalia was the first to mention to me that the code on one of the slides proved that the film had been manufactured in 1947 (that is, a square and a triangle). Kodak had a list of codes for their film (see These were recycled every twenty years and we could discuss this at length but it is now irrelevant.

Adam Dew had asked Bragalia, or rather Tom Carey asked Bragalia, to find an expert in Kodak film and processing. Bragalia found the right man, who was both an expert in the film but also something of a historian for Kodak. Carey would later say that “we” (those investigating the slides) had made a trip to Kodak though, in fact, it was only Dew. I guess that was sort of the royal we.

The Kodak man said the slide mount was from the right era and it was clear that the film had been made in the late 1940s. One of the slides, according to Dew, had been removed from the mount. Apparently a chemical analysis of the film showed that it had been developed at the end of the 1940s. Or, in other words, the scientific evidence clearly established that the slide was from the late 1940s and at this point I don’t think anyone is disputing that.

I have since learned that neither Carey nor Don Schmitt had been in Rochester when the analysis was accomplished. They knew the results because Adam Dew had told them. I don’t know what he said, but I can make a good guess about it.
Bragalia said that the codes on the film proved it had been manufactured in 1947, which sparked some discussion here about it last year. I wondered where Bragalia got that idea and thought it came from Dew. I have learned in the last week that Carey was the one who said the codes from 1947 were on the edge of the slide that had been removed from the mount.

When Bragalia announced that these codes were from 1947, I did a little checking. Everyone with access to the Internet could have done the same thing. I learned, as did a couple of others, that the film codes some believed proved the slide film had been manufactured in 1947 was only for motion picture film. The codes for other Kodak film products were different (see If there were codes printed on the edge of the film, they wouldn’t be the same as those being discussed.

Here’s what I think happened which doesn’t suggest anyone was attempting to deceive anyone. Since neither Carey nor Schmitt were in Rochester, I believe that Dew, once he had the results, told them that those results were saying that the analysis proved the film from the late 1940s and might even said from 1947. These results, by the way, don’t seem to be in dispute and since we have now found the location that photograph was taken, it is clear that it was prior to May 1947, but that came about after the great reveal in Mexico City.

Carey, hearing what Dew said, assumed that he was talking about the codes on the edge of the film and remembered the codes that were discussed during the great Alien Autopsy boondoggle. He thought since the film had been manufactured in the right time frame that the code would be the square and triangle. He mentioned this to others including Bragalia. Bragalia then made the erroneous statement that the code proved manufacture in 1947 though to be fair Carey might have actually told him that.

There really isn’t a villain in this aspect of the slide fiasco. The scientific evidence proved the slide film had been manufactured in the right era, the mount was from the right era, and apparently the developing process used a combination of chemicals from the right era. The code, the square and the triangle is not on the edge of the film and that apparently was an assumption made by Carey and passed to others. This, I believe, should put this to rest aspect of the discussion, if anyone really cares.


TheDimov said...

Kevin I think it should be officially remembered as the Great Not Roswell Slides It Wasn't Me Coding Fiasco.

I do hope you like my suggestion and yes I am asking for all credits if this is used. :)

albert said...


Is there any documentation from the Kodak guys analysis? 'He said' doesn't sound like real research to me. Scientists (and investigative journalists) publish their results online for all to see. Is it too much to ask UFOlogists to do the same?
. .. . .. --- ....

KRandle said...

Albert -

If there was any reason to believe that the slides might hold the image of an alien creature, then your point would be relevant. However, since it is clearly of a mummy, it doesn't seem that all that research is important. It is clear from what has been published in the past (some of it here) that the slide was taken in the late 1940s, but since the image is of a terrestrial being (an unfortunate child) that sort of evidence is not all that important.

There are images on the slide that do help us date it after a fashion. Given the background we know the museum the display was in, and since it was moved in May 1947 (if I remember correctly) that gives us one date. If it was important, I'm sure that the Kodak analysis would be made available.

Adam Dew said...

I never asked Tom or Tony to find an expert in Kodachrome. At this stage (in 2013) my only connection was to Don Schmidt. We'd met a few times half-way in between his home and Chicago. Tom became more involved after we took the slides to Rochester. And as I stated earlier, I told Tom on more that one occasion that we couldn't 100% date the slides to 1947. I didn't understand why that was critical anyway, as it wasn't like this was a body just pulled from the field.

A curator at the George Eastman House in Rochester recommended someone to me to look at the film. I called that person. He said it was very strange I called, because someone else had recently told him a very similar story to ours. That person turned out to be Tony, who was apparently representing himself as having access to the slides. The Kodak historian at that point said that he did not want to be involved at all because of the topic and refused to help. I persisted and promised that he would not be contacted further about the slides from anyone but me. I have a signed document from this person attesting to the slides authenticity and approximate date (late 1940's).

A year prior to this, Professor Rod Slemmons also examined the slides and offered his assessment that they were authentic and unaltered. He's in the trailer for the documentary and his credentials are extensive.

Never anywhere or at anytime did I say that there were codes on one of the two body slides. Tom said a lot of things that were out of my control. I made a decision early on, once it seemed that Tony was going to Tony, that I wasn't going to chime in every step of the way and refute every bit of slide minutia.

KRandle said...

Adam -

Here's something that I wondered about since seeing your Kodakchrome trailer last year. Was this thing a ploy to show just how credulous UFO researchers can be? Given some of the thing you have said in the last few weeks, that seems to be a plausible explanation for the failure to realize that the image was not an alien creature.

Neal Foy said...


Given the situation, a moot point, but procedures within Kodak film production may not have been as absolute as you think. While it's true that motion picture film used a different date code from still photography film I did find an anomaly when searching my 35mm film negatives. There was one roll of film that was imprinted with the motion picture code. This was a first release of the then new Vericolor color negative film. I know that because the date code coincides with the release of Vericolor film. Possibly they coated this film on a machine normally used for motion picture film. This is pure speculation of course. Maybe they switched the plate that imprints the date code on the film.

I wanted to mention this so we know that Kodak didn't follow established procedures in every case.

KRandle said...

Neal -

I worried about this as well. I knew that 35mm became a standard for movie film in 1909, so that Kodak would be making 35mm movie film as well as 35mm slide film. But it seemed to me that even if there was an anomaly in the side codes, those would be rare and probably wouldn't be for 1947... It stuck me as interesting that nearly everyone accepted the claim the code was for 1947 when 35mm slide film had a different coding system. Anyway, as you say, it is moot because there were no codes visible in the one slide removed from its mount and we know that the picture had to be taken prior to May, 1947.