tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post8153667418841472123..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: The Roswell Slides - Video InterviewsKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-48787024879796773632015-03-28T00:09:30.938-07:002015-03-28T00:09:30.938-07:00I had visited your website which was really good ...I had visited your website which was really good <a href="http://plasticlabwareindia.com/slide-products.html" rel="nofollow">slide products</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04118156962601070996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-50989137212157438582015-02-09T11:20:59.819-08:002015-02-09T11:20:59.819-08:00cda, regarding Ike's purported visit to Muroc,...cda, regarding Ike's purported visit to Muroc, Feb, 1954, there's been a bit of research done by numerous people, over the years. Depending on who and what you believe, there are many discrepancies and gaps in the record for that period, that remain unsolved. Of course, I have not personally been to the Eisenhower library to confirm. Here's a couple of URL's linking to background of the "event". <br /><br />http://exopolitics.org/Study-Paper-8.htm<br /><br />http://www.ufocasebook.com/1954eisenhoweraliens.htmlAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00643692866921028993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-91888301979004834422015-02-09T11:14:35.368-08:002015-02-09T11:14:35.368-08:00Yes, David Rudiak, it's generally accepted tha...Yes, David Rudiak, it's generally accepted that the Rays lived in Midland, Texas during the 40's and 50's. I'm told (but can't confirm) that they divorced in 1960 and Hilda moved to Sedona, AZ, where she died, in 1988. Al remained in Midland and (I'm told) remarried. <br /><br />If the slides were indeed found in home in Sedona, that previously belonged to Hilda, then it gives rise to another mystery (to me, at least). When couples split, they usually divide matrimonial property of any value. Given the significance of the slides, I wonder what happened during that split. They must have understood the significance of those slides. Even to the uninitiated, these would have been pretty impactful. Were the slides originally conveyed to Hilda so she believed that she maintained a right to them during the divorce, and Al accepted that? Did Al just not care? Did Al just up and leave the home and all its contents? Here's an interesting thought. Given the perceived value of the slides, did they split them? In other words, are there more slides out there somewhere? Two for Hilda, two for Al.........Maybe there's another box full of slides from the late forties somewhere in an attic, in Midland, right now, awaiting discovery.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00643692866921028993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-53174931694031892962015-02-09T09:55:05.199-08:002015-02-09T09:55:05.199-08:00Gregory,
Don't know the Ray's possible Ka...Gregory,<br /><br />Don't know the Ray's possible Kansas connection, but the families were generally from the Midwest, according to 1930 U.S. census on ancestry.com. Bernerd Ray's father was from Iowa and his mother from Minnesota. Hilda Blair Ray's parents were from Kentucky and Illinois.<br /><br />According to ancestry.com, city directories place the Rays in Midland, Texas during the 1950s.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-16164257246045026162015-02-09T09:36:38.091-08:002015-02-09T09:36:38.091-08:00Regarding Ike's alleged visit to Edwards AFB t...Regarding Ike's alleged visit to Edwards AFB to view aliens on Feb 20, 1954 has anyone ever consulted the Ike library to see the archives there?<br /><br />The official spokesman at the time said something about Ike having a painful tooth extraction whilst in California. Presumably this would be given in the archives (perhaps without mentioning the "painful").cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-70920761761968415432015-02-09T08:08:07.070-08:002015-02-09T08:08:07.070-08:00So someone at the Mutter who looks at this kind of...So someone at the Mutter who looks at this kind of thing for a living thought that it looked like a human specimen? Very interesting. <br /><br />And you spent a whole hour there and then moved on. Nice!<br /><br />Yep. Sounds like a UFO investigation. Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-14173047238675256372015-02-09T07:50:15.961-08:002015-02-09T07:50:15.961-08:00Helen, Milton Eisenhower's spouse, died July 1...Helen, Milton Eisenhower's spouse, died July 10, 1954, at age 50. I have found a video clip from her funeral (without audio). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E_Z4vJk50o<br /><br />I scanned the video repeatedly looking for the Rays. One of the pallbearers caught my attention time and again. He's on the right side of coffin (far side in the video), second from front. With screen shots in hand, I compared to pictures of "Al" Ray from the Geological Society yearbook, and damn, they match up pretty closely, to my eye. I'd appreciate some additional eyes on this.<br /><br />If this is actually Al Ray, then we've got pretty strong confirmation of close personal ties to at least Milton/Helen Eisenhower, if not also Dwight, during his Presidency. If we take that "leap" (cue onslaught of criticism), I will remind you that February 20-21, 1954 was the date(s) of Eisenhower's purported meeting with aliens entities at Muroc/Edwards, in California. While still a stretch, that (potentially) creates a link between Eisenhowers-aliens-Rays-photo slides.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00643692866921028993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-88568799250787209252015-02-09T07:26:30.617-08:002015-02-09T07:26:30.617-08:00David, I reiterate that if you want to email me (p...David, I reiterate that if you want to email me (phipps.gregory@gmail.com), I'd be happy send along my document with pictures of the hunters, for your expert eye and opinion. I have (tentatively) identified them, from left to right as: James B. Person; either Charles D. Stough, or Will Townsley; either Orville C. Walker or Merl Lemert; John Wilbur Ripley; C.T. Henderson (greatest confidence of accuracy), and the last (far right) remains a mystery. At first I thought it was Edward Arn (governor of KS from 1951-55), but I've lost confidence with that identification. Really, it's hard to view those names without a corresponding picture to link them.<br /><br />On another note, I have just received email confirmation, from Dr. David Vail, Public Services Archivist in the Morse Department of Special Collections, Kansas State University, that the photo of the "army" trailers, is indeed a photo, from 1946, of "trailerville" at K-State, located at the corner of Claflin Rd. and Denison Ave. These were placed in an area carved out from pasture to accommodate GI's, with families, that had just enrolled at K-State after returning from the war. It was known then as West Campus Courts. <br /><br />This places the Rays in Kansas, and adds depth to the connection between the Rays and the State. We now have a dog tag with Manhattan Kansas issuance; a hunting photo clearly taken in Kansas, and a group of trailers at Kansas State U. I should add that Milton Eisenhower was President at K-State (in Manhattan) from 1943-1950 and his wife Helen was from Manhattan. <br /><br />I'm headed down a research path now that may link the Rays to Milton/Helen mores than Dwight/Mamie, although they may have been connected to both, through a professional relationship and/or as close friends. On that note, I might have a (little) smoking gun that I'd like to share for consumption, review and opinion. Stay tuned to my next post.....Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00643692866921028993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-53522064455636942652015-02-09T07:23:02.951-08:002015-02-09T07:23:02.951-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-30512885509904525772015-02-08T21:45:25.307-08:002015-02-08T21:45:25.307-08:00Gregory,
Reviewing 1940s and other Kansas plates ...Gregory,<br /><br />Reviewing 1940s and other Kansas plates on eBay, I believe you are right. There are two dealer plates from the 1960s and 1980s with "D-" as on the Ray photo car. Almost all of the 1940s plates I see there seem to have one or two numbers (perhaps coded by county) followed by a dash. One from 1947 starts with "T86-", another from 1945 with "T31-", three from 1950 start with T, one indicating that "T" stands for "Truck". The leading number again probably is the code for county.<br /><br />In 1951, the leading number code seems to have been replaced with two letter vertical county codes (first letter at top, second at bottom). DK, e.g. is Dickenson County; FO is Ford County, etc.<br /><br />Now that you've given the clue that the men in the picture may be Republican Kansas politicians, the man at the far right resembles Andrew Frank Schoeppel, the Kansas governor from 1943-1947 and U.S. Senator from 1949-1962. The man at the far left has a large chin and resembles Schoeppel's successor as governor, Frank Carlson (1947-1950), and U.S. Senator 1950-1969. The man in the center with the orange hat may be Frank L. Hagaman, Lt. Governor.<br /><br />Assuming this is partly right and Bernerd Ray was out with the boys hunting and took the picture, instead of his wife, this would indeed indicate he was politically connected. If we could ID the partial license plate, we might be able to verify some of this.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-11974753918470832272015-02-08T21:38:53.040-08:002015-02-08T21:38:53.040-08:00One of the first places I took the slides was the ...One of the first places I took the slides was the Mutter Museum. Their head of public relations saw them and spent an hour with me. He showed me some specimens (even some things in the back not on display) that he thought might explain what was in the pictures. I left understanding that the human body is capable of stunning things. But I didn't see anything resembling whats in the slides. For what it's worth.SlideBox Mediahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16309149879327310262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-37462843357049597772015-02-08T17:26:31.193-08:002015-02-08T17:26:31.193-08:00David, I kind of feel sorry for Bernard/Bernerd no...David, I kind of feel sorry for Bernard/Bernerd now. His name had been spelled incorrectly by many while he was alive, and since. I feel some compulsion to figure this out, and get it categorically correct, out of respect to him. <br /><br />The subtlety of the license plate (that I viewed online) is that in 1945 and 1947, they placed the numbers 19 before "Kansas", and 45/47 after "Kansas". In 1946, they put only the last two numbers ("46"), after the word 'Kansas", with no "19" at all. In 1948, the license plate seems to have changed to a black background, and in 1949, they added "The Wheat State" to the bottom of the plate. In all the Kansas license plates I found online, I had not seen any, from 1945 or 1947, that included a letter(s) before the numbers, separated by a hyphen. At first, I thought the D might designate "Doctor", remembering that in many states, contemporary license plates for physicians have "MD". Then, I saw examples of dealer plates, from numerous other states, from that era, that had a "D", and were definitively designated as dealer plates. I may be wrong, of course, but believe it to be a dealer plate. However, other than that associated with the pheasant hunt photo, I have yet to see a picture of a plate, from Kansas, from that era, that includes a "D" followed by a hyphen. <br /><br />I believe that I have had some success in possibly identifying several of the men, although, given their attire, caps that throw shadows over their faces, and the fact that the sun is in their eyes and they are all squinting, I place a probability of accuracy at maybe 50%. If anyone sends me an email, I would be happy to provide a MS Word doc that includes the names, some background information and a picture from that era, which I used to try and identify them. They are all political figures, professionals, from Kansas, who enjoyed some profile and were considered leaders during the time the photo was likely taken. For what it's worth, they are all Republicans. I welcome debate, and/or alternative identification of the hunting party. <br /><br />I still have no idea why the Rays might have spent time in Kansas though.<br /><br />The photo of the little dog, with the little brass tag around his neck, has me intrigued (as much as a dog tag possibly can). I'm trying to figure out if "Manhattan", is:<br /><br />1. Name of the dog;<br />2. Name of the city in Kansas that issued the tag;<br /><br />If you're inclined to conspiracy theories, and think that the Rays had some sort of connection to the military, you might be inclined to think the dog was so named as some sort of inside joke: connecting the Rays to the Manhattan Project, in bordering New Mexico (1939-1947). Naw..... If the tag was issued in Manhattan, Kansas, then we have an additional connection to Kansas.<br /><br />Somebody please release more non-alien slides!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00643692866921028993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-81064913094026753082015-02-08T17:02:21.623-08:002015-02-08T17:02:21.623-08:00Lance asked:
"The Maussan video shows glimps...Lance asked:<br /><br />"The Maussan video shows glimpses of some slides, small and low quality. Even though they are not very clear, one can see what looks like a head and body. In another one there is what appears to be a face.<br /><br />Elsewhere blow up stills directly from the video were posted. You came in and said that those images were not what you saw."<br /><br />I consider this issue moot since on Friday Rich posted a grabbed frame showing what I believe to be one of the authentic slides, being displayed on a computer monitor. If that slide came from one of the Maussan videos, then so be it. <br /><br />However, just to clear the air: when I wrote that "those images were not what I saw", I was referring specifically and only to the stills (4 of them as I recall) that were apparently framegrabbed and posted on Rich's blog site some days earlier under a headline like: “are these the Roswell slides”, or some such. At the time I wrote the statement, I had not watched the Maussan video from which they were presumably grabbed (still haven't actually) so I couldn’t comment on what was in the video. All I was doing was answering the narrow question that Rich posed, to the effect that the slide images that I had seen in the presence of their owner were not represented in the 4 framegrabbed images.<br /><br />With regard to the size and development of the body: back a year ago, I tossed out an estimate of 3 feet for the length of the body and a few days ago I used approximately 4 feet. Keep in mind that I saw digital images of the slides on a computer screen for a total of maybe 10 to 15 minutes. I took away no copies of any sort. I also did not have any measuring instruments and I don't recall seeing anything in the images whose size I knew with precision, so I am estimating body size based on comparison to uncertain surroundings. For example, I recall some light colored upright rails that seemed to be perforated metal struts of the type that are often used to support shelves in a laboratory. I made a guess that they were 1 inch wide (because that is a commonly used dimension in US construction), and on that basis, I would estimate that the bodies would be closer to the 3 foot length. However, if the struts were 1 1/4 inches wide, then the body would be 25% longer, and so on.<br /><br />So I guess you could say that my current best estimate for the length of the body would be about 3 1/2 feet plus or minus 15% error. However, I’ve never recommended that anyone take that estimate to the bank, nor do I see that it is necessary to do so. After the images are publicly released, I am sure that someone will perform a more accurate estimate based on actual metrology. For all I know, someone has already done so and I just don't know about it. In other words, my estimates were and remain evolving approximations, filtered through a lot of uncertainty, imprecision, and memory loss.<br /><br />As I wrote elsewhere, the length of the head (chin to crown) seemed to be about the same as the length of the torso. (That is simply comparing one part of the body to another, without saying anything about the absolute size of either the head or the torso.) And yet, the long bones seem to have started to develop. One interpretation of this combination is that the cadaver has an abnormally short torso. Another is that it has an abnormally large head. The first interpretation would lead to the speculation that the age at time of death was greater than the body stature would indicate, in a normal human. If the estimated body length is 3 feet, that would imply a chronological age somewhat greater than 5 years. An estimated body length of 4 feet could imply a chronological age close to 10 years. On the other hand, the interpretation of an abnormally large head would push the age estimates to numbers closer to normal humans’. So I would say that the height range of 3 to 4 feet corresponds to chronological ages between roughly 5 and 10 years, depending on which interpretation of the head-to-torso length ratio you want to adopt.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-692899861220506882015-02-08T16:18:53.913-08:002015-02-08T16:18:53.913-08:00Gregory Phipps,
I basically agree on your points....Gregory Phipps,<br /><br />I basically agree on your points. On the very minor point of Bernerd/Barnard Rays correct spelling, according to Ancestry.com, the Social Security Death Index has him as Bernerd, "Find A Grave" has him as Bernerd, and that is what is on his tombstone, and the 1930's U.S. Census has him as Bernerd.<br /><br />On the identify of the car in one of the Ray photos, Lance Moody on another Kevin thread likewise identified the car as a 1941 Fort Super Deluxe. I speculated the "D" on the license plate might stand for the county, such as Douglas, Lawrence, Kansas being the county seat, also home of the U. of Kansas. My best guess (and that is all it was) was that maybe some of the men in the photo were from the university, maybe fellow oil geologists.<br /><br />I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on who the men were, if you care to share here.<br /><br />When I was growing up as a kid in Nevada in the 1950s, when it was still a very unpopulated state like Kansas, the letters on the license plates stood for the counties. "C" stood for Clark County (Las Vegas), "W" was Washoe County (Reno), "D" was Douglas County, "CH" was Churchill county, etc. My father when he was in the Nevada legislature in the early 1950s was given the license "C21", which is still in the family.<br /><br />The license plate in the photo also resembles those issued in 1947 (black on a white background) based on those being sold on eBay. 1949 was also black on white, but with "The Wheat State" added at the bottom.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-25021026878383414172015-02-08T15:19:55.216-08:002015-02-08T15:19:55.216-08:00@Greg
Your Point 3. is interesting. If the slides...@Greg<br /><br />Your Point 3. is interesting. If the slides were hidden, who knows how many folks owned the box before the Rays acquired it?<br />...alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547680170328747214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-9813054366633109782015-02-08T14:15:58.210-08:002015-02-08T14:15:58.210-08:00I've presented some of my research on the (non...I've presented some of my research on the (non-alien) photos to Adam Dew @ SlideBox Media. The car is a 1941 Ford Super Deluxe. My research suggest the plate was issued in 1945, and I suspect the "D" designation to denote it belongs to a dealer: Ford, I presume. By the late 1940's, the car could have been resold from any used car lot though. The largest Ford dealer in Kansas at the time was Mosby-Mack Motor Co., in Topeka. I believe that I have identified (some) of the hunters, and provided that information to Adam. If I'm correct, the inclusion of that photo will reinforce the general belief/acceptance that the Ray's were well-connected: politically, at least. <br /><br />I have offered my opinion that the slide with a collection of trailers, featured in the SlingBox Media documentary trailer, is not that mysterious and does not, in itself, connect the Ray's to the military. In 1946, many colleges and universities across the US were inundated by exponentially high enrolment rates, as returning servicemen sought to complete degrees. The government paid for or subsidized their education. Enrolment more than doubled at most colleges/universities. Many had to hastily erect additional student housing, particularly for the frequently married GI's, and many colleges accessed the thousands of military surplus trailers available, to address the problem. "Trailer towns" sprung up across campuses across the country. I have not yet identified the specific location featured in the photo, but am focusing research on either West/North Texas, and Kansas.<br /><br />I'll leave other researches (armchair and otherwise) to focus on analysis of the slides with the entities. My interest revolves around the Rays, and how they came to be in ownership of the two out-of-place slides. I'm working on three working hypotheses:<br /><br />1. The Ray’s were present at a viewing of the deceased entity(s), and took the pictures themselves;<br />2. The Ray’s obtained a slide depicting the deceased entity(s) after the fact, from a person(s) (unknown), at a moment in time (unknown), and for a reason (unknown);<br />3. If the slides were (as has been reported in some internet forums) hidden, and separate from the other slides (behind the inner lining of the box/chest, as has been variously “reported”), there is a (remote) chance that the slides were hidden from view from the Ray's themselves, and, somehow the box/chest became the property of the Rays after the fact. If that’s the case, the Rays may not have ever actually seen the slides themselves. <br /><br />One more issue. Can we please start calling him Bernard Ray? I believe that the one printed professional reference to his name (with an "e) was a typo. As was reference to his middle name as "Arthur". His name, and reference in Ancestry.com, and numerous newspaper references was Bernard Albert Ray. He went by Albert or "Al". Conventional wisdom suggests that he his middle name was Arthur, he might have gone with "Art".<br /><br />I'd welcome constructive and respectful contribution to researching the whole source and "chain of command" side of the entire collection of slides. Insight into the Rays, their connections and associations, travel, etc., will undoubtedly shed light on the investigation and help validate the authenticity of the slides.<br /><br />I look forward to the SlideboxMedia documentary.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00643692866921028993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-35189430842249119242015-02-08T08:39:48.956-08:002015-02-08T08:39:48.956-08:00Yes, it appears that, developmentally, kids are ex...Yes, it appears that, developmentally, kids are expected to get to be 36" at about 3 years old.<br /><br />Why did Larry say 10 years?<br /><br />Dunno, but I'll add it to my earlier question to him above.<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-41566765954128437022015-02-08T03:33:46.403-08:002015-02-08T03:33:46.403-08:00b"h
@Larry
". . .Seems like an area fo...b"h<br /><br />@Larry<br /><br />". . .Seems like an area for research, to me."<br /><br />To me it seems there's much research that has <i>not</i> taken place. If the clip of Tyson glancing at the photos is part of the "research" then I roll my eyes.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I appreciate your commentary above on the slides. I've just read comments at UFO Chronicles by "Larry, Aerospace Professional" and wondered if you are one and the same. In any case, there the comment is that the cadaver is not four feet, but:<br /><br />"11. Given that the body is about 3 feet long, if it is human, then it must be either a child or an adult with a developmental disorder. (Human Trisomy 17 has been suggested as a candidate.)"<br /><br />http://www.theufochronicles.com/2014/07/new-details-of-alleged-roswell-alien.html<br /><br />Three feet in height would not require ten years.<br /><br />As to the Ray's being childless, if it is a matter of official state records, then fine. But so far as I know, no one has said where the information about being childless came from. Thus, for example, a geology article featuring Mr. Ray might have said that he and his wife "have no children." But this would not mean they never had a child. They simply might not want to go into details in public. So if it's from public records, fine, but it would be helpful to say so.<br /><br />For me, this slides episode appears so stained with that ancient philosphy, I-Cha-Ching, (Mexico City on Cinco de Mayo) that I seriously doubt more scientific data will be obtained than from photos of a bearded-thalidomide-girl.William Strathmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01641055950393700958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-29789842662762668452015-02-07T18:32:36.223-08:002015-02-07T18:32:36.223-08:00"Is it a 1941 or 42 Ford Super Deluxe?"
..."Is it a 1941 or 42 Ford Super Deluxe?"<br /><br />Lance, I believe you've nailed it. Thanks.<br /><br />http://www.secondchancegarage.com/public/photogallery3/1941-ford-super-deluxe-rear.cfm<br /><br />http://www.tedvernon.com/itemimages/1941-Ford-Opera-Coupe-Deluxe-Washington-Blue-22500.002.jpg<br /><br />https://www.flickr.com/photos/47661552@N00/4769770017/<br /><br />Now if we could only ID the license plate.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-46287757280286527512015-02-07T17:29:23.562-08:002015-02-07T17:29:23.562-08:00Albert,
does the film stock have to match the car...Albert,<br /><br />does the film stock have to match the cardboard sleeves? Because the box contained plenty of old kodachrome slides inside their sleeves, so unless the slide has to match the sleeve, I assumed one could just take any of the slides out of their sleeve and slip in the fraudulent one, and glue it back together. I could be wrong, though.<br /><br />But as for the film stock, you're right. That would be a problem for a modern hoaxer. Whatever the case, I suspect the slide is not modern...it probably just shows a strange exhibit that someone photographed around 1947. As for the human or humanoid in the photo, I've never really bought the extraterrestrial hypothesis for UFOs anyway. I don't think any being that evolved on another planet is going to have one head, two arms, two legs...etc. If such beings do exist, I believe their origin is somewhere on this planet.CommanderCronushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11118630938118257930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-22839002005522721392015-02-07T16:50:37.205-08:002015-02-07T16:50:37.205-08:00David,
Is it a 1941 or 42 Ford Super Deluxe?
Lan...David,<br /><br />Is it a 1941 or 42 Ford Super Deluxe?<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-49352957768772076862015-02-07T16:35:32.486-08:002015-02-07T16:35:32.486-08:00Since CommanderChronus brought up the Mutter medic...Since CommanderChronus brought up the Mutter medical museum in Philadelphia:<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFY4BxNgge0/<br /><br />See 35" in (Teratology,or the study of human deformities) and 2:17 in for small skeletons with oversized heads.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-34507143242075149092015-02-07T16:03:29.414-08:002015-02-07T16:03:29.414-08:00Slilde Box Media's web page says they are tryi...Slilde Box Media's web page says they are trying to ID the men in this photo:<br /><br />http://slideboxmedia.com/research/<br /><br />Don't know about the men, but the car has a Kansas license plate, D-846?. Carfax can't ID the plate. D may stand for the county, such as Douglas, where Lawrence and the U. of Kansas are located, so maybe these guys are faculty or fellow oil geologists at the University?<br /><br />Other details: Comparison of the plate to antique Kansas plates on eBay suggests that it is of 1947 vintage. The plate design seemed to change from year to year, including color changes. This one is black on white. So is 1949, but they added "The Wheat State" at the bottom, which this plate lacks.<br /><br />Now the real puzzler. What is the make and year of the car? It has rather unusual vertical, square taillights. The closest I can come is the Chrysler DeSoto, but the red plastic for the Desoto protruded. This appears to be flat. The DeSoto also had a bigger, more squarish window, whereas this is much more oval. There is side, protruding horizontal trim similar to Chrysler products back then, but I've looked at Plymouths, Dodges, and Chryslers, and none seem to match the taillight or rear window. Ford, Chevy/GM, Studebaker, also don't seem to match.<br /><br />Another puzzler, look at the gas cap on the left rear fender. Instead of the usual protruding, round cap of cars of that era, this appears to have a recessed cap with cover flush with the car body, like modern cars.<br /><br />Anybody have any ideas on the car? Don't know if this will lead anywhere. They may be trying to ID the men and see if there are relatives who might remember the Rays. The men all appear middle aged, late 30's to 50's, so long since dead.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-41772634772104608252015-02-07T15:47:47.650-08:002015-02-07T15:47:47.650-08:00Albert:
My take is the same as yours. A modern ho...Albert:<br />My take is the same as yours. A modern hoax would be very, very difficult, requiring finding 1947 Kodachrome film stock in pristine condition with no significant deterioration. Don't know if the cardboard sleeve glue was tested. If it was modern, that would point to modern hoax. Finding or reproducing late '40s glue used by Kodak would be very difficult.<br /><br />Here is a website showing many examples of how old film developed now turns out. In the worst cases towards the bottom, the film is very fogged, splotchy, and grainy, with color imbalances.<br /><br />http://www.filmrescue.com/samples/<br /><br />Assuming the modern hoax to be 40 to 60 years after the 1947 film stock, most film types would be in the good to very poor range. B&W holds up better, but the slides are color. Kodachrome 64 slide film is also indicated as often giving better results, but unfortunately they don't show any examples.<br /><br />"Commander Cronus": See comments about about extreme difficulty of modern hoaxing of very old slide film. If the body is some deformed human oddity of something like the Mutter museum, it could easily go back to the 1947 era. The Rays traveled all over the world, as we have recently learned from the videos. If the body was from the Mutter, some archivist or docent there should recognize it.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-49485951745235751762015-02-07T14:30:36.656-08:002015-02-07T14:30:36.656-08:00@ CommanderCronus
IIRC, Date codes are not visib...@ CommanderCronus <br /><br />IIRC, Date codes are not visible on mounted slides. Tampering would be evident upon removal of the film, or even before removal. Even if the hoaxer found period, unused mounts, and simulated the aged glue, there is the problem of finding film stock, creating the 'body', shooting it, processing the film (which had to have been done no later than Dec 2010, by non-Kodak facilities (Dwayne's Labs), in addition to any possible, but unaccounted for, differences between unprocessed film aging, and recently processed film aging, etc.<br />.<br />All highly unlikely, especially since even a perfectly hoaxed slide can't possibly provide provenance for the 'body', or any evidence of what it is.<br />.<br />Only a date code from later than 1947 would disconnect the slides from Roswell, but, again, not from the subject in the slides.<br />....alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547680170328747214noreply@blogger.com