JeanLucPicard
Paranormal Maven
....and the nightmare never ends
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!
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.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 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?
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
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
(B) Was it a misidentified mummy?
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
It's possible that they've been inundated with requests for information about the mummy
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.
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?"
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?
If there is not to be a connection found between Lundberg and Dew, one may as well be piddling into the wind.
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?
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 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).
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.