Wednesday, March 18, 2015

The Roswell Slides - A Matter of Provenance

I have said for a long time that one of the major hurtles in this slides controversy is the lack of provenance. According to the various inside sources including Tom Carey, Tony Bragalia and even Adam Dew, they simply don’t know who took the pictures, when they were taken and where they were taken. To make matters worse, there is no solid chain of custody for the slides. There are gaping holes in this important part of the story.

Back on February 20, 2015, Adam Dew, under the user name SlideBox Media, posted to Rich Reynolds UFO Conjectures blog the following:

A quick timeline as I understand it: Hilda died in 1988. Slides were discovered when emptying out a garage outside of Sedona (Cottonwood we think) in 1998. Slides were deemed interesting (obviously old color slides) but not fully examined until around 2008. While I think that the home may have belonged to Hilda’s lawyer, there is no way to know for sure as the woman who found them [the slides] didn’t keep records of the homes she cleaned out… I don’t think the slides came from Hilda’s home.

Could this be any vaguer?  The home might have belonged to Hilda’s lawyer but they don’t know. The house might have been in Sedona, but they’re not sure. There is no way to verify whose house it was and there is little to link the slides to Hilda Ray other than some of the other slides were marked with her name. He doesn’t think they came from Hilda’s home.

And with that we return to the question of provenance. They have absolutely nothing to go on given that statement. By comparison, the Ramey Memo has a provenance that is iron clad. No, I don’t want to discuss the various interpretations of the memo; I just want to establish how solid a provenance can be.

General Ramey is in the picture holding the document in question. J. Bond Johnson, the man who took the picture has been interviewed repeatedly about it, and while he certainly slid off the rails as time passed, there is no doubt that he was in Ramey’s office and he took the photograph. Even without his statements we would know this because the picture was transmitted over the news wire (INS) back in the day. Attached to the picture from the Bettmann Photo Archive, was a noted that it had been sent at 11:59 p.m. on July 8, 1947. Even if we didn’t have this, the picture had been published in various newspapers on July 9, 1947. The negative, which can be matched to picture, was stored at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram until it was given to the Special Collections at the University of Texas at Arlington so that the chain of custody has been preserved as well. I can’t think of another document dealing with the Roswell case that has such a provenance or chain of custody.

But you can see the difference. With the Roswell Slides, all that information simply doesn’t exist and I don’t know how you can ever gather it given what the current owner of the slides says. The chain of custody is broken in several places and because Dew has not revealed the name of the woman who supposedly found the slides so that she could be interviewed by independent researchers (and I doubt that he will give up the name) then that is just one more hole.

So why do we believe that these slides show alien creatures recovered outside of Roswell? Well, the film was apparently manufactured in 1947 which is not to say that it was exposed in 1947. The slide holder was used from something like 1940 to 1949, which opens up the range. Photo experts have suggested that the range could be even greater, though that isn’t much of an issue given all the other problems.

I have yet to hear a good reason for looking at these slides which were unlabeled and apparently separated from the others in the collection and concluding that they showed an alien body. If you’re the average guy, sitting out there looking at the slides and see a strange body on them, I don’t see how you can (a) conclude they are of alien creatures and (b) that they have anything to do with Roswell. The Rays lived in Midland, Texas and not Roswell and the slides were found in Sedona and not Roswell and are now in Chicago. Right now we don’t even have a good chain of custody from Sedona to Chicago.

This also generates another question that can be easily answered. Were all the slides in the box stamped with Hilda Ray’s name? Were others stamped with her husband’s? And if so, then how do we conclude that the slides belonged to the Rays other than proximity? Or I should say alleged proximity.

At this point, with Dew making so many claims, it seems that there is no way to provide a provenance or chain of custody. Any such attempt will be seen in the same light as that of Ray Santilli as he continued to change the story about who had owned the Alien Autopsy film and how he had come into possession of it. Dew has sort of locked in the tale of a house owned by someone, that was cleaned by someone who found the slides, which sat around for basically decades before anyone got around to looking at them and then deciding they showed an alien creature, an amazing deductive link.

This could spell the end of the slides saga simply because there is no way to verify how they came into existence or why those who saw them originally assumed they showed an alien creature. Without the important questions of provenance and chain of custody answered, there is no real reason to assume the being on the slides has anything to do with the Roswell case, or that it is an extraterrestrial creature. This is basically the same stumbling block that so many of us interested in the case have encountered before and there is no reason to assume that anyone outside of the UFO community is going to care about this… and there might not be that many inside who do.


cda said...

Yes you have hit the nail on the head. The slides, as they stand at present, have no provenance.

In fact it resembles a work of art. Collectors of a work of art need to know the provenance of it before they will even touch it with a barge pole.

By the way, Ramey's memo has NO known provenance either, despite the desperate analysis attempted by certain Roswell ETHers. What HAS a provenance is the photograph showing a piece of paper in Ramey's hand. The memo itself (if it is a memo) has no proven content or origin. It might even contain another proof of Pythagoras' theorem for all we know.

Tim Hebert said...


Would it not be possible for Dew and others to simply look at city/county records to ascertain who owned the home at any given time since it's construction?

I can go to the local county registrar's office and see who had owned/had a lien against any parcel of land. That's a matter of public record.

Or, is this information that has been kept close to the vest awaiting May 5th?

KRandle said...

Tim -

Here is what Dew said, "While I think that the home may have belonged to Hilda’s lawyer, there is no way to know for sure as the woman who found them [the slides] didn’t keep records of the homes she cleaned out…"

Since they have no records of what houses she cleaned and probably no record of in which house the slides were found, there is no way to trace the ownership.

Unknown said...

Kevin -

I've just been reading of a case in 1941 known as the Cape Girardeau incident. Your more clued up than me so I'm sure you may know of it. I don't know if it's "legitimate" event.

6 years before Roswell and seemingly many civilian witnesses, including access granted to bodies to a reverend.

Do you think the slides have an equal chance of being related to this as they do Roswell?

CommanderCronus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CommanderCronus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Daniel Transit said...

Regarding the famous people in the other photographs from the box that have been released:

Bing Crosby hosted his first National Pro-Am Golf Championship in 1937, won by Sam Snead. So, Crosby and Snead had known each other for about 11 years, or more, when the slide photos were taken.

Bing Crosby and Clark Gable also knew each other. It is documented that they played golf together, pre-1948.

Clark Gable met General Eisenhower 'several times during his air force service' - pre-1948.

Bing Crosby met General Eisenhower in September 1944, when he borrowed his staff car.

In 1952, Clark Gable endorsed Eisenhower for President at a huge rally held at Madison Square Garden, New York. He also visited the White House in 1958.

In 1965, Bing and Kathryn Crosby entertained General Eisenhower at their home.

This is just some of the highlights of what can be found concerning the relationships between these people.

CommanderCronus said...

I deleted my previous posts because they were inappropriate - Stephen Jackson's question was directed to Kevin Randle, and I am not trying to answer in his place.

All I have to add is this: On May 5th, Adam Dew should make available ALL the slides and the box they came in, not just the two photos of the alleged alien.

Glenn said...


I think all of this is nonsense. The slides either depict an alien being or they don't. "Provenance" is irrelevant in light of this fact.

Anthony Mugan said...

100% agree.

Given that there is no prospect of reaching a consensus within the pro-ETH community on the lack of usefulness of these slides a question in my mind is what is the best strategic approach to take?
It is very tempting to think we should all just shrug our shoulders, shake our heads in amazement at this bizarre affair and let the slides' proponents get on with it in the reasonable expectation that with no provenance to the slides, and more than one credible mundane explanations for them, this will rapidly become another unfortunate footnote in the history of ufology.
Against that there is the sense of outrage that I feel (rare for me to get quite so annoyed about something) and a sense that the community should stand up and demand rigour...alas I sense this might only be a minority though,

At the moment I am going for the latter option, but I do find it quite tiresome even doing the background reading on this topic as it is such a terrible waste of time. My thanks to all those putting in the hours to check out all these claims. Very much looking forward to May when there can be no more claims of further 'reveals' and the whole sorry subject can hopefully be finished off.

One further thing that does interest me is how all this internet noise adds up to a monetary value? Does anyone know of references on how this sort of media type event works from a business point of view...just the general management principles rather than anything specific to this scenario...?

cda said...


Why do you feel there "can be no more claims of further reveals".

There is nothing to stop the presenter, whoever he is, showing the slides and ending with the proclamation that there is more to come - at a future date. This will ensure everybody eagerly awaits the next 'revelation', scheduled, say, for November.

There is no certainty, none whatever, that everything will be revealed on May 5.

Daniel Hurd said...


While the slides either show an actual dead alien, or they do not.
There is still a problem of proving that. And without a an actual dead alien to compare them to, provenance becomes an issue.
Because if we are to believe these slides show a dead alien, we are going to need a solid chain of custody, provenance and some corroborating evidence/witnesses. Right now the chain of custody is broken, provenance is none existent, and we don't have an actual dead alien to compare the photo to.
That's the issue here.

Anthony Mugan said...

I sincerely hope they don't try that, but now you mention it....!!!

Capt Steve said...

The lack of clear provenance and the lack of a clear chain of custody has bothered me from the start.

The question I have is this: if there's no clear provenance why are the investigators insistently linking the slides to Hilda Ray? The more I read about this the LESS likely it seems that the Rays are tied to the slides (and the idea that the slides in question were found separated from the rest of the slide collection sets off all sorts of warning bells).

Loki said...

for Kevin Randle:

"The chain of custody is broken in several places and because Dew has not revealed the name of the woman who supposedly found the slides so that she could be interviewed by independent researchers (and I doubt that he will give up the name) then that is just one more hole."

Actually, in the initially posted Maussan 3 short separate interviews with Carey, Schmitt, and Adam Dew (Dew video now deleted of course) wherein Dew played the part of the innocent bystander, he foolishly blabbed the claim that the woman who found the slides was his friend's sister: Kathy/Cathy/Kathie/Cathie, etc., or some other spelling variant.

THAT is why Dew had that original 'innocent bystander' video interview pulled.

Loki said...

Here is a still of the deleted video where Adam Dew mention's his friend's sister "Kathy",etc. as finding the slides:

Loki said...

A slight update:

My "staff" informs me that there were originally 4 Maussan Roswell slide video interviews posted; #4 was ex-Apollo astronaut Mitchell, who is a member of Artesia Masonic Lodge #29 in New Mexico.

David Rudiak said...

CDA inanely wrote:
By the way, Ramey's memo has NO known provenance either, despite the desperate analysis attempted by certain Roswell ETHers. What HAS a provenance is the photograph showing a piece of paper in Ramey's hand. The memo itself (if it is a memo) has no proven content or origin. It might even contain another proof of Pythagoras' theorem for all we know.

Usual bunch of Christopher Allen bunk.

Even skeptics who have bothered to spend 2 seconds looking at the memo agree that the words "WEATHER BALLOONS" appear second line from the bottom of the memo. That ALONE establishes the CONTENT as Roswell related.

It doesn't hurt that there is also near-unanimous agreement that "THE 'disc'" also appears in the message (first sentence, second paragraph). There is less strong agreement but still a consensus that "at Roswell" appears next line down, second sentence.

At the top is a large black stamp, partially hidden, but for all the world looking like it ends in "LL". Perhaps "Roswell"
is there as well? Nah, couldn't be, because CDA knows for a fact that this can't possibly be related to Roswell.

The consensus is also that the message was signed by "RAMEY".

At that very moment, Gen. Ramey was holding the message in his hand that most readers think is signed by him, he is at that very moment having a photographer take pictures of him with a "weather balloon" that he was already claiming was what was really found at Roswell, and only resembled a "disc".

We also know for a fact that the photos were taken by James Bond Johnson of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in Gen. Ramey's office, 8th AAF headquarters, Fort Worth, Tex., July 8, about 5:30 p.m. There is also unanimous agreement that "FORT WORTH, TEX." also appears in the memo (end of first paraphraph).

But this has no provenance and has nothing to do with Roswell simply because CDA say so. He further claims there is no agreement about content and this could equally well be about the Phythagorean theorem. CDA either obviously doesn't know much or just loves to play the Klass Klown.

jim bender said...

Yes he part of the Klass Clan, swamp gas, earth is flat, and Planet earth center of universe. These baggers will never ever get it!!!!
They still don't believe the photos from the Hubble telescope. lol

cda said...


Strange that as soon as your riposte appeared Kevin changed the subject. That saves me a lot of trouble answering you, doesn't it?

David Rudiak said...

Lucky you Christopher. But there wasn't much you could answer since you don't have any actual facts on your side.

KRandle said...

CDA, David -

I changed the topic because I wanted something other than Roswell Slides. They are all over the place and thought it would be a nice change of pace... had nothing to do with David's post or with CDA's response.

Nitram said...

Hello DR & KR

For what it's worth you don't have to respond to every silly comment posted by the "Klass clown".

A lot of his postings are so stupid they are clearly designed to just get a reaction, rather than trying to constructively help with the investigation.

Don't let the counter-productive "Klass clown" get you down...

cda said...

Nitram (or Martin):

It is time you used your real name, if you have one. Then we can begin to take you seriously.

Notice I said 'begin'.

Don Maor said...

cda speaking of "we" (we who?) and of being serious (!). Clownstopher, I would say.

Lance said...

So name calling is okay again (is that only against skeptics?)


David Rudiak said...

Regarding "Klass Klown":

I had one and only one interaction with his evil overlord Philip "Darth" Klass, when he emailed me out of the blue about a dozen years ago about the Ramey memo.

He actually admitted the word "VICTIMS" was indeed there, but instead tried to spin it that the message read "NO victims".

Now here's what really bugs me about most deniers like Klass: they don't like to stick to facts or do even minimal due diligence, just make unsupported proclamations of "fact". In this case, the word before "VICTIMS" was obviously 3-letters, not 2, and looked suspiciously to most people, including CDA's allegedly highly biased "pro-ETHers" like the word "THE", the most common word in the English language.

So it read "THE VICTIMS", not "NO VICTIMS".

Another funny thing about this brief interchange with Klass was when I challenged him to join in an effort to do a FOIA for the original memo. HIs response to that was that it would be waste of time, since the government/military would have destroyed it a long time ago.

Yes, apparently "weather balloons" and crash dummy "victims" from the future are such sensitive topics that the government can't afford to leave a paper trail behind.

KRandle said...

Lance -

The difference here, as I see it, was that no one was being personally attacked. It was more of a general reference to a point of view... I let the same thing slide when the comments are general as opposed to specific... but then again, my blog and my rules subject to change at my whim.

Lance said...

Seems to me that calling CDA, "Klown" is a personal attack but then again I don't understand all of the double standards that make up the believer worldview.

And not referring to David here,


cda said...

Reluctant as I am to 'get into' this Ramey memo thing, Klass DID have a point. The FBI memo of July 8 was in the archives and was duly discovered when they were released.

Therefore, in my (and Klass's) view it is more than likely that if this Ramey memo contained important matters pertaining to Roswell (such as the discovery of unidentified wreckage & bodies) it too would have been retained as a document, and ought to have turned up in a search, either when the FBI memo was released or later.

In fact I believe the RPIT, which so studiously analysed the Ft Worth photos some years ago, and claimed to have deciphered a portion of the memo, actually requested this document. They got a zero response. (surprise!)

And no I do NOT believe Gen. Ramey took this 'great secret' to his grave either (just in case some ardent ETHers think he did).

So which is it? Is that sheet of paper essentially junk (as I believe) or did it really contain the text of the great secret the ETHers and conspiracists desperately want to prove to the world? Yes, the very memo that has either disappeared or was destroyed, despite its contents. Or is it still top secret and hidden from the world after 68 years?

According to Moore & Friedman, all it contained was the text of Ramey's radio broadcast he was due to give that evening!

David Rudiak said...


The FBI document was nothing but the weather balloon story that Ramey was putting out as the official explanation at the time. Nothing too sensitive there, except for the part that when they contacted Wright Field, they didn't agree it was a weather balloon.

Another part of the FBI telegram stated the their Cincinnati office was to be informed of the results of the "disc" inspection at Wright Field. Nobody has been able to find that promised report in FBI files. It's missing, probably because the FBI was never told anything further, not even, "it's a weather balloon".

Klass' real point to me (not CDA's spin), was that if the Ramey memo mentioned "victims", it was so sensitive that it would have been destroyed so as to not leave a paper trail. So no point in doing a FOIA to try to find it.

There is some precedent for destruction of very sensitive documents, such as Gen. Vandenberg (whom I think the Ramey memo was addressed to) ordering the infamous Project Sign Estimate of the Situation a year later with its ETH conclusion destroyed. (Except, apparently, at least one copy survived for a time since insiders like Ruppelt, Hynek, and Fournet all said they later read it.)

Similarly, at the end of WWII, the super top-secret Enigma machine decoding program destroyed all their computing machines (including the world's first all electronic digital computer) and nearly all paperwork to keep secret just how advanced their decoding efforts had gotten, far enough to decrypt Russian codes. They didn't want that getting out by leaving a machine or paper trail behind.

We also do know that critical communications from Roswell base were ordered destroyed without authorization a few years later, which the GAO discovered in their investigation in 1994. Ramey's papers are also missing from this time period.

Of course, Klass was only speculating that Ramey's memo was destroyed. Instead, it could have been highly classified and locked in a vault somewhere.

Pentagon Paper's Daniel Ellsberg once testified before Congress about guarded vaults at the Pentagon containing the nation's most sensitive secrets. E.g., one was devoted to the history of how we got into Viet Nam. As a national security adviser to the Johnson Administration, he was one of the handful of people with special clearance to get into the vaulted reading room.

I ran into Ellsberg a few years ago and asked him about those vaults. He told me the ones he was aware of were primarily about covert operations and secret communications between the President and other world leaders. He wasn't aware of any UFO reading rooms, but added that because of compartmentalization of classified material, he would not have known of them even if they existed because he wouldn't have need-to-know access.

Nitram said...

Lance wrote

"So name calling is okay again (is that only against skeptics?)"

and continuing to the defense of this clown, Lance continued

"Seems to me that calling (name removed), "Klown" is a personal attack but then again I don't understand all of the double standards that make up the believer worldview."

Lance - I personally am not a believer, as I have said many times - and logically the "believers" as you put it are almost certainly wrong with the "final conclusion" however you have to be a "bit of a clown" to suggest (even in jest) that Ramey was holding a "SciFi novel" he had written in his hand - this is just one of the "clown" type of comments made earlier.

But again this post is not about Dr Rudiak's favorite topic of conversation and no, I don't think the center of the universe is in the Ramey memo...


Anonymous said...

Dew is just another hack film producer trying to scam the naive out of their hard earned cash. I think he's garnished enough free publicity. Don't encourage him.

Brian B said...

Can someone explain McDonald's alien drawings and craft depiction as to its origins? Late 1990s Testor model and book illustrations show a craft that I have yet to hear any so called witness describe. Who were the witnesses who described the craft as taking this shape? They seem non-existent and Barnett can not be used as a definitive observer. PS If these "aliens" did come from Zeta (a so described arid exoplanet) why did their so "saucer" take a manta shape including claims these aliens had webbed fingers? Dry planet vs ocean evolution makes no sense at all adding to the support that this event probably never happened as witnesses claim.

KRandle said...

Brian -

McDonald's drawing were based in part on the descriptions provided by Frank Kaufmann which, of course, means that Kaufmann was making it up. However, I believe that Kaufmann had also done a little research for this and based some of the description on what Kenneth Arnold had said and the pictures taken by William Rhodes. I also think that in the course of the hours we (Don Schmitt and I) spent with him, he picked up some information from us that related to what Bill Rickett had said. I believe that Kaufmann was guided in his responses by others in the Roswell area who kind of briefed him on the directions that we were all taking... one of those could have been Max Littel.

And, given that the star charts used by Marjorie Fish to come up with the Zeta Reticuli scenario have been recalibrated moving some of the stars out of the positions that she placed them, and given that she excluded all the red dwarves because she believed there would be nothing of interest in those star systems, we should reevaluate this conclusion.

Gilles Fernandez said...

Hello all,

Only to mention 3 articles our team wrote about the slides, (one in English, one in Spanish, one in French).

José Antonio Caravaca + Curt Collins (English): Is This Mummy the Famous "Alien" in the Roswell Slides?


Gilles Fernandez^^ (French): The Roswell Slides Saga: Some Claims versus some Facts...(Draft Version)


Gilles F.

Brian B said...

A few things:

Thanks for the back story on the McDonald illustrations. Seems to me the entire set of illustrations must be pure conjecture then based on Kaufmann's fake testimony. Was it a delta wing or saucer? On Fisher if the charts have now been adjusted then why do the aliens keep saying they are from Zeta? Sounds fishy.

On the mummy - if the one depicted is in the Smithsonian all that would be needed is a follow-up consult with them to determine if the cadaver is their mummy.

George32 said...

We’ve seen this sort of Roswell alien scam before --twenty years ago-- when a crook called Ray Santilli produced film footage which he claimed showed the autopsy of an alien body recovered from the supposed 1947 flying saucer crash near Roswell, NM. The footage had in fact been shot in London during 1994 and 1995 and the fake alien body was a dummy made from foam latex and filled with chicken entrails. The sensational “Alien Autopsy” film was then dangled like a carrot in front of UFO researchers and media people to produce the widest possible press coverage. The supposed cameraman who was claimed to have taken the film in 1947 never existed. The faked footage was sold (with a disclaimer) to various TV channels and other interested parties for large sums of money and it was estimated that Santilli may have collected a few million dollars from the scam.

If you really want to produce a supposed Roswell sensation like the “Alien Autopsy”, here’s how it’s done in eight easy steps:-

(1) Get an experienced special effects man to make your alien dummy or “mummified” alien corpse using foam latex, etc.

(2) Film it to produce stills or video with modern digital cameras.

(3) Blur the resulting film somewhat, apply fading (or yellow a bit if film is in color) and maybe add graininess, scratches, etc., using PhotoShop tools.

(4) Transfer still film to old-style slides or, if using video, make it appear to be old 16 mm format. (Maybe have Kodak or other supplier of photographic film confirm that a small blank piece of film which you have sent them is from 1947.)

(5) Prepare story of how the film was taken and the characters involved. Also make up story of how the film allegedly surfaced about 50 to 60 years later in unexpected circumstances. The name “Roswell” MUST be invoked with such a scam.

(6) Identify and select target dupes who are UFO true believers and/or UFO celebrities like Jaime Maussan, Linda Howe, Don Schmitt, Adam Dew, etc.

(7) Dangle this “Roswell” carrot by making the film(s) available to the selected few.

(8) They, and the internet, will do all the rest. (NEVER admit what you have done!)

I suggest that the “Roswell Alien Slides” were produced in a similar manner and supplied to targeted individuals likely to take the bait. If that’s right, the #1 suspects are John Lundberg and Rob Irving. Both of them were in California in December 2013 where they were commissioned to make a huge elaborate crop circle near Chualar, CA, for Nvidia who wanted to publicize their ultrafast Tegra microchip. This chip was announced a week later at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. The giant crop circle resembled a precise replica of the Tegra microchip.

In 2013 the film documentary “Mirage Men” was released and John Lundberg was its director. Lundberg has always been obsessed with disinformation and deception --especially with regard to the UFO subject. For 24 years he has been making crop circles, and faking UFO photos, etc., to fool the gullible and deceive those who believe in the paranormal. He and Rob Irving, plus Rod Dickinson, played a central role in making Ray Santilli’s 1995 “Roswell Alien Autopsy” footage and my analysis of this scam, published later that year, can be found at this link:-

Is it simply a coincidence that the woman in the Roswell Slides story is called Hilda Ray (a real person)? Her name may have been used by the hoaxers since it combines the name HILDA (Hoaxed Irving Lundberg Dickinson Alien) which I gave to Santilli's alien autopsy dummy and the name RAY which is Santilli's first name.

Apart from their work behind and in front of the camera, Lundberg and Dickinson were the experts who made foam latex dummies for a TV series on UK's Channel 4 back then called "Crapston Villas". If Lundberg and Irving have been up to their tricks again on this 20th anniversary of Santilli’s alien autopsy hoax, it seems very likely they may have been the creators of the “Roswell Alien Slides”.

Brian B said...

George32 - I agree. When it first aired on Fox it was pretty clear that it was a total scam - nothing about it fit anything anyone knew whether they were Roswellians or Skeptics.

Daniel Transit said...

I agree that when the Alien Autopsy 'hoax' was prominent in the media it didn't apparently "fit anything anyone else knew" - or, at least, what most of us were aware of in literature dealing with UFOs and Aliens.

However, it does actually resemble certain other depictions of aliens:

1) Head and shoulders sketch by Charles Moody of alien (or alien type) he encountered in 1975, published in National Enquirer (and on-line).

2) Sketch by David Bowie of figure for back cover of his second album, released November 1969. The art by George Underwood that was used - based on that sketch by Bowie - has an alien with oversized head, somewhat resembling the one on the alien slide.

3) Virgil Finlay Fantastic Universe, June 1957, cover art with crashed ufo and alien figure. The alien looks like a child version of the alien in the autopsy film.