UFO Conjectures

Monday, May 04, 2015

Two of the Roswell/alien slides experts (from Jose Caravaca)

 The names of two experts who participated in the study of the Roswell slides ...
Luis Antonio de Alba, anatomist and physiologist at the UNAM (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México) and Canadian physical anthropologist Richard Doble: "It's nothing like us, we can see that his feet, his legs appear to be a reptile could have evolved from something like a gecko, not theirs because geckos are of the earth, but some similar animal became larger and developing a large brain, turned binocular vision, he decreased his nose, his mouth turns out to be different from ours, but there are parts that could have been removed at autopsy seem to have no teeth but an inner structure guess some kind of bone, would have that eat, we have no proof of something like that ... ".



  • Hello,

    I heard a "French Skeptic" is already on a draft for his blog or somewhere else, covering the event...





    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, May 04, 2015  

  • Gilles-

    No professional would ever comment on this if they were not given access to both of the unfiltered, original slides.

    That is, your 'expert' and the scientist quoted in Tim Printy's latest e-magazine SunLite are not acting professionally at all!

    To render an assessment of the slides without having full access to them is something that no real scientist would ever do and you know that.

    I am getting in touch with the 'scientist' that Printy quotes to excoriate him and to find out how he dared to render an opinion when 'blind.'

    Our scientists, on the other hand, have had hours to review and assess the slides- and what they say in incontrovertible. It is not human. Period.

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Monday, May 04, 2015  

  • Tony, you are referring the friend of Carey ... old classmate ..

    By Blogger jacarav@ca, at Monday, May 04, 2015  

  • Tony,

    Hours to assess? I would have thought "days" to be more appropriate for a through assessment.

    Again, as I've stated elsewhere, I've taken advanced courses throughout the years in anatomy and physiology and can not distinguish whether the images are biological or those of a manufactured prop.

    And, Tony, no need to denigrate my educational background and area of expertise...it's real and practiced on a daily basis.

    And I might add that I find it rather hypocritical on your part to rant against others for contacting your supposed witnesses and experts only to harass whoever Printy has contacted to render an unbiased opinion.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Monday, May 04, 2015  

  • Video of one of the experts, Dr. Luis Antonio de Alba, of the Omnilaser clinic.

    By Blogger Curt Collins, at Monday, May 04, 2015  

  • Mr. Bragalia fails to note that Dr. Hunt is a notable expert (BTW it was several members of the team that contacted him and not I) in his field and he offered an opinion based on the image that was provided. I am "shocked" that his group did not bother to contact Dr. Hunt, who might be able to offer a respectable opinion on it. Instead, we appear to be treated to "experts" that seem to be "cherry picked" because they have associations with members of the team. Will wonders never cease.

    By Blogger Tim Printy, at Monday, May 04, 2015  

  • Tim Hebert-

    I have no idea what you are talking about. I was not referring to you.

    Tim Printy-

    Sorry, you are wrong. Not one forensic pathologist that we contacted would render a professional opinion without actually seeing the actual slides. That is the way science is done. It is basic.

    We'll see what he says to me...colleagues in his field would laugh at him for having told you what he did without having all the available information. Sorry.

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Monday, May 04, 2015  

  • Tony,

    Out psychodrama and between gentlemen,

    1) I'm expecting "neutral" and "agnostic" experts to made comments of such a magnitude, not people "immersed" in the UFO Culture or classmate of the Roswell Mythtellers possibly projecting their own belief and expectation.

    2) "I" "know" several names and backgrounds of "your" scientists". Sorry if it is not again who "I"m expecting here and for a pseudo-discovery of such a magnitude. That's bad to think like "I" do. I dont think so.

    3) On a side note, many of our work and remarks, as you have readed, doesn't need the slides, they examine/ed some the claims you or other made. So your remark is silly imho.

    4) As "I"m commenting the claims of people having seen the slides for the prologue of my last article. There is no need for me to see the slide, to remark that the claims they made are non-scientific.

    More to come. But waiting the day of tomorrow which will need a paradigm switch -sic-...

    Well, that's ufology after all...


    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, May 04, 2015  

  • Folks:

    Be patient - with 24 hours the world will have changed completely. At last we shall know that:


    By Blogger cda, at Monday, May 04, 2015  

  • I almost forgot, Tim Printy. Your colleague in all of this, Paul Kimball, promised a reveal of both of the slides today, May 4th, in advance of the May 5th reveal.

    He told a lie that he had them, and you indicate in your article that you concur it was a great way to 'psyche us out' even though it wasn't true.

    In some depraved concurrence with Kimball, you derived pleasure trying to make us wonder if we perhaps had been hacked again or that there was an unintentional leak of the unfiltered images.

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Monday, May 04, 2015  

  • As always, Mr. Bragalia's comments are far from accurate. He is implying motive when I was simply making observations of what Kimball had done. This is what was stated in the newsletter:
    "Paul Kimball did not share them with anyone and suggested they were being held in safe keeping. I admit that I was curious and inquired if he did have the slides. His response was cryptic and I concluded that this was an effort on his part to get
    more information about the slides by provoking the promoters of the slides into commenting about his claim. If that was the case, then Bragalia and Dew bit on the hook as they responded and presented information that was not previously known. "
    You can read between the lines if you want but I did not say that I agreed with this course of action or that it was a great idea. However, I did find your rabid responses and threats rather amusing.

    By Blogger Tim Printy, at Monday, May 04, 2015  

  • Again, Dr. Hunt made his assessment based on the image that was being used by our group. The original e-mail sent by some in our group had to do with question about the child mummy (Wistar 2397), which was his area of expertise. I guess Isaac Koi, or somebody else, chose to also send him the image that was available to see if it looked like 2397. Since I was not fully aware of the exchange, they also probably sent some of Bragalia's arguments against it being a mummy. Dr. Hunt found those arguments to be weak.

    By Blogger Tim Printy, at Monday, May 04, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home