Roswell Slides Statement by Tom Carey with Note from Don Schmitt

(Blogger’s note: Yes, I said there would be nothing more about the Roswell Slides, but I also said that if there was a statement issued by Tom and Don, I would publish it without editorial comment. There is a statement that Tom issued. Before it was published elsewhere, Don had asked for a couple of modifications. That statement was published before Don asked for the changes. This is the statement, slightly modified from the original version. Don made the changes.)

Don Schmitt

We believe that the recently released "reading" of the placard by the so-called "Roswell Slides Research Group" is still open to debate. Ever since Don Schmitt and I became aware of the slides three years ago, our modus operandi has been four-fold: (1) to authenticate the age and integrity of the slides; (2) to obtain professional anthropological and forensic opinion as to what the body on the slides represented; (3) to find out as much as we could about Bernerd and Hilda Blair Ray, the long-deceased owners of the slides; and (4) to "read" the placard located at the foot of the body on the slides.     

 

We physically took the slides to Kodak's historian, who is an expert regarding Kodachrome., and, using several parameters of interrogation, he determined that the slides dated from the 1947-49 time period (manufacture to exposure). For the most part, the American anthropologists we contacted did not want to even look at the slides when they learned that they might be "UFO-related." Those who did, however, did so "off the record." They all concluded that the body on the slides was not that of a mummy but possibly that of a congenitally deformed child. Fortunately, we were able to secure Canadian and Mexican anthropologists and forensic anatomical experts who went "on the record" at our May 5th "beWitness" event in Mexico City. In short, their detailed presentations concluded that the body on the slides was: not a mammal, not a primate and not human. One, Richard Doble, after a detailed morphological examination, concluded that the creature on the slides did not evolve on earth. You already have Doble's report, and the report of the two Mexican authorities is still in translation.

 

The Rays had no children or close relatives we could interview who could shed some light on their activities. Bernerd was an oil geologist whose zone of activity was the Permian Basin of west Texas and eastern New Mexico. He was also the President of a geological society in west Texas. Hilda was an oil attorney in Midland, Texas and an amateur pilot who, according a friend in the nursing home where Hilda passed away in 1988, was also friends with Mamie Eisenhower (General and later President Dwight D. Eisenhower's wife). There are a number of color slides in the collection that do appear to show Mamie Eisenhower in various situations. Prior to her death, Hilda Ray bequeathed almost $1M to the American Association of University Women.

 

Regarding the placard, we quickly determined that (1) its content would be key to interpreting the slides; and (2) we could not read it. So, we sent copies to Dr. David Rudiak and Dr. Donald Burleson. Both had done exemplary work in trying to decipher the so-called "Ramey Memo" - a situation very similar to placard issue here. Both responded to us that the placard was "unreadable." Through a contact, we had the Photo Interpretation Unit at the Pentagon in Washington, DC take a look at it. They said that it was "unreadable." A copy went to a company in New York now requesting anonymity that conducted the analysis on a major historical artifact. That company's response to us was that the placard was "unreadable." Another copy went to the people at Adobe, Inc. (manufacturers of Adobe Photoshop and the Adobe Reader on your computer). Their response?  "It's unreadable." A copy also was also sent to aggressive Roswell researcher Anthony Bragalia who also reported to me that it was "unreadable." (Bragalia has now aggressively joined in with our critics). Our own computer guy says that he applied the "SmartDeblur" software to the placard over a year ago without any success. He did so again this week to an enhanced, sharper version of the placard with the latest edition of the "SmartDeBlur" program, again without success.

 

Now, we are told (not asked) to believe that a cast of characters, one of whom has clearly become unhinged and was himself party to a known UFO body hoax some years ago, has used the same program (SmartDeBlur) on a distorted, "screen-grab" of the placard and is somehow able to "read" it when all of the above, some of whom had much more sophisticated equipment and techniques at their disposal, could not. I ask you, what's wrong with this picture?

 

Tom Carey

Finally, lost in all of the vile invective being hurled our way by the members of the RSRG and their fellow travelers, is what the analysis of the physical body on the slides is saying. The RSRG has used a note from an obscure late 1800's journal to weave their tale that the slides show the "mummified body of a two year old boy" (the word "mummy" or "mummified" appears nowhere in their alleged de-blurred "reading" of the placard). In their excitement to play "Gotcha!," it apparently has not crossed their thought processes (I'm being charitable here) that a mummy of a two year old boy several thousand years old would be less than half the size of the body shown on the slides!

 

So, what are we to make of all this? Jaime Maussan, Tom Carey and Don Schmitt, relied on all of the above to reach the conclusions that were reached. They were not our conclusions but those scientists we consulted. We have, at this point in the proceedings, have sent out additional copies of the placard image to third parties whose opinions we can trust to run the SmartDeBlur application on it and are prepared to abide by their findings, wherever the chips fall.

 

 

Tom Carey

(With modifications by Don Schmitt who added, “As I said to Tom this morning, if the independent analysis of the placard comes back in support of the opposition's read, then I will accept that read. I will remain a gentleman and concede that point.)

The Last Not Roswell Slides Posting

Now that we have a final answer to the body shown in the Not Roswell Slides, it is time to end the madness. There isn’t much more to be said. After two or three years of this nonsense that involved nondisclosure agreements, secrecy and a trickling of information into the public arena, the situation was put to rest in just a few hours. Once good quality scans, with a proper, established provenance were available, the placard was read with little difficulty and the location of the mummy identified. I will note that Mesa Verde is not all that far from the New Mexico border or all that far from Midland, Texas, since that had always been an issue for some bizarre reason.

Tom Carey and Don Schmitt in happier times. Photo courtesy of Alejandro Rojas.

When I first learned of the existence of the slides, not from my "pals" Tom Carey and Don Schmitt, but from a posting to Rich Reynolds UFO Conjectures, I was somewhat dubious but also interested. But I understood their desire for secrecy and there was that pesky NDA. Had no information leaked, they could have carried out their research in private… but what would the outcome have been? They didn’t take advantage of their opportunity and all their research looks to be a little silly given the final outcome of this episode and how quickly that happened.

Had they not been so secretive, had Adam Dew not been there pulling strings, had Tom and Don demanded to see the actual slides and get high resolution scans of those slides, they would have learned within hours that the body was a mummy, the placard said it was a mummy, and they could have been home on May 5^th enjoying the weather rather than flying off to Mexico City where they proclaimed they had pictures of an alien creature.

Months ago, before I had seen the screen grab, I asked Tom if it was possible this was a mummy. He told me, “No,” and that they had looked at hundreds of pictures of mummies and found nothing that matched… but I think he was looking for an exact match as opposed to a general agreement with the features. Anyone who saw the picture knew almost immediately is was a human and not an alien.

Anyway, the point here, quickly, is had the data been shared earlier, the answer would have been found earlier and the huge embarrassment of Mexico City could have been avoided. I don’t know how they could have been so completely duped without some sort of cooperation on their part. Had the data been shared, the resources of the Internet could have been brought to bear and this episode would have died quietly, never even becoming a footnote in the Roswell case.

I suppose the second great reveal, scheduled for the International UFO Museum and Research Center in Roswell this July will be cancelled. There is now nothing to report other than there are no Roswell Slides .

If I receive any communications from either Don or Tom who wish to express any thoughts on this, I will publish them without editorial comment from me. If there is nothing forthcoming from them, this will be the last of my Not Roswell Slides postings.

Tony Bragalia and the End of the Roswell Slides

THE “ROSWELL ALIEN SLIDES”

AND MY APOLOGY TO A DEAD CHILD OF THE MESA VERDE

BY ANTHONY BRAGALIA

Several days ago a group of skeptical researchers applied a program called “SmartDeBlur” to the placard found juxtaposed near the being pictured in slides from 1947 thought to be of an extraterrestrial creature found crashed at Roswell. This author championed the slides as those of an alien and this author was wrong.

 The group of skeptical researchers interpreted the placard as reading “Mummified Body of Two Year Old Boy. At the time of burial the body was clothed in a xxx-xxx cotton shirt. Burial wraps consisted of these small cotton blankets. Loaned by the Mr. Xxxxxx of San Francisco, California.”

 Working with a colleague from Europe and with the text of the de-blurred placard, I discovered last night that this interpretation of the text was correct. Found in the September 1938 Volume VIII, Number 1 Mesa Verde Notes that was published by the National Park Service was an article that definitively solves the mystery of the “Roswell Slides.” In paragraph four of the section of the publication entitled Around The Mesa was found this:

 “A splendid mummy was received by the Park Museum recently when Mr. S.L. Palmer Jr. of San Francisco returned one that his father had taken from the ruins in 1894. The mummy is that of a two year old boy and is in an excellent state of preservation. At the time of burial the body was clad in a slip-over cotton shirt and three small cotton blankets. Fragments of these are still on the mummy.” The full text of the article can be found in this link: 

http://npshistory.com/nature_notes/meve/vol8-1f.htm

 This paragraph corresponds directly to the slides placard: the mummified body of a two year old boy, three small cotton blankets (the word “three” understandably seen by the de-blurring program as “these”) and Mr. Xxxxx of San Francisco, California.

A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY 

The word “hoax” has been used to describe the “Roswell Slides” saga. It was not. At least, the principal investigators, Tom Carey, Don Schmitt, and I did not knowingly fake or obfuscate anything. No matter, it is a serious case of mistaken identity, the consequences of which I fully accept.

 I was told that the best-available, highest resolution images of the placard were provided by the co-owner of the slides, Mr. Adam Dew, and given to world-class photo experts including Ray Downing of Studio Macbeth in NY (who conducted analysis on the Shroud of Turin) and Colonel Jeffrey Thau (who sent them to the Pentagon’s Photo Interpretation Department.) Despite the application of the best de-blurring software in the world, they were unable to read the words on the placard with any definitiveness.

 I can only surmise that Mr. Adam Dew did not provide to these experts the highest-resolution images of the slides. Why he did not, I cannot be certain. But Adam Dew has to this very day not yet publicly provided the crystal-clear slide images that I know exist.

 And Adam Dew in an email to a German researcher just two days ago, accused the skeptics who applied the SmartDeBlur program to the placard of using Photo Shop to fake their interpretation of the text. Given the discovery of the Mesa Verde Notes which clearly corroborate this interpretation, it is not the skeptics who faked anything.  Mr. Dew has some explaining to do.

 He has provided at various times to researchers different segments of the slides, partial images of the slides, and images of the slides of varying resolution. We can ask why, but I think we know without asking. Dew’s motivations were from the very beginning very different that those of mine, of Tom’s and of Don’s. He is new to the UFO field and has no stake in it as those who have spent years in such study. Unlike the placard images that he provided, it is not hard to read between these lines.  

INCREDIBLE BUT TRUE COINCIDENCES

The data points and the narrative of the slide are all true. The slide stock is from 1947, the very year of the crash. A Roswell vet from 1947 who actually personally viewed the dead bodies found fallen at Roswell did see similarities between what he saw and the being shown on the slides. Bernerd Ray and Hilda Ray, the original owners of the slides really were very well connected people. Bernerd really was an oil exploration geologist who worked the Permian Basin in New Mexico the 1940s and really was the President of a geological society in 1947 that covered New Mexico and he really did quit the organization after his 1947 term. His wife Hilda really was a prominent oil industry lawyer in the 1940s who very likely was friends with Mamie Eisenhower. They really did hide these slides in a chest only to be found decades later after their deaths. The being depicted in the slide is of an extremely unusual appearance, is unusually well-preserved and does bear strikingly odd features.

 But all of this must be a series of extraordinarily incredible coincidences. My guess is that Hilda hid the slides of the mummy child within the chest because she felt some sort of guilt that they were in some way exploitive. She was a childless woman. She likely read that Mr. S.L. Palmer’s father had stolen the mummy child and that Palmer’s son, with a sense of guilt, returned the child to its rightful place. 

LESSONS LEARNED AND AN APOLOGY TO A DEAD CHILD

I have learned much about myself and things that I need to change in order to become a better researcher. I must be less trusting, more discerning and less accusatory of those with whom I disagree.

 But more than this, I must offer my sincerest and deepest apologies to the Native American people of the Southwestern United States. One of their children, a dead child from well over a century ago, was made a spectacle. Whoever you are, you deserve to be extended dignity and respect. Your people, the Ancestral Puebloans, honored you by preserving you. I played part in disturbing your eternal rest, and for that I am so very sorry. Though I did not seek nor receive any money from any of this saga, and though my efforts were sincere and my offense unintentional, I am making a substantial donation to an American Indian children’s charity and encourage everyone else who played part to do the same.

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.

The End of the Saga of the Not Roswell Slides

Yes, I know I have beaten this dead horse repeatedly over the last few days, but I have learned from two separate and independent sources that the placard in the case of the alleged alien has been read. I do not know why it has only taken 48 hours to get this information when other have had the slides for years. The placard says that it is the mummy of a two year old. But I didn't get this myself. Others did the work. Here is the web site for more information about this.

http://www.blueblurrylines.com/2015/05/the-placard-of-roswell-slides-final.html

Unless Don and Tom can provide some compelling evidence proving this is wrong, this should end the controversy. I expect, in the next few days others will also provide information about the placard and maybe they will get a different reading. If they do, I'll post it here and if any of the original participants in the Great Reveal have comments, they know where to find me. I feared this would turn out bad but I didn't expect this.

Relevant Links to the Not Roswell Slides

Although it this might result in additional claims that I’m jealous or annoyed or somehow otherwise biased here, I will link to the following web sites and information because they do have some relevance to the ongoing discussions of the Not Roswell Slides. I do so without commentary on my part.

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/05/the-roswell-slides-finally-solved/

http://drmsh.com/2015/05/07/roswell-alien-kodachrome-slide-fraud-put-to-rest/

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/10656

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BQBl0G8ClU

https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/22464/anthronotes_33_1_2.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

https://www.boxcast.com/show/#/be-witness-2015/djrw16o08kayiviy0s1f

http://yourtubenews.ning.com/forum/topics/watch-the-roswell-slides-event-online

These links were originally posted by Philip Mantle, André Skondras and John Greenewald. I’ll let you all look at them and decide if you wish to accept or reject the Not Roswell Slides as proof of alien visitation.

Not the Roswell Slides and How the Pictures Were Taken

While I hesitate to post anything more about the Not Roswell Slides, there is one point that has not been covered during all this talk. Although we had been told that we would learn all about the slides, the provenance and the scientific testing, little of that came out that we didn’t already know. As I was thinking about this, I realized there is one question that probably would never be answered adequately. That is, how is it that a couple of civilians, no matter how highly connected, were allowed into what would have been a restricted area, with a camera, manage to take two pictures and leave with camera and  film intact?

They have used the pictures of Eisenhower to suggest a connection to the general because he is in uniform, but that doesn’t explain how they got into the restricted area. Eisenhower would have never allowed it.

How do I know?

Take a look at his performance as the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe. During 1944, Eisenhower demoted a number of officers for their breach of security. True, these breaches might have resulted in higher casualties during the invasion of Europe, but security is security. Eisenhower would not have tolerated civilians in a restricted area… providing we all agree that the Rays were pals with Eisenhower and he would share this information with them. That hasn’t been proven yet.

The first stumbling block in all this is how they took the pictures in the first place… or is the first stumbling block the lack of provenance so that we don’t even know if one of the Rays took the photographs. That’s just speculation because the slides were allegedly found in a collection of slides that belonged to the Rays and if they did take them, there are breaks in the chain of custody so the box could have had slides added later in the decades they floated around.

Anyway, the point is that there is no plausible explanation for the way two civilians would be allowed into a restricted area to photograph the body of an alien creature and if you can’t explain that with some sort of evidence, then the whole premise of Not Roswell Slides of an alien creature fail.

Not the Roswell Slides and Richard Dolan

Richard Dolan has now chimed in on the Not Roswell Slides and his critique while interesting does little to further our knowledge. We are basically back where we were on May 4 except that there is now a better quality photo out there for us to look at.

Dolan says, repeatedly, “…my position on the slides is still not firm. I have been and remained impressed with the story behind their provenance — such as we can put it together. And I am currently impressed with the analyses performed on the slides themselves, as well as the body in question. These analyses are far more technically detailed than the criticism against them that I have seen. My position would change if I am presented with analyses that deal with the data already provided. Not people’s hunches or invective.”

And that is where many of us are, except that we might be leaning in one direction or the other more so today than we were on May 4. We don’t have enough information but the reason we don’t is that it hasn’t been offered though it had been promised.

Dolan said that he was impressed with the story behind the slide’s provenance, but that is all there is, a story. No evidence was provided that proved these slides were taken by the Rays, the chain of custody is broken in repeated instances, and we really don’t know when or where they were taken. What we do have are guesses based on limited information and I think back to the Alien Autopsy when the same games were played. The provenance would be provided but it never was. Here we are told that the Rays lived in Midland, Texas, the slides were recovered in Sedona, Arizona, and ended up in Chicago some twenty years after discovery owned by a man whose identify has not been revealed. Not a compelling provenance.

Dolan wrote about those who had suggested the body is a mummy of some kind. “Such people — all of them English-speakers — obviously did not acquaint themselves with the detailed and technically proficient treatment of these very questions by the three scientists who were featured last night: Jose Benetez, Dr. Luiz Antonio de Alba Galindo, and Richard Doble, The first two of these spoke in Spanish, and I understand there may have been glitches at times with the translation on the livestream. However, Richard Doble’s Skype interview was in English and extremely easy to follow. The Spanish speakers were simply outstanding, and I was able to listen via translation. All of these gentlemen spoke in detail and with deep analysis as to why that body was not a human being.”

This is known as an appeal to authority. We are not allowed to voice an opinion because experts in the field have rendered the proper opinion and we are not qualified to judge it. And while the experts cited by Dolan have impressive credentials, they are not the only experts who have spoken about this. Others, who have been approached by the skeptical community, have suggested a variety of other opinions and before anyone points it out, I’m well aware that they didn’t have access to good quality copies of the slides. The point is, we’ll end up with dueling experts and unless or until someone finds the precise mummy, the arguments will rage.

Dolan has suggested that we all should wait until the investigation is completed or as he said, “I do think they absolutely deserve genuine investigation.”

Yes, but shouldn’t that have been done before the great reveal in Mexico City. After all, they sat on this for three years, apparently investigating them. They promised an expert from Kodak, who would explain why the slides were dated to the late 1940s, but he was a no show… and blame is laid at the feet of those who dared to call him at home, irritating him to the point that he wanted no part of this. One of those, Lance Moody, called him in the middle of the afternoon and had a nice conversation with the man. The other harasser was apparently Billy Cox, a journalist who could be expected to attempt to verify the information and who also called in the middle of the afternoon. So who were these other harassers?

Dolan and I agree on one thing. The Not Roswell Slides deserve more investigation and research, and as Jimmy Church said during his radio show last night, there are now, literally millions of potential investigators out there. They have a fairly good image, and they will be scanning the Internet and museums and everything else in search of the twin of this image. We do have access to about every aspect of human knowledge now that we have the Internet and global connection.

There is one other point to be made about the Not Roswell Slides. Paolo Harris made the point, as has Stan Friedman, (and which has also been said by Don Schmitt and Tom Carey) and one that I will reinforce. There is nothing to tie these slides to the Roswell case and that is where the provenance fails completely.

So, here we are, two days after the great reveal and we have nothing new to show for it (other than a better picture). We don’t really know anything that we didn’t before, so, as Dolan suggests, we do need to complete a full investigation. The only thing I fear is that this will take as long as it did for the Alien Autopsy… I hope we get an answer in a little timelier manner but given what I have seen, I don’t see that happening.

The Roswell Slides After the Big Reveal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/the-roswell-slide-alien-kodachrome-slide-released-but-just-one/#

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

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

Two photographs of a “dead alien” were unveiled at a big money event last night – and immediately dismissed as fake.

A series of ‘UFOlogists’ appeared at the Be Witness meeting last night to reveal images of an extraterrestrial who supposedly crashed to Earth during the infamous Roswell incident in 1947.

The images were found by former journalist Adam Dew, who reportedly turned down interviews with magazines that wanted to cover the story because “they were not offering any compensation” [Which, of course, shows that they weren’t interested as alleged, they just weren’t interested in handing over some cash].

He claimed to have taken steps to verify the pair of alien snaps and said Kodak experts had dated the film to 1947.

But the rest of the world has not had the chance to test the rigour of his methods, because high resolution images of the alien are not yet available.

They are likely to be sold through his production company Dew Media alongside a documentary about the discovery of the slides.

The photos were supposedly found in Arizona, hidden in a collection of snaps owned by oil geologist Bernard Ray and his wife Hilda Ray, who have both died.

Nick Pope, a researcher who headed up a UFO investigation wing at the UK Ministry of Defence, told Mirror Online he was “underwhelmed”.

“It could be a model, or it could simply be a fake image, dressed up to look like a Forties slide,” he said.

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

Bragalia, however, wrote, “An overnight poll conducted by Coast-to-Coast radio has thus far tallied over 800 respondents to a survey asking what the nature of the creature:

42% say it is not an alien image.

58% believe it to either be that of an alien, or that they are simply not
certain what it is.

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

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

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

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

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

Can anyone say Alien Autopsy?

The Not Roswell Slides 35 mm Codes

Before the big show tonight, I thought I’d point out something that I have learned. There is talk of a dating code that showed the film was manufactured in 1947, but I wonder what film code they were looking at. It seems that the code for 35 mm movie film is different than that for 35 mm slide film.

They have yet to release the code, which is, of course, in keeping with most of their silence on anything related to the Not Roswell Slides. I know that the code doesn’t appear on every frame so they were very lucky that the one slide they took out of the sleeve had a code on it. I just wonder what that code is… and figure that it will be revealed tonight. I will note that if the code is the same as that on movie film, then the first flaw has appeared. If it is the code seen on slide film, it will not provide a better clue as to the manufacture because those codes were recycled more frequently than that used on movie film.

We have seen the argument that rejected 1927 and 1967 because of the printed cardboard sleeve. But if we have a code from 35 mm slide film, the code might not limit it to 1947. The date of manufacture might be more of an open question.

So, tonight, if they reveal the codes, we might have a partial answer. For those interested, Google Kodak and you’ll find enough information to verify this. You’ll be able to see what the experts have to say.

To start, see:

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/Guide_to_Identifying_Year_of_Manufacture.pdf

or

http://www.taphilo.com/photo/kodakfilmnumxref.shtml

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keykode

or

https://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157634429783414/

This should get you started on your own search. I can’t imagine that those with the Not Roswell Slides will have failed to take this elementary step but we’ll find out later today.

Glenn Dennis Has Died

According to Albuquerque television station KOB-TV, Glenn Dennis died on Tuesday, April 28, 2015. He was the last of the three founding members of the International UFO Museum and Research Center in Roswell, New Mexico.

Dennis told researchers in 1989 that while he worked at Ballard’s Funeral Home in Roswell, he was called by an officer at the base who asked if they had any small, children-sized caskets. Later he said he was at the base while the recovery of the alien craft and the bodies of those killed had been brought in. In the back of an ambulance, he saw some strange metallic debris.

He told several researchers that he was friends with a nurse who told him about the alien bodies and the preliminary autopsy that had been preformed there. In later years his story would be challenged but he did not waver from the details.

In the early 1990s, with Walter Haut and Max Littell, a real estate salesman, they formed the museum. Dennis could often be found there and would sit down to tell his story to those who asked.

In the last few years Dennis’ health had deteriorated and he spent less time at the museum. He had been very ill for some time and died this week.

Not the Roswell Slides

As we get closer to the reveal of the Not Roswell Slides, Gilles Fernandez posted a note on the last my posting which wasn’t relevant to the topic but that was interesting. Apparently he, and his team of investigators who have been working quietly behind the scenes, have made one discovery that is of importance. Fernandez posted one of the slides to his blog (which is normally written in French but this was in English) that came from the stash of Hilda Blair Ray and showed a scene France. All of this can be seen at:

http://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.com/

Although they just show the picture, they have identified the cars on the street and they weren’t produced until the mid-to-late 1950s. That would seem to suggest that slide was not taken in the late 1940s but maybe as much as ten years later.

Fernandez wrote, “Yes, As [sic] pointed out in our previous article devoted to the Roswell Slides, a close examination by members of our team revealed that French cars depicted in this slide were produced from 1958 [though it seems one was available in 1956]. So, if this slide had the mount expected from a 1941 to 1949 scene, it would prove that the type of mount with only ‘Kodachrome’ printed two times is NOT a forensic evidence to establish that what is depicted is from the 1941 – 1949 period expected for this type of mount.”

This, they say, shows that the cardboard slide sleeve that has been claimed to have been used only from 1941 to 1949 was actually used much longer.

Is this discovery of overwhelming importance?

Well, not so much. It does expand the time frame for the use of that specific slide sleeve so it is not as limited as had been suggested.

But there is one problem. They reproduce the scene but they don’t reproduce the slide sleeve along with it. It could be argued that while this is one of Hilda Ray’s slide, the sleeve doesn’t match, precisely those from 1941 to 1949. It would seem that this is an oversight. I have quickly scanned the blog but haven’t found the picture printed with the slide sleeve visible to compare it with those from 1941 to 1949.

We are now very close to the big reveal and many of our questions should be answered then. We all have provided those with the Not Roswell Slides all with plenty of notice of what we would like to see in the way of proof. Once the show has been performed, we can then begin a complete analysis of the data. Providing all the promised information is released.