The Roswell Slides Have Been Leaked Online

[BoyintheMachine]

My link does go to UFO conjecturer so to claim i didnt bother searching is just plain wrong, i did a Ctrl F find and could not find a reference to columbia

Your link on the other hand goes nowhere................

Here's the link:

Blogger: UFO Conjecture(s) - Post a Comment

This will be the last time I ever interact with you again. I will not be replying to any more of your comments or replies to me.

 

[Burnt State]

Another ufological divisve moment brought to you by Roswell and the internet.
I'm sure face to face you would have gotten along much better.

 

[mike]

Here's the link:

Blogger: UFO Conjecture(s) - Post a Comment

This will be the last time I ever interact with you again. I will not be replying to any more of your comments or replies to me.

Thank you thats a better link, but my point remains unchanged, some "unknown" posts as absolute fact the pic was taken at a museum with nothing to support the claim.

I could register as unknowntoo and post it was taken inside Area 51........ or its the body of a fallen angel kept in the vatican attic.....

Chinese wispers.......

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Another ufological divisve moment brought to you by Roswell and the internet.
I'm sure face to face you would have gotten along much better.

This is not the first time he and I clashed. However, it will be the last time. I'll go away from this board for a while and when I return he assuredly pops up and replies to me and I'm like, "Oh, it's you."

 

[mike]

Another ufological divisve moment brought to you by Roswell and the internet.
I'm sure face to face you would have gotten along much better.

You know what happened last time......................

 

[Constance]

It is my personal opinion that advanced, god-like A.I.'s are involved and that they created beings, perhaps using human DNA, to use at it's workforce. However, I don't have proof and admit such so I can't stand by it and assert it as fact. . . .

You are preaching to the choir. I was talking about artifical wombs YEARS ago. Also, I've speculated that cattle mutilation may be partly due to get tissue to use in creation of the beings or at least the artificial wombs.

I've haven't come across these hypotheses before. Is there some site where they are discussed, perhaps with some trace evidence or other to support them? I'll grant you that your second hypothesis above might help to make sense of the frequent removal of cow uteruses in mutilation cases.

I'd just like to say, relative to your charging Mike with being a 'believer', that you seem to be a believer as well, and in a comparatively far-out hypothesis.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

I've haven't come across these hypotheses before. Is there some site where they are discussed, perhaps with some trace evidence or other to support them? I'll grant you that your hypothesis above might help to make sense of the frequent removal of cow uteruses in mutilation cases.

I'd just like to say, relative to your charging Mike with being a 'believer', that you seem to be a believer as well, and in a comparatively far-out hypothesis.

Please learn how to properly quote someone. You purposefully left off part of my writing in order to give a false impression of my words. Specifically, you left off:

"However, I don't have proof and admit such so I can't stand by it and assert it as fact."

 

[mike]

Here is the intrinsic difference, i dont have a dog in this fight. Ive already stated the slides wont prove anything and if they do it will be different strokes to different folks.

Im not trying to prove "its real", but some without ever seeing the High res versions and associated provenance (whatever thats worth)

Are screaming FAKE, and presenting "evidence" to prove it with considerable vim and vigour.

I'll reserve my judgement until after ive observed the evidence myself, as opposed to having absolute faith they are fakes without doing so

Its a very obvious dynamic imo. Those who "believe" roswell didnt happen, those who "believe" that ET cant be here, have already denied even the possibility these might show something significant in order to preserve that rock solid conviction.

Im a little more fluid in my approach to these things

 

[Constance]

I also don't understand the widespread emotional animus directed to Carey, Schmitt, Friedman, Bragalia, and even Randle and Rudiak, and the hair-trigger outrage that gets expressed even when the word Roswell is mentioned.

 

[JeanLucPicard]

...guys, there's 2 pics of the puppe....I mean "alien"....the other one is the same but with a man instead of a woman, so, lets say that's real, why would 2 supposedly intelligent persons pose to the picture like when you are at the museum?
Yeahhh lets take funny pictures even if militia can find us and ruin our lifes yaahhh! yeahhh lets take an ear hahahah....

NAH....IMHO those pics are real, they probably were taken in that time period, but thats not an alien.

-sorry for my flawled english-

 

[Constance]

Please learn how to properly quote someone. You purposefully left off part of my writing in order to give a false impression of my words. Specifically, you left off:

"However, I don't have proof and admit such so I can't stand by it and assert it as fact."

I did include that statement in my quote:

The Roswell Slides Have Been Leaked Online | Page 3 | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[mike]

I also don't understand the widespread emotional animus directed to Carey, Schmitt, Friedman, Bragalia, and even Randle and Rudiak, and the hair-trigger outrage that gets expressed even when the word Roswell is mentioned.

In my opinion its because of the aspect i mentioned above, Those whos ideas are locked in stone, cannot entertain anything that might challenge it.
We see this dynamic in the deeply religious. Anything that challenges the pov, must be rejected outright often on the flimsiest of pretexts

 

[BoyintheMachine]

I also don't understand the widespread emotional animus directed to Carey, Schmitt, Friedman, Bragalia, and even Randle and Rudiak, and the hair-trigger outrage that gets expressed even when the word Roswell is mentioned.

I thought Carey and Schmitt were on the up and up. I know Schmitt lied about his postal job but I brushed that off. I enjoyed their books, Witness to Roswell and Inside the Real Area 51 and own them.

I've interacted with Rudiak before. I know of him for his work on the Ramey memo.

I do not have a high opinion of Bragalia based on his nonsensical statements in the past and was quite shocked that the "Dream Team" included him.

However, this notion of placing faith in people instead of evidence needs to go. People make mistakes. People can be motivated by greed and money, which I think is the case here. I don't think Carey and Schmitt are stupid so for me that leaves only money as the motivation.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

I did include that statement in my quote:

The Roswell Slides Have Been Leaked Online | Page 3 | The Paracast Community Forums

No you didn't. When you quote someone it appears on top of your reply. That sentence was not included.

 

[mike]

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 [email protected].
AD

UFO Conjecture(s)

 

[Constance]

No you didn't. When you quote someone it appears on top of your reply. That sentence was not included.

Here's a c&p of my post. (perhaps I linked the wrong post in my earlier reply?)

BoyintheMachine said: ↑
"It is my personal opinion that advanced, god-like A.I.'s are involved and that they created beings, perhaps using human DNA, to use at it's workforce. However, I don't have proof and admit such so I can't stand by it and assert it as fact. . . .

You are preaching to the choir. I was talking about artifical wombs YEARS ago. Also, I've speculated that cattle mutilation may be partly due to get tissue to use in creation of the beings or at least the artificial wombs."


I've haven't come across these hypotheses before. Is there some site where they are discussed, perhaps with some trace evidence or other to support them? I'll grant you that your second hypothesis above might help to make sense of the frequent removal of cow uteruses in mutilation cases.

I'd just like to say, relative to your charging Mike with being a 'believer', that you seem to be a believer as well, and in a comparatively far-out hypothesis.

 

[Constance]

In fact, I did embed the correct link to my post and what it quoted from your post.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Here's a c&p of my post. (perhaps I linked the wrong post in my earlier reply?)

BoyintheMachine said: ↑
"It is my personal opinion that advanced, god-like A.I.'s are involved and that they created beings, perhaps using human DNA, to use at it's workforce. However, I don't have proof and admit such so I can't stand by it and assert it as fact. . . .

You are preaching to the choir. I was talking about artifical wombs YEARS ago. Also, I've speculated that cattle mutilation may be partly due to get tissue to use in creation of the beings or at least the artificial wombs."


I've haven't come across these hypotheses before. Is there some site where they are discussed, perhaps with some trace evidence or other to support them? I'll grant you that your second hypothesis above might help to make sense of the frequent removal of cow uteruses in mutilation cases.

I'd just like to say, relative to your charging Mike with being a 'believer', that you seem to be a believer as well, and in a comparatively far-out hypothesis.

I made this reply in #24

I'm not getting into a debate on the Alien Autopsy film from the 90s. The matter is clearly settled that it's a hoax. So you can believe what you want to believe at this point.

However, I do not think what we are dealing with is a Neumann Probe. A Neumann Probe is still just a machine at the end of a day. It is my personal opinion that advanced, god-like A.I.'s are involved and that they created beings, perhaps using human DNA, to use at it's workforce. However, I don't have proof and admit such so I can't stand by it and assert it as fact.

For some reason your quote included only part of my words and then another portion from another quote. Here is what you quoted:

"It is my personal opinion that advanced, god-like A.I.'s are involved and that they created beings, perhaps using human DNA, to use at it's workforce. However, I don't have proof and admit such so I can't stand by it and assert it as fact. . . .

You are preaching to the choir. I was talking about artifical wombs YEARS ago. Also, I've speculated that cattle mutilation may be partly due to get tissue to use in creation of the beings or at least the artificial wombs."

So because your reply jumbled up my words I missed that line.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Here is the intrinsic difference, i dont have a dog in this fight. Ive already stated the slides wont prove anything and if they do it will be different strokes to different folks.

Im not trying to prove "its real", but some without ever seeing the High res versions and associated provenance (whatever thats worth)

Are screaming FAKE, and presenting "evidence" to prove it with considerable vim and vigour.

I'll reserve my judgement until after ive observed the evidence myself, as opposed to having absolute faith they are fakes without doing so

Its a very obvious dynamic imo. Those who "believe" roswell didnt happen, those who "believe" that ET cant be here, have already denied even the possibility these might show something significant in order to preserve that rock solid conviction.

Im a little more fluid in my approach to these things

That's exactly my position. If you cruise around the regular blogs there's this constant attempt to shut down good analytical work on a host of different cases. It cost nothing emotionally to let these folks work out the kinks before deciding whose the fraud and whose the angel. It is true that JM as a choice of venue sucks. I'd really like to hear why they chose him. Rich Reynolds stated that they approached CNN and they refuse to deal with it. So did they decide that all other avenues we're useless? And I'd like to hear more about the chain of custody. If that can be validated in any way that helps with the hoax crap. As to how well the Blairs knew the upper class, Eisenhower.....that would be interesting. Also the military connection, if any. Ufology is filled to the front door on cold cases. Any evidence that moves a case is exciting so I don't discount this yet.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

That's exactly my position. If you cruise around the regular blogs there's this constant attempt to shut down good analytical work on a host of different cases. It cost nothing emotionally to let these folks work out the kinks before deciding whose the fraud and whose the angel. It is true that JM as a choice of venue sucks. I'd really like to hear why they chose him. Rich Reynolds stated that they approached CNN and they refuse to deal with it. So did they decide that all other avenues we're useless? And I'd like to hear more about the chain of custody. If that can be validated in any way that helps with the hoax crap. As to how well the Blairs knew the upper class, Eisenhower.....that would be interesting. Also the military connection, if any. Ufology is filled to the front door on cold cases. Any evidence that moves a case is exciting so I don't discount this yet.

It's the Rays. We know little about them. There is no reason to believe they had any connections to Eisenhower or anyone in the know. All the info on the history of the slides comes from the current owners. There's no way to tell if they are telling the truth or lying. However, we do know that there is no connection to Roswell other than the alleged date of the slides 1947 and that's not strong enough to claim a Roswell connection.

This "wait until they are released" attitude does nothing but allow the con artists to collect the money before they are officially debunked.