Coast to Coast AM - The Moon Dust Controversy

 

There was an interesting question, or thought, or claim, raised on the NICAP Research site, that suggested there was never any Project Moon Dust. What was said, “And there was never any ‘Project’ Moon Dust! There was an attempt by the AF to set up one by that name (Moon Dust) but I don’t recall any documents proving that it was set up with that name and operational… There was a category of activity called ‘moon dust’ for recovery of satellite and space reentries and decays. Anyone in any agency having a report of that would slap a ‘Moon Dust” label on it without any project necessarily with that name.”

This struck me as especially odd. I mean, there were documents out there that related to Moon Dust and I had found four cases in Project Blue Book files that were stamped with the name, “Moon Dust.” True, they weren’t very good sightings, but the point is, these sightings were found in Blue Book.

I had also found a document in the Blue Book files that came from Headquarters, U.S. Air Force Message #54322 and dated December 23, 1957, which said the mission was “to collect and analyze raw intelligence reports from the field of fallen space debris and objects of unknown origin.”

I also mentioned that there were other documents, with a known provenance, that proved there was a Project Moon Dust. I figured that would be the last word, unless someone asked for some of those documents. That wouldn’t be a problem because there were, literally hundreds of them.

Brad Sparks had something to say about that. He wrote:

Sorry, but with all due respect, none of those documents say any ‘Project’ had a ‘PROJECT’ named ‘Moon Dust’ except the proposal in 1961 where I don’t see any succeeding documents showing a ‘Project Moon Dust’ was in fact set up – quote me some post-1961, correct me if I’m wrong.”

‘Moon Dust’ was a category of intelligence physical materiel set up in 1957 post-Sputnik long before any special project was even attempted to be set up as a ‘Project Moon Dust’-- in 1961. What were they doing in 1960, 1959, 1958?

‘Moon Dust’ was like a term like ‘HazMat,’ to use an analogy, which was used everywhere without any special project being set up called ‘Project HazMat’ -- and no rule that prohibited such a project with that name either.

Paul Dean wrote back to say, “I've got a 1980 era 20th missile warning squadron document that mentions "Project Moon Dust", not just ‘moon dust’”. 

And since Brad had asked about this, and although I believed he had some of these documents and understood them as well as I did, I wrote:

Interesting point here. We agree there was something called Moon Dust but it might not have been a "project."

And it is true that the references I found in the Blue Book files are merely stamped "Moon Dust," rather than "Project Moon Dust," at least, confirms the UFO component to it.

However, I have a copy of a letter sent to Robert Todd dated July 1, 1987 which said, "The nickname 'Project Moondust' no longer exists officially."

I suppose you could argue, with some justification, that this is in response to Todd's request for information on Project Moon Dust, so that answer, in referring to Moon Dust is just Colonel Thompson's (the officer who responded) way of identifying the request but doesn't prove there was a Project Moon Dust.

I have a copy of a letter to Senator Jeff Bingaman in which Colonel George Mattingley, Jr., wrote, "These teams were eventually disbanded because of a lack of activity; Project MOON DUST and Operation BLUE FLY missions were similarly discontinued." 

This seems to be stronger evidence that something known as Project Moon Dust did exist as a project. We often refer to Project Blue Book simply as Blue Book. True, I have a copy of a heavily redacted "Airgram" from the State Department that says, "The designator "MOONDUST" is used in cases involving the examination of non-US space objects or objects of unknown origin."

I wonder if we're not splitting a fine hair here. There is documentation about Project Moon Dust and there is guidance that Moon Dust will be used as an identifier on communications among various agencies and organizations. What is important here is that there was something called Moon Dust and it referred to UFO related material (and let me add here that in the case UFO means "unidentified" as opposed to "alien spacecraft.") It suggests another reporting channel and one that often-avoided Blue Book.

Paul Dean scanned the document he had mentioned and Brad Sparks had requested. Dean put it up for those who wished to see it. In response, Brad Sparks wrote:

Thanks Paul.

The 1982 20th MWS History mentions "Project Moondust procedures" without identifying them, or it, or where it is located.  Are they just remembering old procedures without looking them up (no Numbered Directives are cited)?  

Lots of people in the US Govt over the years including within the AF assumed there was a "Project" called "Moon Dust" -- just like anyone dealing with Hazardous Materials or HazMat assume there is a HazMat Dept they deal with, but no overarching "HazMat Project" but multiple HazMat units or depts everywhere. 

What we need to know, as this applies to all "Project" Moon Dust references is at least a few of the following questions answered:

1.  HQ:  Where is the "Project" headquartered? 

2.  Command:  Under what agency or command is the "Project"?

3.  Charter:  What is the charter directive or order setting up the "Project"?  Date? 

4.  CO:  Who is the Commander or Director of the "Project"?

5.  Letterhead:  Any "Project Moon Dust" letterhead available to show some of the above, where located, under whose command, etc.?

6.  Multiple "Project Moon Dust"s:  Were there and if so, why?  Was "Moon Dust" just like "HazMat" or "SAR" (Search and Rescue), every command or major agency has them, etc.?

Brad wasn’t through with his analysis and added some important information that should have been included in the first go-around. He wrote:

Quick correction:  Email got away from me before I could add that the copy of the ICGL 4 of 1961 was obtained by Jim Klotz in 2003, with thanks to Mike Ravnitzky and Dale Goudie.  

Further, I wanted to bold-italic highlight the Col Betz memo of Nov 1961, in para. 5g:

"g. Moon Dust:  As a specialized aspect of its over-all [intelligence] materiel exploitation program, Headquarters USAF has established Project Moon Dust to locate, recover and deliver descended foreign space vehicles.  ICGL #4, 25 April 1961, delineates collection responsibilities." 

Thus Moon Dust is an "aspect" of a larger "over-all" intelligence materiel exploitation program of AF Intelligence.  The IGCL 4 in line with that, when read together with the Betz memo, refers to Moon Dust reporting of satellite reentries and space decays, especially intelligence-sensitive "retrieval and examination" (exploitation) of "descended Soviet space vehicles" (and such) -- which are part of just such an "overall materiel exploitation program" (Col. Betz) or "overall project" (ICGL-4) as densely stated in ICGL-4 para. 6:

"Because of the intelligence connotations of MOON DUST regarding retrieval and examination by ATIC of a descended Soviet space vehicle, the overall project is classified Confidential, and MOON DUST Alerts are normally on a Confidential basis because of the intelligence association with [satellite] decay estimates.  The basic decay estimates (identification of the object and estimated date and hour of decay) are in themselves normally unclassified.  Thus, decay estimates, as such, can be released to observers or observatories...

Frank Warren jumped into the conversation. He wrote, “Haven't read all the minutia via this thread, so apologies if this has already been offered up. The attached partial file cites "Project" Moon Dust 3 times by my count, including the line that reads: "Project Moon Dust was suspended on 4 August 1960.”

Those documents were contained information from the Air Force that used the term Project Moon Dust. They follow here (note – they are not sequential):

 

Once again, Brad Sparks took a look at the material offered and then wrote:

Thanks Frank. 

The count of how many times "Project" is used with "Moon Dust" does not "count" too much, so to speak. :)  

What counts is whether there is any direct evidence (so far there is none) of a central national or global AF office called "Project Moon Dust," with a HQ address, a named Commander or Project Officer or both, a chain of command identified, a charter directive that set it up, an org chart, maybe some letterhead with "Project Moon Dust" at the top with HQ address, telephone, teletype address, etc., maybe 2 or 3 of the foregoing would be good.  Even better would be a Unit History of a national or worldwide Project Moon Dust for a recurring period, one for each year going back to its founding.  But we have nothing like that. 

Your 39th Air Division History (USAF in Japan) excerpt actually re-emphasizes the impression that "Project Moon Dust" was just an activity alert designation -- just like "Base UFO Officer" at each AF Base under Blue Book, where those Base UFO Officers were NOT Blue Book or part of BB nor were they their own "Project."  Just an assigned duty episodically carried out

This 39th AD History July-Dec 1960 states that "Project Moon Dust" was an AF-wide "intelligence alert" -- not an AF-wide office or military unit: 

"On 28 June 1960, we were alerted to look for signs of a Soviet missile shot to the mid-Pacific. The Navy was surveilling Soviet telemetry vessels which had moved into the usual Soviet test range in the Pacific; a test shot was expected to follow quickly. 

"Captain George L. Griffith, A0565506, was appointed project officer for Project "Moon Dust," a USAF-wide intelligence alert intended to sight and report Soviet missiles in flight or downed."

This "Project Moon Dust" in Japan could hardly be in Texas, too, etc.  

After barely a month this "Project Moon Dust was suspended on 4 August 1960" -- meaning the Moon Dust alert had been ended, until the next time.  It could hardly be a functioning military unit if it got activated and deactivated every few months or so. 

I suspect, but as yet cannot prove with a shred of documentation, that the AF Intelligence 1127th Field Activities Group at Ft Belvoir, VA, and predecessor units, might have served as a national or global "Project Moon Dust" as merely another hat for the Commander of the 1127th -- just like UFO field investigations were one of several assigned duties for the 1127th -- but unlike with UFOs where the 1127th was just backing up Project Blue Book, maybe (and this is speculative) someone tried to semi-formalize the 1127th organizationally as a "Project Moon Dust" dual entity.  Or maybe "Project Moon Dust" was a Division of the 1127th (which had several Divisions like the Air Attache Division). 

There is some countervailing evidence against this dual-hat, AF-wide central national HQ Project Moon Dust = 1127th theory, though.  ATIC also ran Moon Dust field team(s) seemingly apart from the 1127th, it is unclear.  That would mean TWO AF-wide "Project Moon Dusts"!!  But maybe the ATIC Moon Dust was subordinate to the 1127th's "Project Moon Dust."  Just don't know. 

Another bad piece of evidence against any AF-wide "Project Moon Dust" in, or as, the 1127th is the 1967 AF Intelligence History that includes the 1127th's History.  There is a "MOON DUST" subsection under "OVERT/SENSITIVE COLLECTION AND SUPPORT" but there is no mention of any 1127th acting as a HQ "Project Moon Dust" or any Project Moon Dust Division of the 1127th.  

It states that Moon Dust was an activity whereby NORAD SPADATS notified the 1127th's higher level supervisory staff in AF Intelligence at the Pentagon (Operations Plans Branch AFNIAAB of AF Intell AFNIN) of the deorbitings of 49 Soviet space objects and 17 US space objects (presumably spy satellites) in last half 1967, which must have been passed on to the 1127th as part of their procedure. 

The 1967 AF Intell / 1127th History is not shy about naming names and even HQs of, for example, 1127th's Dallas Resident Agency subordinated to the CIA Domestic Collection Service office in Houston, similarly in Chicago and LA.  This is on the same page as the MOON DUST subsection!  But no "Project Moon Dust" office specified anywhere.

Brad Sparks makes some very interesting observations about Moon Dust. It is clear from other documentation, specifically from the Department of State, that they were responding to directives or procedures issued by some authority. The question becomes is if that authority is the office that Sparks suggests, or if it is a series of rules and regulations initiated by another organization. Under those conditions, it is possible that Moon Dust was just an identifier as Sparks suggested.

However, there is another part of this that hasn’t been explored. Robert Todd learned that the name, Moon Dust, had been compromised. Todd requested the new name, what new code word was, but he was told that it was properly classified. It was not releasable.

That would also, seem to suggest, that there was no “Project” Moon Dust, but that Moon Dust was a code word needed for access to the information gathered under the umbrella of Moon Dust. It seems that the Department of State had been a little less than diligent in their protection of classified information.

The problem that arises is that there were teams that investigated Moon Dust incidents. As Sparks noted, there is a draft document that was leaked into the UFO community that referred to Project Moon Dust. It provided for its mission, its manning, and other aspects of its organization. But this was a draft document and we have seen no evidence that it was implemented, meaning, we have no further documentation for it.

I will note that as I looked through the Project Blue Book files, I did find reference to something designated as Project Horse Fly. This was a proposal to develop teams of junior officers who would deploy to UFO sighting locations to conduct investigations of those sightings. There is no evidence that the project moved beyond the planning stage. You can read about it here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2017/10/project-horse-fly-documents.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2018/03/project-horse-fly-and-operation-blue-fly.html

Given what Brad Sparks has provided, and the direction of the conversation, I have to wonder if he isn’t right about this. There was something called Moon Dust but was it a project or a code word for some other project? That means that the collection of the intelligence under the Moon Dust code was for another project, something hidden deeper.

We do have documents that mention the recovery of space debris, but in nearly all those cases, the debris was identified as terrestrial. Had they found something truly extraordinary it might have been sent forward for analysis under another name or project designation. Moon Dust was the cover for the important aspect of the research just as Blue Book turned out to be the cover for another UFO investigation that was hinted about by Allen Hynek and General Bolender.

Moon Dust might not be the proper name of the project that controlled the Moon Dust activities. We have seen hints about this and how various Air Force organizations have been tasked with UFO research in the past. It does seem, however, that Moon Dust, as an independent project might not have existed…

Or for the conspiracy mined, it was the cover for the real investigation. When the Air Force told Senator Bingaman that there was no Project Moon Dust and that the project had never existed, maybe that was the truth. Moon Dust was the code word for the real project and we just haven’t found it… Yet.

Cape Girardeau UFO Crash, 1941

Charlette Mann wrote to Ray Fowler, a long time and well-trusted UFO researcher, who sent the letter on to Len Stringfield because Fowler thought Stringfield would be interested. Mann wrote that her grandfather, a minister, received a telephone call asking him to go to the scene of an aircraft accident. Stringfield, quite naturally, called her to ask for more detail and convinced her to rewrite her letter into a more structured report which he published in his UFO Crash/Retrievals: The Inner Sanctum and which is dated July 1991. He shared his report with many of his fellow UFO researchers, especially those interested in crash retrievals.

According to Mann’s letter, her grandfather, Reverend William Huffman was “born in August, 1888 and he grew up in Missouri. He attended college in Bolivar and after graduation, he went to a seminary. He was an ordained Baptist minister... he was a quiet man who was well respected.”

Alleged crash site. Photo copyright by
Michael Huntington.

Which, of course, means that his credentials are just fine. He was a well-educated man for the times and he was a minister which suggests he was also an honest man... again for the times. But he died before telling Mann about the case. This information came from her grandmother, known as Floy and I don’t believe I need to point out that it is, therefore, second hand and as related by Mann, third hand.

In her May 6, 1991 letter to Stringfield, she provided all the details that she had heard from her grandmother. She wrote:

It happened in the Spring of 1941. About 9 to 9:30 one evening, granddad got a telephone call from the police department, saying they had received reports that a plane had crashed outside of town and would he go in case someone needed him. Of course he said yes. A car was sent to get him, but my grandmother said it wasn’t a police car.

After grandfather returned that night, he explained what he had seen to grandmother, my father, Guy, and Uncle Wayne, but that they were never to speak of it again...

He said they drove out of town 13 - 15 miles or so, then parked the cars on the side of the road and had to walk 1/4 of a mile or so into a field where he could see fire burning.

Grandfather said it wasn’t an airplane or like any craft he’d ever seen. It was broken and scattered all around, but one large piece was still together and it appeared to have a rounded shape with no edges or seams. It had a very shiny metallic finish. You could see inside one section and see what looked like a metal chair with a panel with many dials and gauges – – none familiar looking to him. He said that when he got there, men were already sifting through things. There were some police officers, plain clothes people and military men. There were three bodies not human, that had been taken from the wreckage and laid on the ground. Grandfather said prayers over them so he got a close look but didn’t touch them. He didn’t know what had killed them because they didn’t appear to have any injuries and they weren’t burnt. It was hard for him to tell if they had on suits or if it was their skin but they were covered head to foot in what looked like wrinkled aluminum foil. He could see no hair on the bodies and they had no ears. They were small framed like a child about 4 feet tall, but had larger heads and longer arms. They had very large oval shaped eyes, no noses just holes and no lips just small slits for mouths. There were several people with cameras taking pictures of everything. Two of the plain clothes men picked up one of the little men, held it under its arms. A picture was taken. That was the picture I later saw. Then, one of the military officers talked to granddad and told him he was not to talk about or repeat anything that had taken place for security reasons and so as not to alarm people. Granddad returned home, told his family. That was all. About two weeks after it happened, he came home with a picture of the two men holding the little man.

After my grandfather died, my Dad kept the picture and was very interested in UFO info. Then when I was 10 or 11, a close friend of my Dad’s asked if he could borrow it to show to his folks so Dad let him have it and never got it back.

Stringfield was concerned about that picture. First, as has happened in all similar stories, the picture has disappeared, so we don’t have that bit of physical evidence. Of course, you have to wonder if there was actual security on the field, why were there people taking pictures… unless in an official capacity. Then you have to ask why Huffman was given one.

But Stringfield was also worried because he had seen, as I have seen, a picture that sounds similar and has been published around the UFO field for many years. In it are two military men holding the long arms of what is supposed to be an alien creature but what is clearly a monkey. It is an obvious but not a particularly well-known hoax.

Mann, in her May 6, 1991, provided a lengthy description of that photograph. She wrote:

My recollection from what I saw in the picture was a small man about 4 feet tall with a large head and long arms. He was thin and no bone structure was apparent; kind of soft looking. He had no hair on his head or body with large, oval, slightly slanted eyes but not like oriental from left to right, more up and down. He had no ears at all and nose like ours. His mouth was as if you had just cut a small straight line where it should have been. His skin or suit looked like crinkled-up tin foil and it covered all of him... I believe he had three fingers, all quite long, but I can’t be sure on this.

Stringfield got a copy of the picture he remembered from Michael Hesemann and sent it on to Mann. She replied, “It is nothing like what I saw. Your picture showed men in overcoats while in my picture, the man had no coats (sic)... Your picture shows two women; mine none. The alien in yours looks like a tiny doll, much smaller and shorter than mine.”

Mann has now granted interviews to many others and some of the details of her story have expanded. For example, in a 2008 interview she said that when her grandfather arrived, two of the alien creatures were dead but the third was still alive. She said that it, or he, or possibly even she, died while her grandfather was praying over it. He then moved on to the other two to offer prayers for them.

She also said that the symbols he had seen inside the craft “looked similar to hieroglyphics.”

Neither of these details were in the original story and I’m not sure that makes much difference. Oh, the skeptics will grab on to this and suggest it is proof that she is inventing the tale. I think a more likely situation is that she either remembered more as she thought about it or it could be a simple case of confabulation, which is not exactly lying, but just filling in missing details. That does nothing to negate the core of the story.

And, according to other reports, there is some corroboration. In what might be considered a not very persuasive bit of evidence, Clarance R. Schade, who is the brother of the sheriff in the Cape Girardeau area in the 1940s said that he remembered hearing of a crash and he seems to remember talk of little people

Ryan Wood. Photo copyright
by Kevin Randle.

associated with it. Certainly not startling information, but not a quick denial either.

Ryan Wood, in his Majic Eyes Only, reported that Mann’s sister provided a sworn affidavit, confirmed the story. In other words, other members of the family are aware of the family history and report they too have seen the photograph.

In February 2008, Tyler, Texas, television reporter Gillian Sheridan interviewed Charlette Mann. According to that report, Mann said, “We got validation by going to the archives in Washington D.C. and to see a top secret declassified document that stated that there was in fact a crash retrieval in 1941 in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, for me, I have not forgotten holding that paper in my hand and realizing that my families story was real, was solid, and for me was just an answer to a long time question.”

Samples of that document appeared on Frank Warren’s blog (found at www.theufochronicles.com) but they seem to be almost too good to be true. One of the samples said, “Based on all available evidence collected from recovered exhibits currently under study by AMC, AFSWP, NEPA, AEC, ONR, NACA, JRDB, RAND, USAAF, SAG and MIT, are deemed extraterrestrial in nature. This conclusion was reached as a result of comparison of artifacts (small part redacted) discovered in 1941. The technology is outside the scope of US science, even that of German rocket and aircraft development.”

The problem with this statement is that it proves that there have been extraterrestrial recoveries, and even uses that term. This is apparently part of a leaked MJ-12 document and is dated 24 Sep 47. The MJ-12 documents themselves are wrapped in controversy.

Which returns us to the original story. At the moment, the major witness is Charlette Mann. Her sister has corroborated hearing the family talk of the night their grandfather, Rev. William Huffman, was called out to pray over the bodies recovered from the wrecked craft, and the brother of the sheriff also seems to remember something about this.

The problem for me is simply this. If there had been this crash in 1941, then the military would have been aware of the possibility of interplanetary (as opposed to interstellar because people in the era thought in terms of interplanetary) travel, they would have been on the lookout for other examples. That means they wouldn’t have been caught by surprise with the flying saucers were first reported in June

Ed Ruppelt

1947 and would have been better prepared for the Roswell crash when it happened in July 1947.

In fact, Ed Ruppelt, the one time chief of Project Blue Book, reported that in the summer of 1947, those in the Pentagon were in a near panic because of the stories of the flying saucers. Ruppelt wrote:

The memos and correspondence that Project Blue Book inherited from the old UFO projects told the story of the early flying saucer era. These memos and pieces of correspondence showed that the UFO situation was considered serious; in fact, very serious. The paper work of that period also indicated the confusion that surrounded the investigation; confusion almost to the point of panic. The brass wanted an answer quickly and people were taking off in all directions.

That argues against the extraterrestrial nature of this case. If there had been a crash near Cape Girardeau in 1941, then the answer was already held at the highest levels. There would be no panic because they would know what was happening. They wouldn’t create a project to find answers in a hurry, because they had the answer already. Such an investigation ran the risk of compromising the classified project. A quiet word would have been issued and the whole investigation never have been started.

But there seems to be more than enough here. Additional investigation for the case is deserved. There is an old prospecting saying, “You don’t always expect to find the gold, but you have to look.” This is a case where you have to look. There are interesting leads that need to be followed and there are certainly witnesses that could be located, though time is growing short.

Where is Frank Warren?

Bob Koford made a statement not long ago that troubled me. He said that the March 25, 1948, date for the Aztec crash had been fixed by nearly everyone involved in the investigation. I seemed to remember that there was some question as to the real date and began to track this. I scanned Scully’s book but found no date. The same happened with J.P. Cahn’s article and in one written by Mike McClellan, I found February 13, 1948. But all this is not the point here.

Frank Warren, photograph by Frank
Warrn

I thought that one of the best sources for this would be Frank Warren. He had an interest in the Aztec case and he and I had discussed it in a couple of email exchanges. Frank had been mentioned as one of the authors of Scott Ramey’s original book on Aztec, so I sent Frank an email. And have yet to hear back, which is strange because he rarely if ever let more than twenty-four hours pass before a response. This worried me slightly but not overly.

In the last few days I have noticed that his website, which was updated daily, has not been updated since April 19 of this year. I have had no communication with him in weeks, and he usually asks to reprint an article or two from this blog every month.

So, the question is, “Where is Frank Warren?”

Surely someone out there knows something about this. Is Frank ill? Taking a vacation from UFOs? Has other, more pressing matters that demand his attention?

If anyone has information, how about letting us know? If Frank is ill, I certainly wish him a speedy recovery. If it is something less dramatic, then I hope that he is able to resolve it quickly. If it is something more serious, I send whatever support that I can. But we need to know (and yes, I realize that we have no real “need to know” but it is my concern for him that inspired this).

Translation of the Roswell Slides Placard

I will freely admit when I was told, during a telephone conversation last night (May 8) that two groups, working independently, had come to the same conclusions about the placard near the body, it didn’t overly surprise me. They both said the first line proved it was a mummy of a child. I didn’t disbelieve this claim because to me, it looked like a mummy and I was surprised that Tom and Don would go off on a years’ long search for some answers given the look of the slides.

Overnight there have been some questions raised about the legitimacy of the announcement and I have done today what I probably should have done last night but then I have more information today. Last night I contacted two people, one at each end of the spectrum and asked them about this. I had their answers in hand before I posted the link to the Blue Blurry Lines with the text of the placard translated as:

MUMMIFIED BODY OF TWO YEAR OLD BOY

At the time of burial the body was clothed in a xxx-xxx cotton

shirt. Burial wrappings consisted of these small cotton blankets.

Loaned by the Mr. Xxxxxx, San Francisco, California

If this is accurate, then the discussion ends at this point and we can relegate the slides to the footnote they should be. The evidence at the moment suggests that it is, though the reading of the placard is not universally accepted. Tony Bragalia, late last night, provided a number of scans of the placard that seem to argue against the ease with which others said they had deciphered the words.

The problem is that Tony’s scans all originated in the same place and that is with Adam Dew. These scans are difficult to read and seem to suggest that those who say they can are engaging in wishful thinking (my analysis and nothing that Tony said). Tony thought that I shouldn’t have posted anything until I had consulted with others, but I had done that last night and have been doing this today. To me the question is too important to let it slip away now. If nothing else, that posting, along with those by Rich Reynolds and Frank Warren have stirred up the conversation and provided some additional clues to what has been going on.

I asked Chris Rutkowski, who was listed as one of those operating on what is known as the Roswell Slides Research Group (RSRG), and he told me, “I don't have full confidence [in the interpretation by the RSRG], actually. It's a bit suspicious that a readable placard wasn't shown in Mexico... I did voice my concerns about its provenance, as I did about the slides themselves.”

In fairness to Chris, I asked him early this morning and he replied early this morning. Isaac Koi replied late this afternoon and said, “I think the position in relation to the analysis of the placard is now beyond any reasonable doubt.” It is a position that others have taken up as the day wears on.

Although there had been some questions about the provenance of the slides, and this would be worrisome this question has been resolved. Dew, as SlideBox Media, has not released an unmodified high resolution scan of the slides as had been promised but he did place a better scan on his web site. Using that scan it seems that the first line has been read with reliability by many different individuals using a variety of techniques on a variety of the released images. He has provided, at his site, a better scan, so any questions of provenance have been rendered moot.

Dew has responded to the announcement by the RSRG, suggesting that they are the ones who manipulated the data. He wrote, “Any claimed success should be repeatable and will be tested. You should be able to give specific and clear enough instructions that anyone could actually repeat your actions with the actual placard scan we have posted here.” You can see the scan at:

http://slideboxmedia.com/placard/

Paul Kimball, who has been recently and unjustly vilified for his anti-slides stance, has published additional information over at The Other Side of the Truth, and has linked to another site that seems to confirm that the placard does identify the body as human. In the interest of full disclosure, that other site is operated by the RSRG.

In response to Dew and to Tony, Paul wrote, “Adam Dew and Anthony Bragalia are claiming that the image from which we derived the proof that the ‘alien’ body is actually a human mummified child is a fake - that it was photoshopped. I believe Jaime Maussan has said the same thing… This is categorically untrue. The only change made was an increase in the contrast to accentuate the actual letters on the page (which were deblurred using simple commercially available software). Nothing was added.”

For those interested in that commentary, see:

http://www.roswellslides.com/

Kimball’s earlier comments do seem to suggest a bias, but then, the evidence, as it stands now, seems to support his and the RSRG’s interpretation. I did contact other members of the RSRG individually. Lance Moody believes that they had read the placard with a high degree of certainty and that suggests the body is human.

Tim Printy, another member of the group told me, “Depends on source image and how much manipulation is required.  Moody and Nab Lator are better at it than I but even using one of Bragalias and Dew’s images I could read ‘two year old boy, and ‘San Francisco California.’”

I suppose you could argue that the RSRG is made up of rabid skeptics, with a couple of exceptions, but that doesn’t actually negate their findings, especially if others not affiliated with them are coming up with the same reading. It seems that if there is manipulation going on here, it is on the part of Dew, who is keeping the debate alive by not releasing the high quality scans he said it would… and by suggesting that those offering a counterpoint are involved in a scam of some sort.

Philip Mantle, who seems to be quite offended by all this and is not part of the RSRG, has provided some interesting commentary. He wrote:

I just wanted to add a little bit more info regarding the on-going debate into the alleged Roswell slides. Unfortunately this last week I have been a little bit under the weather, however, this did allow me the opportunity to sit with my feet up in my ufological armchair and see if I could obtain a quote or two from a variety of experts regarding the alleged Roswell slide. Basically all I did was email a polite request to a number of academics and institutions respectfully asking them to comment on the photo (slide) in question.  Some came back and stated that they didn’t think the photo was of good enough quality to comment on, others requested more details, some did reply but when I asked if I could quote them they declined.

There are a number though that did indeed reply and give me permission to quote them. Personally I believe I’ve spent more than enough time on this sham already but for the record I am providing here two of the replies I obtained. They are unedited and all they were sent is the so-called Roswell slide photograph. Again, for the record, none of the academics I contacted came back with a reply that they thought the photo depicted an alien.

Here are two of several replies I received:

I confirm that the photo is of a mummy of a child, possibly Peruvian or even Egyptian.

Salima Ikram
Professor of Egyptology
American University in Cairo

Okay, it is a mummy, but very hard to tell if it Egyptian, South American or European. I see no wrappings of any kind, it appears to be a child or youth. Do you have a provenance on the slide??? That may help the determination.

Cordially

SJ Wolfe 

S.J. Wolfe

Senior Cataloger and Serials Specialist

American Antiquarian Society

And when I asked if I could have this person’s permission to quote her the reply was:

Of course you can. And if you do, please describe me as Director of the EMINA (Egyptian Mummies in North America) Project. Here is the link to the website http://egyptologyforum.org/EMINA/

Cordially

SJ

You are of course free to make of these comments you will as they are simply my humble attempt to help try and get to the bottom of what I believe is a very sorry saga. There will no doubt be those that question the abilities of the two above ladies to comment on this matter but so-be-it. The one thing that I can say regarding the above two comments is that they have both been made independently of any of the promoters of the ‘Roswell slides’ and therefore in my opinion are a great deal more credible. You can choose to agree or disagree of course but this is just one way to try and bring the matter to an end as quickly as possible in my humble opinion.

So, while those who support the slides talk of scientists who don’t believe the body is human, there are other scientists who believe it is. But that’s not the real take-away here. It is the statement by an American about the slides. Don, during one of the interviews said that Tom had failed to interest any American scientists in looking at the slides or voicing an opinion about them. Philip seems to have done that and has some sort of response by an American scientist, which just shows you can find someone with credentials to support your point of view as long as that point of view isn’t too extreme.

The real point is that if the first line does identify the body as the mummy of a human child, then a search for an exact match is irrelevant. In fact, an exact match isn’t necessary because the body in the slide looks an awful lot like many of the other mummies that have been identified from around the world. And, of course, it is not up to those who believe it to be a mummy to prove it, but to those who claim it is an alien to prove it. This they haven’t done.

There is one other fact here. A short video shows how the words on the placard were identified. This seems to suggest that those on the RSRG and others are sharing their methodology and their research into this while some others are calling names. That is always the last defense when the facts begin to crumble. You can see the video here:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkaKpPGKTV0&feature=youtu.be

We might have taken this as far as we can at this point. We might have solved the “mystery” of the alien in the slides, and all the other discussion, discourse, allegations, and claims have been rendered moot by those who were able to read the placard, it turns out so easily.