(Blogger’s Note: I had said that I would
post, without comment, any statement from Don Schmitt or Tom Carey. I did that
with Carey’s statement which suggested he was still of the opinion that the
slides showed an alien creature. The note appended at the end, written by
Schmitt, suggested that he was unaware that others had independently deblurred
the note and that the placard was readable. Seeing that, and the information
developed by Tony Bragalia that the mummy had been on display at Mesa Verde
complete with a journal entry that matched, to a startling degree, the message
on the placard. Shown this evidence, Schmitt has made the following statement.
I have highlighted one of the statements because others have suggested that
neither Tom Carey nor Don Schmitt have not repudiated their stance.)
Statement from Donald R. Schmitt
 |
| Don Schmitt |
It would seem like I've been here before... Asking my friends and
colleagues to accept my sincerest apology for my participation in the recent
event in Mexico City. I accept full responsibility for the fact that I allowed
myself to be drawn into this situation, albeit with the best of intentions, I
sacrificed my better judgement by being overly trusting when I should have
known better. As one strives to make up for the mistakes of the past, there are
times that emotions cause one to outrun their headlights. In my case, I ran it
right off the road. Through the years I have worked hard to earn back your
respect and confidence in my work only to presently jeopardize it all. For that
I am especially remorseful. I am afraid that after spending almost half of my
life devoted to one specific investigation, I allowed the allure of final
resolution cloud my skeptical nature to be replaced by a false vision of hope. I now realize that the image in the slides
is a mummy as specified by the display placard. At this time I consider the
matter concluded and intend on moving forward. My only desire is that you try
to understand that I never willfully did anything to mislead or misrepresent
what I thought was the truth and I only acted with the best of objectives.
Still, if I have offended or hurt anyone through my participation in this
event, you have my deepest apology and have every right to hold it against me.
When the truth finally was made known to all of us, I realized that I could
only blame myself for not only failing you, but more sadly, failing myself. I
must do better. And with God's help and your understanding, I promise I will.
Sincerely,
Donald R. Schmitt
Kevin, you know how I feel about Schmitt. I don't think there's any place for him in anything approaching respectable research, not only because of his past indiscretions but also because I think we've seen time and again that he's a terrible researcher.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I'll give him credit for stepping up to the plate with what reads on its face as a real and sincere apology that shows much more self-reflection and understanding than Anthony Bragalia's did. I'm not sure we can accept that Schmitt is quite the innocent victim that he portrays himself to be here, given all the things he said and the way he operated throughout this affair, but perhaps he really is such a true believer that he was "blinded by the light," so to speak. If so, he wouldn't be the first... and he won't be the last.
I think this affair should effectively end his career in ufology, but at least he's going out with a measure of grace. Good for him.
Best,
Paul
I am glad to see a sincere apology from Don. I hope though, as Paul said, this affair ends his career in ufology. Also, if I was in his position, I would most definitely offer refunds for those attending BeWitness to express my true integrity, I personally would not be able to sleep at night otherwise. To me, you're either an honest seeker of the Truth or nothing at all, there is no grey area. The trouble is with Don/Tom's work though as shown clearly with this whole fiasco, grey area is a nice warm fuzzy place to play around with - until, that is, you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
ReplyDeletePaul Kimball wrote: "I think this affair should effectively end his career in ufology."
ReplyDeleteThat's 'what you think'. Fortunately, many people won't follow you in what you think.
Don't you ever tire of trying to assume the roles of judge, jury, and executioner? I've often wondered what that's about.
Fortunately, many people won't follow you in what you think.
ReplyDeleteThen as I've said many times, people will get the ufology that they deserve. Hey, it's a free country. If you want guys like Don Schmitt as your leading lights, fill your boots. It makes no never mind to me.
PK
I must respectfully disagree with Paul Kimball.
ReplyDeleteI cannot view the "apologies" of either Schmitt or Bragalia as anything more than crass attempts at damage control.
I guess all the omline class action lawsuit drivel put a good scare into them.
And I am truly amazed that Carey hasn't yet joined 'The Roswell CYA Chorus'!
Too sad.
Don can still do a great service to Ufology by proclaiming how blinded he was, and that he has been duped many times for years to come. He could warn any future UFO promotions of this type to STOP, and he can serve as a valuable reminder about what will likely happen in the next UFO FRAUD.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Don should put extreme public pressure on Adam Dew to release NOW to the public the original high resolution LOSSLESS OPTICAL slide scans WITH the specifications of what the Optical Resolution is along with the bit color AND the exact hardware model and software version used to do the scans.
Don, your apology requires more than just that. IMO, you need to follow-up with Adam Dew to expose FULLY THE TRUTH about the optical scans of the slides. Until I know what you had to see AND what Adam Dew has, then we can't reasonably understand the full meaning of your apology. This could clearly still involve fraud on several levels with various people.
You MUST do much more than just apologize! SEE ABOVE for my opinion.
Thanks for starting with an admission and apology, but you're only at the starting line with what you need to still do to get to the finish line in this matter. IMO.
I cannot view the "apologies" of either Schmitt or Bragalia as anything more than crass attempts at damage control.
ReplyDeleteThat may well be true. Their actions going forward will tell the tale. In Schmitt's case, if he is sincere he will withdraw from the public ($) part of ufology - no more books, no movies, no more lectures. In effect, go from being a cabinet member to being a back-bencher.
It's a time-honoured tradition of accepting both responsibility and consequences that we seem to have lost sight of in the modern world.
PK
What really concerns me is that had the placard being genuinely unreadable, or not present in the image, would the principles in this fiasco have spent the next few years arguing that the picture shown an alien corpse?
ReplyDeleteIn a way the placard is a distraction as it is entirely superfluous in making the call that this is a museum display of some sort and that the body depicted is that of a mummified human.
I will never understand how when presented with that slide anyone could see anything other than the earthly and prosaic. That 3 years were spent on this, numerous experts consulted, and ultimately a presentation in a huge auditorium was delivered just boggles the mind.
I admire Don Schmitt for his apology. I believe that Don and Tom Carey are sincere, dedicated UFO researchers. Len Strinfield called UFO research "a hall of mirrors," in which it very easy to be led astray. Don has admitted he was led astray, as any one of us might be. I hope the naysayers will stop pounding on him and Tom. I do not believe they deserve this treatment.
ReplyDeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteWell...
Don, Tom, Anthony, you, the "forensic experts" of May the 5th", YOU, have made projective elaborations and transformation from a very prosaic and conventional "being" (here a mummy), slide, due to the UFO culture & a contemporan myth (your filter).
Period, keep it easy!
It was a very important moment to improve (and consolidate) the sociopsychological and cultural model/theory of the UFO phenomenom.
Merci à vous tous.
Regards,
Gilles Fernandez
How could anyone have expected more than the result we got? Schmitt is just a typical "Ufologist". He accepts made up stories as fact and calls it data. There is just no evidence that aliens have ever visited our planet.
ReplyDeleteAs long as there are people willing to pay for anything with Don Schmitt's name on it, how do you stop it? And who cares? If an ad hoc effort such as Kevin has proposed is organized and Don comes knocking I'm sure most of the people involved will walk. It's a nonstarter.
ReplyDeleteGilles F. wrote:
ReplyDeleteDon, Tom, Anthony, you, the "forensic experts" of May the 5th", YOU, have made projective elaborations and transformation from a very prosaic and conventional "being" (here a mummy), slide, due to the UFO culture & a contemporan myth (your filter).
While a mummy may be prosaic, a body missing half the ribs of a normal human being is hardly "conventional". There may have been additional skeletal abnormalities that seems to have fooled the forensic experts used and led to the conclusion that the body was not human.
I accept Don's apology on that basis, that he was fooled by the experts, who in turn may have been fooled by a unique set of skeletal deformities maybe not in the medical textbooks. I think that is the heart of what happened here. That led to ignoring other obvious warning signs, such as the museum-like setting of the slides and the big question of how civilians like the Rays would have be allowed to take pictures of an alien body in some secret facility.
People with little or no scientific backgrounds often falsely believe that science is always black and white. That is rarely the case. Evidence usually has a degree of ambiguity to it, which leads to heated debates even amongst the experts as to best interpretation.
I just cited another park service article mentioning the "Roswell" mummy that most visitors found disturbing in some way, referring to it having a "negative personality." Directly beneath that is mention of another mummy recovered from Mesa Verde that was apparently abnormal:
http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/region_111/vol2-1c.htm
Volume 2 - No. 1, January, 1940
It seems strange that an archaeological museum should house a problem child, but for a great many years the Mesa Verde Museum had "Tony". Some doctors and dentists claimed that Tony was a normal child of four or five. Others argued that it was a cretin, or dwarf, of much greater age. Many years ago when Tony was found in a crevice in Mummy House, a well-known doctor said the body was that of a cretin. This meant that Tony was an adult who, through some glandular deficiency, had failed to grow larger than a five-year-old child. Certain things about the formation and size of the bones led the doctor to that conclusion. Other doctors were consulted and immediately there was dissension, some arguing that Tony was a normal child. For years the argument continued until at last Tony was taken to a dentist. On that day the mummy became a child of five years. The X-ray showed the six-year molars in their normal place in the jaw bone, almost ready to erupt.
Thus even with the actual body available for direct examination (not just working from two photos), even experts long ago argued over the true nature of this particular mummy. If the body had been promoted as a deformed adult cretin dwarf based on some opinion, then it was later determined it was indeed only a child, no doubt people would similarly be screaming it was a "hoax" instead of an honest mistake.
Ironically, this may turn out to have important scientific consequences. E.g., if the facts behind the "Roswell mummy" were pursued further, we might learn about a new genetic anomaly. Or maybe we would learn that excessive inbreeding among the Anasazi led to many deformities, maybe eventually contributing to their downfall, like inbred royal family lines with hemophilia.
Or maybe it contributed to their abandonment of places like Mesa Verde, through fears that it was haunted or full of bad spirits. Why the place was abandoned is still something of a mystery.
We might consider how much importance we assign to the issue of "researchers" failing to vet stories while reporting them as true. Is there a point in which the damage is the same as intentional deception for all practical purposes?
ReplyDeleteWhile formulating answers to such questions, we might also consider that such purported researchers repeatedly demanded others agree with their unsupported claims, promoted themselves as persecuted by the closed-minded, and went as far as leveling accusations that fraud had been perpetrated against them. That's a pretty nasty dose of researcher bias.
We might also consider that even if we believe the pleas now being issued of incompetence, it has nonetheless been conclusively established that events such as the Roswell Slides and the Citizens Hearing on Disclosure show us that some leading UFO investigators are absolutely horrible researchers. Like, below standard high school equivalency, as a matter of fact.
Some of us pretty well knew that all along. Others were desperate to believe. That's what needs to be improved: recognizing the differences between professionally conducted research and mystery mongering.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete^ lol, and then sue the pants off them! She looked like one tough cookie, that woman.. damn
ReplyDeleteDavid Rudiak wrote: While a mummy may be prosaic, a body missing half the ribs of a normal human being is hardly "conventional".
ReplyDeleteIn few time, you will offer us that the body of the roswell slide is "not human". Come on, David...
You and the forensic experts seems missing the difference between a "body" and "a mummy" when counting the "ribs" from a photo.00
Well, you are ufological experts, after all ;)
Regards,
Gilles
I think what Schmitt has written here is fine, if people want to accept it.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when we all get caught up in the collective apologies and admitted shortcomings, I think some things get left behind:
-Rather than release the 'evidence' publicly for examination - to be put under scrutiny by us all - the proponents charged admission.
-These people touted this as "smoking gun" evidence
-The slides were said to have been put under rigorous examinations by "experts", and not just one.
-A projected backstory was little more than assumed for the slides, and their photographer(s), but we were spun stories of possible connections to connected people and Roswell.
-When the single slide was posted on C2C, I personally believe (as someone who works professionally every day in digital imaging) the image had been level adjusted to deliberately obscure the placard.
-When the placard was deblurred and readable, accusations came from these people that a grass roots collective of critical, thoughtful investigators...had FAKED the placard deblurring.
This slide business was touted and aggressively defended. Period.
UFO study has been mired for decades in a big part due to it's collective memory problem. It seems to forget all too easily, the unforgettable.
I hope this event and these people becomes UFOlogy's embarrassing tattoo. The silver lining? That we all remember it moving forward, and those involved...permanently.
David -
ReplyDeleteI do not understand your points here. It was a mummy. The placaard said it was a mummy. Don Schmitt said it was a mummy. Arguments about perceived anomalies are just that, perceived. How do I know. It was a mummy.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
ReplyDelete"I like the scientific spirit - the holding off, the being sure but not too sure, the willingness to surrender ideas when the evidence is against them: this is ultimately fine - it always keeps the way beyond open - always gives life, thought, affection, the whole man, a chance to try over again after a mistake - after a wrong guess."
- Walt Whitman, Camden's Conversations
JR the only "smoking gun" was the one Tom used to shoot himself in the foot. Even in his admission statement he was told by some experts that it could be a deformed child - that right there shows it cant possibly be a "smoking gun". Right there, you should not possibly even think of hiring out a huge stadium and charging hundreds of dollars or whatever it coasted to watch your little gig.
ReplyDeleteIf Maussan now turns around and changes his opinion, now right there I will be impressed. Only at the admission, mind. Because he has absolutely no credibility whatsoever in my eyes, so that will be most interesting to see. I get the feeling though he will stick to his guns.
Meanwhile Jaime Maussan is demanding extraordinary evidence to believe in the existence of... Anthony Bragalia:
ReplyDeletehttp://bewitness.mx/default.aspx?PK=f5f0ca4c-bb9d-41ba-b920-f96491a31aaf
"Anthony Bragalia, supuesto investigador, que habría descubierto la existencia de esta Momia y que ha sido presentado como el investigador mas importante de este caso, no participo en la investigación del mismo.
No sabemos quién es, de que vive o cuales son sus antecedentes. De hecho no existe en Internet, no hay una sola imagen o personas que lo hayan conocido.
Bragalia afirma que no puede viajar por motivos de salud, también dice que no puede ser fotografiado por supuestos motivos de seguridad, el hecho es que no parece existir."
(Anthony Bragalia, a supposed researcher who would have discovered the existence of this mummy, and who has been presented as the most important investigator in this case, didn't participate in this research.
We don't know who he is, what he does for a living or his background. As a matter of fact, he doesn't exist on the Internet, there is not a single image of him, or persons who have met him.
Bragalia affirms he can't travel due to health problems, he also says he cannot be photographed for security reasons, the thing is he doesn't seem to exist.)
Saludos,
RPJ
First,
ReplyDelete@DR, really disappointing. We've yet to establish there were any experts. Likely, like Anthony, Schmidt took someone's word for a experts review. Their logic of selecting the "experts" is hard to follow. Adobe? It looks to me like they selected those that would provide the desired answer and sound credible. As an example, there is no office in the Pentagon by that name. Please correct me and I will go visit.
@JR good summary.
Kristofer said...
ReplyDelete'If Hilda Blair Ray saw what you and Adam Dew were doing with stolen slides of her life, she would punch you in your damned mouth.'
(Alleged) friends of hers - I think it was 2 of them - were interviewed and clips were shown on May 5th. Apparently, they didn't mind being interviewed about this. Did you not watch any of the event? Is your word on Hilda Ray more reliable than her (alleged) friends?
There could also be legal problems with stating that the slides were 'stolen'.
Gents, I've been exchanging emails with Jaime Maussan over the last few days and I can tell you that his arrogance and tone are in crescendo! I tried to produce an all-together different Roswell event with Maussan, but at the end he stabbed us in the back and went at it with his "dream team" under total "secrecy."
ReplyDeleteHe is not going to back down. He has sworn to fight this out and try to prove he is right and every other thinking human being wrong.
I don't really care. However, thousands of gullible and less educated Mexican fans continue to de duped by Maussan with the help of his close friends in Media.
It's up to the UFO community to see this thing through to its conclusion. It makes me upset to watch the spectacle of innocent well meaning people pay their hard earned Pesos to Maussan. I think that we in Europe and in America we could give a flip about this. But to the less educated people of Mexico, Maussan is a lose cannon that had nobody to respond to. He can get away with the "creature from Metepec" and with the Reed "alien murder" and with the "horse spaceship" because there is no accountability in Mexico. None!
In any case, I am disgusted by this hoax!
Thanks for caring.
"Congnoscenti Veritatem et Veritas Liberabit Vos"
A note of reply to NT above -- while I fully agree with your statements re: Don and Tom, the naysayers (as you so politely refer to them) thrive so much on denigrating those who are down that it is highly doubtful that they will summon up the innate decency to relent anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteI think David's unfortunate musings are disproven. And they are also an example of the type of speculation that leads to this kind of debacle.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, while David's account is rather confusing...there is no indication that anyone thought there was something physically monstrous about the Slides Mummy back when it was in the museum.
There was ANOTHER mummy that the museum folks DID think was unusual and they talked about it's characteristics.
But the Slide Mummy was just referred to as a "splendid mummy".
They all missed what David, apparently sees.
Remember that what David is trying to sell is that some one who is an EXPERT in this topic looked at the body and said, "Jesus, it are from space!"
Now about the ribs. Tim Hebert already surmised that the "missing" ribs are perhaps hidden in the other remaining tissue. So what we are seeing as a single rib, may actually be 2 ribs that are sort of visually fused together. Just like I can't necessarily count how many ribs a living person has by looking at one blurry image of them
David scoffs at this idea.
Take a look at this page:
http://www.blueblurrylines.com/2015/03/is-this-mummy-famous-alien-in-roswell.html
Here you can see another mummy...
When I count the ribs on this mummy, I can only count perhaps 6 or 7 on a side. It seems to be missing some ribs, too!
"Lord, It am from Outer Space!"
No, we have X-rays of this mummy.
And I can count 10 on at least one side in the X-rays--can't see the other side but I'm still going to be able to sleep tonight without worrying that this mummy is an alien, too.
Lance
"I'm sorry for Don, he lacked courage." - Jaime Maussan (in a note to Red Pill Junkie)
ReplyDeleteAccountability is definitely something that is sorely lacking in Mexico. And I don't just mean about Maussan...
ReplyDeleteWith his strong connections to Televisa --One of Latin America's most powerful TV networks-- I doubt he will ever lose all of his audience; and as I stated at The Paracast, the 'martyr rhetoric' is something that sells really well down here.
To me it's something of a bittersweet thing. For better or for worse he did play a big part in my early interest with this subject, back when I was an impressionable muchacho in the 80's and early 90's.
I don't understand why anybody should be sympathetic to the Mexico City Fiasco Gang. It's understood what happened. The apologies are revealing in what they do not reveal. It's a simple matter of CYA at this point for them.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, I do give some credit to those who have apologized thus far. However, those who were on that stage in Mexico City and do not apologize are cowards.
Above, I should say that in SOME photos. I can only count 6 or seven ribs on a side not in all photos.
ReplyDeleteHowever, those who were on that stage in Mexico City and do not apologize are cowards.
ReplyDeleteRichard Dolan on his radio show Monday night:
"Anyone who wants an apology from me on this is going to have to keep waiting."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs to whether the recent debacle ends anybody's career, that remains to be seen. I read the apology in line with Dolan's view that the matter is closed and it's time to move on - a promise to do better.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do not think "Contact in the Desert" is anything but a sideshow, Dolan and Schmitt are currently scheduled to share the stage with everyone from Bara, Tsoukalos, Wilcok, and Howe to Redfern and Friedman. Is the what ufology is?
Then there is the upcoming Roswell fest, with both Schmitt and Carey scheduled to speak along with many of the usual cast. Will the Slides even delay the release of the next book?
Ultimately, the Slides event did not seem all that different from the local MUFON group (dedicated to scientific investigation) offering presentations by people who have been in psychic touch with both Bigfoot and aliens. Is this ufology?
Ufology may get what it deserves, but perhaps it's time to define what ufology is and what a career in it may mean. If it has anything to do with who is on stage - or what stage people are willing to share - then it seems like the whole episode may be quickly forgotten. If it means developing a new approach, then careers will be less important than the study itself.
Kevin,
ReplyDelete"I do not understand your points here. It was a mummy. The placaard said it was a mummy. Don Schmitt said it was a mummy. Arguments about perceived anomalies are just that, perceived. How do I know. It was a mummy."
There's a difference between just a mummy and a mummy with skeletal deformities that may have thrown medical pathologists off, so far off they declared it nonhuman. Tom and Don's whole case was obviously based on that expert testimony, so it does very much matter as to why they believed they had an alien on their hands rather than a mummy.
David,
ReplyDeleteWhat is the name of the medical pathologist who declared that this mummified human was non-human?
I see people calling for everything to be 'serious minded'. On more than a few occasions, I've read disparaging references to 'clowns' and 'circuses' (which I find slightly offensive having loved circuses as a child).
ReplyDeletePerhaps those that seek to institute this new morality could explain how your hope for the future compares with this description of elements of the life and work of a Nobel prize-winning scientist:
According to Genius, the James Gleick-authored biography, Feynman tried LSD during his professorship at Caltech.[36] Somewhat embarrassed by his actions, he largely sidestepped the issue when dictating his anecdotes; he mentions it in passing in the "O Americano, Outra Vez" section, while the "Altered States" chapter in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! describes only marijuana and ketamine experiences at John Lilly's famed sensory deprivation tanks, as a way of studying consciousness.[27]...
In Surely You're Joking, Mr.Feynman!, he gives advice on the best way to pick up a girl in a hostess bar. At Caltech, he used a nude or topless bar as an office away from his usual office, making sketches or writing physics equations on paper placemats. When the county officials tried to close the place, all visitors except Feynman refused to testify in favour of the bar, fearing that their families or patrons would learn about their visits. Only Feynman accepted and in court, he affirmed that the bar was a public need, stating that craftsmen, technicians, engineers, common workers, "and a physics professor" frequented the establishment....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman
"There's a difference between just a mummy and a mummy with skeletal deformities that may have thrown medical pathologists off, so far off they declared it nonhuman."
ReplyDeleteWow, this is amazing, really.
David believes that is is possible that not just one but several qualified medical pathologists looked at a blurry slide image and declared that, because of possibly missing ribs, that what they were seeing was Aliens(!!).
This, Kevin, is the kind of thinking that sinks UFO's as any kind of serious topic.
Just a hint for future UFOlogists: if ANY "expert" ever comes up with that kind of silly conclusion using such limited evidence, you are not working with an expert, you are working with a doofus.
Lance
Lance:
ReplyDeleteA doofus perhaps but I suspect the so-called experts were paid a large sum of money to say what the audience wanted to hear. I doubt their were any honest brokers in this whole affair including the so-called experts.
What seems to be consistent in all the apologies so far (and Dolan's Maussan's increasingly odorous refusals to apologize) is a running insinuation that "Based on the information we were presented with, any reasonable person would have thought the same and done the same."
ReplyDeleteI find the lack of unity remarkable within Camp BeWitness; half are apologetic, half unashamedly unapologetic. I would have thought that should a group so ready to stage something so grand that they would remain tight and resolute and not fall to pieces within days. Could it be because their motivation was not uniform, but due to rather un-scientific reasons instead, and because of that, different people behave in different manners?
ReplyDeleteJaime Maussan's personal surrendering of $100K suggests this is rather not the case but somehow, just quietly, I doubt that.
Lance wrote
ReplyDelete"David believes that is is possible that not just one but several qualified medical pathologists looked at a blurry slide image and declared that, because of possibly missing ribs, that what they were seeing was Aliens(!!).
This, Kevin, is the kind of thinking that sinks UFO's as any kind of serious topic."
Yes, OK Lance you are correct, but not necessary helpful and your no doubt enjoying your "victory lap" as mentioned earlier.
David please don't respond - you will have to concede that this is one of those 5%-10% situations where Lance is right and you are not, so please don't make it worse...
Regards
Nitram.
David wrote
ReplyDelete"There's a difference between just a mummy and a mummy with skeletal deformities that may have thrown medical pathologists off, so far off they declared it nonhuman. Tom and Don's whole case was obviously based on that expert testimony, so it does very much matter as to why they believed they had an alien on their hands rather than a mummy."
David, anyone not used to your dry sense of humour, (like Lance and possibly Kevin) would probably not realise that this was meant to be a joke.
Regards
Nitram
I wonder if or when Tom Carey will make any kind of statement similar to either Tony's or Don's? He really should, given their "mea culpas," and what we all know now about the slides.
ReplyDeleteBTW, Schmitt and Carey have a new book coming out in mid-November of 2015, "The Children of Roswell / A Seven-Decade Legacy of Fear, Intimidation, and Cover-Ups" from New Page Books, a $16.95 paperback.
See: http://bit.ly/1K9sGPz and http://amzn.to/1H6il0E
Bizarrely, there's a free Barnes & Noble fiction "Nook" e-book with basically the same title and a similar theme from 2011 by Alan James, "The Children of Roswell (Book One) / The Swift Chronicle" -- I guess nobody did a title/name search. Or maybe didn't care.
See: http://bit.ly/1E8o9EL
More importantly, by far, is when or will Adam Dew make any kind of public statement about his central role in the "Roswell slides" affair, now that it has been completely discredited? Or Jaime Maussan, who is now "disappointed" with Don's statement, and risibly seems to be pretending Bragalia may not even exist?
Or, the actual owner of the slides, and his sister, who found them?
Tick, tick, tick...
There are several more "shoes to drop" in this devolving clusterfuck, IMHO.
And further lessons to be learned by those who can or will.
Oh well if David was joking then I am an idiot and apologize.
ReplyDeleteLance
I wrote: "There's a difference between just a mummy and a mummy with skeletal deformities that may have thrown medical pathologists off, so far off they declared it nonhuman. Tom and Don's whole case was obviously based on that expert testimony, so it does very much matter as to why they believed they had an alien on their hands rather than a mummy."
ReplyDeleteNitram wrote: David, anyone not used to your dry sense of humour, (like Lance and possibly Kevin) would probably not realise that this was meant to be a joke.
No, Nitram, I'm dead serious. Here's somebody else saying the same thing:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1066804/pg9&mem=
thepixelpusher. May, 14 2015
"I know firsthand that Don Schmitt had very strong misgivings about the slide, but the experts they lined up over the years were telling them they had something unusual. And the experts they had were no amateurs either. It seems even the experts had not done as well as the Roswell Slide Team."
(I have no idea who pixelpusher is.)
Yes, Carey and Schmitt believed the experts. Lance is trying to have it both ways. He has already said he doesn't believe Carey and Schmitt were guilty of fraud or hoaxing (saying he agreed with me). But that could only be true if they honestly believed they had a nonhuman being in the photos.
"No, Nitram, I'm dead serious."
ReplyDeleteI will get my glasses in the morning and check... obviously I am misreading this...
b"h
ReplyDeleteQuestions to remember:
Did these "experts" also sign NDAs? Did they view the full uncropped slides at the highest resolution, where you could see an additional "exhibit" with its own placard behind the body, and a woman in civilian clothes standing immediately beside the body in what looks like a museum display, not a high-security facility? If they did, then I would consider them incompetent. If they were given cropped images (at lower resolution?) only of the body, then other factors could come into play, for example the promise of remuneration for an expert opinion. Possibly.
First, they received money for the show, days after, they apologizes... ok...
ReplyDeleteRed Pill Junkie said...
ReplyDelete"Accountability is definitely something that is sorely lacking in Mexico. And I don't just mean about Maussan...
With his strong connections to Televisa --One of Latin America's most powerful TV networks-- I doubt he will ever lose all of his audience; and as I stated at The Paracast, the 'martyr rhetoric' is something that sells really well down here."
Mwahahaha, Muwhahaha, Muahahaha, Buahahaha, Bwuhuhuhaha...
RPJ, this IS EXACTLY WHY he WILL make plenty of money over this matter milking it forever in the conspiracy UFO world for publicity purposes. He just might sue Adam Dew too, and/or not pay him the money he promised him too.
Adam Dew has NEVER released UNALTERED LOSSLESS High Resolution Scans with the specifications that are needed to get to the bottom of this FRAUD.
The FRAUD continues thanks to Adam Dew, and no one in the Slide Team that has apologized has publicly told Dew to release those either, so they are complicit in this continuing FRAUD... apology or not...
I'm impressed. I don't know Don, so I can only hope that was sincere.
ReplyDeleteI applaud him for owning up to his mistake. I don't know where this leaves things with him as far as credibility right now, but I'm willing to let him try and earn it back.
Closest thing to a confession you'll ever get. But where is Carey's final word on the slides?
ReplyDeleteThere should be a public accounting for the dollars collected on this event. Proceeds used for paying event expenses are lost. But any revenue going to the promoters (was suggested maybe $25,000 each) should be refunded to attendees.
Yes, Schmitt should end his career here.
New guy on the block here and a born-again skeptic after reviewing various evidence from a slew of cases. Taking into consideration the analysis of what seemed a very thorough exploration by Mexican forensic experts, is there a possibility that the forensic evidence gathered back when the placard was created be incorrect? Kevin, wouldn't it be a logical progression to have the morphological features of the body be analyzed by other experts?
ReplyDeleteMr. Maussan is the P.T. Barnum of UFOs. He has a long established reputation for trotting out the latest "find," with minimal (if any) supporting evidence. He puts on a "really big show" and entertains people. You pay up and he entertains you - like pro wrestling, like a carnival sideshow, like going to the movies ... People know it's fiction, but they pay anyway. I'm not defending him - I'm merely stating what he's all about, based on his track record. People in Mexico take everything he says and does with a huge grain of salt. "That's a Maussanism," they say. There are hard-core, legitimate Mexican UFO researchers, such as Carlos Alberto Guzman and many others. Mr. Maussan is not counted among them. Unfortunately, his antics have reflected very poorly on the entire UFO research community; however, that does not invalidate the hard work and dedication of the true researchers.
ReplyDeleteA few things about all this bother me.
ReplyDeleteThe venue- bewitness and Jaimie Maussan. Jaimie peddles tabloid ufo stories to the gullible. He believes everything is related to aliens. He promotes the most ludicrous stories as real events. Makes extraordinary claims with little to no evidence to back it up. And he makes money doing it. He is a snake oil salesman.
3 years- they had almost 3 years to determine what was in the slides. How did they not instantly gravitate towards a mummy in a museum? The glass shelf, the obvious display in the parallel shelf. The fact that normal folks took pictures.
The placard- whited out at the bewitness event- very suspicious. Did they want to hide the fact that this was a mummy? Were they actively trying to hide the truth?
Seeing the high resolution scans, certain words instantly popped out without any software adjustments. I was appalled that they couldn't see in 3 years what I could see in 15 minutes.
All this makes me lean towards dishonest actions. Maybe I am wrong though. Maybe they just have their blinders on. So desperate to find what they believe to be the truth they could not see what was obvious.
I hope it's the latter.
I think a good investigator should be focused on seeking the truth- whatever it may be. Sure I think we would all love it if aliens actually did crash in roswell New Mexico. But we cannot turn a blind eye to the facts just because we want it to be aliens.
Should Schmitt and Carey end their careers in Ufology? I don't know. But I think their careers will be forever tarnished from this.
David,
ReplyDeleteYou're getting it all mixed up: I only said that we can see no clear evidence of fraud.
But the gross incompetence is bad enough.
I assume you are giving up on the argument that the "missing ribs" (which as I showed, may not be missing at all) are so weird that a qualified medical pathologist would look at a blurry slide (the same slide we ALL saw, mind you!) and conclude Aliens!
I don't think that ever happened.
No, what we are seeing is that Carey Schmitt did this all in the UFO way. They went to friends already predisposed towards UFO thinking (just as your first inclination was to collaborate with Frank Warren on the images). In Gecko guy, whom I have heard is a close friend of Carey's, they found a doozy!
We don't know if they ever went to another expert until Maussan added on his "experts" (which likely didn't happen until this year). We certainly don't have the names of any others. And we don't have the names of those who didn't didn't agree with Gecko guy.
As just an example of these poor self-confirming practices, let's look at their photographic "experts":
1. David Rudiak - not an expert in photographic analysis (as he himself admits), very hardcore proponent of Roswell.
2. Donald Burleson, author UFO's and the Murder of Marilyn Monroe (!) Do I need to add anything here?
3. Ray Downing, going a bit interdisciplinary in the paranormal field, Downing appears to be a huge supporter of the long discredited Shroud of Turin.
4. Jeffery Thau, whom they say "sent the Placard to Pentagon" What? What does that mean? Did the Pentagon reply? What did it say?
Indeed we don't really know how any of this went down but if it went like most UFO "investigations", then disconfirming evidence was ignored and confirming evidence (if any) was exaggerated. That is the UFO way.
This episode gives us a glimpse of how the UFO sausage is really made. And these are the very best researchers on Roswell! Can you imagine how the lesser "researchers" do it?
All that said, Schmitt's apology was nicely written and, I thought, moving.
Lance
No sincere apology should be accepted as sincere is HE KEEPS THE MONEY!
ReplyDelete@Scott Lee and Daniel Hurd -
ReplyDeleteYes...gotta wonder with Maussan's rep as a side show UFO entertainer why Schmitt and Carey chose to work with him at all. ???
Credibility declines the second you even consider it. Are they just dumb??
Does seem to me there was money making in mind - not one has offered a refund - meaning they want to keep their money.
@Frank the new guy skeptic -
I think anthropologists decades ago would have been just as capable then as now in identifying a child mummy. They were doing that back in the 1800's just fine. I think the placquard isn't wrong, the dream team just chose to ignore it. Cheers!
One thing is certain, we have candidates for induction into the UFOlogy Hall of Shame. Naturally, the Hall has room for people on both sides of the fence.
ReplyDeleteThat is true - shame on both sides.
Delete@Brian Bell
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response. I'm a mexican national but I've been living in the U.S.A for the most part of my life now so I am fluent in Spanish. I watched the testimony of Dr. Jesus Zalce Benitez and he seemed very thorough and extremely confident about his analysis. On his follow up interview with Jaime Maussan, after the placard was deciphered, Jose maintains his position on his analysis and is willing to challenge other experts in an open debate. Could he be so wrong?? If so, that's just sad as heck!!
A couple of things I wanted to point out:
ReplyDeleteDuring the presentation, a representative of INACIF (the Mexican National Institute of Forensic Sciences) got onstage to present Maussan with a copy of the 33-page written report elaborated by Zalce Benítez, stating that neither of them had received any money for their work.
So, if Zalce Benítez was a delusional or incompetent expert, until proven otherwise he remains a pro-bono incompetent expert.
I don't think the same could be said about Dr. Luis Antonio de Alba Galindo, though. Last Sunday I watched Maussan's TV program Tercer Milenio, and there was Galindo promoting the webpage omnilaser.com.mx which I think provides corrective eye surgery.
I captured a screengrab with Galindo, which I'll try to post on an essay I'm writing re. my impressions of the event.
As for Doble, I think the RSRG has already established he's an old friend of Tom Carey.
Saludos,
RPJ
All involved should end their careers here including Dolan.
ReplyDeleteLance said "As just an example of these poor self-confirming practices, let's look at their photographic "experts":"
ReplyDeleteThis and other messages from Lance in this blog trend indicate to me that Lance has returned to his offensive and propagandistic style, in which the goal is to sell ideas instead of the search for the truth.
I believe Rudiak would have been a very good bet for deciphering what was written in the placard. He deciphered some words of the Ramey memo which is far more difficult to read. I believe that Rudiak and others simply failed to read the placard because they lacked motivation. Carey and Shmitt committed the huge error of sending to Rudiak a cropped image of only the placard. That showed a lack of confidence from Carey that probably made Rudiak not to take the work seriously. Additionally, a complete image would have boosted the creativity and motivation of any photo analyst. A more complete image also might have carried more information on the nature of the blurring, which implies that any automatic deblurring software has more information to work, and more chances of succeeding.
Nab-Lator, whoever he is, probably had access to the complete image. In any case, kudos must go to Nab Lator, not to Lance, who as long as I know, just performed a “car nerd” analysis of the Paris slide, possibly wrong. I still do not understand what was the aim of such irrelevant analysis.
Importantly, it seems to me a legitimate approach to try to find the body of the Mesa Verde mummy, to see whether it indeed has some deformities. If I were in the shoes of the “experts” that claimed the mummy was not human body, I would at least try to find the body in order to learn more of it and from my own mistakes. The Ray’s or someone, found the images worthy of converting them into slides. They found something special on the mummy. It may be worthy to look at it.
Don,
ReplyDeleteDavid and I may argue a lot but I think if he had seen the full image, he would have withdrawn from this project immediately. Same for Kevin.
I agree that David was a good choice from among UFO believers. But choosing from among UFO believers is the UFO way. And the UFO way insures that the only results are laughter and tears.
That is what you should be worrying about as you pretend to search for the truth...
Another aspect of the UFO way is to blame skeptics for their evil propaganda...Maussan is doing that now and Don does it nonstop.
Don, you ought to focus on the evidence. The best way to shut up the evil skeptics is by producing compelling evidence.
Skeptics aren't turning your evidence into crap. It was that way from the beginning.
I just did the car thing for fun. All of us were doing things like that. Some of those things had some value, some didn't I thought an exhibit that showed that the slides date well in the 1950's might be helpful...if it wasn't, that's okay, too.
Lance
@Don -
ReplyDeleteAs I said before, believers use skepticism all the time. Using the word "skeptic" like it's vulgar or profane is stupid.
From a psychological and behavioral perspective, there's something rather intriguing going on here in the aftermath of the placard being deciphered by "nablator," in terms of Bragalia's and Schmitt's "mea culpas" and especially the continuing denials, rationalizations, and/or silence on this matter from Carey, Dew, Dolan, Maussan and among others either directly involved or caught up in this hoax (whether deliberate or "inadvertent," due to confirmation bias, Dunning-Kruger effect, possible manipulation of the slide imagery by Dew, et al, or not):
ReplyDeleteIt's referred to as the "limited hangout" strategy.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout
Excerpt:
"A limited hangout, or partial hangout, is a public relations or propaganda technique that involves the release of previously hidden information in order to prevent a greater exposure of more important details.
"It takes the form of deception, misdirection, or coverup often associated with intelligence agencies involving a release or "mea culpa" type of confession of only part of a set of previously hidden sensitive information, that establishes credibility for the one releasing the information who by the very act of confession appears to be "coming clean" and acting with integrity; but in actuality, by withholding key facts, is protecting a deeper operation and those who could be exposed if the whole truth came out. In effect, if an array of offenses or misdeeds is suspected, this confession admits to a lesser offense while covering up the greater ones.
"A limited hangout typically is a response to lower the pressure felt from inquisitive investigators pursuing clues that threaten to expose everything, and the disclosure is often combined with red herrings or propaganda elements that lead to false trails, distractions, or ideological disinformation; thus allowing covert or criminal elements to continue in their improper activities.
"Victor Marchetti wrote: "A 'limited hangout' is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."[1]"
Part 2 of 2:
ReplyDeleteSee also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Excerpt:
"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude." [Thanks to William Strathman for the D-K reference]
Now, just to be very clear, I'm not suggesting _any_ intelligence agency involvement in any of the "Roswell slides" controversy (the slides advocates, all on their own, did a great job of misleading themselves, and not asking certain questions or demanding answers and better data before they became invested in believing and helping promote this scam), simply that some of what's going on by some of the parties involved seems to be a similar kind of amateurish, civilian use of the "limited hangout" strategy to attempt to excuse and mitigate certain individuals' lack of competence, responsibility, and inherent bias about what some think and believe the "Roswell incident" really was, a supposed ET space craft crash.
That relates to a kind of "metacognitive" dysfunction in thinking logically and empirically, and when that becomes known, resorting to the "limited hangout" rationale, whether they know it or not.
Regardless of whether "the experts" consulted or the DT were provided altered copies of the slide imagery or not (and it does appear that someone, perhaps Adam Dew, may have supplied modified imagery to those brought on-board to provide their "expert analysis," a kind of "appeal to authority" technique), it would seem now, in retrospect, that even then those provided such "altered" imagery should have known better than to leap to the conclusion that what they were provided was a photo of an alien body, unless they were already predisposed psychologically to think that in the first place.
Which, if so, was the first primary logic error and related, premature judgements that initially began and finally led to this debacle.
So very sad, and disturbing, in so many ways.
This in from one of our RSRG members who is in contact with Maussan's camp:
ReplyDelete"Schmitt is telling Maussan that he confessed due to pressure from a company that'd he'd named, but that actually had not conducted an analysis. The company's lawyer has forced him to deny everything. This is believed to be an excuse by Schmitt to get him out of trouble with Maussan."
And so it continues...
PK
Mark OC said
ReplyDelete"What seems to be consistent in all the apologies so far (and Dolan's Maussan's increasingly odorous refusals to apologize) is a running insinuation that "Based on the information we were presented with, any reasonable person would have thought the same and done the same.""
Totally agree.
Lance in a commanding position wrote:
"Indeed we don't really know how any of this went down but if it went like most UFO "investigations", then disconfirming evidence was ignored and confirming evidence (if any) was exaggerated. That is the UFO way.
This episode gives us a glimpse of how the UFO sausage is really made. And these are the very best researchers on Roswell! Can you imagine how the lesser "researchers" do it?
All that said, Schmitt's apology was nicely written and, I thought, moving."
Again totally correct of course but David could well write:
"Like most UFO "debunking", the confirming evidence is ignored and disproving evidence (if any) was exaggerated. That is the UFO debunkers way."
Having said all that (and with the benefit of checking my glasses) I am most surprised that David is still trying to defend this somehow...
"I know firsthand that Don Schmitt had very strong misgivings about the slide, but the experts they lined up over the years were telling them they had something unusual."
Yes, a mummy is unusual, I agree.
But they should have been far more cautious and I am being charitable here when I say that Don & Tom were "quite careless" in the way they handled the whole thing for the past few years...
Regards
Nitram
Martin,
ReplyDeleteIt's up to those making the claims to provide the evidence.
Again no matter how mean and dishonest you think I am, good evidence would put me in my place.
And I can think of several bits of evidence that might do that.
But on the believer side there is no possibility of falsification. Every time Kevin or another researcher works so hard to try to track down a document, a bit of debris, an old diary, etc and hits a dead end, believers just shrug and move on to the next dubious story.
The premise is unfalsifiable. Which means it is pseudoscience.
And you can't use the clever, "I know you are but what am I" retort against that.
Lance
@Steve Sawyer.....
ReplyDeleteTheories are valid...but do you think those guys are actually smart enough to employ them? Guessing if anything were happening they are being advised by someone else.
BrianBell wrote "@Don -
ReplyDeleteAs I said before, believers use skepticism all the time. Using the word "skeptic" like it's vulgar or profane is stupid."
Right Brian, the problem is I have NOT used such word here in this trend, so I don't really understand what are you (and Lance) talking about.
Neither I consider you Brian a "skeptic". You are a somewhat deluded guy with fondness for trolling other guys, and who believes in a weirdly unspecified theory regarding Roswell, without any evidence to it, and much less witnesses.
Lance said:
ReplyDelete"David and I may argue a lot but I think if he had seen the full image, he would have withdrawn from this project immediately. Same for Kevin."
Clearly Lance, this is all speculation on your part and my part, but I believe that in such scenario, before the withdrawal, Rudiak would have made the appropiate warnings to the group, and in the case of having the complete image, he would have tried harder to read it.
Lance said:
ReplyDelete'.....As just an example of these poor self-confirming practices, let's look at their photographic "experts":
1. David Rudiak - not an expert in photographic analysis (as he himself admits), very hardcore proponent of Roswell.
2. Donald Burleson, author UFO's and the Murder of Marilyn Monroe (!) Do I need to add anything here?
3. Ray Downing, going a bit interdisciplinary in the paranormal field, Downing appears to be a huge supporter of the long discredited Shroud of Turin.
4. Jeffery Thau, whom they say "sent the Placard to Pentagon" What? What does that mean? Did the Pentagon reply? What did it say?........'
http://www.blackmesapress.com/Page3.htm
Dr. Burleson studied at Yale University (with the Institute of Far Eastern Languages), and pursued graduate studies at Midwestern State University (Texas), the University of Massachusetts (Amherst), Rivier College (New Hampshire), and Columbia Pacific University (San Rafael, California).
He holds Master's degrees both in mathematics and in English, and a Ph.D. in English literature, with a dissertation on H. P. Lovecraft. He has taught at many colleges and universities, most recently at Eastern New Mexico University in Roswell.
He once held a Top Secret security clearance in U.S. Air Force Intelligence as a Chinese language specialist. He is also fluent in Spanish and has a reading knowledge of French and smatterings of several other languages...
Keep talking Daniel, I'll stop you when you get to the Photo Analysis Expert part of the list!
ReplyDeleteYeah, some UFO believers will never understand.
The UFO Way is to only seek other UFO believers--that way your UFO beliefs are less likely to be challenged.
If that works for you great!
Seems like it worked out well for Don and Tom.
Lance
The description of "UFO's and the Murder of Marilyn Monroe":
ReplyDelete"Dare to read how government officials murdered Marilyn by lethal injection to shut her up
about what she knew of the Roswell UFO coverup!
This is not baseless "conspiracy theory" material by any means. It's proven fact.
Presenting remarkable NEW EVIDENCE from CIA and FBI documents,
veteran writer and UFO researcher Donald Burleson
nails the responsible parties and demonstrates how and why an American Icon died. "
==
See, the scary thing is I know there are some folks here who will read that description and think, "Wow! Sounds legit!"
Lance
@Don Maor - few things....
ReplyDeleteTroll - So you think I'm starting arguments or upsetting people by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response? Funny - you should go back and read your own comments over the last two months. I can say the same of you.
Dream Team's and Rudiak's role - You state that you are "speculating" on how the plaquard was read - including what you think Rudiak did or not do. Are you a mind reader too? Or are you now his spokesperson? Why are you wasting our time on what you speculate they thought or did? Does it matter or are you looking to defend them?
Weirdly unspecified theory - It just seems that way to you since you consider no other explanation than ET. For the record, my "theory", if that's what you want to call it, is a hypothesis based on aspects of Redfern's work, and despite you saying there is no evidence you fail to recognize government documents that clearly state that mutants were used in high altitude medical experiments in New Mexico in 1947 as part of research (using balloons) and the effects of high altitude exposure and proximity to nuclear energy including plutonium tested as an airial dispersal chemical weapon. You also fail to aknowledge government documents distributed by the CIC and AEC in April 1947 specifically stating that under no circumstances could any of that research be made known to the public because of the illegal violation of test subject's human rights.
The problem is your mind is made up, not so unlike Schmitt and Carey, so anything that might go against your conclusions you deliberately go out of your way to dismiss or ridicule because you think you know more than anyone else. It's that kind of crap thinking that got your Dream Team into trouble.
Lance:
ReplyDeleteWhere does that quote about Marilyn Monroe starting with "Dare to read..." come from? Was it the publishing blurb on the cover of Burleson's book? I particularly like the phrase "It's proven fact".
And where did Marilyn get this amazing information? Presumably during one of her liaisons with JFK who happened to whisper it in her ear. A likely story!
Don Maor:
I thought a troll was someone who posted anonymous insults via twitter, etc. Therefore, unless Brian Bell is a pseudonym for someone else, he most certainly is NOT a troll. (Note: this does NOT mean that everyone who posts anonymously is a troll).
Brian Bell wrote:
ReplyDelete"For the record, my "theory", if that's what you want to call it, is a hypothesis based on aspects of Redfern's work, and despite you saying there is no evidence you fail to recognize government documents that clearly state that mutants were used in high altitude medical experiments in New Mexico in 1947 as part of research (using balloons)"
Ok Brian, it is a good thing to quote the source of your theory, in this case Redferns book. However, you should write a book or set a website trying to give strength on the theory, because Redfern's book was the laughingstock of the moment, when it was released.
CDA said:
ReplyDelete"I thought a troll was someone who posted anonymous insults via twitter, etc."
Hello CDA. The internet troll concept predates the Twitter era. I read complains about annoying guys being trolls circa 2001, but the term can be older than that. The wider concept of troll is of someone shielding on the safety of the distance, making repetitive annoying comments, insults, etc. to other people on the net. A search in wikipedia might help.
Dan Maor wrote: (1 of 1)
ReplyDeleteI believe Rudiak would have been a very good bet for deciphering what was written in the placard. He deciphered some words of the Ramey memo which is far more difficult to read. I believe that Rudiak and others simply failed to read the placard because they lacked motivation.
The main problem making for lack of motivation was my inability to refocus the image, which was the overwhelming impediment to reading the thing. I suspect that was a problem with others as well. Without that, there wasn't much to work with.
Once refocused, most of the placard (last three lines) is still a difficult read, requiring a lot of educated guesswork using full context (mummy, body, museum setting), grammar, and knowledge of the English language, EXACTLY the same linguistic techniques I and others use on the Ramey memo. Except for a few oddball words (like “pull-over” and the name “S.L. Palmer”), they had a very good consensus read that later turned out to be almost 100% correct. The irony here is that they still refuse to acknowledge the same approach can be used to read a good deal of the Ramey memo with reasonable accuracy. There are similar consensus reads on various part of the memo, including “victims”, that I’ve also largely confirmed with computer OCR.
Carey and Shmitt committed the huge error of sending to Rudiak a cropped image of only the placard. That showed a lack of confidence from Carey that probably made Rudiak not to take the work seriously.
Carey sent me the placard images, not telling me a thing of what it was about. He asked me if I could read anything. Since that gave me little to work with, I asked him what the context of the placard was. He was reluctant to tell me anything, but finally said that it was with a body, maybe an alien body. He couldn't provide that full image to me since he had signed a NDA, and wasn't sure if he had violated the NDA by sharing the cropped placard scans with me.
Additionally, a complete image would have boosted the creativity and motivation of any photo analyst. A more complete image also might have carried more information on the nature of the blurring, which implies that any automatic deblurring software has more information to work, and more chances of succeeding.
Yes, this is all very true. We lacked more information on the nature of the blur and the full context of the thing, which turned out to be very important, particularly the museum-like setting.
Nab-Lator, whoever he is, probably had access to the complete image.
Yes, but I don’t think that had anything to do with reading the placard. He would have had access to the complete, much clearer image that Richard Dolan provided to Coast to Coast right after the May 5 event. That sort of made it obvious to just about everybody that it was a museum-like setting with another placard and displays in back. The woman in back looked like someone in civilian clothing, not a military nurse, and the body was clearly on glass, not something like a hospital gurney.
However, what finally broke the case is that somebody leaked a lower resolution version of the placard scan. (Despite claims of RSRG being completely open in their information, they won't reveal who the leaker was, so they have their little secrets too.)
Nab Lator fortuitously used SmartDeBlur, which seems to be the only software package that anyone has reported success on in deblurring the placard lettering.
In any case, kudos must go to Nab Lator, not to Lance, who as long as I know, just performed a “car nerd” analysis of the Paris slide, possibly wrong. I still do not understand what was the aim of such irrelevant analysis.
ReplyDeleteThe aim was to cast doubt that the slides were taken around the time of Roswell. It was indeed irrelevant and didn’t prove anything one way or the other, more nonevidence. Sort of like Gilles saying it was an Egyptian mummy because he had “matched” an supposed abdominal incision with “our” mummy to those of Egyptian mummies where they removed the organs as part of the preservation process. How did that “proof” turn out? (To be fair, one of the pathologists at the Mexico presentation also thought there was an incision there where organs were removed to preserve the body.)
Lance and other high-fiving RSRGers also learned that SmartDeBlur does the job (with the right settings). 20/20 hindsight is ever so helpful. Then you can write snarky propaganda that this all could have been solved in "one and a half minutes". Right, once you know that it can be done, what the software of choice is, and the settings, it is "easy". But that’s sort of like saying you solved a hard math problem in 1-1/2 minutes when what you've really done is copied the answer from the smart kid sitting next to you who has already solved it for you.
However, Lance is quite right that by sharing this information among multiple people, it leads to quick corroboration because multiple people can demonstrate that they can come up with the same results. It was obviously a huge mistake by the “Slides Team” not to farm the placard scans around to more people ahead of time seeing if anyone could clear up the thing. I asked for permission to do just that 2 months before the May 5 event, and was informed by Carey that it was a group decision that I absolutely not release the scans to anybody else. That decision cost them dearly.
Importantly, it seems to me a legitimate approach to try to find the body of the Mesa Verde mummy, to see whether it indeed has some deformities. If I were in the shoes of the “experts” that claimed the mummy was not human body, I would at least try to find the body in order to learn more of it and from my own mistakes.
Yes, that is what I've been saying, and getting nothing but flack for it for suggesting there is more to be learned here. Yes, it's a mummy, but what sort of mummy?
I am putting out feelers now for more data. DougD on a previous Kevin thread found more information on what happened to the mummy. It was transferred from the Chapin Mesa Archeological Museum, where the slides were taken, to the Montezuma Castle museum on June 7, 1947, to be close to where it was recovered. What happened to it after that is unclear, other than it seems to have been put on display there for a period of time. (They prepared another display placard in Jan. 1948.)
I have written the museum asking if they know what happened to the mummy and what documentation they may have on it in their archives. Something like old medical and pathological examinations, complete with photos and x-rays would be great and settle a lot of things. I totally agree that it is important to find out whether or not the body did indeed have serious deformities that might have honestly caused several experts to believe it wasn't human. There may even possibly be scientific benefit here, if it turned out this body had a previously unknown genetic syndrome.
Another point is that the body wasn’t transferred until June 1947, so the slides were taken prior to that at the first museum. This bolsters the claims of the “Slides Team” that the film stock dated to 1947 and the pictures were probably taken soon after that, in the Roswell time frame. That was probably correct, but as it turns out irrelevant and coincidental, since obviously a centuries’-old mummy recovered in 1896 has nothing to do with Roswell in July 1947.
David, if it were possible, I would like to see an independent analysis from a qualified anthropologist.
ReplyDeletePlus, are you of the impression that the image depicts the remains that has undergone mummification from a natural process? I don't recall Native American customs of intentionally preserving remains via mummification.
Kind regards,
Tim Hebert
@Tim Herbert -
ReplyDeleteYes, the remains were mummified via natural process (or presumed) since you are correct Native Americans did not prepare Egyptian-style mummies.
Apparently science says that arid, hot, desert regions will commonly preserve bodies in this fashion.
I think everyone here is working under that assumed observation. Cheers!
Tim Herbert wrote:
ReplyDeleteDavid, if it were possible, I would like to see an independent analysis from a qualified anthropologist.
Yes, so would I. Was there something truly unusual about this mummy or were the experts self-deluded? (Glad to see someone from the "other side" with some healthy professional curiosity.)
I am trying to get a cousin-by-marriage interested in having a look. He has some 45 years experience in forensic physical anthropology (study of human remains). He certainly owes me no favors and I'm sure could be quite objective in his opinion.
Plus, are you of the impression that the image depicts the remains that has undergone mummification from a natural process? I don't recall Native American customs of intentionally preserving remains via mummification.
What I've read is that this is a natural mummification process caused by the extremely dry conditions in which they lived. In one reference on the Mesa Verde mummies, it mentioned the organs still being inside, indicating they didn't practice organ removal to help preserve the bodies, as did, e.g., the Egyptians as part of the deliberate mummification process.
One long article mentioning "our" mummy suggested the mummies were probably winter burials, back in caves or crevasses since the ground would have been frozen. The cold would have preserved the tissues while the body dessicated. One pathologist at the Mexico City shindig mentioned evidence that the body had been frozen, and he may have been right (only not in a freezer). On the other hand, he also thought it had been embalmed, which wasn't correct.
However, I've also recently read that some Indian groups did do some crude embalming (if that's the right word) by applying some sort of goo to the outside that aided in mummification. (I'll have to find that website again.)
@Don Maor -
ReplyDelete"...because Redfern's book was the laughingstock of the moment, when it was released."
Probably true to anyone convinced beyond doubt that no other explanation than "ET" can explain Roswell. But that isn't necessarily a majority opinion even among some ET'ers. Probably just your opinion.
Many still hold Roswell as an "open case". If you have evidence that definitively proves that Roswell was ET then provide it. I mean documents mainly, but also debris, photos, etc..... the witness testimony is cancerous with false statements, fictionalized accounts, lies, and fabrication concerning ET confirmation.
Redfern's work does present real documents indicating those experiments were carried out in 1947 in the same location under utmost secrecy while admitting violations of human, ethical, and constitutional rights.
Maybe not as exciting to you as ET visitation, but still ample for providing a reasonable and viable alternative based on known facts.
@Brian,
ReplyDeleteI thought this to be the case also, but initially lacking the text on the placard I had two hypothesis concerning the mummification. One, the specimen was an Egyptian-type mummy that underwent ritual mummification. Two, the specimen was mummified by natural environmental elements.
@David,
If you can arrange such an independent assessment, that would be of some benefit for both sides of the camp.
Sort of ironic that we have to resort to distance relatives or other connections to render help. I'm in the process of passing the images on to one of our internal medicine docs. Not that he can render a pathology assessment, but just an over all opinion on anatomical structures which would be interesting. I'll give the images to him cold, that is no references to anything one way or another.
I'll be glad to share this info, once I get it, to both sides.
David wrote:
ReplyDelete"Lance and other high-fiving RSRGers also learned that SmartDeBlur does the job (with the right settings). 20/20 hindsight is ever so helpful. Then you can write snarky propaganda that this all could have been solved in "one and a half minutes". "
I think this same thing may have been what Frank was mad about also. He went right into the calling other folks dishonest, etc.
The 1.5 minutes thing was put up by Isaac Koi. And, if you know Isaac, you know the doesn't have a snarky bone in his body. It was was an invitation to other folks to see for themselves that the results we were showing were true.
If you remember at the time, it was being said by all the hucksters that we were faking our results. Isaac just wanted to put together an easy and quick way for anyone to see that we weren't. It wasn't meant to say that we solved it in 1.5 minutes.
It was very quick. But not that quick.
David, I put up up some evidence showing that the missing ribs you have been going on about probably weren't missing. You may have missed that (strange, I emailed it to you, too).
Not responding to challenges and instead moving onto some other dubious claim is a classic sign of the UFO way.
You mention again (!) how the mean old skeptics won't buy your analysis of the Ramey memo. I just told you the reasons why. Yet you bring up the the same argument again.
This is the UFO way as well. And you would get so much more mileage by dropping that methodology and trying to work with other folks instead of against them.
Lance
Lance,
ReplyDeleteAs you and I had discussed at length, I'm confident that the mummy in the Kodak image has 10 pairs of ribs and minus total degradation, 2 pair of floating ribs. I state this based on our comparison mummy which has similar visual oddities, yet xrays confirming the correct compliment of ribs.
But, I also see David's point of view as to the perceived bizarre appearance of the image. Again, this could be due to the angle of the camera combined with the natural lighting in the museum...lens flaring? This could account for the visual distortion of the head/skull region. Yet, the mummy may well represent congenital deformities that ultimately lead to an early death of this child.
Now, what has changed my opinion is the manner of mummification process (before the placard was deciphered) since we all seem to be in agreement that this was more than likely a natural process based on environment and geographical location. This natural process could easily account for the oddities that some see in the specimens facial features as the mummification process would have been uncontrolled (for lack of a better description) vs that of a specific process of preservation as practiced in ancient Egypt. We see this effect in our comparison mummy.
I would think that if David can have an independent forensic anthropologist look at this in an objective manner then whatever questions remain should be adequately answered to all's satisfaction.
Personally, I see the remains of a human whose odd features can be explained.
Lance, as usual trying to pick a fight:
ReplyDeleteNot responding to challenges and instead moving onto some other dubious claim is a classic sign of the UFO way.
No, it's a classic sign that I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you over your own unprovable claims (that there is a normal complement of ribs, those missing ribs are just hidden away or allegedly fused with other ribs, so it only seems like most of the ribs are missing). I could respond in kind that making highly speculative claims like that is the classic sign of the “debunker way.”
The classic SCIENTIFIC way to resolve this is to try to get more information, which I am trying to do now, such as contacting the U.S. Park Service at the last known location of the mummy and also trying to find surviving members of the S.L. Palmer family (S.L. Palmer Sr. found the mummy in 1896 and son S.L. Palmer Jr. donated back to the park service in 1936
Heavens Lance! A week ago we had a polite conversation on the phone about the mummy matter, et al, so I know you can be a normal, polite, rational human being when you want to be. But once online and in print, you turn from Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde and quickly revert to attack and insult mode.
I suggested to you that it would be much more helpful to discussions if you just made your points and avoided the nastiness, and you agreed. You have been told this many times by others. Yet you can't seem to restrain yourself for more than 5 minutes before reverting to old form. I honestly don't understand it.
You mention again (!) how the mean old skeptics won't buy your analysis of the Ramey memo. I just told you the reasons why. Yet you bring up the the same argument again.
I bring up the same argument again because you aren't responding to the point I'm making.
Remove the context of the mummy placard and most of that placard is anything but easily readable, just like most of the Ramey memo. So how was it read, and very successfully? By applying known context (mummy, body, museum), knowledge of the world (San Francisco, bodies buried), and knowledge of English grammar, words, and sentence structure. That was the methodology used, even if people didn't realize they were applying a methodology.
As for your supposed arguments against reading the Ramey memo, you stated it was "MUCH more indistinguishable than the mummy placard," which is a gross exaggeration, and my reading was "gibberish", which a was pure fabrication on your part, since part of my stated methodology was that any good reading should be coherent, fluent, grammatical, and sensible.
This is the UFO way as well.
This is the Lance "Debunker way" --flippant dismissal, misrepresentation, and insult. (Do you want me to bring up your recent personal fiasco concerning the Trent photos and your pseudoscientific claim that wires would not significantly sag under the weight of something like a "truck mirror". Your "research" "proof" was finding a Google photo of tennis shoes slung over large power lines. You didn't debate facts and instead were extremely insulting and obnoxious to me, until NASA engineer Larry pinned your ears back with a an actual science lesson stating that I was 100% right and you were totally wrong. No, I guess I won't bring that up.)
And you would get so much more mileage by dropping that methodology and trying to work with other folks instead of against them.
"Drop the methodology" and substitute insult "non-research" in its place? (Ramey memo can't be read just because you say so.) Is that more of the "Debunker Way" Lance?
Reading the placard or the Ramey memo is all about methodology. I have worked collaboratively with many people on the memo, my data and methodology have been online for a dozen years, and I recently suggested the skeptics stop pretending that nothing can be made out in the Ramey memo and work on it in he same way they did the placard.
@Rudiak -
ReplyDeleteWhy are we bothering to do more discovery on the child mummy in the images? It really doesn't matter where it is now since it has already been established that it is what the photo represents - a North American Indian child mummy from Mesa Verda or surroundings?
Seems the case is closed unless this blog has now decided its main focus is anthropological mummy investigation.
The mummy has probably been reburied as indicated in earlier posts. I don't see the reasoning in exploring it further unless it's some sort of strategy to defend the Dream Team's inept actions.
Incidentally, Adam Dew put up a high-res scan of just the face on his website:
ReplyDeletehttp://slideboxmedia.com/face/
It shows a little bit of the upper rib region, not enough to help resolve the number of ribs issue.
Looking at the white rectangular support with the holes, one can see there was complex double motion blur, perhaps horizontally left to right than diagonally up to the right. This information was not made available to any analysts I am aware of, like myself, that might have helped clear up the placard. SmartDeBlur is able to detect it on its own, resulting in a boomerang-shaped deblur kernal.
If the holes in the support are a standard 1 inch, then the length of the head is only 8 or 9 inches, not even adult human size.
Applying SmartDeBlur, the white spot on the white forehead does not seem to resolve into a number, as some have conjectured, common for marking mummies to help identify them. Doesn't prove it; maybe it is just a light reflecion off the glass.
One can see the upper end of the humerus (upper arm one) and see that it is missing the ball of he shoulder ball and socket joint. The socket is also missing, noted by one of the Mexico City pathologists. On the other hand, the humerus end looks a little jagged, so maybe these pieces got broken off and lost along the way, such as perhaps during a crude excavation.
There is a hole or a chunk missing out of the right jaw near the mouth, which the pathologist attributed to an impact injury such as from a crash, but I could also imagine maybe decay or maybe an animal getting to the body.
Remains of the right eyeball may be there--hard to say. The pathologist thought it was still protruding instead of being dried up like a mummy, one reason he rejected mummy and thought maybe chemical preservation had been used.
The nose is almost totally lacking with the nostrils showing, sort of classic "grey" description, but probably also normal mummification.
It is not clear if there are teeth or a part of tongue showing on the inside of the mouth--depends on the blur diameter. At 100x100 blur size, the mouth is entirely black and maybe "teeth" or gums are an illusion caused by blurring of the lower lip.
Those are just my preliminary impressions.
Brian Bell wrote:
ReplyDelete"I don't see the reasoning in exploring it further unless it's some sort of strategy to defend the Dream Team's inept actions."
Exploring it further might reveal if this was a normal child mummy or a seriously deformed one, which might go a long way towards deciding whether people were truly "inept", or honestly confused by a very unusual body, maybe a unique one.
Tim Herbert, no "believer", and a few others are curious about this possibility, as am I. Maybe you just lack curiosity. Or maybe you just always want to assume the worst possible motives in people associated with UFO research.
Even if the body was reburied, there should still be old photos and reports on it still laying around somewhere, maybe even detailed medical/pathological analysis of the body itself, i.e., not just working from photos. What's the harm in trying to find out more? Nobody's asking you to lift a finger.
David,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your above impressions. When I get the chance, I'll take a look at Dew's image. At work now so it will have to be later.
David; for your information (and that of others) I pointed out in a posting last week that the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 required that all human remains taken from places like Mesa Verde be returned to representatives of Native American tribes for reburial. So it is almost certain that the Park Service would no longer have possession of the Palmer mummy. However, it is likely that they will have records of having acquired and disposed of the mummy. Likewise, they should have photos--allowing comparison with the slides.
ReplyDeleteLooks like Don Schmitt was previously scheduled to speak May 16 at a MUFON con in PA:
ReplyDeletehttp://mufonpa.com/wp1/?page_id=925
Kinda wonder if the show went on, as they say, and what happened.
Larry wrote:
ReplyDelete"So it is almost certain that the Park Service would no longer have possession of the Palmer mummy. However, it is likely that they will have records of having acquired and disposed of the mummy. Likewise, they should have photos--allowing comparison with the slides."
That's what I'm hoping, surviving records, photos, maybe even medical pathological reports. If we are very lucky, X-rays would have been done, as is often the case wih mummies.
Really? At this point, with what we know, it actually matters how many ribs this mummy has?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think at this point speculating about the mummy is really not relevant anymore, unless that's your bag.
ReplyDeleteI think it's high time to move on. But Ufoology never learns.
Peace,
Gene
David,
ReplyDeleteI've had a chance to view Dew's face shot. I added my comments to your observations.
"One can see the upper end of the humerus (upper arm one) and see that it is missing the ball of he shoulder ball and socket joint. The socket is also missing, noted by one of the Mexico City pathologists. On the other hand, the humerus end looks a little jagged, so maybe these pieces got broken off and lost along the way, such as perhaps during a crude excavation."
Cloth, or a garment is covering most of the extreme upper shoulder structure and the neck/cervical area. It is appears that the clavicle is visible.
The shoulder joint structure could possibly be there but obscured by the positioning of the body, or ill defined based on decomposition and desiccation. Perhaps the child was in advance stages of malnutrition or suffering for disease such as Rickets which could account for poor bone growth and development.
Or, as you say, broken apart via excavation.
"There is a hole or a chunk missing out of the right jaw near the mouth, which the pathologist attributed to an impact injury such as from a crash, but I could also imagine maybe decay or maybe an animal getting to the body."
I find it difficult to come to any conclusion that what is seen is an impact wound. It is possible that we are seeing the effects of internal decomposition that is causing the effects. If you look at the left side of the face, it appears to be similar as the right as I see a depression in the same area...symmetrical facial features and structures.
More later...
@Rudiak -
ReplyDeleteSeems like your interest is most suited to an anthropological North American Indian research group - not one on UFOs given what we know.
Gene,
ReplyDeleteI believe that all of us (99.9%) are in total agreement with you...it is a mummy that was on display and the deciphered placard proves this.
However, I also understand David Rudiak's curiosity pertaining to Carey and Schmitt's confusing identification, or lack of any rational methodology. One of them studied anthropology and should have known better from an academic standpoint.
Plus, there is a movement, silently by Jamie Maussan, to claim that the mummy in question was actually that of an "alien" based on bizarre oddities shown in the images which drove their "experts" to conclude that the mummy was not human. Yes, a mute point for most of us, but such thoughts do gather steam over time.
I'm hoping that David will be able to pass on the image to a forensic anthropologist that he knows and get an independent assessment. I feel confident that such an unbiased opinion will go far to end this saga at all junctures of this story.
BTW, my calling for an independent anthropologist review is well known with my fellow members of RSG. Even after the placard was deciphered, I was of the opinion that such a review would ultimately be needed sometime down the road...for obvious reasons.
I believe it is important to gather (or try to) more information about the mummified body. Future researchers will be more prepared in case a new similar photo appears. Even if a photo of a real alien surfaces, the knowledge gathered from this fiasco may prove to be useful.
ReplyDeleteSee it positively, everyone following closely this story has learned a lot about human behavior, deblurring softwares, mummies and much more, and probably more can be learned.
David Rudiak said : "I recently suggested the skeptics stop pretending that nothing can be made out in the Ramey memo and work on it in he same way they did the placard."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure where (or whether) to comment on this since Kevin may view it as off-topic in relation to his post - so I'll just post a few brief thoughts here.
The placard was relevant to developing news that appeared to be of interest to a wide cross-section of the UFO community.
I've read a considerable number of UFO books (over a thousand) and a much larger number of magazine/journal articles: very few of them (even ones devoted to Roswell) refer to the Ramey memo.
Does this not suggest that most UFO researchers (rightly or wrongly) do not consider the Ramey memo to be significant evidence?
Incidentally, has anyone ever made a FOIA request in relation to the USAF's attempt to read the Ramey memo?
Answering my own incidental question about FOIA requests at the end of my post a moment ago in relation to the Ramey memo, while the link on David Rudiak's website is dead I've found the relevant material using the Wayback Machine's Internet Archive e.g. :
ReplyDeletehttp://web.archive.org/web/20120321003517/http://www.truthseekeratroswell.com/foia_requests_and_responses.html
Particularly:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120208170739/http://www.truthseekeratroswell.com/images/foia7january2000.jpg
Although I have no way of knowing, I would suspect that the governments interagency UFO working group is having a big laugh about this whole "Roswell Slides" affair.
ReplyDeleteIsaac,
ReplyDeleteFor a current, complete listing of Dennis Balthaser's FOIA requests concerning the 1994 AFOSI handling of the Ramey memo, plus a discussion of the obvious run-around he was getting:
http://www.truthseekeratroswell.com/foia-requests.html
To refresh some memories, the AFOSI Roswell report claimed they had obtained photos of the Ramey memo from the University of Texas at Arlington and passed it on to a photoanalysis lab of a "high level government organization" to see what they could make out in it. Allegedly they reported back that literally nothing could be made out at all due to poor quality.
All Dennis was trying to obtain was the actual correspondence, including final report of the lab to back up AFOSI's claim in their report.
I suggest people who think FOIA's automatically guarantee requested information to be forthcoming, instead of researchers getting BS responses back time after time, should read the multiple FOIA requests of Dennis and the non-answers he kept getting back. Yet it was a simple request--provide the actual cited reference material used in the AF Roswell report. He wasn't asking for schematics of the stealth bomber.
As for the mysterious high level organization that was charged with doing the memo analysis, Kevin has recently learned from a very credible source that it was the CIA's National Photo Interpretation Center, which has had a long history in UFO-related photo-analysis.
A key figure in the creation of the NPIC was Arthur C. Lundahl, who originally headed the Navy's photogrammetric group, one of the labs that analyzed the 1952 Trementon UFO movie. His work on this led to him being was recruited by the CiA and heading up the NPIC.
According to Grant Cameron, Lundahl had an intense interest in the topic and according to one who had been in his home reported he had the largest UFO library he had ever seen. Among other things, Lundahl and the NPIC were also involved in some of the photoanalysis for the Condon Commission.
http://www.presidentialufo.com/john-f-kennedy/72-president-john-f-kennedy
Thus perhaps not much of a surprise that the Ramey memo might be sent to them. (It was certainly at the top of the list of speculated "high level government" labs.)
What is surprising is that statement that absolutely nothing could be read, since it is obvious from blowups that at least some things can indeed be read. So either they were provided with supercrappy images or somebody was lying.
@David Rudiak
ReplyDeleteThanks. I may contact Dennis since it appears the FOIA correspondence ends rather abruptly. The correspondence appears to have still been continuing at the time the relevant webpage was written (which appears to be back in around 2001).
In an interview I did with Don Schmitt in October, 2013, I asked him about the purported slides of Roswell aliens. His comment at the time was: "They should be released to the public, not the UFO community" and "They need to be treated with do diligence to make sure they are what they are supposed to be" and finally, "Nothing can be proven from a photograph, anything can be manipulated". I have always enjoyed speaking with Don, and now wonder how he could have forgotten all the guidelines he was purposing. You can listen to him talk about the slides here: http://podcastufo.com/podcast/68-steve-pierce
ReplyDeleteMartin Willis
Geez Martin, that interview speaks volumes.. so early on in the game he is so extremely defensive, as if in damage control already. He is apologetic from the get go - if I'd found the "smoking gun" I would sound like a kid in a candy store, I wouldn't sound like a lawyer trying to defend myself should the whole wall fall on top of my head..
ReplyDeleteTheDimov said...
ReplyDelete'..He is apologetic from the get go - if I'd found the "smoking gun" I would sound like a kid in a candy store...'
I doubt that you really would, and, if you did, you'd soon be forced to sober up, due to the adverse reaction you'd receive from many.
See also what John Spencer wrote about this hypothetical situation, in 1994:
http://globeintransit.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/john-spencer-on-reaction-to-proof-of.html
Gentlemen, the real damage continues to go largely unchecked, as Maussan is able to instill some "doubt" in the gullible minds of many sensationalist fans. What is the real damage?
ReplyDeleteFor anyone who believes there may be something unexplained about the Roswell incident, this charade is a gross insult to our inteligence. Evidence as to the impact on modern society from Roswell could perhaps be found in analyzing facts such as the exponential growth in the number of aerospace U.S. patents filed at the end of 1947 and onwards.
That same year patents were applied for transistors, supersonic engines, the first space station design, etc. It is also noteworthy that the CIA was founded that very September 1947 by executive order. So, there may be something here that has now been thrown a bucket of cold water. But, most importantly and quite apart from Roswell is the fact that there is a very real phenomena observed in the sky, which perhaps hundreds of thousands of people have witnesses.
What is the real UFO phenomena about? For many, incuding my own eyewitness experience, we gather that whatever craft is able to manouver, be it "orbs of light" or other craft, is not likely made by same advanced aerospace who struggle with internal combustion engines and fuel burning rockets of all sorts.
There was a very strong and possibly successful movement for real institutional disclosure of the UFO phenomena by governments. Now, after this festival of lies, this "freak show" the pressure is off. Is think Kevin Randle said it best when he blogged that a 70 year effort to gather evidence and push for official disclosure had been derailed.
I am also shocked at the fact several U.S and even Mexican Laws were most likely broken by the #beWitness hoaxsters. Including the murky circumstances of how the box was removed from a house under a Court ordered sale (all article removals required Court approval.) As well as many other State and Federal level Fraud laws. It is very likely that the #RoswellSlides promoter team, including SlideBox et al, grossed over US$5 million dollars!
No Sirs, this is a direct affront to society!
"Do no go gentle into that good night, but rage, rage against the dying of the light!"