The Roswell Slides Have Been Leaked Online

[JeanLucPicard]

....and the nightmare never ends

 

[Burnt State]

OK, I've read the thread from May 3 till now now. I have a few thoughts.

The Mummy

1) It was customary at different times and places all over the world to break bones to make bone collections fit burial jars, etc. There is nothing anomolous about the mummy's head being broken. Peruvian mummies are often broken up into sections, Turfan mummies have massive discoloration, etc.

2) Mesa Verde NP would have been one of the first in line to carry out the executive order to repatriate the remains of Native Americans to local surviving tribes. This would be the Utes there at one of the two Ute reservations around Mesa Verde NP.

3) Really old mummies can twist and even shrink over time as almost a geological layer. The Anasazi cliff dwellers in SW Colorado probably weren't there that early. The child was likely newborn, not 2 years old, my guess here. I think the "other" mummy Stanton F., Nick R. and Linda M. H. have found in White's City is also a newborn, with uncongealed skull, either smashed at birth or left to boil in the sun, or has a birth defect.

Why Maussan is a Scam Artist and a Conman

1) He lied about "Kodak experts" dating the slide to 1947. Never happened. Kodak is bankrupt. The "experts" he used were contacted independently and said they couldn't date that precisely from the paper or film-stock codes on the margins. The slides also appear--to me and perhaps others old enough to remember the slide-show as a form of community entertainment--cropped. There is something wrong about the dimensions, not to mention the poor resolution.

2) He seemingly claimed on Dreamland (unknowncountry.com free downlad, current show) some Roswell eye-witness had ID-ed the figure in the slide as very like the Roswell alien bodies he had seen. The eye witness is now dead, Maussan said. This sounds like bullshit to me. Why didn't he showcase this eyewitness testimony earlier? Who is it? He seems to say Eliazer somebody, but I can't make it out through his Mexican accent, and I'm not versed in Roswelliana at all.

3) He can see as well as anyone else it is a mummy in a glass case at some American SW roadside attraction.

Why Richard Dolan is No Longer the Voice of "Disclosure"

This is almost complex, but bear with me. Rich wants the "truth embargo" to end. OK. I put myself in the place of some agent who knows the truth, or some of the truth, or what the Govt allegedly knows and is hiding. I am watching Dolan. I see him fall for a slide of a roadside attraction mummy from the American SW as an ET. I say to myself, "Rich, you can't HANDLE the disclosure." And he can't. He and his followers wouldn't be able to distinguish set from noise. He just proved it. "But the specialists..." It's a roadside attraction, Rich. "But you don't speak Spanish well enough..." It's a mummy in a glass case, Rich. "But so-and-so says it's a reptilian lemur bigfoot Denisovan Homo florensis cross..." We found the museum, Rich, it still has the same sort of glass cases, flag-stone floor tiles and lighting through narrow apertures of windows and doors channeling bright sunlight into the room. "But Mrs. Ray knew Mrs. Eisenhower..." No, Ike married her in summer of 1947 and wasn't president until 1953, and you only think so because Dew said so. No alien, no body, no connection with 1947 or Roswell or Eisenhower, only True Belief.

Richard Dolan is too stupid to be a spokesman for disclosure. He's lost his mind. He and Whitley and Linda might as well revisit Steve Greer's alien Native American baby mummy and claim it was all real all along.

I don't see any big disinformation campaign here, just hucksters and hoaxers trying to cash in the way Kiviat once did.

I agree with all these good critical points as well except for the part about the newborn baby mummy bit - does not seem to fit the length of the body up against other points of reference in the image.

Re: Dolan and disclosure and why This is Not a Continuing Nightmare contrary to what the next generation captain said

storge has some interesting elements of humour and strong insight in his closing points, but I wonder if in fact Richard has set himself up to be the next Howe, where he will allow himself to be spun by a Doty type character to follow whatever is worth following in his mind. He seems to be a fulcrum or flashpoint in all of this. His opening foray into the field was heralded by many, and many others, including some on this thread, have pointed out that there is an appearance of academic research in the security state volumes but it's not as accurate as appearances provide. His presentation of the deathbed witness confession was also a little shady and the issue seems to be whether or not he's a real researcher or merely a self-promoter who can write very readable books but is more concerned with building the $empire$. He does seem to have crossed that line, the one that Whitley and Linda crossed when they decided self-promotion was more important than what was being investigated. Greer just started from that side of the line to begin with. Now, the question is where does Dolan go from here?

He's taken a Pontius Pilate approach here by washing his hands of it all saying I don't want to talk about it as it's all in the past. But in a field where there are no rules except the rules of who buys your ideas and your books, we can talk about fundamentalist UFO believers and those who remain critical (i.e. the mummyists) and open to new ideas and specific evidence. This forum and others like it may get criticized for being all armchair in its origins but that should not take away from the level of critical thinking involved in its estimation of true worth - take George's ideas about Lundberg for example. Here, people do not have any specific allegiances, outside of those who may believe for fundamental reasons, and in this context so many very critical voices do provide a kind of system of checks and balances that can give even the casual observer a very good bead on what's going on in the field.

Koi's done a yeoman's work in establishing a critical reference database available to all, pointing out facts, wherein you can measure things for yourself. At the end of the day in Ufology it will be just like art in terms of what matters over time: it will come down to what do the critics say is good and what remains relevant to the people as seen in whose voices are still read and still being used as touchstones for the next generation of critical researchers that in turn the new critics choose to uphold. These are very select voices, even imperfect at times, but still there is a core collection that is quite evident - those who pursue evidence in increasingly challenging ways and do not remain stagnant or fundamentalist in their thinking.

In this way the critical points of contention expressed on this thread are far from a waste of time, and certainly no bad dream. They are actually a clearing house of evaluation out of whose ashes better voices will rise and persist thanks to those who point out what false evidence looks like and what good evolving ideas and facts hold true.

 

[Constance]

I wonder if in fact Richard has set himself up to be the next Howe, where he will allow himself to be spun by a Doty type character to follow whatever is worth following in his mind. He seems to be a fulcrum or flashpoint in all of this.

Yeah, what's that about? It seems to me that a huge reaction-formation to Dolan has taken place since May 5th. It can't, rationally, be because he stated his interest in going to Mexico City to find out more than had been released earlier about the Roswell slides. It also can't be a rational response to his having said that night and in the day or two following that he thought additional research should be done to establish the nature of the body appearing in the slides. The reaction-formation to Dolan and other serious and accomplished researchers seems to me to have been brewing for awhile in the expressed wish in the ufo blogosphere and by some posters here that prior ufo research, from the late 1940s up to our own time, should be buried and forgotten and replaced by what a younger generation of ufo buffs might have to offer, or at least want to speculate about. From an academic point of view (where past work and earlier interpretations are critiqued and improved upon rather than discarded), this whole 'sea change' in attitude is an intellectual scandal. It's an example of how 'young turks' in any field fall on their faces by failing to recognize their debts to the thinkers and researchers that have prepared the field for them.

His opening foray into the field was heralded by many, and many others, including some on this thread, have pointed out that there is an appearance of academic research in the security state volumes but it's not as accurate as appearances provide.

I've seen examples of one-sentence claims that Dolan's research was not 'academic'. To support such a claim it would be necessary for a critic of Dolan's work to present a very lengthy and detailed critique of a substantial portion of the two volumes of UFOs and the National Security State already in print. Lacking that, claims such as you've made on the basis of similar claims others have made melt into insignificance. Dolan was ABD (all but dissertation) in his graduate studies in History, writing a dissertation on the history of the national security state in the US, when his attention was drawn to the involvement of ufos in so much of the construction and formation of this national security state we are now subject to. Had Columbia, or whatever institution he was working in, been willing to accept a revised diss topic focusing on the influence of ufo history on the development of the NSS, he would likely have written the same first book as his dissertation. Either he received no encouragement to pursue that topic for the diss or he decided to leave academia to pursue his new topic without distractions. In either case, the work he produced is exemplary historical scholarship, and those who want to claim it is not have a considerable burden of proof before them. Without providing that proof, all they have to offer are unlettered opinions.

His presentation of the deathbed witness confession was also a little shady and the issue seems to be whether or not he's a real researcher or merely a self-promoter who can write very readable books but is more concerned with building the $empire$. He does seem to have crossed that line, the one that Whitley and Linda crossed when they decided self-promotion was more important than what was being investigated. Greer just started from that side of the line to begin with. Now, the question is where does Dolan go from here?

Should dying witnesses be ignored rather than interviewed then? What if such a witness has additional information to share, which can't be known without interviewing the witness? Like it or not, much of what we can understand of the early years of the modern ufo phenomenon must rely on the coherent statements of people who were at the scene of various events. It is indefensible from a research perspective to reject all such statements wholesale without searching out the common denominators in what they report (meanwhile ferreting out all available indications that a given witness was not in fact there at the scene he describes, as Kevin Randle and his colleagues have done). To attack Dolan because he interviewed a potential witness before his oral testimony was lost forever is just silly.

The rest of your post, Burnt, is more of the same credo you preach repeatedly in the forums. The only approaches to ufo research you support are unambiguous physical evidence at one end of the spectrum and free-wheeling paranormal speculations about 'other-dimensionals' and their imagined motivations at the other, the latter lacking any concrete evidential support whatever. Imagination is an essential human capacity, but so is reason. Traditional ufo research has always balanced the two in evaluating what can be said with some confidence concerning the complement of ufo investigations and history to date. Your animus toward that historical enquiry puzzles me.

 

[George Wingfield]

I'll try asking one last time before giving up : What is the EVIDENCE underlying your assurance?

Isaac,

Sorry not to get back to you sooner. I thought we'd been over all that before on this forum but if you missed it try reading what I wrote twenty years ago at:
UFO magazines, UFOS -Flying Saucer Review

I was at Ray Santilli's presentation of the Alien Autopsy footage to the world media and a motley crew of ufologists at the Museum of London on May 5, 1995, and I spent several weeks after that investigating Ray's claims nearly every one of which turned out to be false. In the front row at the presentation was UFO researcher Philip Mantle who appeared genuinely enthusiastic and convinced that we were being shown footage of a genuine "Roswell Alien" body. After the presentation there was a huge hubbub as nearly everyone in the audience rushed up and besieged Santilli asking for further details, interviews, copies of the film, etc. Also in the audience near the front were John Lundberg, Rob Irving and Rod Dickinson whom I knew well as prolific British circlemakers.

They showed no interest at all in Ray Santilli or his alien autopsy footage like everyone else but immediately went to interview Philip and find his reactions to the film we had all just seen. I sat quite close by as they plied him with questions about his research on Roswell and what he thought about the alien. I think they even tape recorded much of what he said. After Philip these three went to interview Colin Andrews who had also showed great interest in the Alien Autopsy and had obviously been very impressed. I couldn't help noticing Rob Irving's wicked smile to some of Colin's responses. At this stage I was unsure of what part these three had played in all this but there seemed no doubt that they were insiders.

I didn't know what to make of the Alien Autopsy at that point but I subsequently interviewed Santilli and --as I've said before-- everything he told me turned out when I managed to check it out to be a lie. He denied any "relationship" (his word) with Irving, Lundberg and Dickinson and that too turned out to be a lie. My further inquiries showed that not only had these three been involved in the Alien Autopsy hoax but that they played a central role in it. Lundberg and Dickinson were skilled special effects dummy and model makers and worked in this capacity for the Channel 4 TV series Crapston Villas (which some see as the UK's equivalent of South Park).

Over the following weeks as Santilli's claims were gradually demolished and his background story about the unnamed cameraman who supposedly took the Alien Autopsy film in 1947 was changed again and again, Philip Mantle began to realize that the whole business was a scam but he continued to listen to Irving, Lundberg and Dickinson who seemed to have inside information about Santilli and the whole scam. Philip wrote a book about the Alien Autopsy in which there is no mention that these three played a central role and since that time, whether he believes it or not, he seems to have become an unofficial spokesperson for Lundberg & Co. when denials have to be issued.

George

 

[IsaacKoi]

Isaac,
Sorry not to get back to you sooner. I thought we'd been over all that before on this forum but if you missed it try reading what I wrote twenty years ago at:
UFO magazines, UFOS -Flying Saucer Review

Thank you for taking the time reply to my question about the evidence supporting your allegations that Lundberg was involved in both the Santilli footage and the Roswell Slides.

In relation to your reliance on your item from 20 years ago ("GW Bulletin 13"), I think the most important part is the acceptance in your conclusion that the matters set out in that item did not prove anything. You stated in your item that"Of course this doesn't PROVE that Lundberg & Co. created Alien HILDA".

However, your email in response to my request again asserts that "My further inquiries showed that not only had these three been involved in the Alien Autopsy hoax but that they played a central role in it". Unless you obtained further evidence since your item 20 years ago, it appears that your view has simply changed from when you wrote about the information you set out in GW Bulletin 13 "Of course this doesn't PROVE that Lundberg & Co. created Alien HILDA".

By the way, I can add to the circumstantial material and allegations that you have mentioned. In particular, as you doubtless know (but others reading this forum may not) skeptic James Easton also had suspicions about Lundberg's involvement in the Santilli footage. He posted some relevant information on the UFO Updates email discussion List and on his UFORL email discussion List. (John Lundberg was actually a member of the latter discussion List). For example, in an email dated 29 May 2001, James Easton wrote : "At the time our 'alien autopsy' footage appeared, Ray's business partner was Joshua (Joe) Toledano. His son, James, is known to have been interested in 'UFOs' - confirmed on his web site - and was apparently a close friend of John Lundberg, indeed they worked for the same company...".

For that matter, the weak circumstantial allegations could be extended via the links between Lundberg and the CIA (particularly to Ron Pandolfi of the CIA, who played a role in relation to both Lundberg's "Mirage Men" documentary and also Lundberg's documentary "The Mythologist" about Henry Azadehdel aka Armen Victorian) to a suggestion that the CIA was behind the Santilli footage.

But then we return back to my basic point that speculation is fun but we are less likely to make mistakes if we focus on the evidence.

Edited to add : By the way George, I also have your similar article "Should Alien DORA really be Alien HILDA?" from the UFO Times No. 40 1996 at pages 9-11

 

[Burnt State]

Yeah, what's that about? It seems to me that a huge reaction-formation to Dolan has taken place since May 5th. It can't, rationally, be because he stated his interest in going to Mexico City to find out more than had been released earlier about the Roswell slides. It also can't be a rational response to his having said that night and in the day or two following that he thought additional research should be done to establish the nature of the body appearing in the slides. The reaction-formation to Dolan and other serious and accomplished researchers seems to me to have been brewing for awhile in the expressed wish in the ufo blogosphere and by some posters here that prior ufo research, from the late 1940s up to our own time, should be buried and forgotten and replaced by what a younger generation of ufo buffs might have to offer, or at least want to speculate about. From an academic point of view (where past work and earlier interpretations are critiqued and improved upon rather than discarded), this whole 'sea change' in attitude is an intellectual scandal. It's an example of how 'young turks' in any field fall on their faces by failing to recognize their debts to the thinkers and researchers that have prepared the field for them.

As stated above, the value of good theorists and researches in any field will get borne out over time. There are always academic movements to squash or devalue certain modes of thought in all fields, and the same will hold true for ufology. That which is strong will persist and survive and that which is dross will fall by the wayside as it should. Any perceived attacks on individuals as a result of the Slides event are about holding people to higher standards. Yes, some of it may be over the top, but collectively these criticisms are in keeping with a general demand from the populous for better standards of investigation and less promotion of false gods. If Dolan's work is in fact academically excellent and insightful then it will stand the test of time based on its own true merits. Currently he appears to be colouring his previous investigations and claims to provide insight into ufology for modern minds with material and content that is obviously less than reputable and far from academic. Those are his choices - people respond.

The rest of your post, Burnt, is more of the same credo you preach repeatedly in the forums. The only approaches to ufo research you support are unambiguous physical evidence at one end of the spectrum and free-wheeling paranormal speculations about 'other-dimensionals' and their imagined motivations at the other, the latter lacking any concrete evidential support whatever. Imagination is an essential human capacity, but so is reason. Traditional ufo research has always balanced the two in evaluating what can be said with some confidence concerning the complement of ufo investigations and history to date. Your animus toward that historical enquiry puzzles me.

I don't see myself as "preachy" so much as observational, but all criticism is welcomed. I see nothing wrong with basing research on unambiguous facts vs. the ambiguous ones. Those ambiguous bits might be better examined in silos of academic thought or think tanks that could then distill over time something more concrete out of that data - but those are speculative areas often. What you describe as "free-wheeling paranormal speculations about 'other dimensionals'" I would describe as a gross oversimplification of the Interdimensional Hypothesis which currently leads to ideas about the Informational Hypothesis.

Both these strains of thought are actually more complex than the ETH, are in fact evolutions of theorizing about the field, which is not only in keeping with how any field evolves, by building on previous concepts and ideas but is also availing itself to new discoveries in science and other disciplines. Ideas about a psycho-social hypothesis are in keeping with a sociological and psychological understanding of the role of UFO's in our culture and their intersection with our minds. Can we rely on the past to bring us these new appreciations? What you describe as speculative, Vallee and other contemporaries would describe as better thinking given the totality of evidence as we understand it circa 2015. No one is saying, "throw the baby out with the bath water," so much as advocating that we, "get with the times."

So if anything I am advocating the field moves forward based on the findings of the past and what we are able to think now about the evidence.

 

[Constance]

For that matter, the weak circumstantial allegations could be extended via the links between Lundberg and the CIA (particularly to Ron Pandolfi of the CIA, who played a role in relation to both Lundberg's "Mirage Men" documentary and also Lundberg's documentary "The Mythologist" about Henry Azadehdel aka Armen Victorian) to a suggestion that the CIA was behind the Santilli footage.

Very interesting. You write that "the weak circumstantial allegations could be extended via the links between Lundberg and the CIA," and you go on to identify several of these links to video productions by Lundberg. Can you link us to investigations of those links? I'm particularly interested in finding out more about Lundberg's documentary "The Mythologist," the screenplay for it (written by Rob Irving, according to the Circlemakers website), and the lengthy satirical piece concerning 'Azadehdel aka Armen Victorian' also written by Irving (published in a periodical called 'The Lobster', as I recall, and also reproduced at the Circlemakers website). John Lundberg recently indicated (I think here in the Paracast forums) that he cannot provide/share/sell copies of "The Mythologist" because he does not own the rights to it. Do you know who does own those rights, and do you have any information as to why the documentary is apparently unavailable for sale to the public?

Finally, do you think that sufficient accumulated 'circumstantial evidence' can reach a point at which it supports reasoning to a judgment concerning the intentions, connections, and even employers of the Circlemakers motivating their disinformational activities?

 

[Han]

BFI entry for the doc here:
http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b8a4a9fb4

It maybe possible to get a copy for research purposes here:
Contact research viewing services | BFI

 

[George Wingfield]

Poppycock.

You have not connected anyone to anything here at all. I find Lundberg actually more direct than the speculative wranglings you have put forth here. And I think he's a pretty suspicious character, like most artists.

Dear Burnt,

What I said was NOT poppycock and I think that you will realize sooner or later that the scenario which I have described on this forum is indeed the true story behind the Roswell Slides scam. You do not answer my suggestion that John Lundberg and/or Philip Mantle have been in direct contact with you in an effort to make you think what I’m saying is mere fantasy or else alleged resentment from many years ago. Please tell me if that’s the case.

Mantle is Lundberg’s poodle, as I’ve said before. I am surprised that you of all people can allow the wool to be pulled over your eyes by these two. Even if you regard John as a hero for his exposure in Mirage Men of the Roswell Myth and its real origins –with which I heartily concur—it does not mean that everything he tells you is the truth. I could say that he was a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde character but even that’s not exactly true: John Lundberg is a Mirage Man.

If there’s anything which I’ve said on the forum with which you disagree or which you think is untrue we can discuss it directly. Let me have a phone number (via Gene) where I can call you and I’ll gladly explain anything that I’ve not made clear.

As I said earlier John Lundberg is a man caught with his pants down. There are several options for dealing with such a situation all of which will have been carefully considered:-

(1) Say nothing and hope your accuser will go away. (recommended but this may not work)

(2) Issue a specific denial like Bill Clinton once did. (not recommended as very few people will actually believe you)

(3) Try to laugh it off or answer obliquely and evasively. (this is what John did recently when questioned by Robert Sheaffer).

(4) Maintain that someone completely different is the guilty party and this is just a case of mistaken identity. (not recommended as few will believe you)

(5) Get your colleagues, friends --and perhaps lawyers—to undermine the credibility of your accuser and imply there is no case to answer (this was a very successful defense for Dominique Strauss-Kahn when he was accused of sexually assaulting a 32-year-old maid at the Sofitel New York Hotel)

(6) Plead guilty to a lesser charge, refuse to take the witness stand, or maybe agree to settle out of court.

Quite clearly John has decided to opt for (3) and (5). I am not saying that alienfaking is a criminal act in any way but if anyone is making money out of it –as with Ray Santilli’s Alien Autopsy—there is a strong possibility that fraud has been committed.

I think we are all agreed that the “Roswell Slides” was a carefully prepared hoax even if there is disagreement on who was responsible. Thus we should be very suspicious again when someone like Mr Bragalia says “Oops, sorry, there never was any hoax and we simply misidentified the mummy of a two-year-old Native American child …” This Plan B exit strategy reeks of deception and presents those who are not watching carefully with a totally false choice: (A) Was this a genuine Roswell Alien? Or, (B) Was it a misidentified mummy?

There is a third possibility too (which most folk are totally unaware of) that the higher resolution photos shown by Jaime Maussan to various experts in Mexico did indeed depict what I call “Alien MATILDA”. (Note that Philip Mantle is an enthusiastic supporter of the Mummyist lobby).

George

 

[Constance]

(B) Was it a misidentified mummy?

The mummy might turn out to be better identified if David Rudiak succeeds in obtaining information about it from the Park Service archives, including additional photographs in their files of this particular mummy and reports of analyses of this mummy prepared by forensic scientists and/or physical anthropologists. Rudiak wrote on Randle's page a few days ago that he is encountering considerable resistance to his inquiries and requests, but is continuing to pursue them. I have a feeling that Tony Bragalia is also continuing his research into the mummy's history through the Park Service. It's possible that they've been inundated with requests for information about the mummy since Bragalia tracked it to the Park Service.

 

[George Wingfield]

It almost seems to me that George is upset because of a small group of individuals were able to accomplish where he has failed. If Wingfield can’t even address a few simple questions by IssacKoi , what is one to think?

What one is to think, "S.R.L.", is that I simply don't have the time to reply to every criticism that's aimed at me. I'm not upset about anything --I love it when folks throw rotten e-tomatoes at me because I know that's often when I've hit the nail on the head. Where exactly have I failed?? Let me say again that my only interest in this matter is getting at the truth. Burnt State's inclusion of the item about artfaker Mark Landis was particularly relevant to what we have been looking at with the Roswell Slides. Our Roswell Slides alienfaker, like Mr Landis, may well be more obsessed with the actual fakery and deception rather than the money it earns him.

Incidentally, I see on ufocon.blogspot.con that David Rudiak has suggested UFO-blog commenters use their real names and quit hiding behind noms de plumes, aliases or alter egos. I use my real name and I am a real person. Would you care to tell us who you are?

George

 

[SheaOlmsford]

WHITLEY STRIEBER AND LINDA MOULTON HOWE JOIN JAIME MAUSSAN IN DEFENDING THE CREDIBILITY OF THE ROSWELL SLIDES.

You simply must listen to this free Dreamland episode, hosted by Whitley Strieber with the express purpose of keeping the Roswell Slide controversy going. With Jamie and Linda in tow, the threesome contrive a convoluted conspiracy theory that involves FBI agents posting the label in front of the mummy in the museum, to throw serious ufologists off the trail. You just have to listen to this to believe it. I have tolerated a lot of nonsense from Whitley Strieber in my time, but this is the one time he has JUMPED THE UFO, so to speak. I have all his books for sale on ebay. I am DONE with this man. If you would like to buy them, including a first edition hardcover of COMMUNION, contact me.

science, UFOs, alien abductions, crop circles, prophecy, reincarnation, environment | dreamland radio | unknowncountry

 

[SRL+]

What one is to think, "S.R.L.", is that I simply don't have the time to reply to every criticism that's aimed at me. I'm not upset about anything --I love it when folks throw rotten e-tomatoes at me because I know that's often when I've hit the nail on the head. Where exactly have I failed?? Let me say again that my only interest in this matter is getting at the truth. Burnt State's inclusion of the item about artfaker Mark Landis was particularly relevant to what we have been looking at with the Roswell Slides. Our Roswell Slides alienfaker, like Mr Landis, may well be more obsessed with the actual fakery and deception rather than the money it earns him.

Incidentally, I see on ufocon.blogspot.con that David Rudiak has suggested UFO-blog commenters use their real names and quit hiding behind noms de plumes, aliases or alter egos. I use my real name and I am a real person. Would you care to tell us who you are?

George

It was a miserable attempt at a hoax via sensationalism, with opportunistic motives. It’s just that simple. The line of thought presented here reminds me of the similarities between the Lincoln, and Kennedy assassinations. As we all should remember together that even though there were similarities, the assailant’s identities were vastly different. If there is not to be a connection found between Lundberg and Dew, one may as well be piddling into the wind.

 

[IsaacKoi]

It's possible that they've been inundated with requests for information about the mummy

That is more than a possibility.

I contacted the museum at Mesa Verde a couple of weeks ago on behalf of the Roswell Slides Research Group after we deblurred the placard. In the subsequent discussions the Park Service has mentioned - among other things - that, after we released the deblurred placard, they were "hammered" with phone calls and emails.

 

[Constance]

In the subsequent discussions the Park Service has mentioned - among other things - that, after we released the deblurred placard, they were "hammered" with phone calls and emails.

Have you asked for a search of their archives for other photographic images of this same mummy and forensic evaluations of the selfsame mummy? If they can't or won't undertake an archival search, is it your impression that they might allow you and perhaps David Rudiak and/or Tony Bragalia to spend time in the archives undertaking that search?

 

[IsaacKoi]

Very interesting. You write that "the weak circumstantial allegations could be extended via the links between Lundberg and the CIA," and you go on to identify several of these links to video productions by Lundberg. Can you link us to investigations of those links?"

I can't currently "link us to investigations of those links" because I'm not aware of anyone posting such an investigation online.

I'll include some relevant points when I post an item on a large collection of PDF documents I hope to share in the next week or so (including relevant screenshots from "The Mythologist" at 1 minute 30 seconds, at 8 minutes 45 seconds and at 11 minutes 13 seconds).

Finally, do you think that sufficient accumulated 'circumstantial evidence' can reach a point at which it supports reasoning to a judgment concerning the intentions, connections, and even employers of the Circlemakers motivating their disinformational activities?

Well, yes, circumstantial evidence can reach a point that it proves things on the balance of probabilities - but it has to be pretty strong circumstantial evidence.

 

[Constance]

If there is not to be a connection found between Lundberg and Dew, one may as well be piddling into the wind.

There might be a connection discoverable between Lunderg and Dew. Is anyone investigating this question?

 

[IsaacKoi]

Have you asked for a search of their archives for other photographic images of this same mummy and forensic evaluations of the selfsame mummy? If they can't or won't undertake an archival search, is it your impression that they might allow you and perhaps David Rudiak and/or Tony Bragalia to spend time in the archives undertaking that search?

Yes, we asked for archival material (including information and photographs) in relation to the mummy 2 weeks ago. For policy (and, indeed, legislative) reasons the Park Service's modern approach is to be EXTREMELY sensitive to displaying proper respect in relation to relevant human remains, which hampers them in simply supplying requested material. Discussions are still on-going.

The museum is certainly aware that there is considerable interest in relation to the mummy.

 

[George Wingfield]

For that matter, the weak circumstantial allegations could be extended via the links between Lundberg and the CIA (particularly to Ron Pandolfi of the CIA, who played a role in relation to both Lundberg's "Mirage Men" documentary and also Lundberg's documentary "The Mythologist" about Henry Azadehdel aka Armen Victorian) to a suggestion that the CIA was behind the Santilli footage.

I’m not going to get involved in this interesting speculation of whether Lundberg, Irving and Dickinson were ever directly funded by various intelligence agencies such as the CIA, MI5, or MI6. I don’t have any direct evidence for that and it must remain mere speculation. What I do know is that all three of them had a close association with Jim Schnabel, a one time CIA employee and fellow circlemaker, in the UK during the early 1990s. Jim knew several of the top people at CIA headquarters including Ron Pandolfi ("Aviary" member Pelican).

Another interesting fact is that when I met Ron Pandolfi in Washington DC in April 1992 what he really wanted to talk about was the people involved –the top players in crop circle research and in ufology. And, of course, supposed members of the fabled Aviary. He was clearly not interested in UFOs or the crop circles themselves. Three years later at the unveiling of Ray Santilli’s “Alien Autopsy” I was similarly struck by Lundberg, Irving and Dickinson’s total lack of interest in the “alien” itself or the film footage of its supposed autopsy but only in interviewing eager believers such as Philip Mantle and Colin Andrews. One could interpret that as seeing whether this act of “ostension” was doing the trick --or maybe just their great pride at having created a realistic Roswell Alien. John’s entry in Wikipedia (probably written by himself) curiously includes reference to my 1995 article (“Should Alien DORA really be Alien HILDA?”) which accused him of being Alien HILDA’s creator. That inclusion is pretty strange if he really denies being involved in the Alien Autopsy scam.

 

[Constance]

I can't currently "link us to investigations of those links" because I'm not aware of anyone posting such an investigation online.

Can you give us an idea of what you've learned about the Lundberg-CIA links without disclosing the identity of the individual/s informing you about them?

I'll include some relevant points when I post an item on a large collection of PDF documents I hope to share in the next week or so (including relevant screenshots from "The Mythologist" at 1 minute 30 seconds, at 8 minutes 45 seconds and at 11 minutes 13 seconds).

Excellent. Will you post a link here to those documents and screenshots?

Well, yes, circumstantial evidence can reach a point that it proves things on the balance of probabilities - but it has to be pretty strong circumstantial evidence.

Indeed. How do you currently estimate the balance of probabilities that Lundberg et al have been employed by the CIA (and likely MI5) to manipulate public opinion concerning the ufo subject?