The Roswell Slides Have Been Leaked Online

[Heidi Lemmer]

Some readers may know that some time ago a chest once owned by a deceased couple was found to contain a stash of old slides, including two Kodachromes of special interest. Depicting a small humanoid corpse, these extraordinary slides were authenticated by a renowned Kodak expert as having been exposed in 1947. This author discovered that the husband was an oil exploration geologist who worked the New Mexico region in the 1940s for his company (a Texaco predecessor) including in the Permian Basin, a region encompassing Roswell. He was also the President of the local geological association in 1947. Google“Roswell Slides” to learn more. Over two years have been spent in securing experts, researching the back story, conducting interviews and scientific tests and in arranging the forthcoming televised broadcast of the slides. During the course of all of this, leaks had occurred to the UFO community about the existence of the slides.

Frustrated believers and skeptics alike began to display behaviors that are worthy of a mass psychology dissertation. Rank speculation, accusations of fraud and money-motivation, name-calling and feelings of exclusion were all on display. Some seemed to throw conniption fits, demanding the public disclosure of the slides immediately. UFO blogger Paul Kimball (nephew of UFOlogist Stan Friedman) sunk to even more ugly levels. He made public the private emails that he had received from author Kevin Randle concerning Kevin’s thoughts on the slides, in an attempt to stir dissension among Roswell researchers.

Even learned people such as French skeptic Gilles Fernandes, PhD and Christopher Allen (CDA) of the UK chimed in by insisting that the slides cannot be real. They were reduced to mudslinging and character assassination because –like Reynolds- they had no real insight to offer. US skeptic Tim Printy stated in his SUNlite UFO e-zine that it was his belief that the slides probably depicted a dead and mutilated Army Air Corp serviceman who had crashed. Bear in mind the remarkable thing that none of these individuals have ever even been part of the investigation! Yet their opinions, reactions and attitudes make it seem as if they knew everything! Minds were made up, lines were drawn and arrows flung even before any actual public disclosure of the slides.

The individual that seemed the most crazed in his rabble-rousing about the slides was blogger Richard Reynolds. I had no formal association with Reynolds (I have never even spoken with him) though I was a frequent article contributor to his blog for some years. As Reynolds became more intrigued by the slides, he began to try to insert himself in the story. Not content with serving host to articles about the slides, he wanted to be an active participant in the ‘drama’ surrounding them. So extreme was Reynolds’s obsession that on his blog he began to spin from whole cloth tales about what the slides really meant.

A Different Perspective: Anthony Bragalia, the Roswell Slides and the UFO Community

That was my point in earlier pages about RR. I certainly don't know any of these folks nor what goes on behind the scenes. It's true that Bragalia put out his teasers as well. Even here on our forums there was impatience for the "reveal". But it will give everyone a good idea of whose into this subject for the game and whose into it for the discovery.

 

[hecticXx]

i really hope something, if not good, but revealing at least, comes out of this.

dont we all

 

[mike]

Please clarify Mike. I was under the impression the emulsion was made in 1947, not that it was that year, or has been determined to have been exposed that year. Is that even possible?

I have two links, the first one

I was asked by Tom Carey to find the best available talent to test and analyze these Kodak slides. An extensive search was conducted and I found that talent. A Photo Scientist employed by Kodak for decades who will be named at the event, this expert has led engineering, production and product management groups at the company’s Rochester, NY headquarters. Now a consultant, he also published the definitive book on Kodak film processes. Highly acknowledged in his field, he conducted extensive testing on the slides and conclusively authenticated the slides of the creature as having been exposed in the year 1947. It was also concluded that the slides had not been tampered with nor manipulated in any way. What is depicted is really there, accurately reflected in the emulsion as an actual moment in time in 1947. Science has weighed in and has determined that these are real slides that are really from 1947.
Roswell Alien Slides To Be Unveiled in May Via a Live Streamed Event

And then Adam posted this


Monday, February 09, 2015
Adam Dew provided this update and clarification about his Kodachrome slide participation

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.

Full article here scroll down to the Feb 09 mark

Edit: a little more digging

The edge codes on the film is confirmed to be 1947 stock. and according to Tony Bragalia

Kodak experts consulted agree that the overwhelming majority of film customers of just-bought film take their pictures and have the film developed within a year of purchase. And more commonly, it is used within weeks or months, certainly not years, from purchase.
Additionally, the emulsion and other characteristics of the slides were compared against slides known to have been exposed in the year 1947. This provided further authentication, but I will leave it to all to review the report's findings when presented in May.

A Different Perspective: Roswell Slides: An Update

 

[BoyintheMachine]

I don't know of anyone who continues to insist that the slides are faked or hoaxed. I think most would agree that they do indeed date from the 1947 era.

The problem is that most people seem convinced that what is on the slides is human remains, probably a mummified child. Adam Dew conveniently ignores this and still pretends as if people are still saying it's faked and hoaxed. He's doing that on purpose to try to avoid having to address why the being looks just like a mummified child when all of their "experts" have concluded it was neither a mummy, nor human.

It's over, Mike. This is a scam. Adam may have underestimated the intelligence if many people in Ufology who are not going to just sit back and let him, Tom, Don, and Jaime pull a fast one over people.

 

[mike]

I don't know of anyone who continues to insist that the slides are faked or hoaxed.

It's over, Mike. This is a scam. Adam may have underestimated the intelligence if many people in Ufology who are not going to just sit back and let him, Tom, Don, and Jaime pull a fast one over people.

Huh ? You contradict yourself and dont even notice ?

You have no proof other than blind faith this is a scam,

You remind me of this guy

Gilles is livid when it comes to an idea of ETs visiting the Earth.
His sojourns at his web-site and his visitations to UFO blogs and web-sites here are rife with incomprehensible refutations that one has to take with a grain of salt.
Gilles is not objective, nor does he have the open mind of a searcher for truth: he is a hardened skeptic who throws everything he can find at those who even suggest that UFOs might be examples of extraterrestrial visitation.


Characteristics of pseudoskeptics:
1. Denying, when only doubt has been established.
2. Double standards in the application of criticism.
3. The tendency to discredit rather than investigate.
4. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
5. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
6. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.

It looks like the deniers and the fake skeptics are getting desperate. You see people like Lance believe so strongly that the phenomenon can't be real therefore it must not be real, and no matter what evidence there is to prove it, they won't accept it.

Classic example of start with Hypothesis, then find evidence to fit it, evidence even good evidence that doesnt fit must be discarded.

But if what one believes is wrong, then even the truth if it contradicts that faith, must be discarded.

Thats not how its done

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Huh ? You contradict yourself and dont even notice ?

You have no proof other than blind faith this is a scam,

You remind me of this guy

Gilles is livid when it comes to an idea of ETs visiting the Earth.
His sojourns at his web-site and his visitations to UFO blogs and web-sites here are rife with incomprehensible refutations that one has to take with a grain of salt.
Gilles is not objective, nor does he have the open mind of a searcher for truth: he is a hardened skeptic who throws everything he can find at those who even suggest that UFOs might be examples of extraterrestrial visitation.

You are a true believer, Mike. And I did not contradict myself. You ignore or excuse all the warning signs this is a scam.

 

[DissectionStalker]

Redfern also confirmed the elderly person was known to dream team members too! That person phoned from Midland, Tx. That person's name has never been public domain. So, Dew says his friend came to him about the slides...

Did Dew get some elderly person from Midland to call Redfern? Why would the dream people know about this elderly man too?

Since the elderly person is connected to the slides by two insider sources, this is already confirmed by the dream people and Redfern, then Dew seems to either be lying about how he got the slides, or Dew somehow fronts for this elderly person, or Dew got the slides and is now running this show.

This elderly person does not mix-in with Dew's "slide discovery" story so far...

 

[mike]

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.

UFO Conjecture(s)

 

[BoyintheMachine]

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.

UFO Conjecture(s)

That's what Adam says. However, for all we know Tom and Don were persuaded when the right sum of $$$ was waved in front of their faces. I've already stated this before in this thread. An expert can not give an opinion that a being in a picture is "non-human". They would have to see the actual specimen. Also, experts can not remain anonymous. If they refuse to reveal their identity and qualifications their their opinion is voided.

 

[mike]

Redfern also confirmed the elderly person was known to dream team members too! That person phoned from Midland, Tx. That person's name has never been public domain. So, Dew says his friend came to him about the slides...

Did Dew get some elderly person from Midland to call Redfern?

Since the elderly person is connected to the slides, this is already confirmed by the dream people and Redfern, then Dew seems to either be lying about how he got the slides, or Dew somehow fronts for this elderly person, or Dew got the slides and is now running this show.

This elderly person does not mix-in with Dew's "slide discovery" story so far...

Characteristics of pseudoskeptics:
1. Denying, when only doubt has been established.
2. Double standards in the application of criticism.
3. The tendency to discredit rather than investigate.
4. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
5. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
6. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.

 

[mike]

That's what Adam says. However, for all we know Tom and Don were persuaded when the right sum of $$$ was waved in front of their faces. I've already stated this before in this thread. An expert can not give an opinion that a being in a picture is "non-human". They would have to see the actual specimen. Also, experts can not remain anonymous. If they refuse to reveal their identity and qualifications their their opinion is voided.

Characteristics of pseudoskeptics:
1. Denying, when only doubt has been established.
2. Double standards in the application of criticism.
3. The tendency to discredit rather than investigate.
4. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
5. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
6. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Characteristics of pseudoskeptics:
1. Denying, when only doubt has been established.
2. Double standards in the application of criticism.
3. The tendency to discredit rather than investigate.
4. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
5. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
6. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.

Criticism does not require proof. The burden of proof lies on the person making the positive claim, i.e. if you claim it's an alien you have to prove it. In this case proving such is impossible. There's no way they can ever prove that its an alien. This thing was doomed from the start.

 

[DissectionStalker]

3. The tendency to discredit rather than investigate.
4. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
5. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
6. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.

I am not doing that if that is what you're implying??? I don't think Redfern or dream people are doing it too relating to this elderly person.

I'm rhetorically posing questions, when "the logic" of Dew's story does not seem to match or mix with Redfern and dream people's source... other than the possibilities I'm offering as a series of "out loud" questions. It's just conjecture. Or, as Constance would say.... Yadda, yadda.

These 2 slides can never be proven to be connected to a Roswell crash or an ET except by belief according to THEIR story already published by Dew himself. Two slides are not evidence... when one makes extraordinary claims, then one needs extraordinary evidence and proof too.

Two slides will never meet that standard for Redfern, KDR, or anyone wanting The Truth. The truth is not a belief in 2 slide photos. Just pretend they're real now; we've seen enough of the slides already. Of course, maybe Dew's video frame that was captured was some kind of hoax and lure too! I wouldn't put that past someone to put a fake frame in that video. Unlikely, but possible.

Btw, I'm just offering opinion. Yadda, yadda. I have no proof. I'm interested in how the elderly person "contacts" with Redfern and dream people works with Dew's story...

Does anyone have any alternative ideas??? What's 'that' connection?

 

[Constance]

That's what Adam says. However, for all we know Tom and Don were persuaded when the right sum of $$$ was waved in front of their faces.

. . . which is zilch.

 

[Skymon876]

You are a true believer, Mike. And I did not contradict myself. You ignore or excuse all the warning signs this is a scam.

You made the simple mistake most psuedoskeptics make. You forgot that making a counter claim requires proof. You are under the delusion that the other side has to provide proof but you don't.

You might want to work on your spelling if you want anyone to listen or take you seriously.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

. . . which is zilch.

It went right over your head. If what I said is zilch then so is what Adam wrote. Because we don't know that as fact.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

You made the simple mistake most psuedoskeptics make. You forgot that making a counter claim requires proof. You are under the delusion that the other side has to provide proof but you don't.

You might want to work on your spelling if you want anyone to listen or take you seriously.

Thanks for your opinions, True Believer. However, the way it works is that nobody is required to prove it's not an alien being. We don't have to prove it's a mummified child or prove that it's a dummy or anything else. If they can't prove it's an alien the case is over with. Hint: They can't prove it's an alien.

 

[Constance]

I've edited my post to clarify, Boy:

"That's what Adam says. However, for all we know Tom and Don were persuaded when the right sum of $$$ was waved in front of their faces."

. . . which is zilch.

Note: The rest of what you posted (and keep posting) is wishful thinking. In other words, the complement of the data and reasoning to be presented could turn out to be persuasive. No way to know until it's all presented.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

I've edited my post to clarify, Boy:

"That's what Adam says. However, for all we know Tom and Don were persuaded when the right sum of $$$ was waved in front of their faces."

. . . which is zilch.

Note: The rest of what you posted (and keep posting) is wishful thinking. In other words, the complement of the data and reasoning to be presented could turn out to be persuasive. No way to know until it's all presented.

Do you think it's possible to prove that a being in a picture is a genuine alien? If so, how could this be accomplished?

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Do you think it's possible to prove that a being in a picture is a genuine alien? If so, how could this be accomplished?

Hypothetical....but maybe the evidence surrounding it? Possible by the release of slides and Hilda and Bernards name that connect a dot happens and a story emerges? Not sure. I've seen all these difficulties also. I think a majority of people who've weighed in see this. I think discussing this story with colleagues was fatal for the team, it rushed something that should have been quiet for a long while. On the other hand, with everyone weighing in new clues may surface faster.