UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

The Roswell Slides Context

Many of you have questions about the situation with the so-called Roswell Slide(s).

Here’s what I know…

The Team doesn’t have its ducks in a row.

They know that the Kodachrome film was extant in 1947 and the photo(s) taken with it were probably taken in that time-frame, but they can’t prove that.

They also don’t know who took the photo(s); they have a guess, but that’s all they have.

They don’t know where the film was taken – locale. They think it’s near Roswell but that is a guess also.

They have no idea what the photo(s) show….a “body” apparently, but there is no way to determine what kind of body – real or simulated, or ???

The Team is trying to put together a scenario but they have no access to first-hand participants.

They have a Chicago guy who got the slides from his sister who found them in a trunk during and estate sale.

The possessor has no connection to the slides – direct or indirect. He’s just a guy hoping to capitalize on the things, hyped by Tom Carey as Roswell in nature.

Tom Carey is intrigued because he’s a Roswellian and wants to resolve that incident.

Don Schmitt wants to capitalize monetarily I think.

David Rudiak is a Roswell fanatic. He’s obsessed with Roswell and needs to keep scratching that itch.

Anthony Bragalia wants to be a UFO notable. He desires cachet and fame as a “ufologist” which I don’t get. Having UFO notoriety is anathema to persons who value dignity and common sense.

Chris Rutkowski is almost involved but a silent partner, one who should get out before his inestimable credibility is shot to hell by the Slides farce.

Kevin Randle wanted to clear up his beleaguered Roswell credibility but snookered that by playing fast and loose with the Slides story, nailed by Paul Kimball for prevaricating the issue.

So that’s where we are: the Slides will get a public airing this year, sometime, somehow.

But it will be akin to the Alien Autopsy film, in content and denouement; that is, it will end up being one more ufological joke that besmirches all involved.

RR

24 Comments:

  • But, Rich, there is one additional thing (at least) that we can say about the slides if, in fact it can be demonstrated that they were taken around 1947 (and before 1990). We would know with a virtual certainty that whatever images they show have NOT been digitally manipulated. This may turn out to have some (limited) importance in the analysis. After all, much of scientific investigation and analysis is the elimination of possible explanations for things observed. This is a slender thread, I agree, but it is something.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Wednesday, February 19, 2014  

  • Yes, Dominick...

    As it seems the Kodachromes are dated from the time-frame, that's something in the Team's favor.

    But it is a slender thread, indeed.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 19, 2014  

  • Rich

    Can i add also that if the photo does indeed show what the witnesse,s described at roswell ie grey alien type of creature.
    Then can we not use occams razor, basically the simplicity of it that this photo still may be representative of what people actually saw, alien or otherwise.

    By Blogger Al12, at Wednesday, February 19, 2014  

  • Yes AI12:

    Since the Kodachrome seems to be from 1947 (or thereabouts), if the body looks like a "grey" we have something, however, Anthony Bragalia insists (and has written about it in comments here) the body he saw was nothing like the iconic "grey" alien in UFO lore.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 19, 2014  

  • Rich

    I recall reading Anthony saying the creature didnt look like the popular 1940,s descriptions of aliens.
    But that it resembled what witness,s at Roswell described, which in the book witness to roswell its described numerous times as the slighly grey alien type

    By Blogger Al12, at Wednesday, February 19, 2014  

  • Well, AI12...

    It would be nice to have Anthony describe what he saw, but the Team is holding back for a bombshell publicity stunt, and whatever they can accrue from that stunt.

    They aren't into giving away what they see as a ticket to fame and/or money.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 19, 2014  

  • Rich,

    Very true, i guess we,ll just have to wait an see, in depth descriptions an further info we,ll have to wait for.

    I just hope it,ll all be worth it an wont end up like the santilli film nonsense

    By Blogger Al12, at Wednesday, February 19, 2014  

  • Rich,

    I'll plant my tongue firmly in cheek and post a poem from the breek:

    The UFO Crash at Roswell
    Has no clever Boswell,
    No Gibbons or Herodotus,
    Only deluded Eaters of the Lotus

    "Believe me!" I hear them say
    "We'll prove it... but not today!"
    Where is this air-tight proof at?
    All of it gone? or lies fallen flat!

    The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis
    Is after all totally preposterous
    For an alien body alive or dead
    reveals not where it was bred

    Can you prove this, that, or the other one
    Was born beneath another sun?
    Or show us fully without a doubt
    The path of their interstellar route?

    Where is your Scientific proof?
    The data now, and not a goof!
    Nor a lie, nor a shoddy flim-flam tale
    Ov'r Lies, Science will always prevail

    Just because you believe the tale is true
    Only makes it only true for you
    For the trickster visitor tells goodly lies
    to persuade believing gullible eyes

    And were a miracle to occur
    and proof was found that was sure
    To prove your ideas wholly untrue
    What then, would you say and do?

    If the Truth were laid bare
    Your notions would say Truth wasn't there
    For one who holds not Reason's Rule
    Only show themselves a silly fool.

    But If you think this comment unjust
    Do what only a wise one must:
    Say not a word or a jot more
    And be not called an "attention whore".

    +++++++++

    The problem, as you are well aware, is that believers in the ETH cannot show any proof of same that will withstand even normal scrutiny... A body won't do the job nor will a crashed device. Why? Simple-- we cannot actually know their provenance. Sure we can say they are/are not human or are/are not from Earth... then what? Does it disprove they come from a universe next door? Even if the evidence has a different chemical composition, all you have proven is that it did not come from this planet. It does not prove it came from another planet in our universe.

    I can't recall if there is anyone who promotes that actually asks these questions and formulates "tests" or "proofs" to show ETH evidence is actually evidence rather than wishful thinking which appears to be the Dream Teams operational philosophy.

    Alas... we can only hope the "Visitors" will someday put UFOlogy out of its misery...

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Wednesday, February 19, 2014  

  • Without anything tying the slides to a UFO or even Roswell, shouldn't these slides be marketed for the cryptozoology crowd instead? This may be a skinned Bigfoot for all that can be proven about it.

    By Blogger Curt Collins, at Thursday, February 20, 2014  

  • The one possible way that a bit more could be learned about the slide (given the lack of provenance) is the sign that appears in the shot. If the writing can be deciphered that might add something to the mix. Whether that "something" will prove anything, however, is quite another matter...

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, February 21, 2014  

  • I understand that the creature in the slides doesn't have teeth.
    Can anyone confirm this?
    Ed

    By Blogger edward gehrman, at Friday, February 21, 2014  

  • Ed:

    This is nonsense. Where did you find that?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 21, 2014  

  • RR,
    I think I read it several days ago
    in one of the comments on an RRRGroup blog. I just don't remember where and can't seem to find the quote.
    That's why I asked the question.
    And why is this "nonsence"?
    Wouldn't you want to know whether these creatures have teeth?
    Ed

    By Blogger edward gehrman, at Friday, February 21, 2014  

  • I can't imagine, ED, that appearing on any of our blogs.....except as a deranged comment by someone.

    Teeth are the last of my concerns when it comes to imaginary aliens.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, February 21, 2014  

  • I did find the quote:

    "Silas Newton said his aliens looked exactly like human beings. Never mentioned is that he also said that they were dressed in "1890s" style clothing and that all had perfect teeth...

    The Ray slide do not show this- it is not human, is not dressed in old clothing and does not appear to have teeth. If Silas had heard about the Ray alien, or if here were even 'inspired' by it- Silas' alien would reflect what the slides depict. They do not."
    Tony B

    By Blogger edward gehrman, at Saturday, February 22, 2014  

  • My apologies Ed...

    The quote from my friend Anthony Bragalia comes in a comment about a comment.

    Comments here have no status with the blog as such; they're merely comments from nuts, usually, er I mean readers of our blogs.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 22, 2014  

  • My apologies Ed...

    The quote from my friend Anthony Bragalia comes in a comment about a comment.

    Comments here have no status with the blog as such; they're merely comments from nuts, usually, er I mean readers of our blogs.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 22, 2014  

  • RR,
    The point I was trying to make was that the Rey slide photos show a creature who doesn't have any teeth. I find that interesting since the creature in the AA doesn't have any teeth, nor do monotremes. I wonder if there is a connection of some kind?
    Ed

    By Blogger edward gehrman, at Saturday, February 22, 2014  

  • Ed:

    Maybe Anthony Bragalia can provide an answer.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 22, 2014  

  • Mr. Gehrman said: "the creature in the AA doesn't have any teeth, nor do monotremes"

    As has been pointed out to you many, many, many times, you are citing an acknowledged case of fraud.

    Please spare us this lunacy!

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Saturday, February 22, 2014  

  • "Acknowledged"? By Ray Santilli?
    By the UFO community? By you?
    So let's get back to my question:
    What about their lack of teeth?
    Do you ever remember many references to alien teeth in day to day ufology?
    Ed

    By Blogger edward gehrman, at Sunday, February 23, 2014  

  • Listen fellows...

    You're sidetracking the point of my posting.

    Let's get off the Santilli hoax and alien teeth.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 23, 2014  

  • RR,
    Do you remember many references to alien teeth?
    I'm surprised that you're not interested in this topic.
    I just found it strange that the
    Alien Autopsy creature, supposedly a fake, shares this feature with two totally unrelated creatures connected to ufology. Why didn't the AA hoaxer (who was that by the way?), give his creature any teeth.
    Think of all the thousands of alien creatures you've seen images of. Do you remember any teeth?
    Ed

    By Blogger edward gehrman, at Sunday, February 23, 2014  

  • Ed:

    You've really got to move on and away from the "alien teeth" thing; it's inconsequential.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 23, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home