Wednesday, May 06, 2015

The Roswell Slides After the Big Reveal

Well, the great reveal has happened and it was… not great. In fact, opinion seems to be running against the idea that this was an alien creature and with many inside the UFO community saying that they were underwhelmed. Even those who are solidly inside the extraterrestrial camp have expressed disappointment in the program and the slides with some suggesting this was all promotion for another Don Schmitt and Tom Carey Roswell book.

Tony Bragalia, who has worked with Schmitt and Carey for months if not years on this, is still convinced that it is nothing earthly and there are scientists who back up his claim. In an article that he has circulated this morning (May 6, 2015), he provided this statement from two of those scientists:

It's nothing like us, we can see that his feet and legs appear to be like that of a reptile and could have evolved from something like a gecko or some similar animal that became larger and developed a large brain and binocular vision. His nose is small, his mouth different from ours. There are parts that could have been removed during autopsy. I[t] seems to have no teeth.

Joint Statement, Luis Antonio de Alba, Anatomist and Physiologist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and Richard Doble, Canadian Physical Anthropologist.

Bragalia also wrote, quoting  Professor Rod Slemmons, Former Director of the Chicago Museum of Contemporary Photography and 1950s Kodak Executive, “It would be really, really hard to fake these slides or to duplicate them if that is what you want to do [.]”

And while all that is somewhat interesting, it doesn’t actually prove anything other than these fellows have expressed an opinion about the slides that don’t actually say anything about it being obviously alien. In fact, the name of the Rochester, NY Photo-scientist who supposedly rendered a positive opinion on the slides dating was not revealed. Bragalia wrote:

The truth is that the name of the photo-scientist is known to researchers and others. It was not publicly revealed for a simple reason: the man was repeatedly harassed at home by strangers. It is known that skeptic Lance Moody and reporter Billy Cox both separately -and within a day of each other- found the leaked name of the scientist and saw fit to call him at home at night out-of-the-blue to question him. Bear in mind that this was before the scientists name had been properly revealed and well before his image analysis report was even released. Understandably, the man was angry and has indicated that he simply does not need this kind of thing in his life.

And while it is understandable that the man would have been annoyed at the telephone calls, it is also understandable that others would want to corroborate the information that was being circulated by those who allege the slides show an alien creature. The real problem here is that they leaked the name, unintentionally, and then are appalled that others wish to verify the information. Lance Moody has written that the Rochester scientist’s verdict wasn’t nearly positive as others have suggested and that he was not named in the great reveal suggests that there are problems with the claims about his testimony.

Or, in other words, the point is moot because the witness was not there to be asked a few questions to clarify the situation.

John Greenewald was as unimpressed as were so many others. To his Black Vault site at:

he posted some rather negative words. “When I woke up the morning of May 6, 2015, I expected to at least see 10, maybe 20, maybe even 50 headlines about this.  What did I see? At 8 am in the morning, well after the first news cycle… there were about 3. And those articles ripped apart this story, and profiled it as the joke it was.”

Greenewald quoted from the UK’s Daily Mirror which had said:

Two photographs of a “dead alien” were unveiled at a big money event last night – and immediately dismissed as fake.
A series of ‘UFOlogists’ appeared at the Be Witness meeting last night to reveal images of an extraterrestrial who supposedly crashed to Earth during the infamous Roswell incident in 1947.
The images were found by former journalist Adam Dew, who reportedly turned down interviews with magazines that wanted to cover the story because “they were not offering any compensation” [Which, of course, shows that they weren’t interested as alleged, they just weren’t interested in handing over some cash].
He claimed to have taken steps to verify the pair of alien snaps and said Kodak experts had dated the film to 1947.
But the rest of the world has not had the chance to test the rigour of his methods, because high resolution images of the alien are not yet available.
They are likely to be sold through his production company Dew Media alongside a documentary about the discovery of the slides.
The photos were supposedly found in Arizona, hidden in a collection of snaps owned by oil geologist Bernard Ray and his wife Hilda Ray, who have both died.
Nick Pope, a researcher who headed up a UFO investigation wing at the UK Ministry of Defence, told Mirror Online he was “underwhelmed”.
“It could be a model, or it could simply be a fake image, dressed up to look like a Forties slide,” he said.

Greenewald concluded, “Others took to social networks, and quickly were able to find nearly identical looking ‘bodies’ right here from human civilizations. This, even further, supports the theory this is nothing more than a museum artifact.”

Bragalia, however, wrote, “An overnight poll conducted by Coast-to-Coast radio has thus far tallied over 800 respondents to a survey asking what the nature of the creature:
42% say it is not an alien image.

58% believe it to either be that of an alien, or that they are simply not
certain what it is.
The figures, however, aren’t quite that supportive when broken down. It is true that 42.1% voted that it is not an alien, only 28.55% voted that it was, leaving 29.35 % voting that they were unsure. It could be said, that over 71% voted no or unsure, which is nearly three-quarters of those who expressed an opinion. I asked Bragalia and he agreed that what he had written about this was misleading, suggesting that I could correct that.

Here’s what I think, if anyone actually cares at this point. We haven’t had a good look at the high resolution slides and have been offered excuses for why that hasn’t happened. The slides seem to depict a creature, cadaver, corpse, in a museum setting rather than the expected situation if it was truly alien. The array of expert opinion we were told would be offered has not materialized and the statements that have been made seem to be weak. Already there have been pictures of mummies in various museums that seem to resemble to a high degree the body in the slide. There is nothing to tie this to Roswell and I will point out that both Carey and Schmitt did say that these weren’t “Roswell” slides, but their commentary seemed to suggest they believed otherwise.

They provided some witness testimony but it did little to validate the slides. Carlene Green, whose father, Homer Rowlette, said that he had seen the bodies. There are those who worry about the color of them she mentioned, but that isn’t the problem here. She is a nice woman I interviewed a number of years ago, but she didn’t see anything herself. She is a second-hand witness who can only report what her father told her so long ago.

We still have nothing for the provenance; we still don’t know who took the slides, when they were taken, or who even owns them now. It could be Adam Dew who has said that his company owns them, or it could be the brother of the woman who found them. That point has not been clarified.

Today, May 6, we really don’t know anything more than we did on May 4. Nothing was clarified at the big reveal. We have the names of some of the scientists, but certainly not in the numbers we expected. We have a better resolution of the slides, but rather than clarify, they have not done that. They seem to be of a creature in a museum setting given what is seen in the background, but we don’t know. At the end of the presentation we are as confused as we were before it started.

Can anyone say Alien Autopsy?


Lance said...

I spoke to Mr. Shanebrook in the afternoon, not at night.
And among the first things I told him was that I was happy to respect if he did not wish to speak about this.

He assured me that he was happy to talk and we probably talked for a half hour.


KRandle said...

Lance -

My point here was that if you are going to say that someone has endorsed your opinion, you can expect others to verify that claim. That he didn't show up is more important than anything he said about the slides because he didn't show up. The reason offered seems to be a stretch and more importantly, seems to be an excuse. We said this but now he won't talk to us because others asked questions.

Lance said...

I just don't understand what you might be confused about.

The slide has every appearance of being a child mummy. Which is what skeptics have been saying for months.

Here is what Dr. Michael Heiser, a scholar in biblical studies and the ancient near east, today wrote on his blog:

"I’ve seen the Kodachrome slide. I thought immediately it was a child mummy (it’s in some sort of display case). I’ve shown the photo to several Egyptologists. They said the same thing. "


TheDimov said...

Don and Tom (and co.) aren't that stupid : they know this is not a "smoking gun", and it should have been something offered to the public without the extortion. Everything about the slide from the colour of the being, to the placard, to the display case, to the fact that it resembles the Thebes mummy other than the head, actually practically everything apart from the head, which is likely a deformed infant, reeks of Museum artefact and nothing more. Ive been a fan of Don's and Tom's work but this leaves me very disappointed indeed, and only wondering what else they may have stretched the truth about.

Lance said...


The poor scholarship of Carey/Schmitt has been discussed to death by skeptics. You might ask yourself why you ignored the clear signs that they were unreliable?


Manny Coto said...

To me, the age of the slide is no longer even important. The image is obviously of something in a museum, as the informational placard (and the placard behind it facing the other way) indicate. The whole thing leaves me feeling kind of sick. An eight-year-old can see that this is no alien, so either the presenters were making a cynical money grab, or they were so delusional that they willed themselves to believe what they wanted to believe. Either way, a depressing thought.

Anonymous said...

Hi Kevin, been reading your blog for a long time now and enjoy it always but this is my first post.

The second slide seen in this link
wich is just a screen grab from the sideshow in mexico last night, you can almost see the writing on the placard. It shows up whiter than the bluish placard , does someone know a way to use some software to enhance this ?

Perhaps this is why the second slide has not been released on the internet yet?

and as I said on another blog earlier , after listening to the "verbal ballet" displayed by richard dolan and george noory on last nights c2c, I have to say Dolan's credibility has gone right out the window. Anyone associated with this obvious fraud should be ashamed of themselves.

KRandle said...

Lance -

Where did I suggest I was confused. The slide looks as if it was taken in a museum... This whole discussion, which is to say, the great reveal of last night, did nothing to advance the discussion. We are at the same place, but only with a better picture to look at.

As I have said repeatedly, I feared this would turn out badly for Don and Tom and last night did nothing to alter that opinion.

Manny Coto said...

I would argue that last night did advance the discussion, at least regarding the slides, and that we are not in the same place. Before last night, there was the tiniest shred of possibility that the slide contained something unearthly. This morning, thanks to the revealed slide's greater detail, we are now certain that it's a mummy in some kind of museum setting. Progress!

fridu said...

So Sad. Now we have to found the location of the museum, to terminated this joke.

fridu said...

Look at this roswellian face,this small chin, but it's Anatolian mummies:

TheDimov said...

Kevin was right all along. I admit I really wanted to believe the slides would be something special but alas it wasn't to be.

Lance, you cant just throw out witness testimony so simply and I saw many of Don and Tom's Roswell testimony tapes. I get the feeling though that they throw in embellishments here and there, perhaps I haven't looked as in-depth as you have at the case, but I still think there is something to the Roswell case only I have been greatly disappointed with Tom and Don. This should have simply been thrown out to the public and asked "what do you guys think?" rather than holler smoking gun, but something tells me I don't think they care so much. I get the feeling they feel they have done all they can so.. now's the time to cash in.

Anonymous said...

I was reminded by RR to post comments here instead of the old UFOCON post...
For starters, even IF this photo was taken in 1949, two years after the alleged Roswell crash, there's simply no way the body would be in such a state of mummification. It looks like it's been laying in a cave in the desert for 50 years, so there's a problem right off the bat. We cannot see it's hands or feet to be able to count digits making it even more difficult to identify. Yes, the facial features are strange and Yes, it has been autopsied which begs the question: why would one autopsy a human mummy? But still, there are SO many unanswered questions here. Why does the display look so makeshift and temporary yet someone went to the trouble of creating little placards complete with a prop-up display stand behind them? What's on the opposite side of this display, it looks like a strand of hair behind the body and a large rock behind it's head. Hmmm, is this some sort of geology museum and this mummified body was discovered in a cave or something? It would make sense given Bernerd's profession. It would also make sense that Hilda might tuck those two slides away because she felt it was inappropriate or disrespectful to have photos of a dead body in her collection. So at this point not only am I not convinced this is related to Roswell, I'm not convinced it's an 'alien' either.

As the day moves on I am getting progressively more angry at Adam Dew, Tom Carey and Don Schmitt. This whole Roswell slide nonsense has done nothing but hurt the entire field of research and quite frankly it was the last f'king thing we needed given all the white noise that we already have to cut through in Ufology. These charlatans spent "years" researching these slides only to arrive at the wrong conclusion and then try to make as much money from it as possible. It's distasteful in the extreme and almost lawsuit-worthy in my opinion. Instead of spending as much time as they did analyzing the body they seemed to have shrugged off the multitude of other problems with this slide! If I had paid $100 to attend this event, I think I would have stood up and walked out of the auditorium upon seeing this slide. This is exactly the kind of crap that makes us want to shut down The Object Report and give up on this entire subject. Adam, Tom and Don should be ashamed of themselves and I really hope this entire thing blows up in their faces. I'm thoroughly disgusted.

Kristofer said...

Kevin, there is no need to write so many words about this fiasco. It is evident to everyone that Dew, Schmitt, Maussan, Bragalia and Dolan willfully mislead the public about the origin of a quite earthly picture of a mummy in a museum, in order to extort money.

There, 35 words.

Anonymous said...

If you increase the brightness on the released image you can clearly see the bottom row of very human teeth.

Unknown said...


I saw you post this on the other blog; well done:

"Jaime Maussan has now tweeted the second slide:

Interesting that we can now clearly see writing in the placard. It appears slide number 1 had its writing whited out, by Dew or someone else.

Why would they try to conceal that from the (paying) public?"

Red Pill Junkie said...

Mr. Randle, I attended the event at the National Auditorium last night. Few things surprised me about it, but one that did so was the fact during the whole 5 hours of the presentation, your name was never mentioned. Not once.

Not even when the cover of the book you co-wrote with Don Schmitt was shown on-screen. In fact, during the whole time when Schmitt kept mentioning "we were the first ones to find X witness" or "we were the ones who found X evidence" I kept wondering whether the large majority of the Mexican audience assumed he was referring to himself and Tom Carey, the man standing right next to him at the podium.

Now, I'm not really that fond of all the innuendos and 'inner gossips' that plague the UFO community, but I just have to ask: Did you expressly request Maussan not to mention your name at the beWitness presentation?



Gene Steinberg said...

That Twitter picture is just too blurry to make out the text on the display. Can anyone read it? Is it even in English?

And it does, to me, look like a museum display, not something on an operating table. I can't see how anyone would overlook this salient fact.


Red Pill Junkie said...


Milenio newspaper published a clearer pic of second slide:

Gene Steinberg said...

It's no better RPJ. Still can't read that sign.


Anonymous said...

That reconstruction graphic on the Milenio article--while well done--is still a little bit of a reach in several ways. Perhaps having access to the actual scanned original slide might reveal more detail which they extrapolated in order to create it.

Either way, I can't get over the background elements, the woman in the dress, the handwritten label that we inconveniently can't make out. Part of me wants to explore this even further and the rest says just move on to something else.

Unknown said...

Based upon Bragalia's doubling-down on his support for the slides, I suggest he might read 'When Prophecy Fails' about a cult waiting for an alien visitor from 'Clarion':

"Festinger stated that five conditions must be present if someone is to become a more fervent believer after a failure or disconfirmation:

A belief must be held with deep conviction and it must have some relevance to action, that is, to what the believer does or how he or she behaves.

The person holding the belief must have committed himself to it; that is, for the sake of his belief, he must have taken some important action that is difficult to undo. In general, the more important such actions are, and the more difficult they are to undo, the greater is the individual's commitment to the belief.

The belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief.

Such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief.

The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence that has been specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, the belief may be maintained and the believers may attempt to proselytize or persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct."

(A little known fact is that one of the founders of the Center for UFO Studies (which both Schmitt and Carey admit deep ties to and were part of when they started this Roswell 'research') was previously part of the Clarion cult.)

Red Pill Junkie said...


The "gee we sure wish we could read the sign" was something of a red flag for me. On the one hand they sure devoted a lot of time (Schmitt and Carey) discussing how thanks to advances in photo enhancing software, they were able to discern some of the letters in the memo held by General Ramey in the famous Roswell photo. But then they go out and claim they failed to enhance the images enough to read the handwritten letters of that placquer. obviously handwritten typography is hard to read, even when it's nitid enough! But still... it felt like a double standard.

[BTW The second slide was shown at the very end, and even Maussan expressed surprise of how nitid it showed on the stage screen. he said that every time he'd seen it before it was "too dark." Which makes one think perhaps all the efforts to read the plaquer were made with the 'clearer' slide?]

purrlgurrl said...

PT Barnum is rolling in his grave over this. He would have known how to make this pig excrement look like pure gold.

KRandle said...

Kristofer -

You can offer an opinion in 35 words, but I believe to make a case, you need to cite the evidence as well so that others can understand the opinion.

Red Pill Junkie -

I made no such request, but given the way this worked out, I am delighted to have been left out. I will note that in the past both my friends, Don and Tom, have worked to exclude my contributions from their books. They reinterviewed witnesses I found so there was no need to mention me... they included my interviews with others from transcripts that I supplied to them in the past but if either had talked to the witness, failed to mention my role. The only reason they were able to interview Bill Brazel, for example, was that I opened the door. They mentioned me only when there was no other course to be followed, such as the information about Patrick Saunders because neither talked to him, and I have the documents sent to me.

I believe they are angry at me for some of the comments made here and I don't really blame them... but on the other side of the coin, they froze me out of the slide fiasco when it first popped up rather than share the data. But then, I should thank them for that because of the way this turned out.

Of course, their not the only ones to forget my contributions but that's a post for another time.

Gene Steinberg said...

Well, some would rather under-promise and over-deliver.

Clearly the Roswell Slides episode represents precisely the reverse.

One would have to be tone-deaf not to see the weight of public opinion on this matter, even from those who are in the believer camp.


Capt Steve said...

I look at the released image and all I can think is "how could anyone trash their reputation by claiming this is a dead alien?"

David Rudiak said...

"Red Pill Junkie" wrote:
The "gee we sure wish we could read the sign" was something of a red flag for me. On the one hand they sure devoted a lot of time (Schmitt and Carey) discussing how thanks to advances in photo enhancing software, they were able to discern some of the letters in the memo held by General Ramey in the famous Roswell photo. But then they go out and claim they failed to enhance the images enough to read the handwritten letters of that placquer. obviously handwritten typography is hard to read, even when it's nitid enough! But still... it felt like a double standard.

Some misunderstanding here. The Ramey memo and the slides have nothing to do with one another.

The Ramey memo can be read, in part, not because of fancy photo-enhancement, but because the original negative was not 35 mm but a large, high resolution 5"x4" Speedgraphic press photo.

We have the original negative in black and white film grain, not Kodachrome dyes with three dye color layers in three focal planes. The Ramey memo photo is in sharp focus, whereas the Kodachrome higher res slide we've seen has some sort of blur or double image problem, maybe from camera movement and/or maybe internal reflection off the glass casing.

It may be possible to computer correct for that, and maybe clear up the placard lettering to some extent. I have tried some off-the-shelf image refocusing software on the placard, but didn't have much success. Some more complex image processing approach might work however.

There are other important differences between the Ramey memo and the placard:

1. Known provenance for Ramey memo (known photographer, known date and time, known location, known principles, known circumstances)

2. Known font for Ramey memo (can be used to establish accurate letter counts for words and computer OCR read against known font)

Red Pill Junkie said...

@David Rudiak,

Fair enough. I only equated them in the basis that both involve a problem of trying to enhance the images so text could be deciphered.

That said, maybe they could have spent some time explaining all of this --although Schmitt and Carey ended up rushing through their final portion of their presentation because their time was running out.

Nick Redfern said...

My latest article on this fiasco:

Steve Sawyer said...

In the spirit of the famous directive by "Deep Throat" to Woodward and Bernstein in the midst of their investigation of the Watergate scandal to "follow the money" in order to help uncover various Nixon White House crimes and corruption, let's examine a statement made today by Jaime Maussan to the tabloid British newspaper "The Mirror":


Excerpted quote:

"I lost about $100 thousand in the event, even though we had six thousand people in the auditorium and a few thousand watching on the Internet.

"I never did it for money, I knew I was going to lose cash even before started the organisation of the event, but I didn't care.

"They are wrong all the way."

Lee Speigel, in a comment at the Black Vault link Kevin cited for this post, notes the estimate of attendance at the event at closer to 7,000 people. Let's split the difference and call it 6,500. Tickets for the event went from $25 to $100. Let's be conservative and say the majority of people attending paid an overall average of $35 per ticket.

Maussan also says "a few thousand" paid for the live stream feed. Let's call that, also conservatively, around 3,000 people. The "early bird" price for the live stream was $15, although in the few days just before the event, this was boosted to $20. Let's say the average overall was around $17 per person.

Add up the gross from both the event in Mexico City and the live stream payments, and you come up with (approximately) well over $250,000 ($278, 500 to be exact, although obviously these are just rough estimates, so caveat emptor). So, a cool quarter of a million U.S. dollars for an evening event. Sweet.

Yet, Maussan claims he knew he was going to lose money even before he began to organize the event, and lost around $100,000, but didn't care. How both prescient and magnanimous of him. Wotta a guy!

Only, despite his statement about the financial incentives ("They are wrong all the way."), and given Maussan's history of promoting lucrative UFO frauds for nearly 20 years now (over 40 so far), well, gosh, I tend to disbelieve him. Maybe that's just me.

I guess I'd have to say, IMHO, it is Jaime Maussan who is most probably "wrong all the way."

Maybe, someday, he'll explain how one loses $100K on an event that grossed over $250K, but I very much doubt it. That's how he rolls...

Jack Brewer said...

Hello, Tony Stark,

You wrote, "(A little known fact is that one of the founders of the Center for UFO Studies... was previously part of the Clarion cult.)"

Would you elaborate on that, please? Links and sources would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Red Pill Junkie said...

@Steve Sawyer,

So here you're assuming one can rent the National Auditorium, the most prestigious venue in the whole of Mexico, for chump change?

Based on this article, I'd say renting the venue alone cost more than 80 grand --and I ain't mean pesos, señor! :P

Marcos said...

Hello, I am new to this page, but not to the topic. I have followed many of the posters, by reading their books or watching their productions. As an outsider to this back and forth, Kevin Randle's original concerns seem fully validated. As telling, Mausan's involvement, if I am correct about that, was a kiss of death. A shameless huckster if there ever was one--and I defer to ufowatchdog for details on that. Thank you Kevin for keeping the focus. I became interested after a pilot friend of mine (on Aloha, now defunct) related a strange tale that--granted second hand-- was never reported up the ladder. 10 years later and much reading, I am perplexed. I find it difficult to believe there is nothing to this phenomena, but misperceptions or hoaxes. Unfortunately, you all have to wade through (apparent) crap like this.

Anonymous said...

@Marcos Frank

We need more of you out there...

Brian B said...

Kodachrome 1940s red border slides are not rare or hard to find in singles or lots for < $40. While there is a chance they were faked, everything about it says "real 1940s slide".

The Bernard's were well traveled - obviously they took a pic (doesn't matter about provinance anymore) while visiting an international museum with mummies.

Case closed.

This is the "stuff" that lends doubt to the ETH and saucer believer's this case perhaps more towards Roswell or New Mexican crash claims.

Another expected and significant blow to UFOlogy's long as you folks back Schmitt and Carey, and now even Dolan, you hurt yourselves and lose credibility.

And you wonder why some of us are skeptical of such claims when the so-called "dream team" does this? Quackery...

Steve Sawyer said...


You're presuming I'm assuming one can rent the National Auditorium for "chump change"? Isn't that rather... presumptuous of you?

I did not say or imply that. I'm sure it was the single most costly expense for the overall event, in fact.

But that's not really the point:

How do you know Maussan had to pay in excess of $80K to rent the auditorium? You don't, do you? Has he opened his books to you for an independent forensic accounting? No, I didn't think so.

May 5th was the only day available on the auditorium's calendar when Maussan's group approached the National Auditorium to inquire about renting it, according to Maussan's own statements.

Cinco de Mayo being one of Mexico's biggest national holidays (other than September 16th, Mexico's Independence Day), maybe that's why it was available, since most everyone would celebrating that day elsewhere. Perhaps Maussan got a major discount off the normal rental rate because of that, the cost of which I'm also sure varies to some degree, depending on what weekday or weekend day it might be rented, among other factors.

The fact is neither you or I know what the total actual costs were vs. the gross income that would determine whether a profit was made or not, but I find it difficult to believe Maussan went into this "knowing" he'd lose money on it. That just seems dumb, if we are to believe what he says. But if he lost $100 grand on a gross of over $250K, then he is, among other things, not very astute at business.

My point was, clearly, what kind of businessman rents such an expensive venue for this kind of event in the first place, and why should anyone believe Maussan knew in advance he'd lose money on it, if he did (which is pretty questionable)?

His comment to the Mirror when questioned about the financial incentives was intended to deflect the inquiry, and "nobly" portray himself as not being into this event for the money, but that due to it's "historic importance," he was even willing to lose money on the event. I find that at the very least rather dubious.

Maybe it's true, or maybe it's not, but unless he opens his books to independent analysis, should anyone simply take his word for it, given his long history of promoting and financially benefiting from various UFO frauds? I don't think he's either that philanthropic or stupid.

I think he's a huckster, or conman, and knows it, and simply doesn't care what impact his endeavors in this regard have on "ufology," whatever that is or might be, as long as there's money and "fame" to be made.

It's the apparent lack of ethics, integrity, and morality in what he does in profiting from promoting fraud and further impugning whatever potential legit and real, objective UFO investigation may have, that should be the focus and main point, not how much he may or may not have paid for renting a big auditorium for doing so. Is that not obvious to you?

Red Pill Junkie said...

@Steve Sawyer,

If you think I'm a Maussan apologist, think again. I've been following his career ever since the Mexican UFO flap of the 1990's. I admit that back in those days I used to idolize the man, but after a long of chain of hoaxes he kept promoting year after year, my opinion of him has dramatically changed.

Here, you can read this article I wrote for Mysterious Universe on the matter:

My intention in pointing out the renting costs --and the 80k figure came from a guest based on what the Mexican government allegedly paid to rent the venue last year, based on that article I linked previously (over $1.65 million pesos)-- because if we're going to do the bean-counting to guess how much Maussan won or lose on the event, then we need to factor all the costs he may or may not have had: Sound equipment, lighting, the videos he prepared for screening during the event, the *laughable* 'hologram' of the alien which he promised it would "come alive and walk on stage" --I was expecting something like Tupac in Coachella!-- how much he may have paid to the speakers; and finally, how much $ Adam Dew demanded for the public release of the slides.

That's all I'm saying: If we're gonna do the bean-counting, let's make sure to count all the beans, k? ;)



Brian B said...

Indeed Maussan is a huckster - his appearances on TV shows and his own show for that matter bear this out. Maybe he invited them all down for a nice Mexican Cinco de Mayo vacation and they all thought why not? Just charge it to the business account.

But seriously - from what I gather this event lacked proper handling from a planning standpoint. Sounds like these guys planned it themselves instead of getting a firm to coordinate it.

- If they really do plan on selling copies of the images, they should have had those products readily available so they lost some $$ making opportunities there.

- They should have paid for their expert evaluators to show up and describe why they think the slides are authentic and why the images "must be alien".

- They might have offered a balanced debate or round table discussion facilitated by a neutral media personality as means to invite doubting UFOlogists and skeptics to offer an opinion.

I could go on..but you get the point.

cda said...

As I wrote on another blog:

Is there anyone out there who will say something, ANYTHING, positive about this presentation or the slides themselves?

As far as I can see, everything said or written so far has been negative. Where is the positive stuff, if any?

Which newspapers or TV stations have given space to it? Yet this was supposed to be the proof (or very strong evidence) that we were not alone in the universe!

Anonymous said...


Positive? I think if these images had just been released to the public without all the hooplah and buildup to a big reveal, maybe it would have been viewed in a more positive light. The problem is that there has been so much hype, drama and controversy surrounding this entire event that it became an issue of "this better be a damned dead alien or I'm going to be pissed!" Now that we see it isn't what it was billed to be, we're pissed.

We were promised Christmas morning and we got a stocking full of coal instead.

Unknown said...

@ Brian Bell,
I could agree with a lot of what you said but a balanced round table with skeptics involved? Really? In my opinion the "skeptics" are no more reliable than the tin hat crowd. Each have preconceived notions they refuse to budge from. A condition known as cognitive dissonance.
The faked photo theory is highly unlikely. As a photographer I could go into a long discussion on why but briefly the Kodachrome process does not lend itself to being done in even a sophisticated darkroom. It's a machine process only and the last time it was available for film manufactured in 1947 was 1961.
The most likely explanation is a museum display that was photographed in or around 1947. It isn't unlikely that this display is in a museum storeroom somewhere.

Red Pill Junkie said...

There's been a lot of speculation that Maussan planned the whole thing as a 'con'. IMO it's a bit more complicated than that.

I seriously suspect he in fact didn't do it for the money. I think for him it has more to do with remaining in the spotlight and perpetuating himself as the most prominent "UFOlogist" in Mexico. Heck, I'm sure he's managed to convince himself what he's doing is right --otherwise he would have run with the money a lot time ago. Biscardi anyone?

IMO the only who was in it for a purely monetary gain was Adam Dew. I feel he managed to sabotage the collective organization of the Mexican reveal, by going with his Kodachrome documentary as an aside project. I'm sure he was lambasted by the rest of the team once the blurry screen grab of the slide got leaked into the web.

Lance said...

@Neal Foy,

"I could agree with a lot of what you said but a balanced round table with skeptics involved? Really? In my opinion the "skeptics" are no more reliable than the tin hat crowd. Each have preconceived notions they refuse to budge from. A condition known as cognitive dissonance."

Thanks for offering a perfect example of why Ufology is only worthy of laughter and diversion. God forbid anyone but a true little saucer believer discusses your religion--keep those yucky skeptics out at all costs!

Skeptics seemed to be pretty darn reliable in this case, no? Within minutes of of the release of the first info, many of us were speculating that this was a child mummy or corpse. I sent Rich Reynolds a photograph from the Mutter museum of such a body and he posted that within an hour of the Koadachome trailer's release months ago.

I think this was the image I sent Rich:


Or one very like this (Rich unfortunately sometimes takes pages down so I can't easily check).


By the way. you misstate the meaning of cognitive dissonance. But I'll bet you are true blue saucer believer "researcher" otherwise.


Brian B said...

Neal Foy - I agree with you on the I said in my post they are period images but not of what they claim to depict.

Red Pill - I can go with that theory on Maussin...any huckster will self promote for image sake alone not just for money.

On the round table - I agree, but when two sides are in constant conflict because they are so polarized in their beliefs the viewer of such a debate gets a better handle on the issues since they are discussed collectively without the traditional character attacks common to UFOlogy as means to smeer a person's viewpoint and misdirect others from looking at it closer. I did also say "professionally moderated" debate not a free for all mud slinging event.

KRandle said...

All -

I believe it time to end the discussion of finances since it is all speculation and is irrelevant to the slides. Let's move on.

Brian B said...

Final note building on something Lance said weeks ago on another thread.

Although this Mexico event was billed as having something to do with Roswell, later recanted by Schmitt and Carey (who claim they are the only people still actively researching Roswell), the Roswell case remains highly controversial.

What I would like to see on the Roswell case is a nationally televised multi-series debate (or round table) professionally moderated as in political debates, that brings together all those who have proposed the most credible explanations on both sides of the camp, including the Air Force.

These "Experts" would present their cases, rational, proof, or whatever they have to friend or foe, over a series of 2 hour live debates staged as "The Definitive Answer" on Roswell.

H2, Sci-Fi, Discovery, approached with a proposal of 3-4 shows 1.5 hrs in length over a typical series season.

Guest come not expecting to get paid by the network other than their travel and per diem. The network makes all the money and can sell tickets to the live televised shows.

Networks would consider this if the cash flow mainly comes to them.

Let the viewers old and new decide for themselves than lets move on to more interesting cases.

Gene Steinberg said...

Before debating something, there has to be something to debate, not a couple of slides of unknown origin showing what appears to be something in a museum display. That they were found in someone's attic doesn't prove who took them, when or where.


Unknown said...


Actually, I do believe that something very strange and to date unexplained is flying around in our atmosphere. Anyone who doesn't believe that is kidding themselves IMO. I don't have a clue as to where they come from, who is controlling them or why they are here. I can only speculate.
The skeptics did get this one right, big deal, a lot of the prominent people from the other side did too.
I also believe that what is needed is a true open minded study of UFOs. Being skeptical is good, being close minded isn't. It certainly isn't anywhere close to scientific method. By your ridicule you only prove my point. Yes, you appear to suffer from cognitive dissonance.

@Brian Bell
Have you ever seen a Larry King UFO program with the obligatory skeptics?
Case closed on a civil round table discussion.

Manny Coto said...

Agreed, Gene, there's nothing to debate here. The slides may very well be from 1947, but they were obviously taken in a museum. So, unless we're willing to believe that the US military was operating a Secret Exhibition, admission reserved for those with Umbra clearance (or friends of the Mamie Eisenhower), all the gibbering about dating is meaningless.

jeff thompson said...

This is all just more UFO nonsense, put out by hoaxers out to make a quick buck. Believer Beware!

Manny Coto said...

I can just imagine the scene: "Places, folks, new group coming through this morning! Okay, who stuck the werewolf head in the same case as the crashed EBE!? I've told you people a hundred times, the werewolf goes in the criptids section, criptids! Can we screw up any more this morning? How about we let some, I dunno, cameras in here."

Lance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lance said...


And saying that skeptics are the same as tin foil wearing believers isn't ridicule, of course...

The sheer disingenuousness of the pious believer is a sight to behold.


eBikesRC said...

To Adam Dew, Slidebox Media, or anyone "in the know"...

We were told multiple times for months now that once the May 5th presentation was done there would truly be released the high resolution scans that were done of the two slides. When these digital scans were done, these were likely made each with a file size of hundreds of megabytes or even gigabytes for EACH scan per slide. It is now two days after this May 5th presentation, and the public needs to know what high resolution scans are you going to release???

Anything less than 20 megabyte file size for each slide is just another scam to perpetrate on the interested public. It's time to release the true high resolution scans as seemingly promised to the public for months now. At least a 100 megabyte file size per slide would be reasonable, as this can be easily downloaded for free as a torrent.


Anything less than a 20 megabyte scan per slide is a fraud. We need the real high resolution scans or at least this 20mb minimum size WITH NO MODIFICATIONS or ALTERATIONS from the original 2 slides.

jim bender said...

The actions by various Skeptics/debunkers borders on the completely insane. Some cannot even conceive there is intelligent life in the Universe. My gosh there was life on our closest neighbor MARS, probably not intelligent but that being said there is life throughout the Universe
The skeptic/debunker's obsession reminds me of the following story which is not far off from some of the skeptics actions.
Diaper-wearing astronaut jailed in love triangle plot - The ...
The Denver Post
Feb 6, 2007 - Home →; Story ... A NASA astronaut who was arrested after driving hundreds of miles to confront ... wearing adult diapers used in space and disguised herself in a dark wig, ... He said that Nowak had an exemplary record of commitment to her space career and the country, indicating she could be trusted to ...

cda said...


I fear your proposal will fall at the first hurdle. Let's face it, Roswell per se is not important enough to warrant a series (3 or 4 episodes) of 2-hour debates. Science has ignored it completely, there is no real public interest in it and the networks would be accused of wasting too much time and money
on it.

We ufologists might welcome such a series; but the public at large? I doubt it.

KRandle said...

All -

The tangents are becoming more absurd. Let's dial it back a notch and stick to the topic. From this point I will delete any posting that strays too far.

Gilles Fernandez said...


Only to share my last article in my blog "Skeptic versus the Flying Saucers".

And before a longer "part 2". Sorry for my English, it will be fixed as I can ASAP.

Roswell Slides Saga: The Mexico City Conference "BeWitness" or The Day the Earth stood still... Part 1.

Any feed-back, suggestion, critic, etc are welcome.



Brian B said...

On the Mexico City non-event non-alien slides....what has been the post commentary by the promoters...Dew, Schmitt, Carey, Maussin, Dolan etc?

Maybe nothing to avoid embarrassment? My guess is they will still be standing by their defense of the slides....

billy said...

Actually, small detail, but just to set the record straight, I called Shanebrook in mid-afternoon. Fyi ...

Terry the Censor said...


You have the gall to attack skeptics after the horrible failure of the slides presentation?

You are avoiding the issue:

Now that we've had the slides reveal, do you find the slide figure to be alien, human or unknown?

Unknown said...


The normal output for a 35mm slide scan is in the range of 18 MB 8 bit tif.The file would be larger if they were scanned at 16 bit but I'm really not sure it would be that much better. The computer rule of garbage in-garbage out applies to photography as well. Don't believe what you see on TV, enhancement can only go so far.
The internet doesn't support tif it only supports jpg, gif and a few others. Changing a tif to a jpg involves compression of the file the amount of compression affects the file size. The image we have is reduced to fit on screens for the average user on the web.

Terry the Censor said...

> The internet doesn't support tiff

Traditionally, HTML pages didn't support TIFF, but that is changing.

Regardless, any file can be put on a file sharing site for anyone else to download.

Unknown said...

I learn something new every day. I probably can't get Explorer 9 on my Macs anyway. Wouldn't want it if I could.

I just forgot to mention file sharing sites. My bad.

eBikesRC said...

To Adam Dew, Slidebox Media, or anyone "in the know":

@ Neal Foy said...
"The normal output for a 35mm slide scan is in the range of 18 MB 8 bit tif. The file would be larger if they were scanned at 16 bit but I'm really not sure it would be that much better."

I think typical high resolution scanners are available in 24bit or 32bit now. Considering these 2 slides are of an alleged ET Alien, then I assume the scans will be done in 24/32bit w/highest resolution possible.

Anyway, a 20 megabyte scan per slide is a very reasonable MINIMUM expectation for the file size of each slide to be offered to the public after the May 5th presentation.

We were told by Adam Dew and his Slidebox Media "Mexico Team" the high resolution scans would be made available to the public after the May 5th presentation. A real mark of the "Scam Artist" is to not follow through with what was promised in order to collect the money up-front, and then run for the hills.

Are we "now" going to be told we have to wait for Dew's documentary about this before seeing the real high resolution scans, or that the high resolution slides are only for "qualified experts" that will have to sign a non-disclosure agreement NDA in order to see the high resolution scans or what?