Well, there is a new development in the saga of the Roswell Slides announced over at the UFO Conjectures blog. It seems that the originals will not put in an appearance in Mexico City. Instead, those who shell out their cash, and any media who show up, will be treated to copies. I’m sure that they’ll be high quality copies, much better than the screen grabs that we’ve been saddled with for the last several weeks but they will still be copies.
But here’s the thing. Without the originals, there will be no real way to prove that the slide film was manufactured in 1947, there will be no way to be sure that something hasn’t been manipulated, and it won’t advance our knowledge all that much, though we will have been given a good look at the image. But one of the critical factors is the date of the film stock from which the slides were taken and you can have as much documentation as you want, but the question will remain, is that documentation accurate. The real thing needs to be seen.
Yes, I get that if these are slides of a real, live, well dead, alien creature, their value will be enormous. Yes, I get that you might not want to take them on a trip out of the country, or out of the vault in which they should be held. But then, there are problems… as just a single example, the date of manufacture coding doesn’t appear on all the slides from a single roll, and it would be lucky that the one slide that was removed from its cardboard sleeve had that coding on it… not to mention that other coding, if visible, would provide the point of manufacture. I suppose a photograph of the slide’s coding would help, but then we’re removed from the original and that is always problematic.
Of course there will be other documentation presented, but given the nature of the slides, it will need to be quite persuasive… and copies of the slides just might not be enough. I remember in Roswell in 1997 that we were promised a great deal about a bit of metallic debris that was said to have been picked up by a soldier in 1947. We were told that the documentation would be available and that the chain of custody had been preserved. Unfortunately the documentation was flawed, the name of the soldier was not available and the chemical analysis, while exciting, was flawed. We’re not even close to that here.
Now we’re told that the real slides will be unavailable. We’re going to have a picture of a picture and that provides for a great deal of deception in the presentation. That doesn’t mean there will be deception, I merely point out that it opens the door… and I will point out that those who have engaged in the evaluation of the slides do have a rooting interest in their authenticity. In other words, much of the analysis and work has not been by disinterested third parties.
This also tells us that contrary to what he has said, Adam Dew is not the owner of the slides… unless of course if he doesn’t show up in Mexico City. That seems unlikely because he needs to be there to complete his documentary. So, we don’t know who owns the slides now other than it apparently isn’t any of those who will be at the big presentation.
And, apropos of nothing at all, I note that the Alien Autopsy footage was equally difficult to see in its original state. Frames with the alien on them were promised for proper testing, but somehow that never happened. Now we learn that the original slides will not be available for independent examination.
Anyway, the point is this. The real evidence will not be presented in Mexico City and the mysterious owner of the slides, who does not live in Arizona (as some have suggested), will not be present with the slides. Say what you will, but this simply does not bode well. It is one more disappointed in a series of disappointments and I do not see a way to recover outside an independent analysis of the slides which doesn’t seem to be in the offing any time soon.
Holy smokes! Brings to mind some quote about absence of evidence...
I hope that this is a joke post. Jose Caravaca wrote Richard Reynolds about this 'issue' and you are repeating it. Must be a very slow news day...
The fact is that numerous independent scientists from different disciplines have viewed the originals.
I hope that there is no suggestion that alterations will be made to the originals when presented in Mexico City. If they were forged, the many people who have viewed the slides in-person would know it instantly! Unless you are insinuating that there are liars and forgers involved, I do not understand your point at all.
It is 2015 guys...
High-definition digital copies will be exact, precise duplicates of the original slides. There will be enlargements of the slides and of certain elements of the slides- as well as 3D professional renderings.
As NASA scientist Larry, who has seen the images, comments on Reynold's blog, the slides themselves are simply far too valuable to be hauled around countries, risking damage or loss.
And for god's sake, Kevin, what were you expecting, a 'show and tell' where the slides would be passed around the audience hand-to-hand?
So it's the Microsoft playbook all over again. Months and months of vaporware, and now bait and switch. Trust that the copies are accurate representations of the originals behind the curtain.
For someone who dismissed the slides as "nonsense" many months ago, you have certainly devoted a lot of column inches to it.
I have a question please but excuse the simplicity of its wording. It's more loaded than it sounds. Based on everything you know and have seen of the slides, could the world now confront the powers that be, show everything to be a cover up, have establishments hang there head in shame and obtain true disclosure?
The joke here seems to be that we're told that a man who was in Roswell in 1947 said that the image on the slide is close to the alien creatures he saw, but we're not supposed to question him and verify the information.
We're told that the dating suggests that the slides were taken in 1947, but we're not supposed to question the expert who made that analysis and provided that information.
We're told that the slides belonged to Hilda Ray and we're supposed to accept that even though Dew said that they might have been found in the house of her attorney and that there is no chain of custody.
We're told that scentists from various disciplines have viewed the slides but we're told nothing about them.
My point, and I understand as I mentioned that if they are the real thing, they are extremely valuable, but we are not going to see the real slides. High resolution copies, and various bits of evidence, but apparently we're not supposed to ask questions about this. Just take it all on faith.
I am expecting a proper announcement with the proper documentation, but I also know that many forgies have some mechanism to prevent an independent examination of the evidence which is exactly what we're getting here.
So far, the only names attached were that of a PFC who was identified because Dew provided enough information for it (though as I explained, I was able to figure it out) and a KODAK expert who was identified because of Dew, who doesn't seem to be thrilled to be connected to this.
Yes, I get that those of us on the outside don't know what all has been done, but for crying out loud, you and Dew have been promoting this for months and months... All you all had to do was keep quiet rather than make extra noise such as publishing an article in a UFO magazine or throwing up a YouTube video.
But we still don't know how you plan to connect all this to the Roswell case because, so far, that thread is pretty thin.
That's a pretty interesting spin Anthony. I'm surprised this issue wasn't breached earlier, as I'm sure some people were only too willing to shove this "evidence" in one's faces.Was this sentiment expressed by you earlier? It sort of sounds like one of those open in case of emergency contingencies.
Perhaps Sothbey's will take note and offer photocopies and other reproductions on any future auctions as the items themselves are far too valuable to be transfered about.
The chest belonged to the Rays and the Rays took the slides and were themselves pictured in the slides found in the chest.
And the Roswell vet has been interviewed several times by at least 3 researchers, including on video tape. How many more interviews and how many more people should call the 91 year old man with a dying wife? Whose even had pictures of his home placed on the net by people like Paul Kimball. Lance Moody even asked for interested people to contact him to go on a "road trip" to the old man's house to question him!
And the photo-scientist whose identity was leaked through finding his name through my hacked emails began to receive several night calls from strangers about his involvement. This even before his name was officially revealed and before his findings were even made public! The difficulty in getting scientists to work on such a controversial subject is hard enough, and is made more difficult by the resulting harassment and derision they receive.
And as far as connecting the being depicted in the slides to the Roswell crash event-
-We have two slides from 1947 (the very year of the Roswell crash) depicting the corpse of a humanoid creature whose characteristics match those reported by many people who were witnesses to the bodies crashed at Roswell. This includes one still-living witness's recollection when shown the slides. The common features of the creature in the slides and the creatures these witnesses testified to include a 3.5 foot being with a large hairless head with strangely spaced, large eyes and limbs that are thin and frail and disproportionately long relative to the body. Both have four fingers.
-The owners of the slides, the Rays, both had very strong connections to New Mexico in the 1940s. Bernerd was a field geologist working the Permian Basin and fields of NM and was the President of the West Texas Geological Society (which included NM at the time) during 1946/7. Interestingly, after that year -the year of the crash and the slides- he became a 'ghost' professionally.
His wife Hilda was an Oil and Gas attorney and had many clients and interests in New Mexico during this time period.
But there is yet another connection and revelation about this that is nothing less than stunning, and will be revealed during the presentation.
Again relative to the actual slides being presented at Mexico City, I want to say this:
I have no special knowledge that this is the case. I have no involvement in the production. I am merely -like you- going by what Jose Caravaca says that he learned.
But if this is the case, the risk of loss, damage or theft of the slides while on international travel and public display would be great.
Kevin, you wrote: "Now we learn that the original slides will not be available for independent examination." I wouldn't have expected them to be there on that stage and in that arena in Mexico City. How would painstaking analysis of the original slides by one or more specialists, requiring no doubt significant time spent in the analysis, be performed in the midst of that live setting? Would the lights be dimmed and the audience asked to wait in silence for a period of time to hear the first opinions of those analysts expressed? I doubt that you believe no opportunity will be provided after the Mexico City event for analysis of the original slides to be undertaken by additional expert analysts of photographic materials. So the investigation of these slides will continue after May 5, and we might wait a long time for a comprehensive assessment acceptable to everyone in this field.
YO!!! Kevin and Anthony!!!
Hey guys, you have posted some pretty mean personal attacks here between core members of "The Roswell Dream Team" to be putting out in public.
Yet despite your best efforts at posted explanations, I still wonder why your Team Leaders Schmitt and Carey never publicly support or defend your statements?
It may well be that the originals would be at risk if they were to be transported to Mexico City, or anywhere else. Therefore, if these slides depict what the promoters claim they depict (i.e. ET bodies) perhaps it is best if only copies are shown.
But it still should be possible for the public to view the originals at a public place, such as a museum of natural history. I wonder if such will be the case.
If the slides are a complete flop (as I predict) then no further "expert analysis" will be done and the case will be closed, for good.
I have known Kevin for a very long time and consider him to be sincere, diligent and balanced. He ranks among the very best researchers on the subject.
But Kevin and I do not always agree on everything...and so it should be. There is variance of opinion on everything in life.
Relative to Tom and Don, they do not have blogs and as a general rule do not post comments on others blogs. I email and phone them very regularly and consider both friends.You may not recall, but it was in fact Tom who made the first public statement about the discovery of the slides as a presentation at American University in DC. He and Don both have Youtube video interviews on the slides subject and both have granted other online interviews.
But, like with Kevin, Don and Tom do not always agree with me. And again, so it should be. For instance, neither is convinced that the Socorro sighting was a hoax, as I am convinced.
The original slides would be great to see but not absolutely needed to prove the date of manufacture. If the date code is correct for 1947 then 1927 can be ruled out because Kodachrome wasn't invented yet. 1967 can be ruled out as well because the K-11 film was discontinued in 1961 and the frame numbering system was changed some time in the 1950's. 1947 film would be numbered 1-2-3-4 etc. 1967 film would be numbered 1-1a-2-2a -3-3a etc.
This doesn't mean that the film was exposed and processed in 1947, the slide mount may indicate it was processed between 1941 and 1949. The problem here is that slide mounts can be changed, so the film might have been exposed and processed as late as 1961 or a little later as the K-11 process may have been extended past 1961.
Then of course we have the huge leap that the slides depict the Roswell alien or any other alien for that matter.
For the few years that I have been posting on this and Rich Reynolds’ blog site I have avoided discussing my affiliation with NASA. NASA employees are allowed the same freedom of speech as any other citizen. However, federal regulations and policies make it clear that when exercising their free speech rights, employees are never to say or imply that their opinions are in any way affiliated with NASA. That can include gratuitous use of terms like “NASA Scientist” in other than official communications.
However, as of the end of last month, this issue became moot when I retired after 35 years in the Civil Service working as a NASA Aerospace Engineer. I no longer work for NASA.
Happy to clarify that your observations and statements on this are your own and do not in any way represent those of NASA. And congratulations on your retirement!
My prediction is that shortly after a version of the slides of any quality is available on the Internet, the location, the display and maybe even the individuals in the photo will be identified. This is like watching OJ in the white bronco. You dread the outcome, but you just can't change the channel. I have yet to see anyone post that they plan to attend on 5 May. I know there is plenty of Mexican interest in UFOs, so may some local drop ins will be enough that the group doesn't go bankrupt. Unfortunately, like the OJ story, the drama will extend for a long time and may never be completely resolved.
There are any number of challenges that can be and have been pointed out about the saga of the slides. The central one, of which no amount of slight of hand, emails or statements is ever going to adequately compensate, is that those representing the slides either sincerely do not understand the unprofessional manner it has been conducted or they do. Neither possibility bodes well and relegates the status of the saga to meaningless from a research perspective.
I didn't see a way to edit my previous post.
To clarify, I don't disagree with anything you have said regarding these slides. The only exception being that if the scans are indeed accurate and unedited it would be possible to verify the date of manufacture of the film without chemical testing. I do agree it would be much better to have the actual slides.
So, to recap:
1. The slides owners are unknown.
2. The slides location is unknown.
3. The explanation for the Mexico City venue is unknown.
"unprofessional" doesn't even begin to cover it.
The Mexico City location would be a great way to make an 'arm's length' presentation.
It takes about 2 seconds to verify a date code.
Scientists follow a standard procedure for new discoveries. If the scientist is an expert in the applicable field, he makes his own analysis. Most often, he will consult with colleagues, and, if necessary, other experts in related fields. If there is consensus, then papers are written, and announcements made. If not, then papers are written, noting the disagreements, and debates may continue, but the research is there, published for the world to see. (Scientists tend to address probable issues in the original paper:)
Scientists most often review each others work, even lab work, without charge. This is called 'professional courtesy'. It's something that appears to be alien to UFOlogy.
I hope to be pleasantly surprised by the Big Show, with all questions answered, and all avenues explored.
I just wonder what all the advance publicity, good and bad, is doing to inflate the attendance figures at this upcoming event.
I am serious that I would like for any folks that plan to attend to let that be known. I don't plan to ridicule them and hope that others would refrain. I am curious as to the best possible outcome attendees can imagine based on the information provided so far. If attendance is not based on or is in spite of the information provided so far, what was compelling? If the event includes a golf tournament with great prizes, held on a beach with unlimited free cervezas, me culpa, I understand.
I think it has a bit to do with how far away you live from Mexico city.
I don't live close by but if it was just, say a five minute walk to the venue, and I have a spare few dollars for the entrance fee, yeah I would definitely take a look, but certainly wouldn't be expecting to see value for money.
I've given up on these slides. These slides are nonsense until proven otherwise and this whole escapade becomes more and more of a fiasco and is pretty clearly (to me, anyway), not going to be useful in any way that helps the cause. With each passing day, there's almost nothing that makes me think any good is gonna come out of this whole thing.
Uh, Kevin, these slides have already been proven to have been made in 1947.
So what are you talking about "there is no way to prove they were made in 1947".
You are free to go argue about it with the experts at Kodak who validated the age of the slides.
Mexico City would be a fun vacation trip, based on feedback I got from others. To go there just for the 'Show'? Well, _I_ couldn't justify it, but I wouldn't belittle anyone who did.
Glad to see you (and others) ignoring 'slide dating' posts. That dead horse is well and truly beaten...
They have not been proven to have been made in 1947... we are TOLD that the film stock was from 1947 and we are TOLD that the slide sleeve was only in use from 1941 to 1949. But we have not seen that evidence...
And even if the code on the film shows manufacture in 1947 and if those slide sleeves were only used in the 1940s, that does not PROVE that the slides were made in 1947.
And who is this expert from Kodak. We are TOLD that they have this expert, but then those at the far end of the spectrum, that is the skeptics have also talked to an expert at Kodak who is supposedly the same one and he wasn't nearly as enthusiastic about the dating of the slides.
So, right now, nothing is PROVEN but there have been allegations slung by those at both ends.
It seems, when we have our opportunity to view the evidence, what we will see is that they might be able to tell us when the film was manufactured (and depending on the coding available, we might know where it was made). They will not be able to tell us when the creature was photographed or when the film was processed... other than providing a range.
So, the statement stands... there probably is no way to prove when the slides were made. We'll be left with a range.
You forget that there are a few witnesses (according to AJB) who swear the being depicted in the slides is the same being they saw amongst the Roswell debris. Never mind the fact that they were, supposedly, sworn to secrecy.
This surely proves that the slides depict an honest-to-goodness genuine ET. You can't expect more than that, can you?
The big problem I see with this whole slide controversy is how could an uncleared civilian been allowed to have taken the pictures if this was a real alien from the claimed Roswell crash?
Anyway, May 5 isn't far away! Are they serving margaritas at the event?
You're making two common mistakes in UFOlogy:
1. Overthinking the issue.
2. Making assumptions.
There's NO proof that slides were shot by an 'uncleared civilian'. Anyone could have shot them. The big problem is that the slides have NO provenance. Even if they show a bonafide ET being, it's going to be a hard sell, even to ET theorists.
The very best outcome for the ET crowd is for experts to agree that they can't explain it.
No one is going to, nor should they, admit to an ET hypothesis, based on these slides.
I can settle this..
The obscure Peruvian science fiction movie they took this from was getting late fees so they won't be able to take the "original" with them to Mexico.
So...if the slides "reveal" were taking place in the States, there would be no border or security issues...and the slides themselves could be shown.
But moving the "reveal" to Mexico gives an excuse for not presenting the actual slides.
Let's jump ahead.
Tony, when will outsiders be allowed to compare your anonymous experts' findings to the actual slides?
If this never happens, then you have no findings, you have rumours.
Post a Comment