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

The Dark Web (where real UFO information resides)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-search-engine-exposes-the-dark-web/