posted by RRRGroup at
Friday, April 10, 2015
If the copies are of as good a quality as the originals why does it matter? If the originals are 68 years old then their quality is likely to be poor anyway.What does matter is if the promoters tell the public the slides are indeed the originals and they later turn out to be copies. That would be deception. Personally I don't care one iota, as I am as certain as the sun will rise tomorrow that the slides will be totally worthless as evidence of ET visits to earth.
By cda, at Friday, April 10, 2015
Why doesn't this surprise me? Let me count the ways.What a farce.
By Bruce Duensing, at Friday, April 10, 2015
I'm sure the handful of people who attend the event in Mexico will be devastated.
By Ross, at Friday, April 10, 2015
Why would he need to bring the original slides? Not sure how this is in any way a "set back."And your geography is off relative to the owner...AJB
By Anthony Bragalia, at Friday, April 10, 2015
No originals of the evidence?"Be Witness" to what then?
By Curt Collins, at Friday, April 10, 2015
It's not going to be clear if the copies haven't been tweaked or modified in any way. If I was about to show the world that I had proof of aliens, apart from waiting months to divulge the information and bringing on board questionable members, I sure as hell would bring the hard evidence with me. Then again, in the face of the controversy, suspicion and conspiracy surrounding ufology, would I want to bring all my original data to one public place?!
By Stephen Jackson, at Friday, April 10, 2015
RR-Thank you for sharing this latest back-pedalling tidbit from Adam Dew, but in much more important news, the Nova Scotia Film Board has just decided going forward to cut its funding by a factor of 4 for filmmaking projects in the Province, which will really hurt the fine work of true creators like Paul Kimball. Sadly, media-whores resembling Dew, Schmitt and Carey will be unaffected.
By Loki, at Saturday, April 11, 2015
Anthony bragalia, certified wingnut lol why bring it??? omg you're a moron.
By Derek Fraser, at Saturday, April 11, 2015
Derek-Name-calling is what people do when they have nothing of real value to offer. Say unkind things about me- it only reflects on you. I am sincere in my research and writing and stand behind everything 100%. People who know me know this is the truth.CDA is right. The digital copies are exact, precise duplicates of the originals, and I am certain that at the presentation they will include extreme enlargements of the slides, enlargements of the placard, enlargements of certain elements of each of the slides- as well as 3D professional renderings of the being based on images.
By Anthony Bragalia, at Saturday, April 11, 2015
Derek, and others. What purpose would it serve to have the actual slides present for the media presentation? Seeing that it's a mass audience presentation it's not like they will be passing them around for audience members to look at up close and personal. However, I do feel as though the owner if the slides should make them available for further study. I would like to see some independent studies being done. It could help corroborate or disprove the current findings. PS- I think most of the posters here on this blog are above personal attacks, Derek.
By Daniel Hurd, at Saturday, April 11, 2015
I would speculate that perhaps the slides' owner is worried about the slides getting lost, stolen, or confiscated in the process of international travel.
By Larry, at Saturday, April 11, 2015
This development only adds credence that those showing up for the big "expose" will not be shown the goods as promised.Copies can be manipulated and distorted to promote the POV for the pro-Roswell crowd.Independent analysis in the future? I seriously doubt it at this point in time. The value of the slides appear much greater based on the uncertainty factor.Yet, as Bragalia, et al, emphasize, this will change our world view. Better yet, it only re-enforces my view that the "great reveal" will end in total confusion...cognizant impotence.
By Tim Hebert, at Saturday, April 11, 2015
I would say the whole process reeks of sensationalism and the marketplace. Consequently, the cart has been placed before the horse.Full published documentation should have been made available regarding any analysis of the material.The credentials, names and institutions involved in any analysis should have been fully disclosed.A full chronological chain of custody should have also be made available not to be changed at a later date with dates, individuals, locations involved being fully disclosed beforehand prior to any presentation.The legal ownership of the slides should have been documented and published.All of this could have been published for peer review through an organisation such as The Society For Scientific Exploration among other organisations beforehand.No mention of Roswell would have been made or inferred.All of this falls under the umbrella of due diligence.The current "process"is not a process and is, in my opinion, a slapdash run for the money.That anyone would even for a moment think otherwise, they might as well consider a Superman comic book to be taught in a University as a history lesson.Its a farce.
By Bruce Duensing, at Saturday, April 11, 2015
Bruce:I agree 100% with you. The only thing I will add is that it will not make fools of the presenters. This is because they are already fools for promoting this stuff in the first place.You cannot, for instance, bring something (e.g. ufology) into disrepute, since ufology is already a disreputable subject.
By cda, at Saturday, April 11, 2015
CDA-If Ufology is so disreputable, why have you then spent nearly your entire adult life writing about the subject?Bruce-"Full published documentation" will be made available. You seem to imply that this all should be made available now. What you do not know is that up until this very day the research on the slides continues. New information has become available in just the last several weeks that helps to explain a lot when it comes to issues of provenance and access. The documentation not only needs to be full and accurate, it needs to be timely. And I suspect that even in the next couple of weeks there will be even additional insight gained through our research.You also call for a "full chronological chain-of-custody." I believe we have conducted an outstanding investigation and accounting of ownership, provenance, who the Rays were, etc.It is interesting that you characterize our research as a farce, even before the presentation of that research has not been made.Bruce, you base all of what you know about the slides on a single video screen grab of one of the two slides and information gleaned from the internet, much of which is either rumor, rank speculation or simply wrong.
As AJB wrote: "Full published documentation" will be made available. You seem to imply that this all should be made available now. What you do not know is that up until this very day the research on the slides continues. New information has become available in just the last several weeks that helps to explain a lot when it comes to issues of provenance and access. The documentation not only needs to be full and accurate, it needs to be timely. And I suspect that even in the next couple of weeks there will be even additional insight gained through our research.RR et al-I submit for all your consideration that AJB has decently and honestly tried, to the best of his ability, present his understanding of this whole "Roswell slides" thing.What must be examined therefore, is the lack of public commentary/open exchange by The Flim Flam men(?) of Roswell, Carey and Schmitt. These sad, semi-literate UFO goofballs have over the years wasted too much of our time with their behind-the-scenes creation of this type of "evidence", abetted by Randle, who knows that they are at best incompetent, yet his trusting self-delusive faith in Carey/Schmitt demonstrates the systemic flaw in the USA National Security system, since the ever-gullible Randle claims to have been an Air Force Reserve Intelligence Officer!!!
By Loki, at Sunday, April 12, 2015
I am a bit baffled by Loki's assertion about Kevin Randle. What has Randle's position as an AF Reserve Intelligence Officer got to do with either the 'Roswell slides' or Messrs Carey and Schmitt?Kevin has expressed in fairly strong terms his views on these slides. See his blog.
By cda, at Sunday, April 12, 2015
TonyLoose lips sink ships and in this instance the dribbling out of undocumented information presented as facts when they are unsubstantiated has created an understandable skepticism based on the fact all of this is wrapped around the marketplace via a theatrical "show."Instead of selling tickets in the midst of a situation and scenario that is as clear as mud, I would have preferred a lid be kept on it, research be done, published, reviewed and then let the chips fall where they may, with no mention of Roswell.Its patently obvious that you and others have tainted the subject prior to having your ducks in a row.To say this is a sloppy rush to cash in on inferences is an understatement and the loss of credibility is not easily recouped in terms of the professionalism and management of your group.Whether the slides prove anything is beside the point in terms of management of the process in of itself. Surely you can see this by reading the reactions to this sloppy reveal.The Genie cannot be put back into the bottle at this point regardless of any defensive rhetoric to the contrary. All of this appears to be a shoddy form of greed that cares little for credibility over cashing in on sensationalism.Whether you agree with this or not is beside the point.
By Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, April 12, 2015
AJB wrote:> Name-calling is what people do when they have nothing of real value to offer.And people like Braglia offer background checks and threats to call local police.> I am sincere in my research and writing and stand behind everything 100%.True. Even when his research is disproven, he still maintains it is 100% correct. That's ufological integrity, all over.
By Terry the Censor, at Tuesday, April 21, 2015
AJB wrote:> If Ufology is so disreputable, etc.Tony, when it comes to Roswell, ufology is totally disreputable.Don Schmitt has been caught lying about his credentials, lying to his research partners (he told Randle the nun's diary had been checked out when Don knew it hadn't), believing witnesses who lied...and seems completely unapologetic about it.Kevin Randle also printed a load of lies from Roswell witnesses, but he at least felt shame and has spent years trying to remedy that on his blog.And here's my point:So who do we find speaking at numerous UFO conferences, including that of MUFON? Schmitt, not Randle.Don Schmitt knows Roswell is not a scientific endeavor, it is a consumer product, specifically, spooky entertainment. And Don gives the people what they want -- fabricated bullshit -- and they reward him for it.
AJB wrote:> It is interesting that you [Bruce] characterize our research as a farce, even before the presentation of that researchTony, we know it is a farce of proper research because it involves untrustworthy people such as Don Schmitt and Jaime Maussan.Give up this pretense of integrity. Give up especially your absurd scolding -- you haven't earned such a role.
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile