![]() |
| Mesa Verde |
Once
again I’m dragged back into the nonsense that is the Roswell Slides. It should
be clear to everyone who is able to think at all that the slides show the image
of an unfortunate child who died hundreds of years ago. No one has ever offered
an explanation of how we got from the image of what is clearly a mummy to the
idea that it was the body of an alien creature. How did they make that first
incredibly dumb leap of logic?
This
is the latest development, and by latest I mean one that first appeared on Curt
Collins blog last week though Jaime Maussan has now produced another document
about why the body in the slide is different from the one the rest of us
believe to be the same. With Maussan’s latest, Curt’s posting becomes even
more important. The post can be found here:
One
of the experts who was defending the idea that the slides showed an alien
creature was Dr. Richard O’Connor, who, as you’ll see at Curt’s site, wrote to
Linda Moulton Howe that he had been able to confirm the deblurring of the
placard to his satisfaction but that the statement on the placard “cannot be
correct.”
O’Connor
joined the alien body team after the great May 5th fiasco. Jaime
Maussan interviewed O’Connor via Skype because he had solid medical credentials
and he spoke English. It was used as part of an article that claimed, “Doctors
Agree: Roswell Slides Show a Nonhuman Body.”
This interview that was posted
to YouTube would be of some value in supporting that idea of “two bodies” as
Maussan claims, but all that has changed. O’Connor, having seen the FOIA
material recovered by Shepherd Johnson, said, “Yeah, I’ve just, over the past 48 hours more or
less, been looking at that, and it seems to me like it's drawing us toward the
conclusion that in fact is this photograph probably does represent a native
American child. There were some, a couple of photographs in the last pages of
that set of documents, one of them in particular on page 176, and in my opinion
it really does show a different photograph of what is very likely the same
child.”
So,
one of those who had once suggested the body was alien, though based solely on
an examination of the slide, had now reversed himself. After seeing the
available documentation, he changed his mind.
Curt,
in fact, sent an email to O’Connor and was surprised to get a response and an
invitation to give him a telephone call. According to Curt, at his Blue Blurry
Lines website:
He told me that looking at a photograph is fraught with pitfalls,
and mentioned the fact that the quality of the Slides photograph was not very
good, the details were not clear due to the blurry photograph, which was taken
at an angle from the body (and possibly distorted by the glass in the case).
There were some characteristics that he still didn't quite understand, like the condition of the chest cavity, but it occurred to him that the terraced cliffs of Montezuma Castle must have caused the deaths of a number of children from falling off the ledges. He wondered if that could have accounted for the injuries to the child's body, particularly the damage to the head and the fractured femur. I pointed out the shallow grave may have accounted for some of this, particularly the loss of the lower leg. (I [Curt Collins] thought later that the excavation by amateur archeologists could also be a factor.)
Interestingly,
Tom Carey was interviewed on June 2 on a KGRA show about all of this. According
to what Curt reported, “Of the
placard being read he says, ‘a day or two later, this bombshell hits about it
being a mummified two-year-old boy. Well, talk about a right cross, or a left
hook. He also seems to feel betrayed by two of the people who he’d asked to
help with the placard have since ‘joined our critics.’ Of the critics, he said
he’d have worked with them, ‘had they been civil.’ [Though I have to wonder
about some of the less civil things that Tom had said in his comments about the
placard and how quickly it was read… the data had been there, if the proper
investigation had taken place] In the opening, he mentioned having plenty to
keep him busy, a new book coming out with Don Schmitt, and another one planned
beyond that, but first up is their appearance at the annual Roswell Festival.”
Here’s
the thing. Someone in on the beginning of the investigation had to know the
truth. The slide placard was deblurred so quickly that any alibi about the
failure to do so prior to May 5th falls onto those making the
investigation. They should have been able to do that three years ago rather
than get caught up in this sideshow. Basic research and a demand to see the
original slides probably would have ended this long before we get to Mexico
City. A simple question about the sequence of the slides, such as “Where is
number ten?” might have done it. (I note here that according to some, the
slides shown were number 9 and number 11, which left the question of “Where is
number 10?)
If Adam
Dew and his pal, Joe Beason, had any thoughts of proving how credulous UFO
investigators are for some kind of a documentary, they failed at that. This
wouldn’t have worked had they provided high quality scans of all of the slides
to researchers. Given that, those researchers would have been able to read the
placard in a matter of hours. How do I know? Because within hours of a high
resolution scan appearing on Dew’s website, the placard was read.
I’ll
throw one other thing out here. I believe that the mystery caller who told Nick
Redfern about all this, the man who allegedly overheard a conversation in
Midland, Texas, was probably either Beason, Dew or a pal of theirs. The idea
that someone in Midland overheard this conversation, heard enough to understand
so much of what was going on including the nondisclosure agreements, and then
knew Nick Redfern, is just too much of a coincidence. It had to be arranged so
that the story would get out and the hype could begin. And the hype did begin
right there.
This
should have never happened. It was a combination of the secrecy imposed by Dew
and Beason and the enthusiasm of the Roswell investigators for the final
“smoking gun” evidence. Had anyone looked at all the red flags and asked some
very basic questions, this would have been seen for what it was. The majority
of the blame probably belongs to Dew and Beason, but there is plenty to be
shared by the others who participated in the long investigation and the program
in Mexico City. We should all learn from this and change the way we do
business.


