 |
| Adam Dew and camera. |
This
week I talked with Adam Dew, he of the Not Roswell Slides fame. I had a long
list of questions for him from how did the slides come into his possession to
his reaction when the placard was deblurred within hours of the BeWitness program
in Mexico City. You can hear the interview here:
As
you can imagine, some of the things he said disagree with things that others
have said. This is a result of the different perspectives (yeah, I said that on
purpose) of those involved. One of the big controversies was who saw the slides
and when. According to Adam, the slides, rather than scans, were seen by Don
Schmitt and Tom Carey and they had noticed the museum setting of the slides.
This is in conflict with what both Don and Tom have said. You can listen to my
interview with Don about this here:
and
there was another interview about Roswell and the like with Don here:
I
was interested in why they all thought the image on the slides might be some
sort of alien creature. Adam said that it didn’t look like any of the mummies
they had seen online. The way the body looked, and their (his and Joe Beason)
over estimating the size seemed to be the reason. He did describe the features
that caused him to think of it as alien.
He
also said that he wasn’t completely convinced that the image was a mummy,
though the deblurring of the placard by the Roswell Slides Research Group and
the subsequent findings suggest that is the answer. I pointed out that we know
this has nothing to do with Roswell because the museum where the mummy had been
displayed was identified and that it had been moved in May 1947.
From
about February 2015, I posted many articles about the investigation and news
about the Not Roswell Slides. You can search the blog easily for all those
articles, too numerous to note here. Just click on 2015 on the left side of the
blog and it will list all the articles published at that time; then just click
on February. You can then follow the progression through March, April and into
May. There were other articles published after the reveal in Mexico City in May.
Interestingly,
Adam mentioned that some of the recent publicity about this whole affair had
sparked renewed interest in his documentary. Up to that point, it had been set
firmly on the back burner. The renewed interest might not be enough to induce
him to finish it. As it stands right now, the fate of the documentary seems to
be left up in the air.
On
a side note, and for those interested, I am bothered by this whole thing
because we all seem to get tied up in the discussion of the mummy and forget
that it was a human child who died very young. I have refrained from publishing
any pictures, though they would certainly prove the case. It’s a matter of
personal taste rather than anything else and for those who wish to see them,
they are available on many websites.
15 comments:
Of course the dollar signs clouded visions, and its good of Adam to come out and finally state the obvious - but then he says nobody made 'much' from it. But they shouldn't have made ANYTHING from it at all, in the end it was proven to be incorrect and therefore refunds should have been offered! To put your head in the sand 'til the coast is clear is just plain spineless : Adam, Tom, Don and Maussaun should have LOST on the project after refunds were issued because it was a mummified child. But instead Don releases more books as if nothing happened, Adam hides out, Maussaun - well he's the same despicable Maussaun isn't he, and Dolan plays dumb about the whole thing!
"Spineless men without integrity" should be the title of the book written about the Bewitness fiasco.
As for the question of who called them the "Roswell slides", the earliest use of that name was by Nick Redfern when he wrote the article "The Roswell Slides: My Perspective". This was September of 2013. On January 18, 2014, Rich Reynolds began to make reference to them as the Roswell slides (The Roswell slides? Or the Aztec slides?). Even Kevin called them the "Roswell slides" on March 4, 2014 (The Roswell Slides - Once Again). I don't recall calling them the Roswell slides before that phrase was being used. The earliest I can trace my use of the words is SUNlite 6-2 (March-April 2014). Therefore, it was probably not a "Naysayer" that started calling them the Roswell slides.
As for the deblurring of the slides history, it was not a matter of hours after the BeWitness event that the slides were deblurred. Nablator received the scan of the placard on May 8th (Over 48 hours after the BeWitness event ended). Within 6-7 hours of him posting the image, the top line was being read. That image was provided by a source that had access to the scans. It was not until the RSRG began telling everybody that the Placard was being read did Dew finally cave-in and post his high-resolution copy of the placard (shortly thereafter, Bragalia also posted his copies). Dew (as well as Bragalia) were all claiming the RSRG had hoaxed the deblurring. Dew told Nablator that his "Photoshop work was not very good". Dew's web site also referred to the RSRG as "internet trolls". If Dew wonders why members of the RSRG don't want to appear in his film, it may have something to do with that.
I was traveling back from Mexico City as the placard was being deblurred. Joseph managed the Kodachrome doc website. As soon as I saw his post condemning the RSSG deblur I asked him fo take it down. He had no basis for that. And once the step-by-step was posted, Joseph was able replicate the deblur. I dont recall which version of Smart Deblur was used by the RSSG to read thr placard. I think it was a “pro” version. But Smart Deblur 2.0 was released in 2013 aftef I’d given up hope that we’d be able to read the placard on our own. When I sent the deblur to my friends at Adobe who told me it couldnt be read their response was essentially “wow, Adobe should buy Smart Deblur”.
Even before deblurring it seemed like the placard suggested a museum setting - and the idea of taking personal pictures of a secret alien body required a significant leap of faith beyond that. So I suspected that the Kodachrome film was not going to be about unveiling a smoking gun to the world, but what people would embrace to claim definitive proof of an alien. In that respect, Carey, Schmitt, Maussaun, and Dolan did not disappoint. And for that matter, neither did the UFO community who continued to listen to the principal actors long after BeWitness was completely exposed.
When that film was not released I gave Adam the benefit of the doubt and thought that Kodachrome had not been about the lack of critical thinking inherent in the business. But that still might be an interesting film if it included the aftermath of the debacle. Perhaps it could be shown at the next IUFOC / EBE film fest since it would go nicely with Schmitt's presentation about whether Hynek knew the truth about UFOs.
Here's an idea, Adam : finish the Kodachrome film and with the proceeds, offer it to those who were ripped off at BeWitness. It would be the honourable thing to do after all, would it not?
We might ask a key question, which is:
After the slides fiasco, is there anything left of Roswell, i.e. anything worth talking about?
There is, of course, all the old evidence, for what it is worth, but apart from going over it all again and again, what point does it now serve?
There are, I suppose, a few who are still clinging on desperately to the 'Ramey memo' as the smoking gun, but it very much looks as if that too has reached a dead end.
So, unless some remarkable new, preferably hard, evidence turns up I think we can safely write off this grossly overhyped case as dead & buried. If we want REAL evidence of ETH, we shall have to look elsewhere.
And there is no official cover-up and never was.
For those interested, I reached out to my old pal, Stan Friedman to ask him about the sequence of events that lead to Tom Carey learning of the slides. While it seems that Adam Dew did contact Friedman first, though his answer to my question was less than adequate, he did say that he didn't think he had told Dew to call Carey. That answer too, was somewhat ambiguous, but then it wasn't a direct contradiction of what Dew had said. So, after a couple of emails to Friedman, it seems that Dew did contact him but that he, Friedman, did not pass Dew onto Carey.
I also asked Friedman why he passed on the trip to Mexico City, thinking he would tell me something about health issues, but all he said was that he was a little leery of the slides. No reason given for that.
CDA asked
"After the slides fiasco, is there anything left of Roswell, i.e. anything worth talking about?"
Yes, would be nice to have an answer to the mystery. Neither "Drooling idiot theory" or ET seem to be very likely...
Adam Dew
Considering what has happened as far as the Slides goes I have two questions:
1. If you had to do the whole thing over again - would you do anything differently?
and
2. Are you going to donate the money that you received (?) from BeWitness to charity?
Regards
Nitram
Just to be clear Kevin, it was Joseph who emailed Stanton copies of the slides a few months before I became involved. For someone coming at this topic from the outside, Stanton seemed like the logical choice to Joseph. Maybe Stanton didn't say "call Tom Carey", but Stanton did tell Joseph that he was no longer doing research and at a minimum suggested that Tom was still active.
CDA if I had it to do over again I would have released the placard publicly. As for BeWitness, I was paid to go to Mexico City and show the slides. I did what I was hired to do. It was not my event. If it was I wouldn't have marketed it that way. The only bit of marketing that I did on my end was the man-on-the-street video in Chicago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t-LA7xy7H8
Does everyone in UFOlogy owe a refund for every bit of material they've ever made money on? Have you ever been to a MUFON conference? Is that the standard for everyone or just me?
Adam Dew wrote: "But Smart Deblur 2.0 was released in 2013 aftef I’d given up hope that we’d be able to read the placard on our own. When I sent the deblur to my friends at Adobe who told me it couldnt be read their response was essentially “wow, Adobe should buy Smart Deblur”."
Hello,
Excepted that important parts/words of the placard can be decyphered (and have been) using ADOBE own software too (even difficult) or "Blurity" software...
Regards,
Gilles
I second this idea. The charity should probably be some children's charity or a Native American children's charity if one exists.
Although I'm fairly sure we are going to be told that "we lost money on that" or some other NONSENSE.
Hopefully a healthy donation is forthcoming, and something good comes from all this tripe in the end.
Adam Dew:
It was Nitram Ang who put those two questions to you, not me. We believe 'Nitram' is 'Martin' spelt backwards, but are less sure about this than we are about the fate of the Roswell slides.
Certainly you are entitled to any money received. If gullible people want to attend public shows where the great 'reveal' about Roswell (or any other UFO case) is supposedly going to be made, they deserve to lose their money.
Adam Dew wrote:
"I was paid to go to Mexico City and show the slides. I did what I was hired to do. It was not my event. If it was I wouldn't have marketed it that way."
So you not perhaps a bit embarrassed by all of this?
"Does everyone in UFOlogy owe a refund for every bit of material they've ever made money on?"
No, but if they have made money out of something they know, or should know is a "load of rubbish" then they are dishonest and should not be allowed to profit from such (my opinion only).
"Have you ever been to a MUFON conference?"
I have been to the Roswell festival - does that count? - not quite sure about the point of the question unless your trying to justify your actions by claiming that everyone selling books or other material in relation to UFO's doesn't really believe in what they are saying and a purely driven by money?!
As far as Roswell goes, I am impressed by the work that David Rudiak and Kevin Randle (and others) have done. I believe they are both sincere in what they have said. However I do think they are both almost certainly wrong in their conclusion.
The debunkers that post here sometimes are not honest in their believes, as they don't really believe the Governments (latest, ever changing) explanation.
"Is that the standard for everyone or just me?"
Yes, it's the standard for everyone. The difference with you, I guess, is that while Roswell 1947 could possibly have been an ET event (and it is possible) - the slides which "fell into your lap" were obviously nothing to do with it and that should have been the default position. At the very least you should have said nothing until you had got a reading of the placard.
Again, are you not "terribly embarrassed" by all of this, or do you consider this to be just a normal occurrence in your everyday life?
It's this sort of shoddy workmanship that gives the competent researchers a bad name too...
Regards
Nitram
Kevin, it has been a few weeks since this interview with Adam Dew and I am just wondering if Don Schmitt has responded to Dew's statements that he and Carey saw the slides long before they claim they did?
Post a Comment