I was reading Tim Printy’s SUNlite (which you can easily find by typing Tim Printy and SUNlite into your search engine or use www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/SUNlite.htm). He mentioned that Jaime Maussan had paid Tony Bragalia five thousand dollars for finding another picture of the mummy displayed in the so-called Roswell Slides. This suggested a couple of things to me.
First, I wondered, as did Tim Printy, what had become of that money. I asked Tony and he said that he had donated all of it to Native American non-profit organization. Tony had been extremely upset to learn that the image on the slides was not an alien creature but an unfortunate child who had died centuries earlier.
Second, I wondered if this was a tacit admission that the image wasn’t an alien as had been promoted. Maussan, who had rejected the reading of the placard suggesting the identity of the image, was now quietly admitting the truth. Maussan has insisted that the image was an alien and he would prove it. He also offered a reward if anyone could find another picture of the same mummy.
As you all know, the documentation was extraordinary here. Pictures of the excavation in the late nineteenth century were found, a report about the discovery had been located, and pictures showing the mummy in a museum setting that cemented the identity were produced. Clearly the mummy had been identified as something terrestrial.
It seems at this point that nearly everyone who was involved in this have now, more or less, conceded the truth. We can now relegate the whole thing to a footnote in the history of the UFO phenomenon.
But since Tim Printy had raised the question about what happened to the money, I thought I would answer that. The money ended up with the Native Americans which seems to me to be the proper place for it.
Apparently, Maussan is paying Bragalia for the Park documents located by Shepherd Johnson.
Maussan's saucer logic is that these documents prove the the body recovered by Palmer does not match the body photographed in the two parks. I could go on, but it doesn't make any sense.
Very little of this makes any sense. Even if true, the whole slide, as you know, was taken in a very recognizable museum and most of what Adam Dew said was not true.
Maussan' experts team actually continues to claim it cant be the Palmer's Mummy; and their main argument is about the size of the body they claim it is NOT matching Palmer' Mummy.
"I" tried to show their demonstration is incorrect or flawed, as they seem to propose an impossible photograph.
Maussaun is the perfect example of what is wrong in ufology; a prime example of someone who can spout whatever they please and not only get away with it but get to live in comfortable residings because of it. I could do what he does but I am not shameless, simply.
He may have paid the $5000 and that in itself comes as a stunning revelation because I didn't think he would do it, but he's still laughing merrily with what he has scalped off giving his rubbish opinions about ufo's and if the world was fair his face would never be seen on tv again. Which of course is never going to happen.
I had heard that there was still a push to keep this slide nonsense alive. I don't understand how anyone can look at the evidence and documentation and not understand that this is a mummy. I suppose it fits right in with the idea that those of us who thought we had been in the Iraq were actually on Mars (I still have my horrible Mars burn) and what would Matt Damon say to learn that he didn't colonize Mars... We did that already.
I did listen to a recent show with Carey and Schmitt and they have distanced themselves from it.. finally.. but more or less with blame towards that Adam guy who they 'don't have contact with', its all his fault you see, and Adobe's fault, and blah blah blah blah. How about "We were dumb, cashed in on BeWitness, knew we were wrong but couldn't admit it at the time so we could pocket the cash we made, but now that a bit of time as passed we can safely say that we had been duped - wasn't our fault of course but we were duped - and admit that yes indeed it is a mummy and not an alien. But its all that Adam guy's fault.
"There's a sucker born every minute" is a phrase closely associated with P. T. Barnum, an American showman of the mid-19th century, although there is no evidence that he said it. Early examples of its use are found instead among gamblers and confidence men.
Regardless of origin, it also applies to the ufologists who promote themselves and their "discoveries" as ground breaking evidence, when in truth they are just con men selling a side show act.
Speaking of where the money went...
Was it ever disclosed what Dew & Beason (aka Slidebox Media LLC) pocketed for exhibiting the slides at BeWitness?
Hi Kevin. "Most of what Adam Dew said was not true." Can you be more specific? I don't recall ever saying anything that wasn't true.
Oh, I don't know... Benavidez was a lieutenant, the slide codes were from 1947 but there were no such codes on the slides and I would guess that you knew what the placard said long before you approached any of the Roswell researchers with the slides in the first place.
I do host a radio program now... how about coming on it to explain your end of the fiasco? Set the record straight.
1. I was told that Eleazar was a lieutenant by either Tom or Don. I do apologize for not fact-checking them on that point.
2. To the best of my recollection, I never said the slides dated to 1947. I may have said they dated to around 1947. I'm fairly certain it was Tom who kept hammering this thing about the codes and I instructed him to stop. It's my understanding that there is one code on slide per roll of film that could date it to the year. Hoewever there are only 2 body slides. It is possible, but unlikely, that if we took the second slide out of the cardboard it may have the code on it. Our Kodak historian told us that the slides almost certainly dated to between 1941-49 (because of the style of cardboard sleave), and absolutely dated to before Kodak stopped using a protective lacquer on the slides over the course of the 1960s. If I ever said they dated to 1947, I'd love to see it. Go back and watch the trailer for the documentary. I say the slides date from a 10-year period. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL0MvHpieaE
You have more? Or is that "most of what Adam Dew said"? Pretty weak for an investigator and historian like yourself Kevin. If I didn't have my sense of humor still intact, I might say that your continued insistence that I knew what was in the placard is libelous. It is 100% false.
I've been trying for several months to get one of RRG members to sit for an interview as I try to wrap up my documentary. They all continue to refuse my invite. I've had several very friendly phone conversations with one member in particular. I'm not hard to find Kevin.
I showed the original slides to hundreds of people leading up to Mexico City. If you weren't so hard to get to, I would have happily shown them to you. Frankie Rowe once suggested that I reach out to you and I wish I had. However I find it quite unlikely that you would have been that one righteous soul to dissuade us from trying to figure out what was in the slides. In fact, your subtle circling the wagons around Don and Tom reeks a little of protecting your own self-interests. I have no beef with Tom and Don. They wanted this thing to be real more than anyone and I fully understand their disappointment.
I went into this process with an open mind. If I'm guilty of anything, it's of letting some very interested parties take the wheel and run with it in the name of a good story. If Tony was still active, he might tell you that several times early on we asked him to stop talking about the slides. But as I soon found out, no one puts Tony Bragalia in the corner. Tom and Don very much wanted these slides to carry on the Roswell legacy. All I knew was that I had some old slides of what looked to me like what I've been taught an alien might look like. By the time I left Eleazar's house, I had some hope we might be on to something big.
My assumption was that Mexico City would happen providing us with some funding to finish the documentary, the slides would debated and likely remain a mystery. No one was more stunned that the placard was read than me. We made every attempt to read the placard from day one. It's why we made the difficult decision to cut open one of the slides. When I went to my friend from Adobe after the RRG deblurred the slides his first response was "wow, we should buy Smart DeBlur." He is on-camera analyzing the slides.
When the documentary is finished I promise I'll come on your show Kevin. Maybe until then you can stop libeling me.
'Maussaun is the perfect example of what is wrong in ufology; a prime example of someone who can spout whatever they please and not only get away with it but get to live in comfortable residings because of it. I could do what he does but I am not shameless, simply....'
He is not able to spout whatever he pleases, that's your hyperbole, as is describing him as 'the perfect example' of etc. You have a problem with him living in 'comfortable residings', which is just a peculiar attitude on your part.
You say you could do what he does; but you provide absolutely NOTHING to support this casual boast. What is your experience in journalism or broadcasting? Wikipedia states that Jaime Maussan has been a 'reporter at various newspapers and broadcasting outlets' since 1970. I've not heard of anyone disputing his qualifications and outstanding abilities in his job, outside of the UFO content. Why should we believe that you are remotely capable of what he does in his professional work?
'He may have paid the $5000 and that in itself comes as a stunning revelation because I didn't think he would do it, but he's still laughing merrily with what he has scalped off giving his rubbish opinions about ufo's and if the world was fair his face would never be seen on tv again. Which of course is never going to happen.'
Because YOU didn't think Jaime Maussan would pay the money that makes it a 'stunning revelation' that he did. No, it makes it a surprise for you. Just speak for yourself, eh?
I've been following him on twitter for more than a year and haven't noticed the 'laughing merrily' you refer to - please demonstrate any evidence you have for this.
As long as Adam is handy, maybe he can start by answering the question posed here, "What was the haul for the BW event"? I agree that I would like to hear him set the record straight. There are only a few villains in this crap fest. It seems there are only three who set out to profit by perpetuating a fraud. At least one was a well-intentioned but dim-witted true believer accompanied by a couple of attention-seeking, not-so-bright, 15-minutes-of-fame, pathetic knuckleheads. Fortunately, the two knuckleheads have defenders here who know no bounds (including the continued desecration of someone's child) in defending their heroes, most in multi-part messages with gratuitous links to their own websites.
I am not going to be an Adam Dew apologist but I think you need to get some facts straight about who said what. It was Tony Bragalia who was the one who engineered the idea that the slides were specifically from 1947. He said it on this very blog:http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-roswell-slides-update-by-tony.html
Most of Bragalia's statements in that entry about the slides (like a great deal of his writings) were highly exaggerated. There was no edge code even though he insisted it existed.
As for Benavidez being a LT, we don't know what he told Dew about his career. However, Dew, to the best of my knowledge is not a military man, and ranks can be confusing unless you served. Some people don't even understand the difference between enlisteds and officers. What is more interesting, IMO, is that Benavidez went on record as stating that the body in the slides was like the alien bodies he saw. Does this mean alien bodies look like the mummified bodies of two year old children?
Of course, you are missing the fact that Carey, Schmitt, and Bragalia went on record numerous times prior to the May 5th fiasco saying things that were not accurate or true. Now they are trying to cover their tracks by telling us things like "the images of the placard provided could not be deblurred (I did it with the copies Bragalia provided)" and "We never saw the full slide (but the frame grab obtained from the trailer showed the full slide - blurry but in full)" and "the instant I saw the second slide I knew it was in a museum (but the second slide looked a lot like the first)" and Carey stating the placard had been partially read and that the "debunkers" would be "disappointed" by what it stated, etc. etc.
Dew bears responsibility for what he stated and did (I have made my opinions on this known) but do not make him "the lone bad guy" in all of this. You can not absolve Carey, Schmitt, and Bragalia for their false claims (can we call them lies or just misleading/inaccurate statements?). They are trying to rewrite the history and their participation on all of this. They want you, and everybody else, to think they were duped by Adam Dew. This is not accurate and anybody that followed the slide story knows this to be true. By blaming this all on Dew, you are helping them do so.
I doubt that Dew could read the placard prior to it being deblurred.
So you're calling me out Kevin and then not posting my response?
Don't play dumb Adam for heaven's sake, you knew you did wrong so why not just man up now and admit it rather than play the same game Carey and Schmitt are playing. You couldn't do a vanishing trick quickly enough, how typical to now make an appearance and say uhhh .... What'd I do???
First I do have other things to do beyond this blog.
Second, if it would make you happier, I would gladly change the statement to inaccurate.
Third, where do you think Tom got the idea that the code on the film was for 1947... and didn't you mention this in one of the comments to this blog?
Fourth, the film code that everyone was talking about was for motion picture film. Slide film had a different coding, which was easily discovered on the internet.
Fifth, I have pointed out, repeatedly, things that they said were untrue (inaccurate) including the nonsense about the Pentagon being unable to read the code.
Sixth, I'm not that hard to find either. Tom, Don, and Tony all have my email and both Tom and Don have my telephone number.
Seventh, if you have read the blog postings, you would know that I said from the beginning that the investigation had to be carried out but I also said that I thought it would turn out badly. Without having seen the slides, I asked Tom, in December 2015 if it could be a body but he said, "No."
Eighth, I would think that having a look at the whole slide, back in the beginning, would have provided a wonderful clue about the nature of the image. The museum would have been obvious. Who controlled access to the slides... You or Joe Beason.
Ninth, If you wanted Tony to stop talking about the slides, you could have just cut off his supply of information. You could have stopped him easily.
Finally, if the high resolution scan you posted to your website on May 6 or 7 had been available earlier, the placard would have been read.
I had the same thought about the ranks, but Adam said he got the information from Tom or Don, but I have seen nothing in their writing to suggest that Benavidez was anything other than an enlisted service member.
I have pointed out the inaccuracies of Tom, Don and Tony... Tom said that they would have talked to skeptics if not for the vemon spit at them by the skeptics... and, of course, I have seen the vemon spit by Tom and especially Tony. I do not absolve them for their false claims (but I hate that term but it works here) and have pointed them out. This whole episode is filled with false claims.
And I now see the blame everyone but me claim. Tom and Don went on a radio program recently and seemed to blame everyone but themselves for the mistakes. And now we have more of that. I am not putting this all on Dew... their were lots of inaccurate statements thrown around before the Roswell Slides Research Group ended all the controversy by reading the placard... and if they could do it with the high resolution scan that became available on May 6 or 7, why could no one else?
I just realized that I'm passing up a marketing opportunity. There is a long chapter on the Roswell Slides in my new book, Roswell in the 21st Century. Maybe that will help everyone understand this fiasco... it's available at Amazon now and the ebook will be up in a few days.
I believe Rudiak answered why it could not be deblurred prior to the RSRG. Those that were given the image were not motivated enough to deblue it. My initial belief was it probably could not be (based on what had been stated by the promoters) but nablator was more motivated. Once he produced the initial results, we all became involved and interested.
A chapter about the Roswell Slides in your book and you didn't want to talk to me? Sounds like some thorough reportage.
Saying that "most of what I said was inaccurate" would also be inaccurate. But suit yourself. You've still only noted the mistake in Eleazar's rank.
Not that this argument is even pertinent, but I'd love to see where I made the statement that the slides date to 1947. Just because film was manufactured in 1947 that doesn't mean it was developed in 1947. The more important factors in dating were the cardboard sleeve (1941-49) and the protective lacquer. Linking the slides to exactly 1947 was critical for some involved in this story. It wasn't critical to me. And I told Don numerous times that the body in the photo is clearly not freshly deceased, so it shouldn't matter that the slides date to 1947. But here's the dating labels I'm referring to that appear, to my knowledge, once on each roll of Kodachome: http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f1/t011524.html
I travel a lot for work. But I haven't been to Iowa in the last 4 years sadly. And I'm guessing you can understand why I wasn't going to email you the slides. When I brought your name up to Tom and Don as someone I should talk to (after Frankie suggested it) they said it was unnecessary. Maybe you should talk to them. To the best of my recollection there was some personal issues between "The Dream Team" when I first started talking to Don? Larry Lemke, Bryce Zabel, Ben Hanson, Tom, Don, Elezar, Neil DeGrasse Tyson and at least 100 other people saw the slides and were fascinated. Tom and Don had copies in their possession. Even NDT thought they were worth looking into.
I never fed Tony any information. Ever. He got some initial information from Tom and then did his own investigating. There was no reason for Tony to put himself out there like he did. But that was his choice. More facts you should already know if you wrote a chapter on it in your book.
I gave a high-resolution version of the placard (the version we drum-scanned) to Don who gave it to Rudiak. That exact version has since been deblurred. I had friends at Adobe try to deblur it. While you say it isn't true, Don did tell me he sent it someone at the Pentagon. I tried to the best of my ability. We considered releasing the placard online, but were concerned people would simply project their own biases on the text. I thought I had some of the best people in the world looking at the text already. Again, I've never faulted anyone who has a negative opinion regarding our approach to the slides.
If I knew 100% that we had photos of an alien body, we obviously would not have gone to Mexico City. I certainly wouldn't have had to spend 3 years of my own time hacking away at this. We went to Tom and Don (via Stanton Friedman ironically) because we were looking for people who say they've seen alien bodies.
I'll leave you with one last nugget for the second printing of your book. Just before Joseph first showed me the slides he says he sent them in full resolution to Stanton Friedman. Stanton I'm sure gets tons of email and wouldn't remember. But Stanton directed Joseph to Tom and Don, claiming that he doesn't do research anymore. So if you dig back in Stanton's email from around 2012, you might well find the slides. This is why, when Paul Kimball said he was going to release the slides on May 4, I thought he might actually do it.
As for the money, gimme a break. I'm now probably up to $4.25/hr for my time spent on this escapade over the last 4 years. This was and continues to be a self-funded side project. Keep an eye out for the final doc before the end of the year. Then you can fume on here about the no-doubt substantial box office grosses.
My offer still stands, if anyone in the RRG who had direct involvement in the deblurring process is willing, I'd love to talk to you on camera. And Tony, if you're out there... call me!
Is Adam Dew the American equivalent of Ray Santilli ?
Unfortunately I think you have to throw all four people into the blame basket on this one.
No single person carries more blame than the other. And while we're at it let's make that five people including our famous con artist in Mexico.
Everything available to Rich's group was available to Dew, Maussan, Bragalia, Schmitt and Carey.
They chose to drag this thing out in slow reveal to build momentum, suspense, and higher ticket sales.
Although "apologetic", none has come forward with financial statements about their earnings from this deliberate con game because they just want to pocket their earnings and now blame someone else.
This has "gimmick" written all over it.
And if Schmitt and Carey really were concerned about "venomous skeptical commentary" they should get some balls and face their detractors instead of constantly throwing venomous comments at UFO skeptics at every event they speak at.
Really, they couldn't take the skeptical comments?
"Can you be more specific? I don't recall ever saying anything that wasn't true."
Maybe you could answer a simple question for us all...
"If you had to do all this over again - would you say and do anything differently?"
It is really disappointing after all is said and done that (as mentioned earlier in this thread) you knew you did wrong and still haven't had the guts to admit it.
You appear to have vanished overnight and now make an appearance and say uhhh .... What'd I do!
I agree that you are not the only person at fault here and I am quite surprised that some of the researchers wasted so much of their time on this (time, that at least one of them should have spent on a couple of other "leads" that we have discussed years ago).
You also wrote:
"I showed the original slides to hundreds of people leading up to Mexico City. If you weren't so hard to get to, I would have happily shown them to you. Frankie Rowe once suggested that I reach out to you and I wish I had. However I find it quite unlikely that you would have been that one righteous soul to dissuade us from trying to figure out what was in the slides. In fact, your subtle circling the wagons around Don and Tom reeks a little of protecting your own self-interests. I have no beef with Tom and Don. They wanted this thing to be real more than anyone and I fully understand their disappointment."
Kevin can of course speak for himself. Personally I have found both he and David to be most helpful and accommodating in my dealings with them - hindsight is a wonderful thing of course and if Kevin had been involved with this at the beginning and people had listened, I'm sure everyone (including you) would have been spared a lot of embarrassment. Kevin is very easy to contact - although I could concede perhaps, a little harder to meet in person.
I understand that this is Kevin's blog and accordingly he decides who gets to post what - I don't really like this form of censorship either - but it is his call and i just have to accept that.
Finally, I, for what it's worth, would like to see you accept Kevin's offer to appear on his radio show - explaining your end of the "fiasco". Don't think he could be much fairer than that...
Given the timing of the chapter which ends not long after the slides were exposed as not showing an alien... and given that I have your statements on your trailer and WGN, and given that most of the chapter was about the way others had mishandled the information, there was little need to talk to you. Usually, I think about that and usually reach out to all those involved and probably should have done it here, but there was no need for that.
And who was it that was pushing the idea that the Rays were pals with the Eisenhowers based on a couple of slides of him from the distance?
Don's pal who once had an office at the Pentagon who gave it to friends at a Photo Interpretation Group had retired and the guys who looked at it were not at the Pentagon but Fort Meade. That information was sort of true but not completely accurate and very misleading.
You still could have stopped Tony if you had wanted to. Tom Carey emailed me that Beason was saying that he or Don had been giving me information in violation of the NDA... untrue and I put together a long email about how I had learned many of the things that I knew. Someone was leaking a great deal of information about this and no one seemed able to stop it. Smacks of a marketing campaign.
The one question that hasn't been answered is why did you and Beason think that the slide showed an alien creature? Wouldn't the museum setting and the other exhibits around it sort of given that away? Why reach out to Friedman in the first place? Oh, and I knew that a year ago but it wasn't important to the story.
I don't believe I have actually complained about the money. Others have been hung up on that but as a freelance writer, I know about long hours and little pay, traveling at my own expense and little return. I always figure it as about $0.89 an hour which means you're making more than me.
I had nothing to do with the Roswell Slides Research Group but do find it ironic that they could deblur the slide literally within hours of getting a high res scan when all these other experts seemed to have failed. Don't you find that a tad bit suspicious?
I do see everyone blaming everyone else for this fiasco (or maybe that was the point of the documentary... show just how credulous UFO researchers can be). But really, explain why you would think it was alien?
You don't like the "censorship?" What would you have me do? Allow some of the really nasty stuff that has sent to me about this to be published? It is all attacks on Adam and I don't care for the language used. If you don't like the censorship, you're free to take your business elsewhere... oh wait, you don't pay a thing to visit here. I publish a great deal of information here that doesn't appear anywhere else until I publish it. Maybe you'd like to make a contribution to keeping the blog alive or maybe spend some time trying to figure out if a post that contains some good information along with the nasty stuff should be published. Does the good outweigh the bad?
Adam you wrote:
"We considered releasing the placard online, but were concerned people would simply project their own biases on the text. I thought I had some of the best people in the world looking at the text already. Again, I've never faulted anyone who has a negative opinion regarding our approach to the slides."
OK - can we have the names of "the best people in the world" please? - you can email them privately to Kevin if you wish.
Further to this (and I realise I am hopelessly off topic but hopefully Kevin will give me a pass this time) do you have any thoughts about the possible reading of the "Ramey memo" and would any of the "best people in the world" be interested?
No, I don't like "censorship" - but completely understand and accept your reasoning behind it.
So Adam Dew I assume there is nothing wrong with your eyesight ? How could you not look at these two slides and not see that it was a mummy ?
Adam Dew, are you aware that Jaime down old Mexico way is still stating, despite everything, that it is not a mummy but an alien from Roswell in 1947 ? Could you answer the question please: how could you not look at the slides and see clearly that it was a mummy ? Photos of mummies don't make $ but as Ray Santilli proved, film/photos/slides of aliens do. End of story Mr Dew.
Philip Mantrle said...
Is Adam Dew the American equivalent of Ray Santilli ?
KR! That's bollocks and I'm presuming you're simply being too polite to acknowledge it.
People like Santilli and Dew piss in the same pot and they cause tremendous damage to serious ETH study.
You will notice that Adam Dew will not answer my question. All the other statements from him count for nothing. The instant you lay your eyes on the slides you can see it's a mummy. How come you couldn't see that Mr Dew ? END OF STORY.
Philip Mantle offers:
"The instant you lay your eyes on the slides you can see it's a mummy. How come you couldn't see that Mr Dew ?"
Why doesn't that same question apply more forcefully to the UFO "experts"?
Yes, many of us knew, from an EXTREMELY low rez version (reconstructed from the Kodachrome trailer) of the slide, that it was a mummy months before the reveal.
But those with UFO goggles couldn't see it. Folks like Stanton, Larry and Rudiak saw the slides presumedly in higher resolution than our crappy low rez slide and NEVER dismissed it as a mummy as you suggest they should have.
And remember Rich Dolan saw the slides in Mexico and stupidly suggested that they were compelling and not easily debunked.
I realize that it comforts believers to think that they were bamboozled by a con man. But this was much different than the Santilli hoax. That was orchestrated by Santilli himself.
This debacle was promoted by the UFO "experts". Anywhere along the line they could have stopped the madness but (as they dully admit) their UFO belief overrode their meager connection to reality. Adam Dew went to the supposed top men on Roswell research and those two clowns (using their full intellectual capabilities) never looked back--creating the same kind of muddled and false supporting "evidence" that they use in all their "research". Don't forget Carey went to a supposedly non-insane "expert" who claimed that he could see the alien characteristics clearly: "They evolved like geckos!!!!"
Dew isn't the one at fault here.
There is a bit of false revisionist history going on amongst the UFO faithful that none of the good UFO guys had a chance to see the slides in full. This is, I suppose, another way believers comfort themselves.
I notice that NONE of the principals cried fowl after the slides were revealed. No one said, "Hey, that's not what I saw!" No, Rich Dolan rushed the slide over to Coast to Coast after the reveal so that he could make another self-promoting appearance to speak twaddle to the rubes.
The sad thing is that, if the placard could not have been deblurred, we would now be reading faux-scientific prattling by UFO "experts" about the biology of the "alien" seen in the slide and, no doubt, some fanciful pretend scientific guesses as to what the placard said (spoiler alert: it's aliens!).
It would become more Roswell-Proof!
Physician heal thyself.
When I mentioned the money previously Kevin, I was answering multiple critics in one post.
Philip - I don't know, why didn't everyone I showed the slides to think automatically that it was a mummy? You act like I should have known. Everyone who saw the slides should have known instantly, correct? It's obvious, right?
As I've stated several times in the past, Hilda's story is what drew me in. If I was given the body slides without the back story, I would never have gotten involved. Joseph's sister told me her version of finding the slides hidden in the slide box long before anyone besides us knew about the slides. There was zero idea that there was any potential monetary value in this project. They did seem out of place with the rest of the collection. Why did Hilda hide them? Were they just grotesque? I went digging into Hilda and she seemed to me a fascinating person. I was told by two people who knew her that she was friends with Mamie Eisenhower.
As I've stated several times in the past, the features of the body didn't look like any mummy I'd ever seen or could find. The fact that it was on display in a glass case did seem odd, but at approximately 4ft long with a head the size of it's chest cavity, strange bone structure, eye shape, lack of teeth, etc it looked incredible. I looked at hundreds of mummy photos. I took a trip to the Mutter Museum in Philadelphia in 2013. Their PR director even took me back into the bowels of the museum to show me a few things that he thought might be similar. I didn't see anything there that remotely matched with what I was seeing. I seem to remember at least one anthropologist mentioned on the message boards prior to May5 who said it was certainly "Egyptian" based on the screen grab? Everyone had an opinion. I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything. I simply made my case that it seemed very unusual and that it looked like what pop culture has trained us to think and alien might look like. I never said anything more than that. Maybe ask Eleazar why he didn't immediately think it was just a museum piece.
Then we start showing the slides to anthropologists in Mexico who do real analysis on the body. Feel free to ridicule these men and their legitimate credentials if you like, but they are much smarter men than me. They laid out in great detail why the body couldn't be human. I was disappointed that most US academics seemed to me to be more interested in protecting their own turf and not interested in discussing the slides in detail on camera.
If only the truth could be so obvious to us poor dumb rocks out here as it is to Philip Mantle. Your motives to tie me to Ray Santilli are no doubt pure I'm sure.
You compare me to Ray Santilli, but unlike Santilli, I never made any claims as to what was in the slides. I had the slides examined by experts. And I released the slides when I said I would. Again, take issue with my methods if you like, but I never made a single intentionally false claim about the slides. But since I won't be here tomorrow and the day after and the day after, you can keep hammering your revisionist history and it will likely settle in nicely to fit your narrative. I submit.
Kevin - I'm still waiting for more evidence of my "inaccurate" statements. Mostly it seems you and others want to mostly to shackle me with the crime of not properly babysitting other full-grown adults.
Hmmm.... I meant cry "foul" not "fowl" above.
Adam you say:
"As I've stated several times in the past, the features of the body didn't look like any mummy I'd ever seen or could find."
Only if you don't really try Adam. Just google "child mummy" and you'll get hundreds of image hits of similar if not identical looking child mummies from antiquity.
And if you couldn't even do that basic level of research, it's hard to imagine the goal was anything but promoting a hoax.
And why "Mexican anthropologists"? These slides did not originate in Mexico. This smacks of deliberately sending the slides to people in Mexico who are willing to indulge Maussan's fantasies for money and notariety.
Why not a world wide opinion sample from scientists? I mean it's not the first time they've seen similar mummies.
You know I called the National Park director within a day of the image being released. I didn't even know him. He immediately stated the mummy was in their collection and was rather well known in the scientific community. Now that took me less than 20 minutes tops.
Why did you and the others not do the same?
See, this is the thing that makes ufology look ridiculous : people like Dew, Carey, Schmitt and co. who try to cash in on an opportunity in a wildly subjective topic - which given the subjectivity in the first place often makes for an easy cash-grab given the enthusiasm of many of the already-believers - but who then, once their hand is caught in the cookie jar simply do a runner, or play the blame game, and continue on with their lives as if nothing has happened. Or, on Carey and Shmitt's case even write and release another book not long afterwards, as if nothing has happened! All it does is make a complete fool out of those involved and the field of UFO study, and nothing more.
BeWitness : To a bunch of would-be scammers who had to blue-over a mummified child in order for it to look like an alien, because you could tell within .02 of a second looking at the original slide that it was just a child mummy. Now I ask, whose faces are blue?
I think Nitram has got the answer he wanted when he asked Adam about "the best people in the world" who examined the slides. These are undoubtedly the "Mexican anthropologists" Adam refers to above. Their names are not given, but I think we can assume these anthropologists were indeed what Adam meant by "the best people in the world".
Naturally I do not accept that they were either the best, the second best or any other "best", at least not until their names are given (and probably not even then). And I am very certain none of them had ever seen an ET before anyway, and haven't a clue what a real ET looks like.
The photoshop expert from Adobe, I was told, was ranked internally as one of the 5 best in the world. In light of how things went, I'm not going to embarrass him here. I was under the impression that Don's other contacts were excellent.
Many of the experts from Mexico put their names on the report that Jaime put out about the body. It is very thorough and I'm fairly certain Jaime had it translated to English. If I remember correctly, the report was a endorsed by the Mexican Academy of Forensics.
I took the slides to a few American anthropologists, one of whom is a MUFON member. They'll all have their say in my documentary. None of them gave more an a cursory examination. Most wanted to see the body.
"If I remember correctly, the report was a endorsed by the Mexican Academy of Forensics."
You mean they endorsed the body as "alien" likely from Roswell?
These guys must be quacks....how would they even know it was an alien without anything to compare it to then or now?
You will notice that Adam Dew is not capable of answering my one simple question. When you look at the slides how did you Mr dew not see a mummy ?
A follow-up to your question and the post by Brian Bell:
How is it that certain presumed intelligent people can look at a slide (or photo) and NOT see the depicted 'being' for what it was (i.e. a mummy), and yet manage to see it for what it clearly was not (i.e. an ET being), particularly when the latter is non-existent and therefore anthropologists have no idea what it would look like?
What made you think that the image was anything other than what it was? Why is it you chased down Roswell researchers? What happened to the rest of the pictures on that roll of film? Since you had access, or Joe Beason had access, why didn't you look at the pictures from the rest of that roll... you had the frame numbers and you could have figured out where they fit in... that should have given you a clue to the identity.
You misidentified Benavides as a lieutenant and then suggested that Don or Tom told you that but they knew better, so that information had to come from somewhere else.
You said that Hilda Ray and Mamie Eisenhower were friends (which someone told you) and that was how they got to see the alien creature (except of course it wasn't) but it wouldn't have mattered if they had been BFFs because General Eisenhower would have never breached security in that fashion. He had fired general officers for minor breaches of security.
Where did Tony get the idea that the slide film contained the code for 1947 if not indirectly from you?
You mentioned all these experts, anthropologists and archaeologists, who suggested there was something strange about the image, yet when the high res scan was shown to a wide variety of experts, they all said it looked like a mummy. Did you supply those same high res scans in full frame to Tom and Don? Did you ever project the slide on a screen and say, "Damn, that's a museum?"
Everyone involved in this fiasco is blaming everyone else and all are saying "I just relied on what the experts told me." It seems however, that all those consulted outside of your group were able to identify the image accurately and easily.
You were told that the Adobe expert was one of the best in the country... then how was it that the placard was deblurred within hours of a high res scan becoming available? Wouldn't some transparency (pun intended) have prevented this fiasco... or was that the point of the documentary... to show how credulous UFO/Roswell researchers were?
But it all really does come down to the initial question... just why in the hell did you and Joe decide that the image was something that was of non terrestrial origin? And how good could your experts have been if they couldn't recognize the image for what it was when nearly everyone else could?
So, is your takeaway that if someone has an unusual possibly UFO-related photo that the very last people they should go to for advice are UFO researchers? Can't say I disagree!
The UFO "investigators" showed themselves to be laughably biased. This includes Carey, Schmitt, Rudiak, Lempke, Dolan,, etc. etc. EVERY UFO "investigator" Dew contacted was unable to dismiss these silly photos as Philip suggests they should have.
But did this debacle change anything about how UFO researchers do their work?
I do agree with the point Lance makes, that the whole debacle has shown just how quickly and easily many of the UFO researchers will sell out when there are dollars to be made. Those with integrity were smart enough to stand back and watch the whole thing unfold.
So I think, ultimately, this will prove to be a boon for ufology - or at least I hope it will. But it shows very clearly that policing is virtually up to the researchers themselves, I still find it remarkable how quickly Schmitt and Carey released a book after the whole slides thing, as if to smugly say "See folks? We can still make a buck on this whole UFO thing, who are the fools but you?", and just blame everyone but themselves, that really left me cold. Not a single man among the the BeWitness crew to be honest.
Lance argumentatively wrote:
"So, is your takeaway that if someone has an unusual possibly UFO-related photo that the very last people they should go to for advice are UFO researchers? Can't say I disagree!"
Good one Lance... you know as well as anybody that the photo was "not possibly UFO related".
If this photo had been shown to someone else "in the group" then this whole embarrassment could have been avoided...
It really is that simple a question Mr Dew as Kev, myself and others have pointed out. The fact that you have refused to answer it speaks volumes.
Are you stating that Dew was the one that came up with the 1947 date for the slides and not Bragalia? It was my impression that Bragalia got Shanebrook to look at the slide in the first place. Bragalia was the one promoting the idea that the date was 1947 and not Dew. As I pointed out before, he wrote this on your blog. http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2015/02/roswell-slides-update.html
In that posting, he stated HE was the one who found "the talent" and that the "expert"(Shanebrook) had concluded the date was 1947. Bragalia was pushing this date of manufacture (based on a non-existent edge code) and not Dew. I have no recollection or record of Dew stating it was 1947. If you do, then feel free to produce that evidence.
Again, I am not defending Dew but I you look like you are trying to blame everything on him. Are you trying to say that Schmitt, Carey, and Bragalia were just duped by Dew? By only going after Dew, you are backing their claim that they were innocent in all of this. Nothing can be further from the truth and your readers need to understand this because I see several of them doing the same thing.
The take away here should be that we don't hide the investigation but open it up to transparency. Yes, I know the come back will be but you guys did it with the Ramey Memo, and my response is that we didn't give out information in drips and drabs. We published everything we had as soon as we had it nailed down and that the copyright issues had been ironed out. There are no hidden pieces there and we're not holding a huge event to announce the results. Transparency would have stopped the Roswell Slides train long before it left the station. Good lord, the whole frame photograph would have caused lots of questions...
I will say it again. There is enough blame in this for all parties. Tom Carey was convinced early on that the slides showed the Roswell alien and he has made that point. He has said that the American anthropologists he attempted to interview on this wanted no part of it... and given the circumstances, I'm not overly surprised. I will add that when Philip Mantle approached a number of experts with a high res scan, they all said it was a mummy, they just didn't know where it came from precisely... I don't know when that was available because according to Dew, he handed those out in the beginning, but according to others, the first time they saw the high res scan was in Mexico City. I do believe there is a way to resolve this and I'm attempting to do so.
I have been communicating, in the last few days, with a number of participants in the Great Slide Fiasco and haven't gotten all the responses yet, but it seems that there are some issues that have not been resolved. I have asked Tony where the slide code information came from and have yet to receive a response (don't read a lot into that yet because it was only a couple hours ago that I asked that specific question).
I have, in the past, suggested that the others made multiple mistakes in all of this. At the moment, Dew challenged me to produce instances where his information is inaccurate... If I accept the statements by several others, Dew was manipulating the situation for his benefit and please note he is on the same page as all the others... "I believed the experts so it's not my fault." (And to prevent the question of where he or the others said these precise words, that is a paraphrase put into quotes so that it is clear that I wasn't saying that).
I am not sure one can really trust anything said by the participants at this point with out good evidence. They have every reason to lie about their participation in the event at this point and pin the blame on Dew if you let them.
I'm well aware of that problem and that one point of view will be to reject everything said by Carey, Schmitt and Bragalia... but that doesn't mean Dew is snowy white in this whole fiasco. Sorting it out probably will show that each is arguing in his own self-interest and that the truth will sometimes get lost in that.
Never said Dew was "snowy white". He bears responsibility for everything he said and did. I just don't want to see the other guilty parties make him the "fall guy" by lying about what transpired.
If serious, then Adam Dew must be naïve and unbelievably credulous since he writes,
"...it looked like what pop culture has trained us to think and alien might look like."
No, it doesn't, not at all. It looks like nothing but exactly what it is, a human child mummy.
And even if it did resemble a generic gray alien that wouldn't make it one. That's a Fiction!
"If only the truth could be so obvious to us poor dumb rocks out here as it is to Philip Mantle" and everyone else with a lick of sense.
It was and is. And enough people certainly told you so from the very beginning and it should have ended right there. But no, you insisted on promoting the slides as something extraordinary when one moment wasted on this nonsense was one too many.
The slides found-object inanity was the stupidest entry in the catalogue of "UFO" trash since the ridiculous "face on Mars" madness. And that's saying a lot. That one who promoted this utter nonsense would even show his face, much less continue to rationalize his actions and blame others, exposes the true motivation for this obvious fraud and total nonissue.
And now we're going to be treated to a documentary? How can you make a documentary about nothing? Dew is neither naïve or credulous, just a shameless huckster.
> I don't recall ever saying anything that wasn't true.
It is a curious thing. Blameless Adam Dew presided over an "investigation" that was marked by gross research incompetence and culminated in a cash grab hosted by a known UFO fraudster, Jaime Maussan.
But how can that be? For Adam Dew is an honourable man. He says so himself!
I think I see a way forward. Let us prevail upon Adam Dew to summon his absolute powers of personal integrity to explain how he was both in charge of AND entirely not responsible for the slides fiasco.
No doubt, Adam will be able to explain this seeming paradox, and we will all be moved to apologise for ever doubting him.
Adam Dew, shame on you.
I think I did explain it. I had some slides. I didn't think the body in the slides looked human. The peripheral story around the slides fascinated me. The slides pulled me into a world of which I had zero previous interest or knowledge. I am not an anthropologist. I am not a scientist. I never claimed to be leading an investigation. I said it over and over and over again... I stand by the trailer of the documentary. I tried to make my position crystal clear. I said "I make not claims as to what exactly is in these two slides" and "It's probably nothing, but maybe, just maybe it's something."
After 3 years with the slides, I made the determination that the slides would likely remain a mystery. So when Tom and Don introduced me to Jaime, we agreed to go to Mexico City because it offered an incredible stage to release the slides. Project your own issues and conspiracy theories onto me if you like.
And yet, without having seen the slides and believing that the dating of them was accurate, I was able to deduce that this was a mummy. I asked Tom Carey, in December 2014, if this wasn't a mummy. It was the only thing that I could think of that would explain how two civilians with no actual connection to the Eisenhowers or the federal government could have been allowed to see, and photograph, something that would have been highly classified. And it seems that many scientists, when show the whole picture believed that it was mummified human remains.
But the question remains... Why did you think it was non human?
Based on the dimensions of the body (36-48 inches) the image we had:
Looked more like this:
I also believed, and still believe, that the slides were wrapped and hidden. I couldn't understand why Hilda would have hidden them. Many see the images in a vacuum. I did not.
Again, I never made any claims. I wanted to find out what was in the slides. I'm sorry I didn't live up to your standards Kevin.
I'm not sorry I didn't live up to Philip Mantle's standards. In fact, it gives me some perverse pleasure. I hope I've damaged UFOlogy enough for you Philip that you can get a prime speaking spot at the next UFO Congress. I wish you luck restoring it to it's pre-slides level of decorum and sophistication.
Adam wrote: I also believed, and still believe, that the slides were wrapped and hidden. I couldn't understand why Hilda would have hidden them.
Slides often were projected during family meetings, because you must install the screen, the projector. So taking time and place, not as us today when you share by the net, by your phone. Such family meetings when you projected your slides of vacations, trips around the USA or world, etc. included children. Such slides may be "chocking" for them and maybe a reason they were appart (as hidden) the others of the same "roll". (?)
You wrote you never made any claim about the slides, but you called it the "Roswell slides" in your own site:
Anyway, I dont buy the pale excuses or accusations claimed by Bragalia, Schmitt and Carey.
They reject the fault to Adam in order to save the house. Dont be victim of this, dear readers.
Adam sent them good rezolution of the slide and placard. For example, when Bragalia posted "his" placard in Rich Reynolds blog and accusating us to have cheated, we deblurred the text with his own material he posted/shared. David Rudiak claimed he have the same rez of the ones we now have or revealed after. Etc. It is lies by them as usual.
Or after the conference and us deblurring, we have never seen them sharing the material they were sent by Adam to demonstrate this claim Adam sent them bad material or "WTF, it is not the same rez!"
But the best lie or joke by them is one of them claiming "if I had seen the second slide, I had been sure it was in a museum"... as if the two slides were so different! Pathetic :(
Mr Dew, please answer this one simple question: When did you look at the slides and not see a mummy ?
To be honest Mr Dew, you sound just like Ray Santilli.
Mr Dew, you should have gone to Specsavers. Your finishing comment speaks volumes. Please remember this old saying Mr Dew: Bullshit, Baffles Brains. Rodney Howarth, Burnley, Lancashire.
My god, why carry on with the BS? The real story is, you saw an opportunity for a cash grab, ignored everyone who told you "that looks just like a mummy to me!" and focused on the tiny little minority that thought for some reason its an alien, and whisked off to Mexico for reasons of convenience, and put on a performance where you knew the slide had to be BLUED OUT because it wasn't convincing enough alone as it stood. Then when the placard was read in about 2 seconds on the internet you couldn't take the page down quick enough and do a runner with whatever cash was earned because you didn't have the integrity to man up and give the money back to the paying audience who were scammed. Then, a book comes out with your name in it and your ego gets the better of you because you simply cannot stand someone else making money off YOU, and come out of your hidey hole to defend yourself and do what the others have done, Uh .. wasn't me! etc etc.
Why not man up and just tell the truth : "yep tried to make a buck, failed, joke's on me, time to move on." Because I guess very few would do that, very few indeed.
Descripción de un especimen con carácteristicas de un reptil.......
Estudio comparativo entre espécimenes .....
marea roja -
It has been established that the image on the slide is a Native American child and not an alien creature. The documentation for this conclusion is overwhelming and goes back to the discovery of the child in the late 19th century.
It is also somewhat unscientific to suggest an alternative conclusive without benefit of examining the remains. Everyone at this late date is dealing with the photographic evidence and not the physical remains. Given the documentation, given the location where the photographs were taken, given the placard on the display, it is clear that it is not an alien creature. There really is nothing more to be said about it.
Post a Comment