Friday, May 01, 2015

Not the Roswell Slides

As we get closer to the reveal of the Not Roswell Slides, Gilles Fernandez posted a note on the last my posting which wasn’t relevant to the topic but that was interesting. Apparently he, and his team of investigators who have been working quietly behind the scenes, have made one discovery that is of importance. Fernandez posted one of the slides to his blog (which is normally written in French but this was in English) that came from the stash of Hilda Blair Ray and showed a scene France. All of this can be seen at:

Although they just show the picture, they have identified the cars on the street and they weren’t produced until the mid-to-late 1950s. That would seem to suggest that slide was not taken in the late 1940s but maybe as much as ten years later.

Fernandez wrote, “Yes, As [sic] pointed out in our previous article devoted to the Roswell Slides, a close examination by members of our team revealed that French cars depicted in this slide were produced from 1958 [though it seems one was available in 1956]. So, if this slide had the mount expected from a 1941 to 1949 scene, it would prove that the type of mount with only ‘Kodachrome’ printed two times is NOT a forensic evidence to establish that what is depicted is from the 1941 – 1949 period expected for this type of mount.”

This, they say, shows that the cardboard slide sleeve that has been claimed to have been used only from 1941 to 1949 was actually used much longer.

Is this discovery of overwhelming importance?

Well, not so much. It does expand the time frame for the use of that specific slide sleeve so it is not as limited as had been suggested.

But there is one problem. They reproduce the scene but they don’t reproduce the slide sleeve along with it. It could be argued that while this is one of Hilda Ray’s slide, the sleeve doesn’t match, precisely those from 1941 to 1949. It would seem that this is an oversight. I have quickly scanned the blog but haven’t found the picture printed with the slide sleeve visible to compare it with those from 1941 to 1949.

We are now very close to the big reveal and many of our questions should be answered then. We all have provided those with the Not Roswell Slides all with plenty of notice of what we would like to see in the way of proof. Once the show has been performed, we can then begin a complete analysis of the data. Providing all the promised information is released.


Gilles Fernandez said...


There are more to come after May the 5th...

"They" have a box from a family. OK! Ask "them" to provide you/me/us between the 400 a slide where we will see the Ray in family, for a birthday, a mariage, a scene where we can see the "Ray family in a slide" as expected from a family box of slides.

Tic tac tic tac...


Gilles Fernandez

SlideBox Media said...

There are slides from the 50's in the collection. They have a different border. I say in the trailer in fact that the slides date, from what we can tell, from the mid-40s to the mid-50s. They don't all have identical borders.

Lance said...

Already we are hearing that their "experts" seem to be mostly other UFO nuts (a guy from MUFON etc. etc.).

If I were asked to detail all of the honest things we have seen the slides team do so far, it would be a very short list.


Jack Brewer said...

I thought it was an interesting blog post from Gilles that raised some valid points. About the lack of a slide jacket for the photo of the cars, I interpreted that to be Gilles' point: more info could be revealed that would help clarify the circumstances.

Same could be said for the images of the Rays in which they seem to appear much older than they would have been in the late 1940's. So, again, I interpreted Gilles' point to be that researchers sincerely desiring to systematically clarify details have opportunities to do so. If no better job is done May 5 than has been done to date, the obfuscation and unsupported fantastic claims should speak for themselves.

KRandle said...

SlideBox Media -

If that's your real name (sorry, just a little humor, we all know who SlideBox is)...

That is why I put the caveat in the post about them not showing the slide sleeve with the picture of Paris. Without the sleeve to help date the photograph, it is just an interesting picture filled with ugly cars.

cda said...

And this is the sort of thing that, according to the presenters, is supposed to prove ETs visited the earth in recent times!

Did I refer elsewhere to a "comedy of errors" on Roswell?

Judge for yourself.

Gilles Fernandez said...


Only to signale an new article hosted in Robert Sheaffer (excellent) blog:

Guest Post: The "Roswell Slides" depict Alien MATILDA by George Wingfield


PS: Oooh and no, I had NO such materials, rumors, claims when I realized my own blog article, even if - excepted - I noticed the more or less exact anniversary of the first public appaerance of the "Alien Autopsy" film.
For a timeline, I recommand this excellent ressource BTW:

Curt Collins said...

The new issue of Tim Printy's SUNlite provides an excellent analysis of the Roswell Slides being presented at BeWitness.
It also asks some very good questions about the other slides in the Ray collection.

Paul Young said...

Technically speaking,without a slide sleeve to prove that the "cars" slide and the "corpse/mummy/dummy" slide were of the same batch...Fernandez investigation means, errrrr, absolutely nothing.
Minutiae of the minutiae.

Oh well, the dreaded 5th of May is almost upon us.

Tim Hebert said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tim Hebert said...

Gilles opens up an area of reasonable inquiry since the batch of 400 other slides are supposed to link the Rays to Roswell, the corridors of power in the government, etc.

Funny how you characterize Gilles as conducting minutia overlapping minutia since the majority of the commentators on Kevin's blog debate minutia to the point of absurdity.

Hopefully, the full 400 plus slides will be made available at some point in time so that we can see as to context and relevance (if any) to the two star slides.

Paul Young said...

@ Tim... Except the fact that only the slides amongst the 400 that share the very same era of slide sleeve are relevant.

Same as most people here, I'd agree these slides will amount to a big fat nothing as far as relevance to the Roswell incident is concerned. (Unless the "dream team" have something up their sleeve that would leave Moses gobsmacked!)

I expect that thinking about the Question/Answer segment at the end of the 5/5/15 presentation has given Tom, Don and the boys sleepless nights for weeks. The proverbial "Like shooting fish in a barrel" springs to mind.

They'd better eat their porridge that morning because I think it's going to be a long day for them.

Don Maor said...

Tim Herbert said:

"Gilles opens up an area of reasonable inquiry since the batch of 400 other slides are supposed to link the Rays to Roswell, the corridors of power in the government, etc."

The Ray's link to important people can be verified independently of the slides, I think. Maybe the 400 slides provided some clues, but the confirmation of everything is external to the 400 slides.

Lance said...

"The Ray's link to important people can be verified independently of the slides, I think. Maybe the 400 slides provided some clues, but the confirmation of everything is external to the 400 slides."

Yes, as long as you mean "unverified" when you say "verified" and you mean "in my special UFO world" when you say "external".


Don Maor said...

I am sorry Lance if you became somewhat nervious because of my hurried writing.

But yes, I should have said "must be external" instead of "is external".

And yes, using both "verified" and/or "unveriefied" means the same in terms of what I was thinking.

Unknown said...

What's so dreaded about the fifth of May, Paul? If you're not interested in the issue and have already made your mind up about the slides, why even worry about it? Why show your face on the net and post uneducated, misinformed hate? I don't get that. At all.

Unknown said...

There is almost zero forensic value to the slide mount(the proper name for the sleeve people keep talking about) The mount is so easy to change that a child could do it. That is if they could be trusted with a sharp blade and an iron. Even if this team kept the original mounts there would have to be a test to determine if they were sealed in 1947 or around then.

It's equally useless to talk about the other slides in the collection. Many people have slides taken at different times in their shoe boxes or wherever they store them.

William Strathmann said...


A while back P. Kimball said he was going to post a thorough review of the Cinco de Mayo slides on Quatro de Mayo. I just tried to access his blog and it now requires invited permission. Just curious if anyone with an invite can see if he has made good on his promise.


Curt Collins said...

William, please see this:

William Strathmann said...


Thank you Curt. I appreciate your help, and I'm not surprised by this outcome.


Unknown said...

Many people have been critical of the team for not releasing the slides on the internet.
There could be another reason beyond taking the sting out of the presentation tonight. It's not a giant leap to assume that they intend to monetize these slides to the maximum. If they release the slides without a clear claim to the copyright they would lose control of the money that they could make beyond the presentation.
This is pure speculation on my part based on US copyright law. Since it hasn't been clearly established exactly who the photographer was then the ownership of the copyright remains in doubt.
Briefly for those who may not understand what copyright is. It gives the owner of the copyright the right to control usage of the images with some exceptions. Fair use being the main one.
Again speculation but if they copyright the presentation, specifically the internet part. They may be able to claim the images are under their control as part of the presentation. This is similar to the Blue Book files and Fold3. Fold3 issued a take down notice to the Black Vault site based on their claim that the digitizing of the files made them owner of the copyright.