UFO Conjecture(s)

Monday, February 09, 2015

Adam Dew provided this update and clarification about his Kodachrome slide participation

I'll say this, I fully understand and appreciate all the skepticism.  The first time I saw the slides I had the same response.  But the story, by any measure, is fantastic and continues to get more interesting.  A few random notes on all this that might answer some questions:

Tom and Don were very skeptical of the slides (out of fear of another hoax) for more than a year.  I pursued them.  It wasn't until I finally had them vetted by film experts that they were willing to connect me with the witness to offer an opinion.  Tom and Don were not with me the first time the witness looked at the slides.  He's now seen them a second time with Tom and Don present and he had the same reaction to them.

I've shown the slides to several people with varying scientific backgrounds.  I have one of the most prominent anthropologists in the US on film looking at the slides.  He hasn't decided if he's willing to go on the record publicly yet.  But if I can get Ross to agree not to bother him, I might get lucky.  Almost universally, when anyone with a science background sees the slides they say something along the lines of "that's a fake."  I think that's an interesting response when we know they are not fakes.  Even NDT had that response.  I'd assume if it's obviously human, then that would be their first take.

As far as I know there are no anthropologists in this country who think they've seen what many Roswell witnesses say they saw in 1947.  There is no frame of reference. There is no text book.  This creates an obvious dilemma when the people who say they saw bodies near Roswell also say they were humanoid in most respects.

So I then decided to try to find some people who had personal encounters with the supposed Roswell bodies and see what they think of the slides. Some of you might be willing to flatly discount the personal experiences of someone like the man in our doc trailer, but I don't.  I'm not going to call him a liar.  He's never tried to capitalize on what he says he saw.  So it's the witness's word against everyone else's at this stage I suppose.

I'm not sure what else I need to do prove that they were not staged or faked.  I thought having them vetted by the worlds foremost Kodachrome historian would have been sufficient but I guess I was mistaken.  The professor featured in the trailer is a prominent photo historian, but not the Kodachrome expert who analyzed the slides.

Another note about the dating.  Our expert noted that there is a protective lacquer on the slides that can been seen when held up to the light.  I've since found out that lacquer was discontinued in the early 1960s in the development of Kodachrome.  The slides show almost the exact same image, same angle, just slightly different color temperature and focus.  We've had David Rudiak and experts from Adobe try to decipher the placard with little luck.

I wish we could move past the "dating" discussions, but I hear some people think I found some old unused Kodachrome, staged the photos, had them developed before 2010 (the last year Kodachrome was ever developed), added the protective lacquer,  and have been sitting on the slides ever since.

Would Hilda and/or Bernerd take multiple photos of a mummy/preserved body with hydrocephalus?  Even the anthropologists who've seen the slides don't offer a definitive opinion, but you guys seem pretty certain.  I've spent nearly three years trying to find what's in the images but I've had no luck.  Please send all pictures of hydrocephalus mummies on display in the 1940s to SlideBoxMedia@gmail.com.

AD

25 Comments:

  • An anthropologists is not a forensic pathologist who is familiar with congenital defects.
    An expert not willing to go on record nullify his opinion.
    What are the other "scientists" specialties? Not all scientists are created equal.
    The evidence remains circumstantial at best and the verification of the slides date do not equate with "alien" in any direct path. Your response infers that this slide will eventually be verified as an alien.
    In what manner are you suggesting if you have one?
    Witness testimony? Whom?
    A witness is again circumstantial..open to debate.
    Exclusive rights to the slides sold? If so, to whom?
    And so this sad tale tells me.."and so it goes"

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, February 09, 2015  

  • From Vienna..

    http://static.squarespace.com/static/52d18e93e4b07aac36441129/52d1ee31e4b08ef4da67137a/52d1eec1e4b08ef4da6716eb/1389489857291/Hydrocephalus1.jpg?format=original

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, February 09, 2015  

  • I've emailed Adam for clarification of a few points as he neglected to address most of what I had written.

    By Blogger Ross, at Monday, February 09, 2015  

  • "But the story, by any measure, is fantastic and continues to get more interesting. "

    YES! except the opposite.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, February 09, 2015  

  • From what was said this barely sounds like an investigation. I'm glad the date has been verified, but like Bruce and countless other have said- just cause the photo was taken in 1947 doesn't mean "alien". The same goes for the opinion of the anthropologist. He must go on record or it means nothing. The hype over these slides the last couple years has been totally unjustified.
    I was really hoping to hear something better than this. That after several anthropologists, pathologists, biologists, and possibly a military historian or two (in terms of the shelving used for the display, the flooring, etc) that maybe they could confirm this wasn't human, or simian, and that the background, glass case, placard, and shelving were proven to be in use at such and such place or locations.
    And then maybe some more circumstantial evidence like eye witness testimony.
    I would also say again that the key to this investigation is Bernerd and Hilda Ray.

    I don't know, three years on, and it seems like only the beginning of the investigation has been done. And looking at the photos, I'm not sure they're even worth the time. Of course I have yet to see clear reproductions of them. So I don't have much to go on.

    By Blogger Daniel Hurd, at Monday, February 09, 2015  

  • https://books.google.ca/books?id=P_xj3QTHHvoC&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=hydrocephalus+mummies&source=bl&ots=BrCMwwBjBr&sig=GS6Z_m0XP78ZFkxFb9T3eF7iL_8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Q1XZVN_yFcemyATczoLABw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=hydrocephalus%20mummies&f=false

    Not the 1940's, but the 1930's.

    By Blogger Clayton Robertson, at Monday, February 09, 2015  

  • What Lance said. And if you're in contact with Dew, perhaps you could ask him the question I posted on another thread - did he get a release form from Neil DeGrasse Tyson for the use of the Tyson footage in his documentary trailer? A simple yes or no will do.

    PK

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, February 09, 2015  

  • Adam has removed a video of him being interviewed. It was the one that was shown in addition to videos of Carey and Schmitt being individually interviewed.

    So why come? Is it because Adam changed his story and needed to quickly delete the video so nobody would notice?

    Here's the old link (now removed):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6AM36M-vFU

    By Blogger DocConjure, at Monday, February 09, 2015  

  • Adam, some of the logic you use in your post is downright ridiculous; it underscores the numerous doubts expressed about the validity of your enterprise. And I'm sure the longtime UFO buffs who comment here have seen these arguments used to justify many a hoax and delusion.

    > what many Roswell witnesses say they saw in 1947

    It has never been established as fact that alien bodies were found in the Roswell area in 1947. Therefore, no witness can corroborate the alien identity of the figure depicted in your slides. Verifying an unestablished thing (alien in slides) with another unestablished thing (alien at Roswell) can establish nothing. It is an invalid procedure.

    > I'm not going to call him a liar. He's never tried to capitalise on what he says he saw.

    These are perhaps the weakest arguments to use for establishing the credibility of a witness. Many seemingly reliable and earnest people have testified to witnessing events that never happened, that they misunderstood, or for which they were not even present. And the Roswell case is loaded with proven liars who never made a dime off their claims -- they had motives few people would understand.

    > So it's the witness's word against everyone else's at this stage I suppose.

    Utter nonsense. If the witness cannot demonstrate his claim to having seen an alien at Roswell, his testimony has no evidentiary value -- he can be disregarded without answer from anyone else.

    Adam, I recommend that, in addition to photo and biology experts, you reach out to professors of rhetoric and the laws of evidence.

    You have to up your game -- or move it to Mexico. (Wait...)

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Tuesday, February 10, 2015  

  • An extension of Terry’s comment came from A NASA scientist who was bemoaning the rudderless course that the space program was in at the time as well as the paucity of funding as one hand was washing the other...going nowhere. He was asked about the possibility of evidence for extraterrestrial life His response could be compared to the mindset behind this ghoulish circus. He said he deeply wanted it to be true as ( in the context of NASA’s issues) it would open up a floodgate of funding and provide the motivation to explore deeper and further, a i underwriting of purpose. He said that he was very aware by the very nature he wanted it to be true, any proof must be rigorous, nearly infallible as he could easily mislead himself off a cliff if his own desires took precedent over tangibility. And what do we have here? A scant and diaphanous will to believe.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, February 10, 2015  

  • Torn down by Terry the Censor, Bruce and Lance. I've always knew this day would come.

    Hi Paul Kimball- the interview with NDT was done at Comic Con in NY in a public venue with his consent. He is a public figure and he has been presented fairly. My guess is he'd think it was pretty funny that you want to "tattle" on me? But feel free.

    I asked Jaime to pull down my video because I thought it was poorly shot. I re-recorded the exact same origin story of the slides on my gear and sent to him. He just hasn't posted it yet. I'll upload it if he doesn't. I 100% stand by the content of the origin story that was originally posted. I've acknowledged to all involved that there is a chain-of-custody issue with this story. I think it's highly unlikely that the any of the slides were not part of one collection.

    What I've found is it is a nearly impossible task to get someone with a scientific background to look at a photo of a body with any human-like characteristics and say it's something other than human. Much like many on this board, no photo, no matter how clear, could ever be proof of an alien. There have no frame of reference and thus, much like with NDT, their response is expected. These opinions and other dissenting arguments will absolutely be in a part the documentary.

    Ideally, the person who needs to vet the biology at work in the slides is someone who has both seen an alien and also understands all the human genetic possibilities. If you know that person, please send them my way.

    There are many elements of the image, especially the head, for which I can't find a match. In fact no one has shown me anything that matches what it is in the slides. I will continue to show the slides to more pediatricians/forensic pathologists/etc. And after May 5, every forensic pathologist on Earth can take a stab at it.







    By Blogger SlideBox Media, at Tuesday, February 10, 2015  

  • To divert slightly, I have often asked myself the question:

    If a real ET were discovered on earth, i.e. a 'being' or 'beings' plus the remains of their spacecraft, how long would it take for the scientific community and the leaders of the country in which it was discovered, to satisfy themselves that it was indeed a genuine ET visit (as opposed to a fake or an unknown terrestrial 'being'), and how long before they announced it to the world?

    You have to consider the great prestige attached to being 'first with the news' in a case like this.

    I cannot believe, once the scientific community was satisfied with its alien origin, that the revelation would be long delayed.

    But, of course, opinions will differ.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, February 10, 2015  

  • Adam,

    I don't know where you went to film school, but you can't just point a camera at someone, film them, and then stick that footage in a commercial documentary (or a trailer for such a film) without their clear consent. Your answer confirms to me that you don't know what you're talking about. Good luck getting errors and omissions insurance, and without that good luck in ever getting it broadcast anywhere. People like you give professional filmmakers a bad name.

    Paul

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Tuesday, February 10, 2015  

  • "the person who needs to vet the biology at work in the slides is someone who has both seen an alien ...and also understands all the human genetic possibilities'

    You are kidding, right?

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, February 10, 2015  

  • After re-reading those comments, another quirk came to light and pardon the pragmatic view of the presentation that is "And after May 5, every forensic pathologist on Earth can take a stab at it.'
    Isn't that a backwards methodology?
    Does this equate to once all the tickets have been paid for?
    Gosh..sure sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, February 10, 2015  

  • "But the story, by any measure, is fantastic and continues to get more interesting."

    Hey Adam, What's the difference between now, Cinco de Mayo, and after?

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Tuesday, February 10, 2015  

  • "Ideally, the person who needs to vet the biology at work in the slides is someone who has both seen an alien and also understands all the human genetic possibilities. If you know that person, please send them my way."

    "And after May 5, every forensic pathologist on Earth can take a stab at it."

    Translation: yeah, it's most likely the corpse of a child who lived a brief and painful existence that I'm trying to make money off here, but the people qualified to clarify that are free to do so once I've cashed the checks.

    By Blogger Tristan Eldritch, at Tuesday, February 10, 2015  

  • Greetings,

    Approaching the solution? Gimme the slide in full reso... ;)

    http://i38.servimg.com/u/f38/19/01/83/59/roswel11.jpg

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Tuesday, February 10, 2015  

  • @Adam
    > Torn down by Terry the Censor, Bruce and Lance. I've always knew this day would come.

    So, to you, we are just types who tear things down? That is the defence of your faulty thinking about standards of evidence?

    Again, we have seen this before, used to insulate hoaxes and delusions from genuine criticism.

    Adam, a pattern is established: you consistently show yourself to not understand or just not care about facts.

    You have no credibility whatsoever.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Tuesday, February 10, 2015  

  • Gilles, can you link the post that goes with the image? (I couldn't find it.) It would be good to find out where that body is displayed.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Tuesday, February 10, 2015  

  • Here ya' go, Terry!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=febxlcbF0Q0

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Tuesday, February 10, 2015  

  • "Hi Paul Kimball- the interview with NDT was done at Comic Con in NY in a public venue with his consent. He is a public figure and he has been presented fairly. My guess is he'd think it was pretty funny that you want to "tattle" on me? But feel free.

    I asked Jaime to pull down my video because I thought it was poorly shot. I re-recorded the exact same origin story of the slides on my gear and sent to him. He just hasn't posted it yet. I'll upload it if he doesn't. I 100% stand by the content of the origin story that was originally posted. I've acknowledged to all involved that there is a chain-of-custody issue with this story. I think it's highly unlikely that the any of the slides were not part of one collection. "

    OK, Adam.

    Now that you apparently have the time again, if you could spend it it RESHOOTING yourself, then maybe you can now simply scan your NU '98 BSJ diploma as you promised on Randle's blog; it seems it is now time to be honest with us, n'est-ce pas?

    By Blogger Loki, at Tuesday, February 10, 2015  

  • Hi Loki. I'll dig that diploma up for you real soon. But here's a letter to the editor that I planted 7 years ago in the Daily Northwestern in anticipation of this very day. Our basketball coach was the worst! You want to take shots at this project, I can understand. But my degree, that's personal Loki.

    http://dailynorthwestern.com/2008/04/01/archive-manual/letters-to-the-editor-forum/

    By Blogger SlideBox Media, at Wednesday, February 11, 2015  

  • More career advice. Thanks Paul Kimball I know when a release is needed. If I'm fortunate enough to get to the stage where I need E&O insurance, and I'm rejected because of what NDT says, then I'll pull him. For now, I have his verbal agreement on camera to be interviewed about the slides. I got him just by chance while on another job. I'll have to go back and look at my credential from Comic Con. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a blanket release connected with attending the event.

    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/releases/when/

    By Blogger SlideBox Media, at Wednesday, February 11, 2015  

  • Hi SlideBox Media Adam Dew, I don't know where to post this, so please excuse any misplacement here if it belongs elsewhere. Recently, Greg Bishop at Radio Misterioso had Nick Redfern on to explain what he knew about the slides two years ago. In that program he mentions BEFORE anything went public that a Mystery Man, obviously elderly, called Nick from Midland Tx. This mystery man described unique details about the images, so Nick contacted and confirmed with the Dream Team members too that these images were being described correctly! They said that man was legit, and they sort of freaked-out that Redfern was contacted about the worth of these ET Alien slides.

    Mr. Dew: you stand by your video about the discovery of the slides. They came from your friend's sister [named Cat] that saved these slides in her garage for 10 years. Sooo, how come an old man from Midland Tx is contacting Nick two years ago about these EXACT images and the value and worth if truly of ET origin? That's a confirmed "mystery man" both from Redfern and some Dream Team members Nick ALSO confirmed from them that this guy is legit! The image description was correct too.

    Can you explain what this is all about? This Midland "mystery man" of elderly age somehow does NOT seem to mix with your story of the slide discovery. Are you his "front man" ? Or, do you own the rights to the slides now having obtained these from that same elderly man?

    Thanks, sincerely!

    By Blogger eBikesRC, at Thursday, February 12, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home