Rob
McConnell, on the X-Zone Broadcast Network interviewed Tom Carey about the
Roswell Slides, and Carey said some very interesting things. You can hear the
interview here:
Tom Carey
|
We
learn from Carey (at about 04:15 into the interview) that it was Joe Beason who
contacted him after Beason had attempted to interest Stan Friedman in the
slides. Friedman, according to Carey, was too busy to follow the lead and
suggested Carey to Beason. This bothers me because it would seem that Stan, who
has been very protective of his leads about Roswell, handed to Carey what could
have been the most important evidence of the Roswell case. I wonder if there
was something in that communication between Stan and Beason that suggested to Stan
that he be wary.
At
the 5:24 (all times approximate) point, Carey said that he received an email
with the scan of two slides in it.
At
6:31, according to Carey, Beason suggested that the slides were related to
Roswell.
At
11:57, Carey said that when he first saw the slides, he thought the image matched the descriptions of the aliens that
he had received from various witnesses who had claimed to have seen the bodies.
At
15:46, in what is an important point, Carey said that Beason told him that the
codes on the edge of the film matched that used by Kodak in 1947. The problem
is that that code was used for motion picture film and that slide film had a
different coding system (though there seems to be some suggestion that some of
the slide film might have had the motion picture code on it). The problem is
that when we were all shown the whole frame from one of the slides, there is no
coding on it. That coding didn’t appear on every slide, but was spread out
through the length of the roll of film.
I
had noticed that the slides in play were number 9 and number 11, but number 10
was missing. Carey mentioned this as well (at 17:51), but said that Beason
claimed that slide number 10 was lost. Carey mentioned that this seemed to be a
problem, but clearly it wasn’t a big one for him. I wondered, of course, if
what was seen on number 10 wouldn’t have clearly identified the image.
At
20:36, Carey talked about the anthropologists that he attempted to get to
review the slide. He said that he sent it to the smartest anthropologist he
knew and that man told him the image was not of a human.
Screen Grab for the documentary. This is close to the
image that Tom Carey shared with anthropologists.
|
Rob
asked, if he had permission because of the non-disclosure agreements he and Don
Schmitt had signed. Carey said that Adam Dew, who had partnered with Beason, had
produced a trailer of a documentary he planned, and in that documentary, the
image on the slide was revealed, possibly by mistake. This image was seen at an
angle on a computer screen so that those outside the inner circle now had a
poor image with which to work. This lousy image is what Carey was sharing with
those anthropologists whose opinion he wanted. He said that the idea of UFOs
and Roswell was toxic so that the anthropologists wouldn’t discuss it with him.
He gave the impression that these anthropologists refused to even look at the
image.
At
29:00 he mentioned that MUFON has an anthropologist as one of its consultants
and the consultant thought it was a genetically deformed human. Then Carey
mentioned that some of the anthropologists provided opinions off the record
which, of course, is not the same thing as refusing to even look at the slide
which is what he had claimed. They too seemed to believe in some sort of
genetic deformity but according to Carey, no one said that it was a mummy
(which is strange because that was the thought that most of us had even looking
at the poor image captured from the documentary trailer). Of course, the real
problem is that he was giving them the poor image and not the best resolution
scans he had which might contributed to the lack of cooperation.
In
a big revelation, found at 36:28, Carey is talking about the logistics of the
situation with everyone involved scattered over two countries. The five
principals, however, met in Chicago long before the great reveal in Mexico
City. At this meeting, according to Carey, they
were shown the slides to prove that slides actually existed. This brings up
lots of questions, especially about how clear those slides were and if they
were projected on a screen… which would provide a better look at the
background, meaning it should have been obvious that it was a museum setting,
and if the placard which became so critical to the story could be read. Two or
three minutes later, Carey again addressed the problem of reading the placard
and how no one could do it at that time.
At
40:07, after Rob McConnell asked him about the image and the identity, Carey
explained that although the placard does suggest it was a child, Carey didn’t
believe that the image on the slide was a two-year-old child, because it was
too tall. He doesn’t believe that it is a 900-year-old mummy but something that
had died more recently. He doesn’t believe it was the child found by Palmer in
1898, though it resembles it. He seemed to base this belief on the size of the
mummy, but he, like everyone else is working off the image on the slide so the
analysis of the size of the image can be disputed and given the documentation
that exists, it is clear to nearly everyone else that the image is of a child.
No measurements on the mummy can be made because the remains have been returned
to the native peoples, as, of course, they should have been.
At
57:03, Carey makes the statement that the mummy in the museum is “Not our guy.”
This
is a very interesting interview with Tom Carey providing his take on how this
fiasco developed. You can read more about it on this blog beginning in 2015 or
head over to Rich Reynolds UFO
Conjectures to review his take on much of this. Just look for Roswell
Slides in the search engine provided.
And,
for a differing take on this given by the other participant, you can listen to
my interview with Don Schmitt. You can hear it here:
Finally,
for those who would like a more concise review, a long, heavily footnoted chapter in
Roswell in the 21st Century
details this information and also notes some of the arrogance by those who had
seen the slides before the big reveal in Mexico City.
Roswell and the slides. Yawn. Zzzzzzzzzzz.
ReplyDeleteDude, you need rehab or a 12-step program. You have an abuse issue.
purrlgurrl -
ReplyDeleteYou have missed the point. This wasn't about the slides or about Roswell but about the investigation and how the two top guys handled it. This was about the differences in their perspectives and how they subtly guided the investigation to get to the results they wanted. You have to listen closely to what they said, and I have highlighted some of the real problems, to understand how this whole thing slid off the rails so completely.
So, yawn if you must and go to sleep if you want, but there are important points made here that transcend Roswell and the slides and tells us a great deal about how these things are handled. There are some valuable clues here.
Since this is about the investigation of the slides it must be noted that the sad truth is that there was no real investigation. Instead a series of conclusions were reached based on personal bias. That is a problem within UFOlogy that is present on both sides of the fence. Unless we can get by this there is little hope of getting to the truth. We basically have a school yard squabble going on, facts don't matter, only opinions.
ReplyDeleteThe only good thing from this is that many people from both sides reached a conclusion different from the not so slick sales job that was done in Mexico City. This was happening long before the presentation, the revelation from the deblurring and the discovery of the mummy information only served to put an exclamation mark on the fact that this was a load of bullshit. Nothing more.
The thought that immediately comes to mind is that Tom (and Don) would have been well-served to read your "Reflections of a UFO Investigator" BEFORE undertaking the course of action they pursued regarding the slides.
ReplyDeleteFor me it simply emphasizes the inherent pro-ET bias some ufologists have blinds them from the get-go leading them down a slippery slope to false conclusions.
ReplyDelete