Thursday, June 11, 2015

New Confirmation for Photograph of the Roswell "Alien"

(Blogger's Note: It is with some trepidation that I post the following, given the reaction yesterday to Tony Bragalia's name on the article. But here is additional information, important because of the allegation that the image we all had yesterday was painted on a photograph of a shelf in a museum. Today we have a source for the photograph that couldn't have been altered because of the timing of it. And, importantly, it is from another source. 

I will note, that given the whole story, I'm not convinced that Benerd or Hilda Ray took the "original" slides photograph because that evidence is somewhat obscure, but this unfortunate child is the source of those slides. Who took the original photograph is unimportant given that we have identified the object photographed. The Rays could be called a red herring and as of today, are not important to this story. We can erase them from all that we know because, at best, they photographed a mummy and at worse, were blamed for the photograph because someone had a bunch of other slides they had taken.

Here, then, is another angle on the Roswell Slides and what they actually show.)



I can now confirm that the photo that appeared on the Net (courtesy Jorge Peredo through his friend Jose Caravaca) that shows the “Roswell Slides” body in a National Parks Service museum in Arizona is that of a child mummy that had previously been displayed at the Mesa Verde Museum in Colorado and photographed by Bernerd and Hilda Ray.

Although Jose and Jorge were not able to show with certainty that the photo was taken at the Arizona museum, I have just made a discovery that does. I had in my previous piece found a newspaper article by a travel writer who saw the mummy in Arizona and recounted researcher David Rudiak’s timeline of the display and transfer of the mummy within the National Park Service system. But now something that is photographic proof has presented itself.

Working with my German research associate ,and by using a deep review of Google images and online photo albums, and by using key word searches on various search engines, this amazing confirmation was found on the account of an elderly lady named “Frances” who had posted on the Picasa Web online photo album site.

She has 43 albums online which include everything from reunions and vacations. One of her trips was to the State of Arizona. And on that trip, she photographed the “Roswell Slides” mummy, on display at a National Park Service museum.

Found buried in the albums is a photo marked “Photo 51” under “Arizona: 1957 & 1967” and posted to Picasa on September 7, 2008 is the “Roswell Slides” mummy displayed at the Montezuma Castle museum / Yavapai Culture Center:

This conclusively proves that the image at the Arizona museum is not photo-shopped as some defenders of the “Roswell Slides” such as Jamie Maussan are now stating. It was placed online in 2008 and it was taken in either 1957 or 1967.


Isaac Koi - New Uploads said...

It will be (mildly) interesting to see how Maussan responds to this source, given that he has made repeated unqualified statements that the photo supplied by Jorge Peredo was a fraud and a painting clearly created in Photoshop.

Thanks for posting this Anthony (and also to your German research associate).

Anthony Bragalia said...

Thanks Isaac, I appreciate it. My German associate prefers anonymity because he does not want to enter the fray, but I wish that I could name him as his efforts were essential to finally solving this 'mystery.'

Gilles Fernandez said...

Very good finding, Tony and sincerly).

Same as Isaac, I followed Maussan's twitter and his today and yesterday strange statments about the photograph to have been photoshoped, a fraud, a painting, and other amazing things.

Dunno how he will bounce back!



JC said...

Ehm sorry Anthony but it looks like the same photo that Jorge posted. You can tell by the rounding in the above left corner. Also does the poster of the pics know her photo is becoming famous on internet?

Anthony Bragalia said...

Thanks Gilles, sincerely.


That is the point. They are the same.

It is my understanding that someone had emailed the image to Jorge providing no details, nothing on its origin, or on the sender of the image.

Jose posted the image on his website. He and I dialoged about finding corroboration that it was the same child mummy as was at the Mesa Verde as was now displayed in this new exhibit at another museum.

I found a news article about the mummy from the 1980s describing a travel writer's visit to the Montezuma Museum. I then cited the timeline David Rudiak found that the mummy was transferred in June of 1947 to the museum where this newly-surfaced picture was believed to have been taken.

Working images searches and keyword searches, I found that the source of Jorge and Jose's image was from the online photo collection of Frances, an elderly woman who had visited the museum four or five decades ago. She posted the image on the net in 2008 and Jorge/Jose's mystery sender got it from Frances.

JC said...

Ok I see it's the extra info that makes it interesting. But I thought you were talking of another/new image from a different angle. So this particular pic has been online for 7 years.. :-) I'm sure more info on the mummy will come up in the future will follow with interest.


Lance said...


Good one!


Anthony Bragalia said...

Thanks Lance. It really has really been though through the efforts of several people working cooperatively that truth was ultimately found.

JC said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...


Is your german colleague an expert in museumology ?

Unknown said...

To Nick Redfern,

The link above is an article by Nick Redfern that everyone should read and consider. By now all other possibilities have been examined and Nick, as usual
is thinking interesting thoughts that everyone knows can't be so. Doesn't the "child" look a little strange to all of you. It sure does to me. I agree with David R. What does it hurt to at least examine other possibilities.

We all have the same collection of photos. What do they tell us?
All of you seemed to want the UFO community to examine all possibilities.
And I really liked the way Nick put this article together.


Isaac Koi - New Uploads said...

In case anyone here sees this topic discussed in the comments section of Rich Reynolds blog and wonders what has been edited out of my post there tonight, basically all the references to Anthony Bragalia and a link to his article here have been removed. It's Rich Reynolds' blog so I guess it's up to him to moderate it as he sees fit. I just wanted to make sure proper credit was being given.

David Rudiak said...

Judging by the car models in the photos preceding, this would be the 1957 time frame. The 1967 time frame are the Grand Canyon photos afterward, with one 1963 clearly identified.

We also now have the data point that the travel writer, Vera Foss Bradshaw, visited the mummy in 1988 and an article about it was published in the Orlando Sentinel, Dec. 11, 1988.

And I have two more data points from the Southwestern Monuments Monthly Reports online that the placard for the Montezuma Castle returned child mummy was being made up in January 1948 and was also on display in 1953 when the museum received an 1896 article from the Mancos (CO) Times describing the find, by Richard Wetherill, discoverer the cliff dwelling and friend/in-laws with the S.L. Palmer Sr. family.

And we know that S.L. Palmer Jr. donated the mummy to the NPS in 1936 and it was on already on display in 1937-38, and must have been on display in 1947 at the Mesa Verde museum when the two infamous slides were taken, just before it was transferred to the Montezuma Castle museum in June 1947.

The point is that the mummy was on display for some 50 or so years, and even modestly assuming only 100 photos/year were taken by tourists, there must be thousands of tourist photos out their hiding in old photo albums.

Incidentally, the transfer of the mummy was noted being done by "Steen and Grant", according to the June 24, 1947 SW Monuments item. Charlie R. Steen was the regional archeologist, Santa Fe, and George A. Grant was the first chief photographer for NPS. I would say it was a decent bet that Grant came along to photographically document the mummy and transfer, and these photos should be with the NPS. But the NPS is refusing to release ALL photos they may have, although the NAGPRA legislation of 1990 protects ONLY the PHYSICAL artifacts, not any documentation, which should be covered under FOIA. These are PUBLIC RECORDS and FOIA says the public has right of access, no matter how "disrespectful" some people may find it.

I would also bet that archeologist Steen, and probably others, did studies of the mummy, and these PUBLIC records should also be available to the public under FOIA.

Anthony Bragalia said...

Hi Isaac-

Reynolds will not even attribute the find to me and to my German friend, he has seen fit to delete my entire backlog of over 60 article on his site appearing over the past six years. If anyone should try to mention my name in a comment left on his blog in relation to this discovery, he will delete it, I am sure.


I tried to locate Vera Foss Bradshaw and found that she had passed away many years ago.

Isaac Koi - New Uploads said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Isaac Koi - New Uploads said...

By the way, the relevant photo was taken by Frank Hadl in December 1956. He was in the Air Force then and single and just arrived at Luke AFB for gunnery training.

Frank Hadl has kindly provided me with a scan of a relevant slide (dated 12/56 on the bottom left corner) shortly. I'm sure one of the other members of the Roswell Slides Research Group will post a copy of it shortly. Personally, it's time I got to bed.

Daniel Transit said...

edward gehrman said...

'To Nick Redfern,

The link above is an article by Nick Redfern that everyone should read and consider. By now all other possibilities have been examined and Nick, as usual is thinking interesting thoughts that everyone knows can't be so. Doesn't the "child" look a little strange to all of you. It sure does to me.....'


There seems to a group mind here that won't look outside of the box - despite the understanding that some of us have that UFOs ARE outside the box.

That article does resonate with certain other information I'm aware of. But, Nick backtracked after writing it and never watched the May 5th event, re-joining the prevailing consensus reality.

Consider just this one coincidence. Who was most associated with popularizing the concept of alien life underground/in caves, along with Richard Shaver... the surname primarily linked to the slides and the surname now most linked to the Mummy explanation..............

Isaac Koi - New Uploads said...

I've stayed up a little bit later to upload the image of the relevant slide kindly by Frank Hadl to the link below:

David Rudiak said...

Tony Bragalia wrote:
"I tried to locate Vera Foss Bradshaw and found that she had passed away many years ago."

Born 1910, died 2006. Her husband was Henry Bradshaw, a photographer, and also wrote many travel articles.

If her article was in the Orlando Sentinel, Dec. 11, 1088, that should still be around and provide more details. Haven't been able to find it in electronic form online. Maybe somebody living in the Orlando area can find it. The important point is that it seems the body was still on display in 1988, though I suspect was taken out of display in 1990 with the passage of NAGPRA.

David Rudiak said...

Isaac Koi wrote:

I've stayed up a little bit later to upload the image of the relevant slide kindly by Frank Hadl to the link below:

Yep, probably thousands of photos taken of the body over the years since it was on display for some 50 years. More and better ones will hopefully turn up.

Is Hadl providing a better image than this very low res scan?

Lance said...

This is a rapidly developing story. An image showing a slide mount with notations is now circulating, said to be from Frank Hadl. While the image on that slide does seem to be similar to the recent image discussed by Tony above, they do not seem to be the same image. There is a slight difference in framing and angle. It may well be that Hadl has several similar images but this not yet confirmed.

I haven't contacted anyone myself. and hope that those in contact with Hadl can get some further answers.


David Rudiak said...

One thing I notice in the newer, clearer photo is that one can see more of the left hand, and it clearly has a thumb.

The right hand looks even less normal than in the original slides with most of the hand appearing missing. Could be the fingertips were broken off or the hand was in a clinched position.

I see only four toes on the left foot, though possibly the little toe was also broken off or can't be seen in this angle.

One can clearly see six, probably seven ribs. Add in presumably the 2 floating ribs hidden under the skin at the lower end of the ribcage and we're up to 8-9 ribs, still 3-4 short of a normal 12. Unfortunately more of the cloth is pulled down over the top of the ribcage than in the original 2 slides, so we can't get a complete rib count. The area is much more exposed in the original slides, and it is not apparent that more ribs are there from what we can see. We still may be a few ribs short of normal. The right shoulder is also covered by the cloth, so we can't tell if that is normal or abnormal.

The pelvic region is also unfortunately completely covered up with cloth (unlike original slides), so we can't see if the pelvis is normal. The short number of ribs and supposed abnormality of the pelvis and right shoulder was part of the arguments against humanness in the Mexico City presentations. This additional photo, unfortunately, will not help settle that argument. But I would say at this point the opposable thumb on the left hand would point in the human direction.

Lance said...


Yes, yes David, you need more data to settle this.

So is the working theory then that the mummy is a sort of shape shifter that changes features through time, growing a missing thumb, a few more ribs, etc. at will over time?

Let's continue to give Carey, Schmitt a pass.


David Rudiak said...

Ed Gehrman,

One problem among many I have with Redfern's "ant people" living underground is what do they eat to survive? The Indians in this arid area had a hard enough time between farming, hunting, and gathering finding enough food. I would presume, an underground race would not be doing any farming, so how would they survive?

And really, reconnaissance with "balloons"? How exactly would they get back to their starting point unless the "balloons" were powered by something? The ant people would have to be technological at least at some early 20th Century level to have something equivalant to powered blimps. Then they would have to come up with some sort of suitable fuel. Keeps getting harder and harder to make this scenario work.

On the other hand, indeed, what's the harm in trying to get more information about this particular body? I'm only trying to find out if it's completely normal or sufficiently abnormal to honestly throw off some medical experts. There are mummies that are normal and mummies that are not normal. Both are mummies, but not the same thing. The mummy of the Elephant Man will not look the same as the mummy of Brad Pitt, even though both are very human.

CommanderCronus said...

I want to know 2 things:

1. where is the mummy now?

2. why haven't we heard from Adam Dew?

Lance said...

"I'm only trying to find out if it's completely normal or sufficiently abnormal to honestly throw off some medical experts."

Spoiler alert: No.

The premise that anyone, even best friend, Gomer McGecko (one nut shy of of nut doctorate), could look at a blurry photo and proclaim that it was an image of an alien being is so stupid that it could only fly in UFO land.

The supposed experts made many other silly comments that David is just ignoring, like how they could tell that the being had suffered bumps during the flying saucer crash, for instance.

Giving any of this stuff any credence whatsoever, even in a heartwarming attempt to prove that your UFO friends (the best Roswell researchers on the planet!!!) aren't absolute idiots, is unwise and laughable.


Tom said...

Yes, Ant People. Yes, mysterious missing ribs. Yes, one opposable thumb, but not the other. Yes, only 4 toes on the left foot. Yes, enough abnormalities sufficient to keep this hoax going. Yes, there are insane people in this world.

Just stop. Amateur hour is over. The jig is up.

Jack Brewer said...

@Tom: Thank you, sir.

Lance wrote, "The supposed experts made many other silly comments that David is just ignoring, like how they could tell that the being had suffered bumps during the flying saucer crash, for instance."

Also repeatedly ignored by Team Slides and its supporters has been the fact that qualified experts stated from the get go that the images contained a human mummy. They just didn't like those expert opinions so they ignored them, even in the face of complete lack of anything remotely resembling evidence or even so much as a reasonable speculation of how an ET from Roswell ended up in this convoluted saga.

David Rudiak wrote, "...I would say at this point the opposable thumb on the left hand would point in the human direction."

For the love o' Mick...

William Strathmann said...



Thanks Lance. It really has really been though through the efforts of several people working cooperatively that truth was ultimately found.

. . . that is, regarding the truth of the subject in the slide image.

But you insinuated that Adam Dew was not as truth-loving in a May 25th article here:

Are you in contact with Mr Dew? . . . especially after all the recent slide developments?

JC said...

A mesa verde clip of an archaeological dig in 1930s, who knows whats more to find on YT and other places.

Tom said...


You're most welcome, esteemed Sir.


Thank you, esteemed Sir. I appreciate your tenacity in keeping up with the rapid fluidity of these latest developments, as well as your timeliness in posting them. Why the heck anybody would criticize you for posting this new information as soon as possible is beyond me. Updates to published articles, anywhere, are extremely common.


Thank you esteemed All. Seems that many here made significant contributions & findings on these latest developments. I appreciate all the pertinent links that serve to drive the last nail into this clown show.

Anthony Bragalia said...

Hi William-

I am very glad that you asked that. Adam Dew is indeed the man who tried to fool the world. I did a piece on this that is a raw, behind-the-scenes exposure of this individual's intents and methods. I have submitted it to Kevin Randle for publication, but he passed on it. Now that he sees interest, maybe he will reconsider:

What people must understand is that I never saw the true-view of the slides and placard that we see today. I viewed digital reproductions of the slides and its elements that were -I know now- manipulated. This was done by photo-cropping, light-blasting, color contrast changes, and by employing selective resolution. due to Dew's techniques, I never saw the second placard on the opposite side of the body. I never saw the black furry/hairy head, I never saw the other room in the background in the second slide. This individual deliberately obscured the text of the placard in the slides, in one version, appearing luminescent it was so bright.

Using a photo-forensics analysis program and running the best-available version of the first slide through an image analyzer, I found that the image Dew provided Maussan was only 84% of last-saved quality. There is evidence of brightness enhancement and the application of light blur. The placard enlargements that I received over a period of a year were entirely bogus.

So yes, there is much to say about Adam Dew, but we all know what Adam has done.

John's Space said...

It is amazing how as soon a May 5 pasted all of the evidence that the "slides" were just picture of a mummy came forward.

Brian B said...

Odd that some would have Dew be the fall guy on this ignoring the roles of our dubious BeWitness UFO promoters....Maussaun, Schmitt, and Carey. What...???

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


Considering your above claims, it is inconceivable that anyone would make so many silly proclamations about the slides prior to May 5th.

But you did.

You defamed other people, calling them frauds, alcoholics, liars and the like.

And you went on endlessly proclaiming things about the slides that we now know were ALL wishful thinking or pure stupidity.

Even if Adam Dew did all the things you claim above, there is no getting around the idea that everyone on the slides dream team revealed themselves to be the worst researchers imaginable.

Indeed, if Dew was hiding so much from you it is doubly offensive that you took such flimsy evidence and spun it into the silly statements you made prior the big denouement.

I believe you posted some of the placards you had from Dew over on RRR's site. Some of those could easily be deblurred--there was nothing obscured. So it appears your new narrative is already taking on the classic Bragalia characteristics.


Jeff Ritzmann said...

Mr. Bragalia, when will you be posting the raw emails and accompanying images sent to you by Dew, and showing us all what image processing software you used, and the results? I would think you'd have already done this, but I cannot seem to find that material anywhere.

As for now, forgive me when I say your statements in your last comment are far and away too ambiguous, all facts considered.

Unknown said...

I thought a photo manipulation had been ruled out 100 % per sure.

Tom said...

I found this on Tim Printy's blog -

"Paul Kimball decided to posted a blog entry revealing the man’s name. I promptly received several nasty e-mails from Tony Bragalia,
who threatened to call my family and the Manchester, NH police department because I produced the Yearbook page for Kimball’s
blog entry. Bragalia sounded like a lunatic in the e-mails as he demanded that I renounce Kimball’s writings or he would take action
to contact my relatives. I asked if he wanted names of ex-girlfriends, sailors who worked for me, and commanding officers I served
under. I even offered to present my dd214 for him to examine (which is more than any Roswell witness has ever done) if he doubted
my military background. His response was to send me a listing of some of my relatives, which included my recently deceased
mother. I found this whole event both funny and sad.
Kimball also received threatening e-mails from Bragalia. He presented another blog entry documenting this. His thoughts reflect
mine on this matter. Bragalia has no right to act as the “gatekeeper” on what should be discussed and what should not be discussed
regarding public statements by people. He states that his only motivation is “truth and history” but his actions on this speak otherwise.
Is this how real Roswell investigations are conducted? Is bluff, bluster, and intimidation the way of getting old men to tell
them the stories they want to hear? The world wonders......."

Anthony -

Did you do what Printy accuses you of? Did you threaten him? Did you threaten to contact his relatives & the cops? Did you email him a list of his relatives, including his deceased mother? Did you send emails to Paul Kimball's friends accusing him of being an alcoholic?

Lance said...

"once I am given real material I can come to real conclusions."

And without it, you apparently just make stuff up.

That is the issue.

Your above excuse seem to be that "I had bad copies of the images THERFORE it was reasonable to proclaim that the images were history changing epoch shattering photos of aliens"! Which you did over and over again.

That may work in your head. But outside, in the real world, it is laughable.

I agree that you aren't the worst villain in all this--you are just woefully naive. And you can't separate fact from fiction.


Lance said...

"calling scientists at their homes out of the blue who were involved in the analysis of the photos even before they made their finding public"

"New York Times? Washington Post, here. How dare you call one of our witnesses on this Watergate thing! Don't you have any decency? We expect our unnamed witnesses to to be left alone! How dare you you vile bastards!"

The stupidity hurts so much.


Rusty L. said...

@Lance, on point today.

Attempts to justify the co-consipirators (vice the three hoaxers) behavior seem to recognize no bounds of common sense or common decency to include the further desecration of someone's child. While I applaud efforts to correct the record, the point remains that the three seem to have placed more value on notoriety than on scientific or personal integrity. As the statement above clearly points out, each endorsed statements (some vehemently) of fact for which they had no first-hand knowledge and performed no due diligence. As there was already ample evidence of the trend of each towards this kind of behavior, I doubt the opinions of their loyal followers will be affected. The two primary Schmitt/Carey defenders here are ample evidence of that.

I am so tired of this non-story that I think it is time to find other reading until this blows over. Cheers.

Tom said...


I'm not casting aspersions here. I'm a nobody. I don't have a blog. I don't have a book. I'm just somebody with some degree of interest in the phenomena. I'm in no position to lecture anybody involved in this.

I must say, in general, we all know that two wrongs do not make a right. Obviously emotions were, & still are, running high. Nonetheless, despite possible ethical improprieties by some, can you now admit that you overreacted in some instances?

I'm finding the aftermath of this fiasco more fascinating than the original claims.

I have no skin in the game. Therefor, I'm coming at this as an objective observer. Lance does make some good points.

I have a serious question for you; What do you think of Don Schmitt's now retracted apology. I have my own strong opinion on this, but am interested to hear yours.

Tim Printy said...

Sorry to bust Bragalia's bubble but the only way I knew of the man's name was how I described it in my newsletter. Paul Kimball put his name up and I simply took a look in the yearbook and found him. That was it. There was no sneaking around or skulduggery on my part. The rest of it what I wrote is all true. Bragalia sent threatening emails to myself, which was over the line. If he can live with himself after that then good for him. I never expected an apology (private or public) from him or any admission of error on his part. Like Tom Carey said in an interview with Maussan, "It is hard to admit when you are wrong". Carey was describing the skeptics but that statement can now be applied to every one of the slide promoters, including Bragalia.

Gilles Fernandez said...

Few weeks before, in his pseudo-appology, Tony wrote:

I must be less trusting, more discerning and less accusatory of those with whom I disagree.

This flash of genius has had the duration... well, of a flash!

In French, we say "Chasser le naturel, et il revient au galop" ("the leopard cannot change its spots", I think, in English).



Tom said...

I'd like to make a clarification of my most recent post, since I cannot figure out how to edit it - I said, "...despite possible ethical improprieties by some,...".

I worded that poorly. I meant to say, "...despite alleged improprieties by some,...".

The original sentence sounded like I was casting aspersions, that's absolutely not what I intended.

William Strathmann said...


Mr. Bragalia, I asked you about the May 25th article where you insinuate Adam Dew supplied faulty images, because in Feb you said:

None of the photo-scientists who analyzed the slides were working with such degraded material like a video screen grab- they were working with the ‘raw’ original slides and with high-definition enlargements of them.


Anthony Bragalia said...


The photo-scientists were given to original slides to determine film stock year, not to determine the nature of the body found on the slides.


I submitted an article on Dew to Kevin, as I mentioned here in a previous comment. He chose to pass on it, and I do not need to invite potential litigation for libel.

albert said...

@Isaac Koi,
I'm curious about your definition of 'moderate'. Does it include censoring posts by removing words/sentences? How about retroactively removing all posts by an individual?
There are other words for this; 'moderate' is not one of them.

cda said...

AJB wrote:

"I certainly did ask Printy how he would like such violation of the elderly had he had his own family so exposed. And I asked him how he justified the 'outing' of an old man who wished to tell his story but still retain his privacy?"

OK so I agree we should respect the elderly. But here was someone wanting to tell the world (via his endorsement of the 'Roswell' slides) that ETs had visited our planet and that he even saw one of them decades earlier. People who make such pronouncements to interviewers, assuming he in fact did so, cannot expect to remain anonymous and live their lives in privacy thereafter.

There are no ETs known to science, period.

If someone comes along and insists he knows otherwise, he has a duty (yes a duty) to inform the world and be called to account to verify his statement. And it matters not one iota how old he is, whether 80, 90 or 100.

If he is unwilling to have his identity made public he should, quite simply, keep his mouth shut. That his wife is suffering from Alzheimer's has nothing to do with it.

KRandle said...

All -

Once again I'm surprised at the direction this has taken. It really is about finding the evidence that shows the image in the Roswell Slides is not an alien, and that the claim that this latest image was painted on a picture of a shelf it ridiculous. It was to present evidence and not about who made the initial find of the photograph.

Here's the deal... Bragalia is still outraged that some have "outed" Benavides because he wanted to remain anonymous... That ship sailed when he appeared in videos about the crash. Dew put him in another video which showed the outside of his house to be photographed and had Benavides suggesting that the image on the slide is what he saw. At that point, it was Dew who drew the final line to him, so if Bragalia wishes to point fingers, the first should be pointed at Dew. As I said, when he was just one of those talking about what he saw, his role was minor and unimportant but when he appeared on video endorsing the Roswell Slides image, his role was magnified. You just have to expect others to want to verify the information as accurate.

As I noted before, he wasn't difficult to identify, even from the book. He was the only PFC in the 390th who had the initials EB. If you wish to point fingers, you might want to start there.

It seems to me that Bragalia wants it both ways. First, present "evidence" and then become annoyed with others attempting to validate the evidence. Given the outcome of this fiasco, those attempting validation are to be commended for that rather than just sitting back and nodding. If you are going to claim that you have photographic evidence of an alien, you must expect others to attempt to validate that evidence. Did any of those involved in this mess think that there wouldn't be attempts at validation... and is that why they resisted for so long any request for that evidence. Once it was presented, with great fanfare, the whole thing collapsed.

But again, the point here is not to engage in recriminations, but to examine the evidence, and with that, I'm going to revisit the comments, deleting those that have moved away from the original post.

Tom said...

Kevin said -

"Did any of those involved in this mess think that there wouldn't be attempts at validation... and is that why they resisted for so long any request for that evidence."

I think the Sliders were not expecting to have this thing exposed as quickly as it happened. I believe they felt that eventually it would be proven to be bogus. But they probably figured that was going to be pretty far down the road.

Thus leaving plenty of time to rake in cash from books, movies & appearances. Too bad those darn RSRG guys ruined their scheme.

Brian B said...

I'm still beyond amazed that this remains a hot topic for discussion. It must be pretty boring and uneventful in "UFO World" for this to linger on.

Given the latest confirmations solidifying that this is indeed the body of a Native American, I am surprised that anyone would still harbor even the remotest thought this was an "ant person" or a "space alien".

Finger pointing can go several ways but in the end it's those people who deliberately promoted, profited, and in a celebratory way presented these images to others as anything but what it really is. Those people are:

1) Maussan
2) Carey
3) Schmitt
4) Bragalia
5) Dew
6) Dolan

Given the now wide spread knowledge of the exploitation of these images, it might be prudent to contact the US Senate Committee on Native American Affairs and the Native American Indian Congress for investigation and potential litigation against these people for the premeditated and purposeful exploitation (and monetary gain) from sacred Native American artifacts.

Anthony Bragalia said...


You are mistaken. I never sought nor obtained any money, nor have I ever received money from anyone for anything related to UFOs. I had nothing to do with the Mexico City presentation and did not attend or appear. I was uncomfortable with the format and the host. I think that you need to read my prior articles including my apology, my work with the de-blurred placard in successfully and correctly finding out the identity of the mummy, etc. And if you have read other pieces on this, you will know that it was Adam Dew who provided manipulated versions of the slides, including enlargements of the placards. I was deceived myself, and did not intentionally deceive anyone, Mr. Bell.

David Rudiak said...

Jack Brewer wrote,

Also repeatedly ignored by Team Slides and its supporters has been the fact that qualified experts stated from the get go that the images contained a human mummy.

David Rudiak wrote, "...I would say at this point the opposable thumb on the left hand would point in the human direction."

For the love o' Mick...

Obviously I could have stated it better, but you also used the quote out of context. I noted the new photo shows the left hand with a thumb. Before that, I had heard claims from the slide promoters that the body only had four fingers and no thumb, i.e., more like the classic alien grey.

There are still POSSIBLE anomalies that the new photo in combination with the old slides indicate are there or still does not resolve. There may not be a full complement of 12 ribs. Most of the right hand appears to be missing. There appears to a missing toe, thus only four visible. I noted the missing toe and fingers might be broken off or the hand might be bent and tucked under, or its just the camera angle that doesn't reveal everything. With the ribs, the new photo has the upper part of the rib cage covered by cloth, so unfortunately we can't resolve the rib problem from the new, clearer photo.

The left kneecap also may not be there, as noted in Mexico City, but again that doesn't mean it never had one, just that it too may have gone missing, perhaps the result of poor excavation. The Palmers were not professional archeologists but a family on vacation when they dug up the body.

Whether the bones themselves are shaped right or have normal proportions would have to be studied by an expert to see if the Mexico City claims are correct or not.

My point continues to be to determine whether this is a NORMAL human skeleton, or an ABNORMAL one, i.e. one that might have had some genetic disease and thrown people off. In case you think this is easy or that experts are always on the same page, the NPS carried an article in 1940 on the various mummies, mentioning another small mummy where there was argument among medical experts whether it was a normal 5 year old child or a deformed adult. One of those thinking it was deformed adult was said to be a "well-known doctor". Thus experts couldn't agree even with the actual body in front of them for examination.

I'm going to quote the relevant section AGAIN (3rd time on this blog) since people still don't seem to get that there can be HONEST disagreements about such things, even among experts, with no fraud or malfeasance involved:
Volume 2 - No. 1, January, 1940


By Don Watson,
Park Naturalist,
Mesa Verde National Park.

...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.

Even here, only the age was resolved, not whether the skeleton was normal or not.

albert said...

"... it might be prudent to contact the US Senate Committee on Native American Affairs and the Native American Indian Congress for investigation and potential litigation against these people for the premeditated and purposeful exploitation (and monetary gain) from sacred Native American artifacts...."

Again with the litigation. Why are you so interested in punishing these guys? If you've got a problem, YOU contact those folks and make your case.

And don't forget to print their response.


David Rudiak said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Rudiak said...

Brian Bell,

"Given the now wide spread knowledge of the exploitation of these images, it might be prudent to contact the US Senate Committee on Native American Affairs and the Native American Indian Congress for investigation and potential litigation against these people for the premeditated and purposeful exploitation (and monetary gain) from sacred Native American artifacts."

A bit over the top, don't you think? Photos of artifacts are not themselves the "artifacts". And it was the NPS that had the body itself on display for half a century. A little late to be crying "respect this poor little child".

Prior to the identification around last May 10 as the photos coming from the Mesa Verde museum, nobody knew the source of the mummy. So how can there be "premeditation" to supposedly exploit a "Native American" "artifact" if premeditation wasn't even possible?

You can find books with photos of Native American mummies and other funerary artifacts that might be in a grave such as pottery published even after the passage of NAGPRA. Are these authors to prosecuted as well for "the premeditated and purposeful exploitation (and monetary gain) from sacred Native American artifacts"? Should various museums be prosecuted for continuing to display such ACTUAL artifacts even after NAGPRA was passed (as was the case), until legal status could be determined? Should tens of thousands of tourist photos taken of these artifacts now be tracked down and seized?

Get a grip already!

Brian B said...


I don't know you Albert, but if you've been following these threads for sometime now there are quite a few people who are miffed about having lost money on a fraudulent hoax.

There have also been several comments about how to "cleanup" the UFO community and bad researchers and opportunists.

If you want to support these folks, or believe what they have to say, that is your business. I don't care one way or the other.

The point being, however, that native Americans do not appreciate people who exploit anything to do with their cultural heritage. This was not a mistake or something the sliders overlooked, as evidenced by the evidence itself.

KRandle said...

All -

Since Tony has brought it up several times, he did provide a post for me that I did not wish to run. I rejected it for a number of reasons, one of which was that it seemed to be unfinished. It just sort of ended.

But it was also a rant against Dew focusing the blame for the fiasco on him. While there are questions that haven't been answered, it is also true that he was not a researcher but a film maker. His goals were obviously not the same as those of UFO researchers who were claiming they had slides of an alien creature.

It also seemed to me that the post was an attempt to shift the blame, or a large part of it, to Dew. He didn't provide high quality scans. He manipulated the scans. He was deceptive in his dealings with the others. Overlooked here were the attempts to hide information, attempts to divert or inhibit independent investigations, and to direct what others thought by all those involved. We had, from all involved, statements that suggested high level, highly educated, and intelligent people who said the image was of an alien... and anyone who thought otherwise was some sort of a fool. All this alleged evidence would be presented if we all would just wait.

So wait we did, acting on the little information that was provided (only to be attacked for having the audacity to attempt verification) and when the great revel happened, the whole house of cards collapsed. The high level scientists were friends, the evidence was thin, and the slides were not reveled for us all to see. Even with that, the placard, that we were told couldn't be read by so many different individuals, was read quickly.

My point here is that this article Tony wanted me to publish would absolve him from any blame... he had been fooled. He had been misdirected. And if Dew had been honest with him, then this whole thing could have been avoided.

But the truth is that Tony signed on, as did Tom and Don, and none of them seemed open to any independent scrutiny of the slides... and even at the presentation, they didn't present the best quality scans. So while Tony might blame Dew, Tony was the most vocal and often times the harshest of the critics of those after the truth. So, no, I didn't publish the article because it had no evidence of importance. The questions about the image have been answered. The image is a mummy and all who participated in the "investigation" are to blame for this black eye.

Lance said...

Weil said, Kevin!


Brian B said...


The difference, David, is that the mummy was on display in a public National Museum. Those museums, if you have ever been to one, do not charge admission fees nor misrepresent what they have like a sideshow circus. If they do charge fees it's only a few dollars.

And in this case you have hucksters taking an image which they failed to research properly, or if they did, knowing that it may have been a Native American mummy, created a sideshow event and charged admission for it. Maybe you don't understand, but that's very different than showing a mummy in a public museum where it is properly identified.

I know you want to protect your buddies here, because you keep coming up with reasons to defend their actions for reasons unknown to us.

Regarding the Native Americans, you've already made statements where you don't care about the sensitivities around these artifacts. Go back and read your own posts.

I'm supposing you don't know any Native Americans, but if you did I would want you to do this: go ask one if you can take a photograph of a sacred artifact so that you can promote it as an alien to line your wallet with greenbacks. Tell them you would like to exploit their heritage. Then let me know if you come back with your scalp.

zoamchomsky said...

No offense "Tom" but as anyone who's been following this nonsense knows, most of what follows your "I think" is not quite right. So, in the interest of accuracy:

Given that they are reasonably intelligent and sane, they knew the image depicted nothing extraordinary from the get-go so there was nothing to be "exposed." Some entirely predisposed doofus--Dew, let's assume--came into possession of the mundane slides a few years ago and said something like, "Hey, that mummy looks like a space alien!" and then, "How can I make some money out of this?" It's that's simple, because no one with good sense looks at an image of what is very obviously an earthly and mundane child mummy and seriously thinks "space alien." No One!

I and others have been telling Tony B, the major Internet promoter of this baloney, since last year at least that whatever the slides depict, it very certainly is NOT a space alien or anything Roswell related or even anything extraordinary in any way. It was simply more ufoolishness from known "UFO" clowns who never get anything right. They're all entirely discredited "UFO" Hall-of-Shamers with nothing to lose.

They knew that the very second it was released everyone with an IQ above room temp would roll their eyes in disbelief. Not only at the fact that it was very obviously an image of mummified child but that they could top even their own record for "UFO" inanity. They had no more thought of credibility than a detached carnival sideshow barker robotically hawking what he knows to be freaks, found objects and frauds.

It was all up front for them. Once you've bought a ticket, they couldn't care less.

If anything, Maussan, Carey, Schmitt, and Dolan will experience a slight downturn in revenue in the aftermath of this predictable and predicted fiasco. And dragging this utterly vacuous stupidity out any more is a monumental waste of time!

And if someone says "Hey, ZO, you should be happy that ufoology is now reduced to a video tape loop of a pair of credulous believers shooting each other in the head!" I say, "But is this how it ends? After tens of thousands of books on the subject, billions of words, a few even rational and thoughtful, is this a fitting end to a century of aerospace dreams and interstellar fantasies?" (The pseudoscience of ufoolery never rose to the rules of logic and evidence.) I'd prefer to think there must be a more fitting and humane end to this century of a vivid mass delusion so full of wonder. But then it was never anything but a bunch of baloney anyway.

albert said...


"...I don't know you Albert, but if you've been following these threads for sometime now there are quite a few people who are miffed about having lost money on a fraudulent hoax..."
I recall you and one or two others calling for legal action. A class action suit could be mounted, but none of the victims have come forward, AFAIK.

"...There have also been several comments about how to "cleanup" the UFO community and bad researchers and opportunists...." [see below]

"...If you want to support these folks, or believe what they have to say, that is your business. I don't care one way or the other..."
I'm not 'supporting' anyone. I have opinions.

"...The point being, however, that native Americans do not appreciate people who exploit anything to do with their cultural heritage..."
Yeah, I wouldn't either. So what?

"... This was not a mistake or something the sliders overlooked, as evidenced by the evidence itself..."
When you can _prove_ this, let me know. I _do_ believe that it's highly unlikely that those involved in the Sideshow were hoodwinked by the evidence, I cannot _prove_ it. That relates to 'intent', as I've said before.

"...There have also been several comments about how to "cleanup" the UFO community and bad researchers and opportunists...." [see below]

'Cleaning up' the UFO community is a noble goal. For an object lesson in the chances of this happening, see the wiki on Sean David Morton ( As it says, Morton was indicted by the SEC for fraud, etc. It's worth a read. Morton is _still active_ in the ufo/paranormal/anything-goes 'community', and _still_ has his followers. His shenanigans go back to the 90's. It's short, so read the whole thing.
I _do not_ mean to imply that the proponents of the Sideshow are equivalent to Morton in any way. The Medusa that is the paranormal field will probably never be destroyed. Those pesky snakes just keep growing back.

Tom said...


No chit. You obviously have not been following my posts here. I was simply trying to bring a measure of decorum here. Pardon me for trying to post a level headed comment. This has become ridiculous. They hoaxed it. It was a pre-meditated fraud. Clear enough for you? Ya know what? Fuhgetaboutit. Jezus H. Christ. Don't respond to my posts anymore.

Lance said...

So Shepherd Johnson has obtained a FOIA response which includes almost 200 pages of information about the mummy and 2 new pictures of the poor child:

I have just read (or scanned) the material. The vast bulk of it is all about the loaning of Palmer's collection to Mesa Verde and (breaking up the collection) moving the mummy (back) the Montezuma Castle museum. There are many duplicate documents. Not a SINGLE mention of anything unusual physically about the mummy. The age of 2 years old was first said to be 3 years old (and also 2-3 years old). There was talk of having dentists examine the specimen to determine age but no records I saw.

So all the blah blah about the mummy being SO unusual? None of the naturalists who handled the mummy ever saw the stuff that the esteemed UFO nuts and their apologists saw. No silly tsk-tsking over imaginary missing ribs or unusual pelvises, etc.

Someone said yesterday that amateur hour is over. I loved that!

What will the scum bag hucksters do now?


Anthony Bragalia said...


I received the material directly from NPS and FOIA Officer Charis Wilson several hours ago and forwarded them to Kevin. I have been dialoging with the curators of both involved NPS museums for weeks...

It is now evident that Dew 'enhanced,' 'brightened,' cropped, and manipulated color, contrast and resolution of the slides. This 'enhancement' is evident in the digital images that he made public. The skin has a more 'organic' patina in Dew's version (using light blasting) as evidenced by the comparatively 'lifeless' skin of the Palmer excavation photo. He 'sweetened' and 'tweaked' the versions that I was made privy to, as well as those the public saw, and the photo released today by NPS proves this.

Lance said...

It is the same mummy.

Anyone would have to be an ABSOLUTE idiot to EVER claim that it was alien, regardless of contrast, brightness, color, resolution changes.

For instance, someone who said things like:


"-Clear versions of the slides depict a being whose anatomy does not correspond to a human being."

"In the actual slides it is evident that the being has only four fingers. To my knowledge, mummies and hydrocephalics are not typically missing a fifth digit."

"A detail not known or revealed to anyone but those who have seen the slides is that close-ups of the being’s face show a very ‘pointed’ chin, a chin that in no way resembles a human."

"In fact, the facial features do not in any way match that of other known hydrocephalics or mummies."

"There have been cries from some quarters that the slides are not authentic, or depict a mummy or even a hydrocephalic deformity. And these cries are as loud as they are incorrect."

"The slides being does not have the skin-look of an intentional mummy- it simply is not desiccated. It appears to have been recently embalmed or dead. There is an ‘organic’ patina to the skin tissue. It is possible that their skin is more resistant to necrosis - but no matter, the skin appearance of the being depicted in the slide is not the skin of a mummy."

"The being depicted has very wide set eyes. Its eyes/eye sockets are also twice the size of any human."

"The face features and countenance appear totally non-human. The lower part of the face has an almost ‘insectile’ look and the upper part appears frog-like/amphibian. The chin is ‘pointed’ in the extreme, unlike any human. The head is large, but not hydrocephalic."

"The ears (such as they are) appear vestigial. They are ‘embedded’ into the skull and they are pointed at the top."

"Though very difficult to discern, the being appears to be placed in a glass container. It does not however, resemble those display cases found in museums and we have looked at dozens of such images. It may be tubular. And the being rests on hastily-cut blanket resembling green-colored military blankets used at the time. The entire setup seems very ‘make-shift’ as if it is temporary storage allowing for viewing with intended transport to another location- not at all ‘permanent.’"


Brownie points to anyone who can guess who said the above phases.

Changes to contrast, brightness, color, resolution, etc. would not cause the stupidity detailed above.


Curt Collins said...

The FOIA request log is online, and Shepherd Johnson's request is on page 47.
I've found no listing for a Bragalia

Anthony Bragalia said...


I received the documents directly from FOIA officer Chares Wilson this afternoon. I had been emailing requests on this to curators of both the Mesa Verde Museum and Montezuma Castle for weeks. They informed me that I FOIA had already been filed and that they would notify me. And I noticed on your blurry lines blog that you do not credit me for having found the Mesa Verde Notes that confirmed the mummy was there.

Anthony Bragalia said...


You have 'issues' and are incapable of being civil. Why do you insist on name-calling like a child does? Do you have to call me an 'idiot' and 'huckster' at every turn? What is wrong with your mental state?

CommanderCronus said...


During the Be Witness event in Mexico City, there were a number of supposed "experts" who pointed out the same kind of anomalies that Mr. Bragalia did. I don't think they're all complete idiots, just wrong. Their examination was in error for the same reason AJB was in error; they weren't examining a body, but only a photograph. Remember that, decades ago, there were many occasions of so-called expert analysis done with regard to the Patterson-Gimlin bigfoot film, in which it was claimed that the creature couldn't be a human in a costume because of it's gait, stride, height and so forth. New witness testimony and evidence, however, suggests it was exactly that, a man in a costume. My point is, analysis errors like these can occur when creating a hypothesis based on incomplete data.

All this anger and vilifying is pointless. No one involved in this affair is going to win a Pulitzer for investigative journalism: not the Roswell Slide promoters, not the RSRG, not Dream Team. With nothing to fight over, why make more enemies?

Unknown said...

Anthony Bragalia, how exactly did you receive the documents "directly" from FOIA officer Charis Wilson yesterday? I filed the FOIA request and my name appears in the FOIA log yet yours does not, how is it that Charis Wilson released information to you before she released information to me when I was in fact the original requester? I've also been in touch with Charis and I'll be giving her a phone call on Monday.

-Shepherd Johnson

TheDimov said...

Lance is pointing out the obvious ridiculousness of the whole thing, and I think stressing just how far off people can be - and scientists, no less, who we rely on to know their thing.

Quite frankly I think that those who were too gung-ho about the whole thing get precisely what they deserve, because it very, very obviously was a mummy from the start and the way these guys strayed and strayed from reality was quite simply, remarkable. Not to mention the fact that most of them would likely have profited nicely and as Massaun has shown, have absolutely no intention of giving anything back, because integrity to them, clearly, counts for nothing in this life.

Lance said...

That's right. A non-idiot would say, "I can't say that's an freaking alien! It's a blurry photo! What do you think I am? An idiot?"

Whereas, an idiot....

Well, an idiot will say a whole bunch of stuff. We can document what an idiot will say.


Gilles Fernandez said...

Excellent finding, Sheperd!

In on the page, the size of the Child Mummy is given : 9 inches wide, 29 inches long. Remember the estimation of the expert, José Zalce (120cm).
Hairs seems to be visible too.

Commander wrote: "Their examination was in error for the same reason AJB was in error; they weren't examining a body, but only a photograph."

Exactly, as several times pointed here or there by "us" + maybe the fact the slides acted like an inkblot test where Bragalia & Co projected their "Roswell Myth" filters, self-deluding, etc.

Bragalia is trying to find pale excuses "it is not my fault, it is Dew's fault".

Bragalia, you claimed "precise" forensic statments about the body, as you looked as if you have clear photographs (Lance have listed some of them, and they are plenty of others). If you didn't have clear photos, what's the hell to drive a "normal", non-biased individual to such conclusions?

So with or without clear photographs, your tons of statements were totaly wrong, non-scientific, were made without a zest of caution, but peremptorily, assertive. You made your case and matters worse by defaming some of us.

You saw what you wanted to see. It is time for you to tear you diploma in ufology :p



Isaac Koi - New Uploads said...

Well done Shepherd.

It seems that the material would not have been released with a formal FOIA request (due to the respect issue) and you were clearly the first to get in there with such a request.

(I'm generally against the UFO community bothering people with FOIA requests since the relevant material has usually been requested, and provided, several times already to other people in the UFO community and simply not shared sufficiently openly or widely - but this was clearly a somewhat different situation...).

Anthony Bragalia said...


Not only did I receive the materials yesterday afternoon directly from Charis, but I immediately sent them off to Kevin. What you may not realize is that I have been in dialog for weeks with Mesa Verde curator Tara Travis and NPS curator Gwenn Gallenstein...they indicated a FOIA had already been filed and that I would receive notification when your requested material was released.

Send me your email and I would be happy to send back to you the email received yesterday afternoon from FOIA Officer Charis Wilson- and feel free to call Wilson directly and refer to the email sent to me on Friday. And bear in mind too that it was me that identified the NPS museum as the repository of the mummy in the first place.

In any event, good work....

Curt Collins said...

Jose Antonio Caravaca has put together a nice article that includes this new material from Shepherd Johnson.
It serves as a fitting finale to the Slides story.
The article is in Spanish, but there's a built in translator at the bottom right of the page.

Brian B said...

Well....given the new FOIA data:

"...I would say at this point the opposable thumb on the left hand would point in the human direction."

LOL. :)

Brian B said...


Given your quotes that Lance posted, can you now see why folks think you're part of the dubious "promoters" of these slides?

zoamchomsky said...

Always making new friends, I said, “Take no offense ’Tom’” and then—quite impersonally—proceeded to recount how the “slides” fiasco was totally over before it even began, the child mummy photo hoax—purportedly Roswell related--was stillborn. The Great Cinco de Mayo Reveal was a total flop! An “epic fail!”

It was all pretense. See that perfect word, “Tom?” Pretense. It was all pretend from the get-go, at least two years ago, maybe even three now. The hoaxsters knew it and so did we. It was the found-object face of Jesus on a tortilla or the “face” on Mars all over again. It’s Pseudoscience Mystery Theatre 9000! Some idiot makes a phony claim and we’re forced to sit through the silly show as if it’s a reasonable hypothesis for consideration when we know it isn’t. They never are, it’s just a game we play.

And every example becomes a club with which to pound pseudoscientists over the head, again and again. But I announced months ago that I wasn’t having any part of that this time, I’ve had enough of it already. The “slides” baloney was never even an issue—no matter how many times Tony claimed it would be a “paradigm shattering” reveal; and as I’ve said directly to my fellow skeptics, there are much, much more substantial issues and so effective clubs with which to hammer away at pseudoscience and its advocates. Being victims of the “UFO” myth and delusion—particularly for hard-core ETHers—is punishment enough. Let’s Move On!

So someone—anyone—making silly, uninformed and just plain wrong “observations” about what the “slides” hoaxsters knew and when they knew it, and how it would be “exposed,” and how they would or will profit by their hoax at this late date—when it’s all such horribly old news--is merely useless blathering, talking trash; and I explained why. Did you get that part, “Tom?” It was all of my post except the preface. And no, I am not following your posts, and I don’t have to because the “slides” hoax is a long dead issue. And I can choose to respond or not to anything or anyone I like as long as our generous host allows it. So don’t presume tell me anything when you, “Tom,” are years late to the “slides” party, it's history already, and still get it wrong!

Some people think we’re having conversations, they want dialogues, but for me it has always been more like pamphleteering, issuing position statements, or taking the floor and speaking extemporaneously. And if I repeat myself or harp on the same issues that I obviously think are paramount to the irritation of others then so be it. I know what I know and I know I am in good company and they will excuse me.

Now, Tony B has been told repeatedly just in the past few years that I’ve been acquainted with him that he is a lousy “researcher” who never gets anything right. And I have politely asked Tony to give up his foolishness for all our benefit but those were wasted words. Tony is a committed ETHer and he will say anything that promotes that false belief—no matter how incorrigibly unreasonable and stupid. Any statement that advances the ETH false belief is necessarily stupid because there is no set of logical statements that ends with that extraordinary conclusion.

I asked Tony directly what he was getting out of this pathetic fiasco because money is the only thing that would motivate a reasonable person to feign stupidity and commit himself to such an obvious hoax. He never answered. So we can draw our own conclusions. I conclude that Tony’s motivation was the same as the other hoaxsters. And finally, all the talk of rehabilitating these shameless hoaxsters, perennial losers and inveterate “UFO” Hall-of-Shamers—who are not mere starry-eyed saucer-worshipping ETHers but blinkered darkly paranoid Roswellians—is a complete waste of good intentions. Each and every one will be right back at this sort of dismally ignorant, intellectually offensive sideshow trash at the very first opportunity.

As my previous post, these comments are made in the interest of accuracy and are for information purposes only.

Anthony Bragalia said...


You have never communicated with me privately- I have no idea where you are getting any of this or why you are making things up about my motivations...

I have never requested, sought nor received any money at any time from anyone relative to any of my work on UFOs. To suggest otherwise shows that you are ill-informed or simply making things up. Let me be clear again- my work on UFOs has netted me no compensation ever. I do not seek to ever make money from such work and it has only cost me in terms of time spent away from by business.

Further, if you read my apology piece- I donated a substantial sum to a Native American charity when it was found to be an Indian child mummy.

So, "Zoam" - get your facts straight before you go spouting off maniacally with your near-libelous comments. And while your at it- why don't you use your real name (known to me) or do you not want your colleagues to know you are in this world of UFOs?

One has only to look at the raw image of the mummy from Palmer's collection -and the mummy image found from Montezuma Castle- to realize that Adam Dew 'tweaked' and 'sweetened' the image of the body that he generated by using many photographic manipulation techniques. The images that he created- ant more so, the images that I was made privy too early on- had been cropped, light-blasted and color and resolution manipulated. The placard versions that he provided were fakes.

nali said...

What happened to the mummy is probably descibed in this book , page 91 :,+head+down,+face+pressed+in,+and+she+was+rotting+and+being+eaten+by+insects.&dq=%22His%22+mummy+was+stuffed+into+a+box+in+a+garage,+head+down,+face+pressed+in,+and+she+was+rotting+and+being+eaten+by+insects.&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAGoVChMIx47woZuOxgIVTAOSCh2rfwDB

There are chance the same thing happened to the boy and Esther. Unless I'm wrong, because I can't find anymore where I read it, both mummies were removed from public display a few years before the law of 1990.
Someone must find this book ....

Terry the Censor said...

> Once again I'm surprised at the direction this has taken

Kevin, you should not be the least surprised. I hate to say it, but the mess in this comments section could have been avoided by the exercise of prudence. You gave a discreditable character a platform to present valid information; quite predictably, he has used the opportunity to rewrite history -- to the ridiculous extreme of exalting his imputed good acts and shifting responsibility for many of his bad acts. It is no surprise that readers are fighting against this.

You have criticised Tony in two comments but that is too late. Anthony is driving this lunacy and won't be stopped by your temperate words. Tony can't control himself -- he has no wish to control himself -- so you have to do it for him. I recommend this post and all its comments be deleted immediately. Other blogs have covered the post's material sufficiently.

Also, I recommend that, in future, any contributions from Anthony Bragalia should be passed on to a respected third party, who will verify and write up the information. I am not against Tony doing good work and building trust -- we all should have the opportunity for redemption -- but, clearly, his comments here (and in his unpublished submission as characterised by you, Kevin) show Tony is not truly repentant. He has an agenda, and facts only matter to him when they further that agenda.

It's your blog, Kevin, so whatever you decide, goes. But Anthony Bragalia taints everything. It's a fact.

cda said...


It seems that a number of submissions have been deleted already, by Kevin. If he were to delete the whole blog and its comments it would be like the rewriting of history as per George Orwell's 1984.

(I wonder how long this comment will last).

Anthony Bragalia said...


You do not know me. You have never spoken to me. You have never emailed me. Who are you to say what you say? You smugly disparage my name without ever giving yours.

Who are you to pass judgement and tell people what I really think or what really motivates me?

Not truly repentant? Within hours of viewing the de-blurred placard I correctly identified the history and location of the mummy. And I then found the original source of the picture of the mummy child transferred from Mesa Verde to Montezuma. These are things that none of your skeptical friends have been able to do.

After I found the solution to the 'mystery', Gilles and Lance and others said, "good work." But the minute that I try to explain how this could have happened in the first place, the minute that I try to show how Dew deceived -and have the photos to prove it- you and your ilk "pounce" on me and simply do not wish to hear it. Very strange.

Frankly, it is the same crowd every time that seeks to -at every turn- condemn me. People like you and Lance and Zoam -the same people over and over- see fit to act as judge and jury. It gets repetitious and does not reflect what others feel. I simply don't need your nonsense and your mean-spirited rants.

I will continue to research Roswell for many years to come. I know in my heart why I do this work- and I understand the mistakes that I have made. For a real understanding about how skeptic and 'believer' can work together, and for a real understanding of what my real motivations and intents are- ask your skeptic associate Jose Caravaca. We have had civil discourse for weeks now- and he is a gentleman. You have a lot to learn from him.

cda said...

Skeptics and believers can certainly work together, though there are bound to be obstacles at times. What I cannot understand is how ANYONE, even the most avid UFO believer, can accept proof that ETs have visited our planet based on a photograph or a movie.

The very minimum that is acceptable as evidence for aliens is the actual ET, presumably on display in a museum, and verified as such by a reputable scientific body. Would any of these ET believers accept a slide of a dinosaur as evidence that dinosaurs still exist on earth? If not, then why do they accept a slide of a human-like being as strong evidence of ETs? The 'will-to-believe' maybe?

At least dinosaurs did once exist. ETs never did, at least not according to our present understanding of the universe.

Terry the Censor said...

Anthony, enough. Your claims of persecution by the usual suspects is completely dishonest. Even Kevin has chastised you twice in these comments -- and he gave you the platform to speak!

You have attempted to perform good works to redeem yourself, but you go too far, as usual, as Kevin and I have characterised it. Now you are trying to take partial credit for Shepherd Johnson's FOIA materials!

Tony, you've made this all about you. Well, you have no credibility whatsoever. Step aside. Give your leads to others (though you should be given credit). You are incapable of providing information about the slides without perverting the information to meet your own ends.

Even in your rehabilitation, you epitomise everything wrong with the Roswell slides affair.

Lance said...

It should be remembered that all along we had the German screen capture of the slide that showed everything that anyone really needed to see, including the placard and museum setting.

Certain reality-challegend hucksters insisted that they HAD seen better versions of the slides and that the supposed alien characteristics were much more clear.

This silly new story that somehow Adam Dew manipulated the images so that it turned a mummy into an alien appears to be just more sad blustering from sources who are known to be relentlessly unreliable.

Notice that, as is par for the course when you are dealing with nuts, that we are not shown the supposed doctored images. We are just asked to take them on faith.

I work with images for a living, particularly manipulating images. The new claims against Adam Dew sound highly dubious. Perhaps he will weigh in, especially now since he seems to be accused directly of fraud by his huckster friends.


Lance said...

Also wanted to say (as I said in a private email to him) how much I love Terry's posts. He is always polite but on target. I often miss the mark on at least one of those qualities.


Jack Brewer said...

Tony wrote, "...I understand the mistakes that I have made."

I question that.

Even if readers overlook, as Terry described, Tony's continuous attempts to sew self-serving editorials into his reports, he keeps putting forth any number of yet to be substantiated circumstances as factual statements. I do not claim to know exactly what the problem is, but, one way or the other, it does not appear that Tony understands either the mistakes or what concerns people about them.

Lance, for instance, just characterized Tony's offerings as relentlessly unreliable. A prime example of the accuracy of Lance's assertion can be found right in Tony's last submission, in the opening line, no less.

Tony reported the images were photographed by Bernerd and Hilda Ray. Do I need to explain what is wrong with that proclamation?

If so...

It has never been documented or actually verified that the late Rays had anything to do with this saga. There is no evidence available for public review that demonstrates it to be the case.

As a matter of fact, the story was instigated by the same man, Adam Dew, that Tony is now assuring us should not be relied on for information. Yet Tony led his latest article with info obtained from none other than Adam Dew and his associates.

For those scoring at home, here's one more piece of the proverbial puzzle that might help keep future discussions a bit more clear: Terry and Lance would not have needed me to explain what's wrong with asserting that the Rays snapped the photos.

One more time: Tony does not demonstrate an ability to consistently and accurately differentiate between fact and supposition. Neither does he demonstrate an ability to understand why people object.

Anthony Bragalia said...


I most certainly did not take credit for Sheperd's FOIA! When are you going to stop this nonsense? The fact is that the FOIA officer did indeed email to me the documents as soon as they were posted. I have the email to prove it, despite Sheperd's lies to the contrary and threats to call the FOIA officer to see if she really sent me the documents. Sheperd, please contact Kevin for my email, I will then send you the emails I received from the curators and FOIA officer....

And since it was I that found out the Mesa Verde Museum connection in the first place (Collins and others refuse to acknowledge this) I had been in regular contact with both the curator of Mesa Verde and Montezuma Castle for weeks! Again, I have the emails to demonstrate this. The FOIA was already filed, and since it was, I simply requested that the results be forwarded to me immediately upon public posting. Don't try to make this an issue that it is not.

Lance, it is troubling that you feel the need to condemn me at every turn, every moment. Something is very wrong about you. You called me at my home acting very pleasant, but when you get on the net, you become a foul, foul individual. Why are you two-faced?

Lance, tell the truth: You have associated with and propped a man (Kimball) who accused me of hacking my own emails, until you started to receive them from the hacker yourself! Why don't you condemn Kimball for that accusation when you know first-hand it is not true! Why do you not condemn Kimball for his continual lying and his continual fabrications? You excused your vile behavior earlier when you publicly requested that your associates get in a car for a road trip to surprise interrogate a 91 year old Roswell vet. You told me in conversation on the phone that it was 'a joke.' Yes, a sick joke.

And not to embarrass you, but when you called the photo-scientist who did the analysis -and he denied to you having done so- I emailed to you the proof that the photo-scientist actually did analyze them. You then never apologized for insinuating that the scientist was not involved and that I was lying. Why?

As you know, there are many untrue accusations that you and yours have made against me- but unlike, you, I am not going to further belabor this whole issue.

I do not need this juvenile 'pile on' and Lance, you and Terry can pat each other on the back all you want- you are unprofessional and uncivil. You name call, associate with liars like Kimball who said he had the slides when he did not, and who made public the private emails for Kevin Randle. You have nerve.

And why have none of your little skeptical group members pointed out that Kevin himself several years ago was taken in by faked documents and faked testimony of one Frank Kaufmann? Do you have memory loss?

And why do you not publicly excoriate and rant endlessly about Paul Kimball's uncle Stan Freiedman, who, twenty five years on, is still defending the fraudulent MJ12 documents?

Terry the Censor said...

> I most certainly did not take credit for Shepherd's FOIA!

So, Tony, why did you even mention it? Why state that you received the FOIA material independent of Shepherd Johnson? You whine about not getting credit for your mummy research; I ask, why then are you making the FOIA release all about you???

Immediately after making that statement, you assert "the photo released today by NPS proves" your allegation that Dew manipulated his images. How does it do that? How does a black-and-white photo from 1896 prove Dew manipulated colour images taken 50 years later? You do not explain. We are left to conclude you are connecting the FOIA photo to your Dew fraud claims only because you need the connection to further your agenda of self-exoneration.

Just stop. Especially stop holding that victim posture. You are making things worse for yourself, not better.

Tim Hebert said...

Tony, an act of contrition would go a long way to redeem your complicity in this whole crappy affair, yet you seem incapable or unwillingly to do so. You called Kimball a liar? You seem to have left out the segment where you accused him of being an alcoholic. A public apology would reset your moral compass. It's the unethical and immoral behaviors and your unwillingness to face up to these shortcomings that irk me and a lot of others.

With the above said, I believe that you can do something of immense value to those who had fostered their delusional belief in your abilities as a researcher:

Post on your own blog (it's easy to set up) and provide an honest and accurate accounting about how you got caught up in all of this. I would suggest that you start from the beginning and provide a running account leading up to May 5, 2015. Be objective rather than subjective. Provide names of who you had interacted with and provide proper context.

Oh, please omit any emotional aspects, this only muddies the water and leads the reader down a path of no return.

If you do the above, you will have provided a most valuable service that could transcend everything that has happened up to this point.

KRandle said...

All -

This has become a difficult call for me. I could delete everything, going back to Zoam's comments... or I can leave this stand as a warning of sorts, or maybe an education of sorts about the ramifications to some of the unfettered comments and accusations. There are some good points made, but this is descending into a discussion, not of the subject of the post, but of what should be done and by whom.

FWIW Tony sent to me the document from the National Park Service before Shepherd Johnson sent me the same thing. With Shepherd's came the letters from the park service along with time stamps on it. It is clear that Shepherd had originated the FOIA request, as outlined in those documents. Since he was first to received the documents and he was the one who initiated the requests, he deserves the credit for it.

But now we descend into the cult of personality, and though I'm tempted to delete everything back to Zoam, I'll let this stand. However, it ends now. If you wish to discuss aspects of the post or what all this means to further research, fine... if we continue in the vein we're going, I'll stop and probably delete many of the comments. After all, the point here has always been to provide timely information about the topics rather than attack one another.

Paul Kimball said...

This is all going to end with the involvement of lawyers, cease-and-desist letters, and so forth. In that respect, it's a sad blast from the past.

Don Maor said...

Hi Tony,

As a matter of my opinion, I don't really believe that Dew manipulated the images with the nefarious intentions you are seemingly claiming. If manipulation of images existed, the purpose of manipulation may have been positive, such as for enhancing purposes. For the intentional hoax hypothesis, more evidences are required. For me, Dew is probably as embarrassed as you are, regarding the overall results of this investigation.

Anthony Bragalia said...

Hi Don-

That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. But facts are facts. I have numerous examples of such manipulation but apparently no one wants to see or publish this information. Photo forensic analysis that I have had completed (and shared some of this with Kevin) shows that even Dew's latest, "best available" and "highest resolution" digital reproductions of the slides show only 84% of the 'last saved' quality of the jpg he shared with us. And the amount of 'light - blasting' that was done obscured major portions of the second slide and several portions of versions of the first slide. There is also evidence of extensive 'compression' and 'cropping.' The placard enlargements that I received (even from over two years ago) are completely bogus. There is much, much more to this story that I have learned, but again, no one wants to see or hear it- and if I were to release this, it doesn't matter- I would continue to be publicly berated and I simply don't need the meanness and ugly vitriol, the likes of which you have seen here in these comments to this blog post.

zoamchomsky said...

Hey, now we know all about a particular though totally insignificant child mummy.

But Tony B has been telling us for over two years that there was validated and conclusive evidence that Earth has been visited by ET. This was the smoking gun, the "paradigm shattering" evidence that would "change history." Sounds too good.

It's funny how that seems to have been forgotten. I know all about a mummy that I never wanted to know but I know absolutely nothing about visiting ET or crashed spacecraft or anything like that, and the world hasn't changed in the least bit!

Forget the money. How do I get the time back? And still want to see a dead alien!

zoamchomsky said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

We all know who claimed what, who said what to whom and threw insults around. Is it not time to just cut all the proverbial crap and grow up?

All of this infighting surely can not help either camp, skeptic of believer. One thing has come from the whole fiasco is that when people share information the truth can be discovered.

Those involved in the slides drama wanted to keep it all secret until they were ready to reveal, yet they are trying to show the government fabricates truth and keeps secrets but they are guilty of doing the same thing. Valuable lesson here is people in this field need to stop working against each other if the truth is ever to be discovered.

Brian B said...

Enough about AJB - we know the story there:

What has or will Schmitt and Carey have to say?

What about Carey's recent proclamation that the mummy was still "nonhuman"?

What about Schmitt recently saying the next step was a public university scientific discussion forum?

Curt Collins said...

Brian, I've seen nothing in the last week from them, but on Twitter, I asked Jaime Maussan if Carey & Schmitt were aware of the new findings. His reply:
"They believe the body of Bewitness is 47 inches long and The Mummy is just 29 inches as well as other differences"

On Sunday's Contacto program, Maussan said the scientific conference scheduled for June 23rd has been postponed to examine this new FOIA material.

Still only silence from Slidebox Media, LLC, aka Adam Dew and his partner Joseph Beason.
Maussan identifies Beason as owner and custodian of the original slides.

albert said...


It's certainly within your rights to delete comments, but please, do it before they're published. Deleting comments retroactively is rewriting history, and that history, grim though it may be, needs to be there. We (who comment) are all adults here (at least, chronologically:) We must take responsibility for what we say, on record. This is one of very few blogs where commenters can delete their own comments, so there's no excuse for saying something stupid and not retracting it. Apologies are preferable, as they show at least a semblance of integrity.
Yours, anxiously awaiting your next new topic,

zoamchomsky said...

Sarcasm, Stephen, Sarcasm.

I thought a reminder of the lesson contained in just how distant their original extraordinary claims and the reality turned out to be was appropriate right now.

So what's an insignificant mummy got to do with fantastic claims of visiting ET? Absolutely nothing.

Given that lesson and ten-thousand others like it don't pretend that skeptics and believers are in any way on equal footing. And the only "truth" to be found in all of this is that the "slides" fiasco is not the exception but the rule in ufoolery.

There's your truth!