The Roswell Slides Have Been Leaked Online

[Constance]

The mummyists too appear to blindly accept the Hilda Ray story and they seem to blindly accept the far too convenient deblur solution "MUMMIFIED BODY OF TWO YEAR OLD BOY" from someone called "NAB LATOR" who is yet another person with a false name. There is really no knowing whether this "NAB LATOR" isn't the horrible Rob Irving.

Whoa. That's thinkable, isn't it? Your theory is beginning to almost make sense. For I know I've read somewhere or other since May 5 that the fully expanded digitized slide was sent on May 6th from Dew's computer files in Chicago to a member of the RSRG. I also recall reading that Dew did not comply with a request for release of that fully expanded digitized slide until later in the week (around Thursday?). The plot perhaps thickens. Or sickens, depending on one's perspective.

 

[Burnt State]

Hi Heidi. I haven't seen any information about that from the RSRG group (but I haven't visited their page yet). Elsewhere, in blogs, some members of that group have mostly been congratulating themselves over their application of recently released Super-DeBlur software (first applied to the digital representations of the slides, so far as I know, by someone using the pseudonym Nab Lator, from France I gather).

That was discussed specifically in the Radio Misteriosos episode posted earlier leading up to Dew giving the slide out to the team following their initial image leak.

 

[Burnt State]

The mummyists too appear to blindly accept the Hilda Ray story and they seem to blindly accept the far too convenient deblur solution "MUMMIFIED BODY OF TWO YEAR OLD BOY" from someone called "NAB LATOR" who is yet another person with a false name. There is really no knowing whether this "NAB LATOR" isn't the horrible Rob Irving.

Surrealism, Speculation & Insinuation = Myth Making.

Set your decoder ring on stun.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

That was discussed specifically in the Radio Misteriosos episode posted earlier leading up to Dew giving the slide out to the team following their initial image leak.

So I'm still not understanding, who leaked the image?

 

[Burnt State]

So I'm still not understanding, who leaked the image?

If you listen to the RM episode it is suggested an insider from the slide camp sent it, but who is irrelevant as in a moment of classic misstep Dew posts the image immediately after Sentry released his article, if I remember correctly. Giving away the original photo for the deblur to produce continuation of the placard finding is the end of the story, minus the throwing of the rotten fruit and vegetables at those in the stockades.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Surrealism, Speculation & Insinuation = Myth Making.

Set your decoder ring on stun.

This is part of my point, myth making becomes ripe when any side of an issue suppresses information, either of evidence or of the names involved with supplying evidence. How many times have we "sighed" when someone wrote that their source remains anonymous? The standards should be applied to anyone in this field to maintain credibility.

 

[Constance]

If you listen to the RM episode it is suggested an insider from the slide camp sent it, but who is irrelevant as in a moment of classic misstep Dew posts the image immediately after Sentry released his article, if I remember correctly.

I'm with Heidi, wondering who inside the slides camp released the image to whom and why?
Also wondering if @Sentry will tell us exactly when Dew released the image. And now I'm tired of all this and want to go to bed and read my next Dorothy Sayers novel. Ta.

 

[Constance]

Also, Burnt, since I don't like listening to podcasts, would you nail down what was said about this wrinkle on Radio Misterioso?

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Also, Burnt, since I don't like listening to podcasts, would you nail down what was said about this wrinkle on Radio Misterioso?

I listened last week to that episode, they didn't say. It's hush hush kinda thing.

 

[Constance]

I listened last week to that episode, they didn't say. It's hush hush kinda thing.

The pot calls the kettle black? Human, all too human.

 

[Sentry]

I'm with Heidi, wondering who inside the slides camp released the image to whom and why?
Also wondering if @Sentry will tell us exactly when Dew released the image. And now I'm tired of all this and want to go to bed and read my next Dorothy Sayer novel. Ta.

Hard to say, really. Everyone keeps saying Dew, but Slidebox Media, LLC is owned by partners, one of which is Joe Beason, and we can't know for certain which one posted the placard image on the wee hours of 5/9/15.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Wondering why this is getting confused? It was stated by Paul Kimball that this was Jose's source that supplied him with this image, and provenance was uncertain.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Sorry to belabor a point this much....and trust me, I don't have a hang up on whether the slides are real or not. I'm hung up at how this unfolded and remain perplexed that some of you are not. That is, of course, unless you have knowledge that the rest of us don't.

 

[Burnt State]

This is part of my point, myth making becomes ripe when any side of an issue suppresses information, either of evidence or of the names involved with supplying evidence. How many times have we "sighed" when someone wrote that their source remains anonymous? The standards should be applied to anyone in this field to maintain credibility.

Credibility of evidence was achieved when Dew released the slide hinself. That's the main point not the earlier issue of questionable provenance. Dew is now accepting the mummyist position it seems, holding still to is initial convictions as accurate at the time, and wanted new information to come out following the release and so it has. He still thinks he has a good trailer. I doubt the movie will be coming out any time soon.

So is this argument against the modalities of the RSRG because of their unified skeptical position despite the fact the collective contains a rather stringent, data driven and very well respected ufologist? What's this doubt of the facts that matter all about?

 

[Burnt State]

Hard to say, really. Everyone keeps saying Dew, but Slidebox Media, LLC is owned by partners, one of which is Joe Beason, and we can't know for certain which one posted the placard image on the wee hours of 5/9/15.

Apologies for assumptions. Thought that was also on RM. Either way, in the comedy of errors you described, in that particular moment I burst out loud in laughter, slapping the steering wheel. Funniest podcast about ufology i've ever heard - totally worth the listen @Constance . Saddest thing about it was that Moseley was not here to enjoy this and hear his commentary told by a band of ten or more brothers out in the woods.

 

[Sentry]

Wondering why this is getting confused? It was stated by Paul Kimball that this was Jose's source that supplied him with this image, and provenance was uncertain.

Provenance was being vetted. The biggest concern that it was too good to be true.
We could not understand (and still don't) how this could have been missed.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Credibility of evidence was achieved when Dew released the slide hinself. That's the main point not the earlier issue of questionable provenance. Dew is now accepting the mummyist position it seems, holding still to is initial convictions as accurate at the time, and wanted new information to come out following the release and so it has. He still thinks he has a good traiker. I doubt the movie will be coming out any time soon.

So is this argument against the modalities of the RSRG because of their unified skeptical position despite the fact the collective contains a rather stringent, data driven and very well respected ufologist? What's this doubt of the facts that matter all about?

I accept the facts, they seem well tracked. It is true that some people on the team are not trustworthy to "me." But others are, so that part balances out. As I stated earlier, if we want to trust a process, on any issue within this field, transparency is required. But I take issue where it's selectively applied, as should anyone else who cares about whats true and what isn't. In this particular field, as this entire thread has apply proved, transparency was lacking. We can only guess as to why. That shouldn't have happened for the group of guys that touts they will prove a hoax and then trot out anonymous and Nab Lator (fake name) as their source. It seems obviously silly. And again proves that the end game is all that matters. Well....is it? Does not the process also matter? As to the whole matter of the slides themselves or the dream team, this isn't about any of that. I'm content with the findings and maybe one day we'll learn more on if this was a deliberate hoax or really really bad investigators.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Provenance was being vetted. The biggest concern that it was too good to be true.
We could not understand (and still don't) how this could have been missed.

Yes, exactly, another point I failed to state.

 

[Burnt State]

The biggest concern that it was too good to be true.
We could not understand (and still don't) how this could have been missed.

And that's the part that leads to even more denouements and strongly suggests intentionality.

 

[Burnt State]

I accept the facts, they seem well tracked. It is true that some people on the team are not trustworthy to "me." But others are, so that part balances out. As I stated earlier, if we want to trust a process, on any issue within this field, transparency is required. But I take issue where it's selectively applied, as should anyone else who cares about whats true and what isn't. In this particular field, as this entire thread has apply proved, transparency was lacking. We can only guess as to why. That shouldn't have happened for the group of guys that touts they will prove a hoax and then trot out anonymous and Nab Lator (fake name) as their source. It seems obviously silly. And again proves that the end game is all that matters. Well....is it? Does not the process also matter? As to the whole matter of the slides themselves or the dream team, this isn't about any of that. I'm content with the findings and maybe one day we'll learn more on if this was a deliberate hoax or really really bad investigators.

While I agree that processes can be critiqued, not all discoveries are public events are they? What you ask for may be too puritanical & impractical for 2015. That this cabal open sourced their process only amongst themselves conforms to Greg Bishop's long held call for closed groups to operate together in secret until actual discoveries are confirmed and can be released.

Nobody knows who the hell @IsaacKoi is but no one calls his process retrograde in any way. He's busy facilitating easy access to all manner of primary evidence and data bases, debunking quintessential pieces along the way. It's appropriate for an age that recycles false digital images as truth every other nanosecond

I don't see the problem with RSRG's efficiency or collaborative nature that includes researchers practicing incognito. These are new distributive, digital methodologies in keeping with the times.