• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

The Roswell Slides Have Been Leaked Online

Free episodes:

Just keep on believing that, Boy. It's all you and your side of this debate have got.

Well, I'm not sure if you are up to date or not, but your side has nothing. I know you are fanatical in your beliefs but there is zero proof this slide is of an alien and there is zero connection between it and Roswell. You are so invested in this that you don't seem to understand that it's not connected. So you must treat the slides as if it were Roswell and fight anyone who dares question it.
 
I'm not invested in the slides being provably connected to Roswell. While I think most skeptibunker attempts to undermine what Carey and Schmitt have to present before it's presented are just plain silly, and quite pathetic, what I most object to is your side's attempted overkill of the history of ufo research in general. I began reading the ufo research in 1997 and haven't stopped; I've been persuaded for years now of its significance in identifying actual events having actual consequences, and I share that conviction with others who have informed themselves by reading the research.
 
I'm not invested in the slides being provably connected to Roswell. While I think most skeptibunker attempts to undermine what Carey and Schmitt have to present before it's presented are just plain silly, and quite pathetic, what I most object to is your side's attempted overkill of the history of ufo research in general. I began reading the ufo research in 1997 and haven't stopped; I've been persuaded for years now of its significance in identifying actual events having actual consequences, and I share that conviction with others who have informed themselves by reading the research.

I'm not talking about Roswell or Ufology. I'm only debunking the slides as they are b.s. Roswell and Ufology are completely separate topics.
 
I don't know what your opinions are in general re ufo history and research. But the contempt and animus that you and others express toward people who take this subject matter seriously has been quite unmistakable in the discussions of the Roswell slides, here and elsewhere, over the last week or so. I think this attitude is presumptuous and also unbecoming to those that continually express it. Expressing this attitude seems to be compulsive, and you know what the psychologists say: compulsive is repulsive.
 
How is such statement important?

I forgot to respond to this question. I think it's usually significant when active people successfully engaged in vigorous pursuit of their careers suddenly drop out of their field and public life in general. It doesn't take too much imagination to suppose that Bernerd Ray, whether he saw alien bodies or merely heard about them from others in New Mexico in 1947, could have been shaken by the information. Many people were.
 
Assuming that the crash was extraterrestrial and going off of the testimony, I doubt there would have been any sign of impact. The debris on the Foster ranch did not penetrate the ground and appeared to have broken up in the air and then rained down from the sky. If there was a second crash site it would have been small, only large enough to carry 4 or 5 3ft tall beings.

However, the key thing is that if there was a second crash site nobody can be sure where it is at. All we have is stories, stories which people believe as fact but which aren't.
I can not help but wonder since we are talking about high desert here if in fact the changes to the ground could be in-fact quite prevalent in the right spectrum of viewing and perhaps a second impact sight could be revealed, any satellite guys/gals out there who can enlighten us on this? Oh, and I agree, there is a lot of he said, she said, when it comes to Roswell but as I agreed with Burnt earlier, something happened there but I tend to lean towards mundane...for now.
 
I don't know what your opinions are in general re ufo history and research. But the contempt and animus that you and others express toward people who take this subject matter seriously has been quite unmistakable in the discussions of the Roswell slides, here and elsewhere, over the last week or so. I think this attitude is presumptuous and also unbecoming to those that continually express it. Expressing this attitude seems to be compulsive, and you know what the psychologists say: compulsive is repulsive.

Stop with the dramatics. You aren't the only person interested in Roswell. And I'm not a "hater" if I think the slides are a bunch of malarky. I've been following UFOs and Roswell since I was a child. However, perhaps you need to realize that believing in something, no matter how fierce, can not make something "real" if it was never real to begin with. I don't have the answers but am just looking for the truth.
 
I forgot to respond to this question. I think it's usually significant when active people successfully engaged in vigorous pursuit of their careers suddenly drop out of their field and public life in general. It doesn't take too much imagination to suppose that Bernerd Ray, whether he saw alien bodies or merely heard about them from others in New Mexico in 1947, could have been shaken by the information. Many people were.

Okay, but a lot of this based on the stories from Adam. We don't really know that much about the couple. And don't dismiss the mundane. For example, when did Bernard retire?
 
Last edited:
Kevin Randle posted the following commentary by Anthony Bragalia on his site this afternoon:


"THE ROSWELL ALIEN SLIDES AND THE TRUTH
BY
ANTHONY BRAGALIA

The announcement that slides dating from 1947 found to have belonged to lawyer Hilda Ray and her husband Bernerd Ray (a top oil exploration geologist working in NM and TX during that time) have caused what can only be described as an internet sensation. Awareness of the slides existence was heightened very recently by the fact that individuals have taken a “screen grab” of one of the slides that appeared in a documentary preview by one Adam Dew, entitled “Kodachrome,” and attempted to “de-blur” it.

Since then, opinions have been proffered and amateur “analysis” has been conducted. Verdicts on just what the slides show have been rendered, often with impassioned, mean-spirited response and heated accusations. Inflammatory remarks, name-calling and near-libelous allegations have been made by people who have not been privy to a clear version of the slide nor seen the other existing slide at all- and without the benefit of review of the professional, scientific study that has been conducted on the them. And this negative, knee-jerk reaction to the slides existence began far earlier, even before the release of any image at all!

The truth of the matter could not be more different from what the noisy naysayers maintain…

WHAT ARE THEY LOOKING AT?

If, as the saying goes, a picture is worth 1000 words, this attempted enhancement gives only 250 of them. The fact is this: this is a video screen grab from a computer monitor –it is a picture of a picture of a picture- which has been taken at a distance of a slide in its frame. It is not a photographic print made from the slide, nor does it show the slide’s projected image on a screen.

Importantly, this poor-quality image is not even in color as are the original Kodachromes (a sepia-tone was applied to the image in the video.) The size and perspective of the being –and its texture and shape- is hugely distorted and important key details are unable to be seen.

A reproduction of an image can only be as good as its source material – and that source material was intentionally modified in the preview video. Bear in mind too that this is only one of the two slides that exists. This slide is the least interesting of the two. The other slide provides greater clarity and with far more detail revealed.

None of the photo-scientists who analyzed the slides were working with such degraded material like a video screen grab- they were working with the ‘raw’ original slides and with high-definition enlargements of them. This is not so of the many who give ill-informed opinions about them.

Finally, the image on the video was only offered as to give an idea or preview of the ‘real deal.’ It was not intended by any means whatsoever to be used to technically dissect the image or to offer the ‘full view’ of what the slides actually show. It is difficult to understand what some people do not understand about that.

FROM HOAX TO HYDROCEPHALIC-
DESPERATE ATTEMPTS FOR AN EXPLANATION


There have been cries from some quarters that the slides are not authentic, or depict a mummy or even a hydrocephalic deformity. And these cries are as loud as they are incorrect.

To address the question of dating of the slides and the possibility of photographic deception, here is a summation of analysis done by experts from industry and academia:

-The film is manufacture coded (edge code dated) as 1927 or 1947 or 1967

-The protective lacquer used on the film is from the 1930s to 1960, eliminating the year 1927

-The cardboard sleeve used is 1941-1949, eliminating the year 1967 and leaving 1949 as the latest date the film was exposed

By simple process of elimination using these findings, we are left with the year 1947. Allegations that somehow the owner of the film was able to locate, purchase and take undeveloped, pristine and preserved Kodachrome filmstock from the specific year 1947 and find a way to take a picture with it and have it successfully developed using the old stock is ludicrous. I challenge anyone anywhere at any time to today find such 1947 cardboard slide sleeves and unused 1947 Kodachrome film, find an appropriate camera, take a picture of what is shown, and then have it processed.

If the being depicted in the slide was made in 1947 was a model or dummy, it in no way correlates to the 1940s concept of what ‘Martians’ look like and everything like what witnesses to the bodies at Roswell reported. Too, the slides were found hidden amongst over 100 other slides taken by the Rays in the 1940s, so everything must be viewed within this context.

To address the question of whether or not the being depicted is that of a mummy or of a hydrocephalic:

-Hydrocephaly is a condition whereby there is an abnormal accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid in the ventricles of the brain causing bulbous enlargement of the skull. The treatment is to use a cerebral shunt to regulate amount, flow direction and pressure of the fluid. However, there are two things that must be understood. According to the journal Annual Review of Hydrocephalus, the long-term survival of hydrocephalics before 1960 (the year shunts were introduced as a treatment) was exceedingly low. Dr. Spyros Sgourus says that there was “high morbidity and mortality associated with treatment of hydrocephalus in the 1930s and 1940s.” According to the Review, in the 1940s, before shunting was established, infants with hydrocephalus had a very poor prognosis for survival. The fact is that the being pictured in the slides is between 3.5-4.0 feet tall and because of this is not a hydrocephalic infant.

-Clear versions of the slides depict a being whose anatomy does not correspond to a human being. The limbs (legs and arms) are exceeding thin, frail and fragile, characteristics that are not associated with hydrocephalus. In fact, the torso (which has been opened) and rest of the body look nothing like any known case of hydrocephalus in history. The skull too, is enlarged but not ‘bulbous’ which is characteristic of non-shunted hydrocephalics.

-The being’s head is severed from the body (not evident in the screen grab) and one eye is missing. The chest and the abdominal cavity are missing. Hydrocephalic corpses are kept intact in medical study and display.

-The being has no teeth and has wide-set eyes. Lack of teeth and wide set eyes are not known to be conditions associated with hydrocephaly.

-In the actual slides it is evident that the being has only four fingers. To my knowledge, mummies and hydrocephalics are not typically missing a fifth digit.

-A detail not known or revealed to anyone but those who have seen the slides is that close-ups of the being’s face show a very ‘pointed’ chin, a chin that in no way resembles a human, mummified or hydrocephalic.

-One commenter (Gilles Fernandes) has shown a side-by-side comparison of the de-blurred slide and an infant mummy. He circles the feet of both, making a comparison and implying that they are one and the same. However, the image Mr. Fernandes offers is that of a specimen who is far, far shorter than 3.5-4.0 tall. And what is depicted in the slide is not a foot at all, but something else, perhaps a piece of debris lying on the surface. The being’s feet actually end behind the placard. In the actual slide there is even another, smaller such item which can be seen.

-This ‘placard’ is not very evident in the released, de-blurred image. However, it has been enlarged by experts and the writing, in red ink, is handwritten, not typed, as would be found in a biological display in a museum.

-Most importantly, the placard, as well as the support structure that the being rests upon, are clearly ‘temporary.’ The structure looks very make-shift, resembling a quickly-assembled ‘erector set’ type deal, with beams that have ratchet holes in them. The set-up in no way whatsoever resembles that of a professional museum display. It is not a well-crafted, pristine glass museum display box, but something not meant to be at all permanent. There is also a military-green blanket upon which the being rests, atypical of any such museum display of other biological specimens.

-Mummies are desiccated. This being was obviously either recently alive before the fatal pictures were taken, or had been embalmed.

A CIRCUS- BUT WHO ARE THE REAL RINGMASTERS?

Some rabid skeptics have disparagingly termed the whole slide affair as ‘a circus.’ If it has in some way become one, it is not at all due to the actions of those who seek to study and present the slides. In fact it is outsiders who have tried to insert themselves into the saga who are the real ringmasters.

It began with a ‘leak’ of the story nearly three years ago. An individual in Texas who was interviewed as a neighbor of the Rays unfortunately contacted Texas-based researcher Nick Redfern and divulged what he knew. Nick then –understandably- began contacting researchers to gain more information. When word of the slides existence became public, very sick behavior ensued:

-This author had his computer system hacked in an attempt to gain more information about the slides, or perhaps to obtain the slides themselves.

-Other researchers including Nick Redfern and Tom Carey (who had his stored documents ‘crypto-locked’ with malware) were also hacked.

-Information obtained from my stolen emails on the slides investigation was made public on a website (before being deleted) by cyber-criminal Ross Evans (who to my knowledge remains under investigation by the FBI.)

-Evans and others such as Lance Moody began contacting -or threatened to contact- involved photo scientists and witnesses (including a 90 year old man) in an effort to either gain more information or to derail the investigation.

-Money was stolen from my credit card account in a ‘skimming’ scheme resulting from the hack of my computer system. Bank investigators are currently engaged in resolving this.

-Accusations of hoax were made even before any release of any type of the slides. I was directly accused of being ‘a liar’ and other defamatory and legally-actionable comments were made against me and my reputation.

-Phone calls were placed to me in the wee hours by blocked callers who threatened me with ‘exposure’ as a fraud and my family members have even been harassed.

MAKING MONEY ON THE SLIDES

Some have said that the whole thing has been done to make money. But what has really motivated the slides investigation is a sense of obligation to truth and to history. What these skeptics fail utterly to understand is the great expense –both personal and monetary- that this slide investigation has cost. Who do they think paid for the expert analysis of the slides? Who do they think paid for repeated visits to places like New Mexico, Texas and Rochester? Who paid for the hotels, car rentals, meals out? On whose dime and on whose time do they think all this investigation was done? This has all been self-funded by the owner and the investigators. And every moment that has been taken investigating the slides has been taken away from work or making a living or time with family. Frankly the gall that some have to suggest that this should all be unpaid effort is beyond belief. And despite attempts at gaining mainstream media interest, none was obtained. A public venue was chosen and a live broadcast planned (on May 5th) that has to be paid for by someone, and a self-funded documentary such as Mr. Dew’s was produced. Skeptics should thank those involved, not condemn them. And as the discoverer of the slides, why shouldn’t the owner enjoy recompense? I cannot understand why some insist this should be a volunteer effort and that everything should be done for free. That said, this author has neither received nor sought any compensation- but I do not in any way at all find any fault for those that do.

WHAT THE SLIDES SAY ABOUT US

Perhaps as interesting as the remarkable story of the slides themselves is the remarkable story of how people have dealt with such news. Jealousy, a sense of exclusion, and an inability to accept the possibility of what the slides do represent have all been in evidence during the slides saga. The compulsion by some to insert themselves into the story and to offer their judgment even before the slides and study are presented is worthy of a psychology study. Indeed, what the slides say about life beyond Earth is as telling as those who live upon it."

A Different Perspective
 
Stop with the dramatics. You aren't the only person interested in Roswell. And I'm not a "hater" if I think the slides are a bunch of malarky. I've been following UFOs and Roswell since I was a child. However, perhaps you need to realize that believing in something, no matter how fierce, can not make something "real" if it was never real to begin with. I don't have the answers but am just looking for the truth.

What dramatics? Also, Boy, you're still being presumptuous (and boyishly surly) in your claim that I am unable to distinguish belief from a reasoned and evidence-based hypothesis and need someone like you to clarify the difference for me. You really are unaccountably full of yourself.

It's also difficult to take seriously your claim to be "just looking for the truth" when you've been prejudging what the truth might be as long as this thread has been going on.
 
Kevin Randle posted the following commentary by Anthony Bragalia on his site this afternoon:


"THE ROSWELL ALIEN SLIDES AND THE TRUTH
BY
ANTHONY BRAGALIA

The announcement that slides dating from 1947 found to have belonged to lawyer Hilda Ray and her husband Bernerd Ray (a top oil exploration geologist working in NM and TX during that time) have caused what can only be described as an internet sensation. Awareness of the slides existence was heightened very recently by the fact that individuals have taken a “screen grab” of one of the slides that appeared in a documentary preview by one Adam Dew, entitled “Kodachrome,” and attempted to “de-blur” it.

Since then, opinions have been proffered and amateur “analysis” has been conducted. Verdicts on just what the slides show have been rendered, often with impassioned, mean-spirited response and heated accusations. Inflammatory remarks, name-calling and near-libelous allegations have been made by people who have not been privy to a clear version of the slide nor seen the other existing slide at all- and without the benefit of review of the professional, scientific study that has been conducted on the them. And this negative, knee-jerk reaction to the slides existence began far earlier, even before the release of any image at all!

The truth of the matter could not be more different from what the noisy naysayers maintain…

WHAT ARE THEY LOOKING AT?

If, as the saying goes, a picture is worth 1000 words, this attempted enhancement gives only 250 of them. The fact is this: this is a video screen grab from a computer monitor –it is a picture of a picture of a picture- which has been taken at a distance of a slide in its frame. It is not a photographic print made from the slide, nor does it show the slide’s projected image on a screen.

Importantly, this poor-quality image is not even in color as are the original Kodachromes (a sepia-tone was applied to the image in the video.) The size and perspective of the being –and its texture and shape- is hugely distorted and important key details are unable to be seen.

A reproduction of an image can only be as good as its source material – and that source material was intentionally modified in the preview video. Bear in mind too that this is only one of the two slides that exists. This slide is the least interesting of the two. The other slide provides greater clarity and with far more detail revealed.

None of the photo-scientists who analyzed the slides were working with such degraded material like a video screen grab- they were working with the ‘raw’ original slides and with high-definition enlargements of them. This is not so of the many who give ill-informed opinions about them.

Finally, the image on the video was only offered as to give an idea or preview of the ‘real deal.’ It was not intended by any means whatsoever to be used to technically dissect the image or to offer the ‘full view’ of what the slides actually show. It is difficult to understand what some people do not understand about that.

FROM HOAX TO HYDROCEPHALIC-
DESPERATE ATTEMPTS FOR AN EXPLANATION


There have been cries from some quarters that the slides are not authentic, or depict a mummy or even a hydrocephalic deformity. And these cries are as loud as they are incorrect.

To address the question of dating of the slides and the possibility of photographic deception, here is a summation of analysis done by experts from industry and academia:

-The film is manufacture coded (edge code dated) as 1927 or 1947 or 1967

-The protective lacquer used on the film is from the 1930s to 1960, eliminating the year 1927

-The cardboard sleeve used is 1941-1949, eliminating the year 1967 and leaving 1949 as the latest date the film was exposed

By simple process of elimination using these findings, we are left with the year 1947. Allegations that somehow the owner of the film was able to locate, purchase and take undeveloped, pristine and preserved Kodachrome filmstock from the specific year 1947 and find a way to take a picture with it and have it successfully developed using the old stock is ludicrous. I challenge anyone anywhere at any time to today find such 1947 cardboard slide sleeves and unused 1947 Kodachrome film, find an appropriate camera, take a picture of what is shown, and then have it processed.

If the being depicted in the slide was made in 1947 was a model or dummy, it in no way correlates to the 1940s concept of what ‘Martians’ look like and everything like what witnesses to the bodies at Roswell reported. Too, the slides were found hidden amongst over 100 other slides taken by the Rays in the 1940s, so everything must be viewed within this context.

To address the question of whether or not the being depicted is that of a mummy or of a hydrocephalic:

-Hydrocephaly is a condition whereby there is an abnormal accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid in the ventricles of the brain causing bulbous enlargement of the skull. The treatment is to use a cerebral shunt to regulate amount, flow direction and pressure of the fluid. However, there are two things that must be understood. According to the journal Annual Review of Hydrocephalus, the long-term survival of hydrocephalics before 1960 (the year shunts were introduced as a treatment) was exceedingly low. Dr. Spyros Sgourus says that there was “high morbidity and mortality associated with treatment of hydrocephalus in the 1930s and 1940s.” According to the Review, in the 1940s, before shunting was established, infants with hydrocephalus had a very poor prognosis for survival. The fact is that the being pictured in the slides is between 3.5-4.0 feet tall and because of this is not a hydrocephalic infant.

-Clear versions of the slides depict a being whose anatomy does not correspond to a human being. The limbs (legs and arms) are exceeding thin, frail and fragile, characteristics that are not associated with hydrocephalus. In fact, the torso (which has been opened) and rest of the body look nothing like any known case of hydrocephalus in history. The skull too, is enlarged but not ‘bulbous’ which is characteristic of non-shunted hydrocephalics.

-The being’s head is severed from the body (not evident in the screen grab) and one eye is missing. The chest and the abdominal cavity are missing. Hydrocephalic corpses are kept intact in medical study and display.

-The being has no teeth and has wide-set eyes. Lack of teeth and wide set eyes are not known to be conditions associated with hydrocephaly.

-In the actual slides it is evident that the being has only four fingers. To my knowledge, mummies and hydrocephalics are not typically missing a fifth digit.

-A detail not known or revealed to anyone but those who have seen the slides is that close-ups of the being’s face show a very ‘pointed’ chin, a chin that in no way resembles a human, mummified or hydrocephalic.

-One commenter (Gilles Fernandes) has shown a side-by-side comparison of the de-blurred slide and an infant mummy. He circles the feet of both, making a comparison and implying that they are one and the same. However, the image Mr. Fernandes offers is that of a specimen who is far, far shorter than 3.5-4.0 tall. And what is depicted in the slide is not a foot at all, but something else, perhaps a piece of debris lying on the surface. The being’s feet actually end behind the placard. In the actual slide there is even another, smaller such item which can be seen.

-This ‘placard’ is not very evident in the released, de-blurred image. However, it has been enlarged by experts and the writing, in red ink, is handwritten, not typed, as would be found in a biological display in a museum.

-Most importantly, the placard, as well as the support structure that the being rests upon, are clearly ‘temporary.’ The structure looks very make-shift, resembling a quickly-assembled ‘erector set’ type deal, with beams that have ratchet holes in them. The set-up in no way whatsoever resembles that of a professional museum display. It is not a well-crafted, pristine glass museum display box, but something not meant to be at all permanent. There is also a military-green blanket upon which the being rests, atypical of any such museum display of other biological specimens.

-Mummies are desiccated. This being was obviously either recently alive before the fatal pictures were taken, or had been embalmed.

A CIRCUS- BUT WHO ARE THE REAL RINGMASTERS?

Some rabid skeptics have disparagingly termed the whole slide affair as ‘a circus.’ If it has in some way become one, it is not at all due to the actions of those who seek to study and present the slides. In fact it is outsiders who have tried to insert themselves into the saga who are the real ringmasters.

It began with a ‘leak’ of the story nearly three years ago. An individual in Texas who was interviewed as a neighbor of the Rays unfortunately contacted Texas-based researcher Nick Redfern and divulged what he knew. Nick then –understandably- began contacting researchers to gain more information. When word of the slides existence became public, very sick behavior ensued:

-This author had his computer system hacked in an attempt to gain more information about the slides, or perhaps to obtain the slides themselves.

-Other researchers including Nick Redfern and Tom Carey (who had his stored documents ‘crypto-locked’ with malware) were also hacked.

-Information obtained from my stolen emails on the slides investigation was made public on a website (before being deleted) by cyber-criminal Ross Evans (who to my knowledge remains under investigation by the FBI.)

-Evans and others such as Lance Moody began contacting -or threatened to contact- involved photo scientists and witnesses (including a 90 year old man) in an effort to either gain more information or to derail the investigation.

-Money was stolen from my credit card account in a ‘skimming’ scheme resulting from the hack of my computer system. Bank investigators are currently engaged in resolving this.

-Accusations of hoax were made even before any release of any type of the slides. I was directly accused of being ‘a liar’ and other defamatory and legally-actionable comments were made against me and my reputation.

-Phone calls were placed to me in the wee hours by blocked callers who threatened me with ‘exposure’ as a fraud and my family members have even been harassed.

MAKING MONEY ON THE SLIDES

Some have said that the whole thing has been done to make money. But what has really motivated the slides investigation is a sense of obligation to truth and to history. What these skeptics fail utterly to understand is the great expense –both personal and monetary- that this slide investigation has cost. Who do they think paid for the expert analysis of the slides? Who do they think paid for repeated visits to places like New Mexico, Texas and Rochester? Who paid for the hotels, car rentals, meals out? On whose dime and on whose time do they think all this investigation was done? This has all been self-funded by the owner and the investigators. And every moment that has been taken investigating the slides has been taken away from work or making a living or time with family. Frankly the gall that some have to suggest that this should all be unpaid effort is beyond belief. And despite attempts at gaining mainstream media interest, none was obtained. A public venue was chosen and a live broadcast planned (on May 5th) that has to be paid for by someone, and a self-funded documentary such as Mr. Dew’s was produced. Skeptics should thank those involved, not condemn them. And as the discoverer of the slides, why shouldn’t the owner enjoy recompense? I cannot understand why some insist this should be a volunteer effort and that everything should be done for free. That said, this author has neither received nor sought any compensation- but I do not in any way at all find any fault for those that do.

WHAT THE SLIDES SAY ABOUT US

Perhaps as interesting as the remarkable story of the slides themselves is the remarkable story of how people have dealt with such news. Jealousy, a sense of exclusion, and an inability to accept the possibility of what the slides do represent have all been in evidence during the slides saga. The compulsion by some to insert themselves into the story and to offer their judgment even before the slides and study are presented is worthy of a psychology study. Indeed, what the slides say about life beyond Earth is as telling as those who live upon it."

A Different Perspective


Yeah, more b.s. What did you expect Constance? And do you really think there is any substance to this? It's just a load of malarky. They want that payday. And quite frankly I'm very upset that Kevin Randle won't let anyone question if money is a motive when Anthony Bragalia makes it clear that they deserve this money.
 
Kevin Randle posted the following commentary by Anthony Bragalia on his site this afternoon:


"THE ROSWELL ALIEN SLIDES AND THE TRUTH
BY
ANTHONY BRAGALIA

The announcement that slides dating from 1947 found to have belonged to lawyer Hilda Ray and her husband Bernerd Ray (a top oil exploration geologist working in NM and TX during that time) have caused what can only be described as an internet sensation. Awareness of the slides existence was heightened very recently by the fact that individuals have taken a “screen grab” of one of the slides that appeared in a documentary preview by one Adam Dew, entitled “Kodachrome,” and attempted to “de-blur” it.

Since then, opinions have been proffered and amateur “analysis” has been conducted. Verdicts on just what the slides show have been rendered, often with impassioned, mean-spirited response and heated accusations. Inflammatory remarks, name-calling and near-libelous allegations have been made by people who have not been privy to a clear version of the slide nor seen the other existing slide at all- and without the benefit of review of the professional, scientific study that has been conducted on the them. And this negative, knee-jerk reaction to the slides existence began far earlier, even before the release of any image at all!

The truth of the matter could not be more different from what the noisy naysayers maintain…

WHAT ARE THEY LOOKING AT?

If, as the saying goes, a picture is worth 1000 words, this attempted enhancement gives only 250 of them. The fact is this: this is a video screen grab from a computer monitor –it is a picture of a picture of a picture- which has been taken at a distance of a slide in its frame. It is not a photographic print made from the slide, nor does it show the slide’s projected image on a screen.

Importantly, this poor-quality image is not even in color as are the original Kodachromes (a sepia-tone was applied to the image in the video.) The size and perspective of the being –and its texture and shape- is hugely distorted and important key details are unable to be seen.

A reproduction of an image can only be as good as its source material – and that source material was intentionally modified in the preview video. Bear in mind too that this is only one of the two slides that exists. This slide is the least interesting of the two. The other slide provides greater clarity and with far more detail revealed.

None of the photo-scientists who analyzed the slides were working with such degraded material like a video screen grab- they were working with the ‘raw’ original slides and with high-definition enlargements of them. This is not so of the many who give ill-informed opinions about them.

Finally, the image on the video was only offered as to give an idea or preview of the ‘real deal.’ It was not intended by any means whatsoever to be used to technically dissect the image or to offer the ‘full view’ of what the slides actually show. It is difficult to understand what some people do not understand about that.

FROM HOAX TO HYDROCEPHALIC-
DESPERATE ATTEMPTS FOR AN EXPLANATION


There have been cries from some quarters that the slides are not authentic, or depict a mummy or even a hydrocephalic deformity. And these cries are as loud as they are incorrect.

To address the question of dating of the slides and the possibility of photographic deception, here is a summation of analysis done by experts from industry and academia:

-The film is manufacture coded (edge code dated) as 1927 or 1947 or 1967

-The protective lacquer used on the film is from the 1930s to 1960, eliminating the year 1927

-The cardboard sleeve used is 1941-1949, eliminating the year 1967 and leaving 1949 as the latest date the film was exposed

By simple process of elimination using these findings, we are left with the year 1947. Allegations that somehow the owner of the film was able to locate, purchase and take undeveloped, pristine and preserved Kodachrome filmstock from the specific year 1947 and find a way to take a picture with it and have it successfully developed using the old stock is ludicrous. I challenge anyone anywhere at any time to today find such 1947 cardboard slide sleeves and unused 1947 Kodachrome film, find an appropriate camera, take a picture of what is shown, and then have it processed.

If the being depicted in the slide was made in 1947 was a model or dummy, it in no way correlates to the 1940s concept of what ‘Martians’ look like and everything like what witnesses to the bodies at Roswell reported. Too, the slides were found hidden amongst over 100 other slides taken by the Rays in the 1940s, so everything must be viewed within this context.

To address the question of whether or not the being depicted is that of a mummy or of a hydrocephalic:

-Hydrocephaly is a condition whereby there is an abnormal accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid in the ventricles of the brain causing bulbous enlargement of the skull. The treatment is to use a cerebral shunt to regulate amount, flow direction and pressure of the fluid. However, there are two things that must be understood. According to the journal Annual Review of Hydrocephalus, the long-term survival of hydrocephalics before 1960 (the year shunts were introduced as a treatment) was exceedingly low. Dr. Spyros Sgourus says that there was “high morbidity and mortality associated with treatment of hydrocephalus in the 1930s and 1940s.” According to the Review, in the 1940s, before shunting was established, infants with hydrocephalus had a very poor prognosis for survival. The fact is that the being pictured in the slides is between 3.5-4.0 feet tall and because of this is not a hydrocephalic infant.

-Clear versions of the slides depict a being whose anatomy does not correspond to a human being. The limbs (legs and arms) are exceeding thin, frail and fragile, characteristics that are not associated with hydrocephalus. In fact, the torso (which has been opened) and rest of the body look nothing like any known case of hydrocephalus in history. The skull too, is enlarged but not ‘bulbous’ which is characteristic of non-shunted hydrocephalics.

-The being’s head is severed from the body (not evident in the screen grab) and one eye is missing. The chest and the abdominal cavity are missing. Hydrocephalic corpses are kept intact in medical study and display.

-The being has no teeth and has wide-set eyes. Lack of teeth and wide set eyes are not known to be conditions associated with hydrocephaly.

-In the actual slides it is evident that the being has only four fingers. To my knowledge, mummies and hydrocephalics are not typically missing a fifth digit.

-A detail not known or revealed to anyone but those who have seen the slides is that close-ups of the being’s face show a very ‘pointed’ chin, a chin that in no way resembles a human, mummified or hydrocephalic.

-One commenter (Gilles Fernandes) has shown a side-by-side comparison of the de-blurred slide and an infant mummy. He circles the feet of both, making a comparison and implying that they are one and the same. However, the image Mr. Fernandes offers is that of a specimen who is far, far shorter than 3.5-4.0 tall. And what is depicted in the slide is not a foot at all, but something else, perhaps a piece of debris lying on the surface. The being’s feet actually end behind the placard. In the actual slide there is even another, smaller such item which can be seen.

-This ‘placard’ is not very evident in the released, de-blurred image. However, it has been enlarged by experts and the writing, in red ink, is handwritten, not typed, as would be found in a biological display in a museum.

-Most importantly, the placard, as well as the support structure that the being rests upon, are clearly ‘temporary.’ The structure looks very make-shift, resembling a quickly-assembled ‘erector set’ type deal, with beams that have ratchet holes in them. The set-up in no way whatsoever resembles that of a professional museum display. It is not a well-crafted, pristine glass museum display box, but something not meant to be at all permanent. There is also a military-green blanket upon which the being rests, atypical of any such museum display of other biological specimens.

-Mummies are desiccated. This being was obviously either recently alive before the fatal pictures were taken, or had been embalmed.

A CIRCUS- BUT WHO ARE THE REAL RINGMASTERS?

Some rabid skeptics have disparagingly termed the whole slide affair as ‘a circus.’ If it has in some way become one, it is not at all due to the actions of those who seek to study and present the slides. In fact it is outsiders who have tried to insert themselves into the saga who are the real ringmasters.

It began with a ‘leak’ of the story nearly three years ago. An individual in Texas who was interviewed as a neighbor of the Rays unfortunately contacted Texas-based researcher Nick Redfern and divulged what he knew. Nick then –understandably- began contacting researchers to gain more information. When word of the slides existence became public, very sick behavior ensued:

-This author had his computer system hacked in an attempt to gain more information about the slides, or perhaps to obtain the slides themselves.

-Other researchers including Nick Redfern and Tom Carey (who had his stored documents ‘crypto-locked’ with malware) were also hacked.

-Information obtained from my stolen emails on the slides investigation was made public on a website (before being deleted) by cyber-criminal Ross Evans (who to my knowledge remains under investigation by the FBI.)

-Evans and others such as Lance Moody began contacting -or threatened to contact- involved photo scientists and witnesses (including a 90 year old man) in an effort to either gain more information or to derail the investigation.

-Money was stolen from my credit card account in a ‘skimming’ scheme resulting from the hack of my computer system. Bank investigators are currently engaged in resolving this.

-Accusations of hoax were made even before any release of any type of the slides. I was directly accused of being ‘a liar’ and other defamatory and legally-actionable comments were made against me and my reputation.

-Phone calls were placed to me in the wee hours by blocked callers who threatened me with ‘exposure’ as a fraud and my family members have even been harassed.

MAKING MONEY ON THE SLIDES

Some have said that the whole thing has been done to make money. But what has really motivated the slides investigation is a sense of obligation to truth and to history. What these skeptics fail utterly to understand is the great expense –both personal and monetary- that this slide investigation has cost. Who do they think paid for the expert analysis of the slides? Who do they think paid for repeated visits to places like New Mexico, Texas and Rochester? Who paid for the hotels, car rentals, meals out? On whose dime and on whose time do they think all this investigation was done? This has all been self-funded by the owner and the investigators. And every moment that has been taken investigating the slides has been taken away from work or making a living or time with family. Frankly the gall that some have to suggest that this should all be unpaid effort is beyond belief. And despite attempts at gaining mainstream media interest, none was obtained. A public venue was chosen and a live broadcast planned (on May 5th) that has to be paid for by someone, and a self-funded documentary such as Mr. Dew’s was produced. Skeptics should thank those involved, not condemn them. And as the discoverer of the slides, why shouldn’t the owner enjoy recompense? I cannot understand why some insist this should be a volunteer effort and that everything should be done for free. That said, this author has neither received nor sought any compensation- but I do not in any way at all find any fault for those that do.

WHAT THE SLIDES SAY ABOUT US

Perhaps as interesting as the remarkable story of the slides themselves is the remarkable story of how people have dealt with such news. Jealousy, a sense of exclusion, and an inability to accept the possibility of what the slides do represent have all been in evidence during the slides saga. The compulsion by some to insert themselves into the story and to offer their judgment even before the slides and study are presented is worthy of a psychology study. Indeed, what the slides say about life beyond Earth is as telling as those who live upon it."

A Different Perspective
That's the nastiness I've been alluding to that's out of hand lately. There's an air of entitlement going on.... people that don't own the slides or the investigation demanding that they have a right to everything now. They don't. And if that angers them they should just turn their back on the subject and leave it alone. Waiting won't kill anyone. Hearing that Lance is part of it now, while not surprising, starts opening the door to a host of other people that "roll with Lance" attitude. Are they on their own little crusade these days, are they going save us from ourselves and our inability to judge for ourselves what we're looking at??? Frankly, I think a whole host of them are acting like two year olds with this story. I'm nonplussed on this story. It will play out. Someone may come up with a comparison that blows it to shreds or nothing will go any further that what they have now. I don't doubt the Schmitt and Carey have worked hard on the whole Roswell story, between interviews and research, it doesn't change what they and others have done on the subject. I also don't think much money will be made from any of this so the May 5th date only makes me chuckle. On a side note to other commentary, call me a believer. Chant it, sing it, put it to notes on your accordian and push the bellows till it squeals. Believing in something is not "evil" or "stupid." It's only the laziness on a subject and then forming an opinion that is. Their are tons of cases I have no opinion on. I either don't know enough or it's too close to call kinda case. However, a complete culmination of cases, sightings (reports) lends absolute credibility to this subject called Ufology. Thought this place delved into all this, or is it getting bored?
 
What dramatics? Also, Boy, you're still being presumptuous (and boyishly surly) in your claim that I am unable to distinguish belief from a reasoned and evidence-based hypothesis and need someone like you to clarify the difference for me. You really are unaccountably full of yourself.

It's also difficult to take seriously your claim to be "just looking for the truth" when you've been prejudging what the truth might be as long as this thread has been going on.

Constance, at this point, if Don and Tom said they were possessed by the spirit of a Roswell alien you would believe them. That's how deep you are on your cultic "believerism".
 
That's the nastiness I've been alluding to that's out of hand lately. There's an air of entitlement going on.... people that don't own the slides or the investigation demanding that they have a right to everything now. They don't. And if that angers them they should just turn their back on the subject and leave it alone. Waiting won't kill anyone. Hearing that Lance is part of it now, while not surprising, starts opening the door to a host of other people that "roll with Lance" attitude. Are they on their own little crusade these days, are they going save us from ourselves and our inability to judge for ourselves what we're looking at??? Frankly, I think a whole host of them are acting like two year olds with this story. I'm nonplussed on this story. It will play out. Someone may come up with a comparison that blows it to shreds or nothing will go any further that what they have now. I don't doubt the Schmitt and Carey have worked hard on the whole Roswell story, between interviews and research, it doesn't change what they and others have done on the subject. I also don't think much money will be made from any of this so the May 5th date only makes me chuckle. On a side note to other commentary, call me a believer. Chant it, sing it, put it to notes on your accordian and push the bellows till it squeals. Believing in something is not "evil" or "stupid." It's only the laziness on a subject and then forming an opinion that is. Their are tons of cases I have no opinion on. I either don't know enough or it's too close to call kinda case. However, a complete culmination of cases, sightings (reports) lends absolute credibility to this subject called Ufology. Thought this place delved into all this, or is it getting bored?

I think you are a bit naive to think there won't be a lot of money off of this. There's a reason why they chose a 10,000 seat venue. There's a reason why they are charging for live streaming and there's a reason why there is talk of a book deal and not to exclude the merchandising. Money is the number one motive as far as I'm concerned. And if you kept up with what Nick Redfern had to say it's obvious the owner only cares about making as much money as possible.
 
That's the nastiness I've been alluding to that's out of hand lately. There's an air of entitlement going on.... people that don't own the slides or the investigation demanding that they have a right to everything now. They don't. And if that angers them they should just turn their back on the subject and leave it alone. Waiting won't kill anyone. Hearing that Lance is part of it now, while not surprising, starts opening the door to a host of other people that "roll with Lance" attitude. Are they on their own little crusade these days, are they going save us from ourselves and our inability to judge for ourselves what we're looking at??? Frankly, I think a whole host of them are acting like two year olds with this story. I'm nonplussed on this story. It will play out. Someone may come up with a comparison that blows it to shreds or nothing will go any further that what they have now. I don't doubt the Schmitt and Carey have worked hard on the whole Roswell story, between interviews and research, it doesn't change what they and others have done on the subject. I also don't think much money will be made from any of this so the May 5th date only makes me chuckle. On a side note to other commentary, call me a believer. Chant it, sing it, put it to notes on your accordian and push the bellows till it squeals. Believing in something is not "evil" or "stupid." It's only the laziness on a subject and then forming an opinion that is. Their are tons of cases I have no opinion on. I either don't know enough or it's too close to call kinda case. However, a complete culmination of cases, sightings (reports) lends absolute credibility to this subject called Ufology. Thought this place delved into all this, or is it getting bored?

[/QUOTE]

It appears to me that the majority here have long since become bored with the subject of ufo research. Or have gone silent because they're tired of being called 'believers'. Great post as a whole too, Heidi. I agree with all that you've said.

NOTE: THE CLOSE QUOTE FUNCTION IS MISFIRING AGAIN. My response is wrapped up in Heidi's post, so pls click to expand it.
 
I think you are a bit naive to think there won't be a lot of money off of this. There's a reason why they chose a 10,000 seat venue. There's a reason why they are charging for live streaming and there's a reason why there is talk of a book deal and not to exclude the merchandising. Money is the number one motive as far as I'm concerned. And if you kept up with what Nick Redfern had to say it's obvious the owner only cares about making as much money as possible.

$$$ is your one-note samba, Boy. That and continuing to bait me by calling me a victim of "cultic 'believerism'." It's really getting boring, besides being childish.
 
That's the nastiness I've been alluding to that's out of hand lately. There's an air of entitlement going on.... people that don't own the slides or the investigation demanding that they have a right to everything now. They don't. And if that angers them they should just turn their back on the subject and leave it alone. Waiting won't kill anyone. Hearing that Lance is part of it now, while not surprising, starts opening the door to a host of other people that "roll with Lance" attitude. Are they on their own little crusade these days, are they going save us from ourselves and our inability to judge for ourselves what we're looking at???

Several of them seem to be more concerned at the moment with saving themselves, judging by current responses at KR's site:

Blogger: A Different Perspective - Post a Comment
 
Back
Top