tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post5143040581135673629..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Hilda Ray, Silas Newton and the Roswell SlidesKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-8437349198442284022015-05-09T06:27:44.155-07:002015-05-09T06:27:44.155-07:00The biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the Ufology c...The biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the Ufology community was by Ray Santilli with his 'Roswell Autopsy' film. What did he call the alien in the film? Hilda. What's his first name? Oh yeah it's Ray. Who is the alleged owner of these slides? Why Hilda Ray!!! I think that about says everything.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02146426887857358486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-39175234066481166192015-03-23T08:26:53.743-07:002015-03-23T08:26:53.743-07:00Sorry I missed you comment here, Steve. I did resp...Sorry I missed you comment here, Steve. I did respond to your email.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Lance<br />Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-63081181902591587792015-03-21T06:10:09.330-07:002015-03-21T06:10:09.330-07:00@Lance:
"I interviewed the person that Tony ...@Lance:<br /><br /><i>"I interviewed the person that Tony claims is their photo expert and <b>he directly contradicted what the Slide Team is claiming about manufacture date</b> both on the phone and in an email."</i><br /><br />Interesting. <br /><br />By "manufacture date" do you mean the year the raw, unexposed Kodachrome 35 mm film stock was <b>manufactured</b> and produced by Kodak, which for 1947 in the U.S. was indicated by the "edge codes" of a square followed by a triangle (like this: ■ ▲), or did you actually intend to mean when the film stock was photographically <b>exposed</b> to capture the "entity" imagery concerned? <br /><br />I'd say that's a particularly important distinction, since there's quite some controversy about how, even if the film stock of the two slides is 1947 vintage, just when the two slides might have been then later exposed could be determined with accuracy as to a particular timeframe, such as 1947 or possibly later, so I'd like some clarification on that question.<br /><br />In other words, what did the expert actually and specifically tell you that so "directly contradicted" what the "Slide Team," as you term them, has claimed about any "manufacture date"?Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-82289552066856456752015-03-20T12:05:11.537-07:002015-03-20T12:05:11.537-07:00"Debunkers were quick to criticise the dating..."Debunkers were quick to criticise the dating, when all they needed to do was a little research on Google. IIRC, some even claimed the slides to be a more contemporary hoax."<br /><br />Again, which skeptics are you talking about?<br /><br />If you are talking about some anonymous BooBoo666, it is pretty unfair to paint all skeptics with that brush.<br /><br />I interviewed the person that Tony claims is their photo expert and he directly contradicted what the Slide Team is claiming about manufacture date both on the phone and in an email. So there are still some questions on the dating. When it comes to this team you CANNOT underestimate their ineptitude or bias.<br /><br />Lance<br /> Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-88005510157958206302015-03-20T12:03:07.752-07:002015-03-20T12:03:07.752-07:00Lance -
Seems to me here that you managed to get ...Lance -<br /><br />Seems to me here that you managed to get a few shots in without being deleted and that includes one at me. At least you were civil even if somewhat misguided here. KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-88594749239820480782015-03-20T10:51:22.503-07:002015-03-20T10:51:22.503-07:00@Lance
I'm not trying to link the slides to Ro...@Lance<br />I'm not trying to link the slides to Roswell, nor am I trying to disprove such a link. I Am suggesting that debates about the film itself are fruitless, which is exactly the sort of thing debunkers latch on to, and, to be fair, extreme believers as well.<br />.<br />IMO, the film dating shows some concurrency with circa 1947 time period. This alone proves nothing. The slide could have been shot anytime up to the last documented use of the lacquer coating by Kodak, etc., etc. It's not likely, but certainly possible.<br />.<br />Debunkers were quick to criticise the dating, when all they needed to do was a little research on Google. IIRC, some even claimed the slides to be a more contemporary hoax. This is an absurd and totally unnecessary claim. Debunkers have nothing to lose by this approach, other than their credibility.<br />.<br />I have limited my discussion to the film, because that's an area I have some knowledge of. <br />.<br />I, too, await May 5, and, as you no doubt, _without_ breathless anticipation. :)<br />.<br />Best,alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547680170328747214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-65043646107425110842015-03-20T10:14:09.026-07:002015-03-20T10:14:09.026-07:00Albert,
Which skeptics are you talking about who ...Albert,<br /><br />Which skeptics are you talking about who "jumped on film dating and hoax 'theories'"<br /><br />While there are still some open questions about the dates (which may well be answered), most skeptics I know (people with names, that is) agree that the picture as we have it looks very much like a child mummy or corpse. <br /><br />So the working idea among skeptics is not a hoax per se but a misidentified image taken well into the realm of hyper-exaggeration by breathless, biased hard core, unquestioning and completely unreliable believers (incredibly, the same folks that Kevin was perfectly fine being on a research "team" with)<br /><br />Ironically, these guys probably ARE the best believer "researchers" on Roswell. That should give you an idea of the squalor that makes up Roswell "research".<br /><br />Looking forward to May 5th!<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-25011234166720936972015-03-18T11:09:45.952-07:002015-03-18T11:09:45.952-07:00@ CommanderCronus
.
"...Those hoping for a qu...@ CommanderCronus<br />.<br />"...Those hoping for a quick debunking..."<br />.<br />It is an interesting study, isn't it?<br />.<br />It is interesting to note how the skepti-bunkers jumped on film dating and hoax 'theories' (which hardly deserve the term) in a desperate attempt to break the 'Roswell connection'.<br />.<br />It is interesting to note how the proponents of the slides would even bring up a 'Roswell connection' at all, having absolutely nothing to base it on.<br />.<br />We've got two camps, and there's no apparent middle ground. <br />.<br />It's a tempest in a teapot, a very small teapot...better keep stoking the fire, boys, 'cause that tea is gonna cool down real quick...:)<br />.<br />...<br /><br />alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547680170328747214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-38110393310683535112015-03-17T12:22:33.989-07:002015-03-17T12:22:33.989-07:00Holy cow. That's a lot to process. Or it seems...Holy cow. That's a lot to process. Or it seems so. Aztec and Roswell are both in New Mexico. Seems to me the similarities end there.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05375222676275036528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-61791036859960716022015-03-16T21:30:35.168-07:002015-03-16T21:30:35.168-07:00Commander, Ufology is a "long and crazy ride&...Commander, Ufology is a "long and crazy ride" - period. The entire subject! Nick Redfernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02198543983413599418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-63374350894276634882015-03-16T19:35:36.925-07:002015-03-16T19:35:36.925-07:00One thing's for sure: the controversy surround...One thing's for sure: the controversy surrounding these slides isn't going away any time soon. Those hoping for a quick debunking or authentication will be disappointed. Even those who try and wash their hands of the issue, like Nick Redfern, seem to get pulled back in. This whole affair is turning into a long and crazy ride.CommanderCronushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11118630938118257930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-70285050787022257692015-03-16T15:47:04.654-07:002015-03-16T15:47:04.654-07:00David -
There is no evidence that Rich Reynolds f...David -<br /><br />There is no evidence that Rich Reynolds faked any document. What I know is that in one specific incident it seemed to show Hilda Ray had a pre-Roswell connection to Silas Newton based on a specific court case. There is no evidence that Hilda Ray was involved in that case.<br /><br />What we have here is a single document that has been altered (shades of MJ-12) that has been rejected as authentic by Nick Redfern, which is why I linked his article in the one I posted. Nick reported that he had seen the document in question and that it was apparent that it had been altered. As he noted, it took him only about two minutes to find the document to be faked.<br /><br />Is there other evidence of an Aztec-Roswell connection? I don't know. It was this single piece of alleged corroboration that underscored this connection, which in and of itself meant nothing.<br /><br />I though it important to reinforce what Nick had to say and that is another reason for the link. Here is a case where Rich Reynolds used his resources (Nick) to attempt to verify the legitimacy of a document before it was circulated to anyone with a note saying that it was real. Nick provided the evidence that it was not.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-55893726809813607892015-03-16T14:23:30.259-07:002015-03-16T14:23:30.259-07:00Scott, re your Illuminati statement: I don't t...Scott, re your Illuminati statement: I don't think at all that this fake has any connection to any government entity. It's just some nut stirring the waters for kicks.Nick Redfernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02198543983413599418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-25615799254913281092015-03-16T14:22:05.794-07:002015-03-16T14:22:05.794-07:00Scott, I have no doubt that everything WILL be pub...Scott, I have no doubt that everything WILL be published. I think you're saying it should be published NOW. It's my understanding that Rich's research into Ray and Newton is ongoing. When he's ready he will reveal the info. Remember, it was me that revealed the story. Rich stayed quiet. Plus, he never ever published the bogus, doctored document, he only shared it with me and Tony B. We were both able to prove very quickly it was fake. But, again, the faked data and the good data are separate issues. And Rich will show what he has under his terms - which is when his research is complete or when it's at a point that it can't be taken any further. Nick Redfernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02198543983413599418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-88212117106720801892015-03-16T13:49:44.833-07:002015-03-16T13:49:44.833-07:00This is a non-event and non-story. A false start. ...This is a non-event and non-story. A false start. <br /><br />Rich Reynolds was emailed this document by someone, and it turned out to be fake. <br /><br />He never published the document and instead waited to see about what could be learned. It turned out to be a doctored copy of a real court document and he wisely never wrote that it was. <br /><br />Instead, he emailed the document to a couple of other people who informed him that it was not real and that's it...<br /><br />Much ado about absolutely nothing.Anthony Bragaliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876831804254045646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-60795851189560056462015-03-16T13:42:07.778-07:002015-03-16T13:42:07.778-07:00How can there be a fake document that supports a &...How can there be a fake document that supports a "real" document, if only Rich Reynolds and a couple other people know what the real real document says?<br /><br />And why keep the "real" document secret? If it's real, why not get as many eyes on it as possible, to prove it's authenticity? You can't say you're worried about the Illuminati or whoever covering it up, because the fake document would prove THEY already know about the document and all you're doing is giving them time to purge whatever paper archives they need to.Scott Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01239391361895323698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-47953662464065968712015-03-16T13:32:47.235-07:002015-03-16T13:32:47.235-07:00People are getting hugely confused on this matter....People are getting hugely confused on this matter. Rich R has been looking into the Newton/Ray issue and made intriguing breakthroughs regarding this. <br /><br />However, the document that Kevin says is a fake is indeed a fake. I wrote about it at my blog being a fake!! Here's the link:<br /><br />http://nickredfernfortean.blogspot.com/2015/03/roswell-slides-murky-development.html<br /><br />Rich has his original research on the Ray/Newton link which is genuine.<br /><br />He was then sent a document that was clearly doctored and intended to support the good material.<br /><br />Of course, had Rich published the doctored document it would have raised questions about the legitimate info - so he didn't publish it, which was very wise of him.<br /><br />I pointed out to Rich that the document was hoaxed when I read it yesterday - it took me about 2 minutes to do so.<br /><br />I told Rich it was faked and should not be used to support his case on the Ray/Newton issue.<br /><br />But, it's important to note that the fabricated document and the good material is 2 entirely different things.<br /><br />It's NOT the case that the original material is now proved a fake. The original material and the new fake are separate data.Nick Redfernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02198543983413599418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-73200234474926943742015-03-16T13:15:50.930-07:002015-03-16T13:15:50.930-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Bob Kofordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04011405404835724736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-58631615456201393522015-03-16T13:15:37.805-07:002015-03-16T13:15:37.805-07:00If a link could be made between the Rays, and eith...If a link could be made between the Rays, and either Arthur Rapp, Wilkie Conner, or Harold Watkins, then maybe you'd have something. As I have stated several times over the years, the Conner story came first, before all others (of the Aztec case).<br /><br />In fact, Ion between the publishing of Wilkie's story, and Rapp being shipped off to serve in Korea with the Army, someone detonated a rather large explosive device on Arthur Rapp's front lawn. It was so loud, neighbors came from miles away to see what happened. That coild be significant to the saucer recovery story.Bob Kofordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04011405404835724736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-63758007570194436582015-03-16T12:58:32.338-07:002015-03-16T12:58:32.338-07:00"First Redfern said the "document" ..."First Redfern said the "document" was genuine. The next day he realized someone had altered the real court case document involving Silas Newton to make it appear Hilda Ray was his defense attorney.<br /><br />Since Redfern also said: "Information has now surfaced demonstrating a pre-Roswell connection between the Rays and none other than Silas Newton. We have Rich Reynolds to thank for this."<br /><br />Does this mean Reynolds is the hoaxer or was he passing on a hoax without doing any sort of due diligence on the "document" to see if it was genuine?"<br /><br />As far as I understand a second documentation appeared, which was faked.Mr. Redfern still thinks that those documentation, which Mr. Reynolds found is genuine.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08869512804072910852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-83586191864183202782015-03-16T11:52:49.926-07:002015-03-16T11:52:49.926-07:00First Redfern said the "document" was ge...First Redfern said the "document" was genuine. The next day he realized someone had altered the real court case document involving Silas Newton to make it appear Hilda Ray was his defense attorney.<br /><br />Since Redfern also said: "Information has now surfaced demonstrating a pre-Roswell connection between the Rays and none other than Silas Newton. <b>We have Rich Reynolds to thank for this.</b>" <br /><br />Does this mean Reynolds is the hoaxer or was he passing on a hoax without doing any sort of due diligence on the "document" to see if it was genuine?<br /><br />We also know that Reynolds has been pushing a Newton/Ray/Aztec connection for over a year on his blog. Previously he claimed there was another document linking Newton to the Rays, in fact claiming Newton was Bernerd Ray's "boss", and provided a broken link to it. I finally found it elsewhere and discovered it said nothing more than Newton was exploring the Sedona, Arizona, area for gas and oil, with nothing about either Bernerd or HIlda Ray.<br /><br />Hilda Ray much later moved to Sedona, where supposedly the slides were found, but that hardly shows a connection between Newton and the Rays.<br /><br />When I pointed out to Reynolds that his document showed nothing like what he claimed, he launched into an invective blog against me, claiming I just didn't get it. <br /><br />What didn't I get? Oh, he was just "speculating", not actually claiming as fact that Newton was Ray's boss. He then immediately changed his blog title to "UFO Conjecture's".<br /><br />Rich Reynolds has a long history of inventing documents that supposedly support his "conjectures," whether it be Socorro, Aztec, or Roswell, then they turn out to be totally irrelevant. In this case, he was apparently pushing a hoaxed document. And the only question is did he hoax it or somebody else?David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.com