tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post3519298086720033654..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: The Great Not Roswell Slides Coding FiascoKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-77543015996243827712016-08-30T08:45:10.299-07:002016-08-30T08:45:10.299-07:00Neal -
I worried about this as well. I knew that ...Neal -<br /><br />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.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-50751642091093336282016-08-29T11:46:09.709-07:002016-08-29T11:46:09.709-07:00Kevin,
Given the situation, a moot point, but pr...Kevin, <br /><br />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.<br /><br />I wanted to mention this so we know that Kodak didn't follow established procedures in every case.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16703256896826354786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-56595125620803585082016-08-28T18:24:13.434-07:002016-08-28T18:24:13.434-07:00Adam -
Here's something that I wondered about...Adam -<br /><br />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.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-65293357263634089632016-08-26T09:39:02.397-07:002016-08-26T09:39:02.397-07:00I never asked Tom or Tony to find an expert in Kod...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. <br /><br />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). <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09581402634179973670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-932530314935320422016-08-25T12:46:57.414-07:002016-08-25T12:46:57.414-07:00Albert -
If there was any reason to believe that ...Albert -<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-42315111888797698462016-08-25T12:37:11.470-07:002016-08-25T12:37:11.470-07:00@Kevin,
Is there any documentation from the Kodak...@Kevin,<br /><br />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?<br />. .. . .. --- ....alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547680170328747214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-38513276022846448752016-08-24T15:41:50.861-07:002016-08-24T15:41:50.861-07:00Kevin I think it should be officially remembered a...Kevin I think it should be officially remembered as the Great Not Roswell Slides It Wasn't Me Coding Fiasco. <br /><br />I do hope you like my suggestion and yes I am asking for all credits if this is used. :)TheDimovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15882471911353036958noreply@blogger.com