• 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

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Heidi Lemmer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hi, Heidi

Thank goodness for someone like you who uses their real name. Some of the others like Ostension and NAB LATOR have been running rings round earnest decent folk who rightly or wrongly believe the Roswell Slides depict either (a) a genuine Roswell Alien or (b) a mummy. As I have said repeatedly it's neither: it's a SFX dummy alien which I call MATILDA.

From what you pointed out yesterday everyone should be able to see by now that the "MUMMIFIED BODY OF TWO YEAR OLD BOY" deblurred message was a hoax too and it probably came from one of the original hoaxers who include Mr Adam Dew. We don't know for sure who NAB LATOR is but I suggest that he's neither in France nor one of the honest RSRG investigators. He certainly took a lot of people in but I hope now that some of the mummyists will step forward and apologize in just the same way that Don Schmitt and Tom Carey apologized. Look carefully too at Tony Bragalia since I'm told that he is using a false name and has probably been well aware that the Roswell Slides were a hoax all along. Any of these folk can come on this forum and dispute what I say but I doubt that they will.

I ask all the mummyists like Sentry (that's OK Curt --I know who you are and I don't believe that you are part of this grand deception!) to take a further close look at the small dead creature shown on the Roswell Slides. Its head is grotesquely larger than its thorax. It's about 47 inches long and it has several non-human features (not easily seen on lower resolution images} that completely exclude the possibility that it was ever a human child or even any kind of mammal. This "creature" may appear mummified but it was never a mummified human child.

The hoaxers have tried to drive researchers into either of two camps. Their unwritten agenda is that YOU must decide whether this "creature" is a Roswell Alien or if it's a mummy. Obviously the vast majority of us roared that this wasn't a genuine alien because we distrusted all the hocus-pocus and nonsense that has been served up by Roswell mythbuilders like Jaime Maussan and Linda Howe over the years. We delighted in the exposure of Maussan's false alien and his "epic fail" in Mexico City on May 5. Some on this forum cheered the hoaxers who had set this up and then, taking the offer of an easy way out, yelled "Case Closed --it's a mummy".

Well, no --it's NOT a mummy, it's Lundberg's "Alien MATILDA" SFX dummy. This unseen third option is the true one and I'm quite sure that many people will eventually come to realize that. In the meantime be aware that the original hoaxers are still out there on these forums still trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. There are villains in this matter and there are dupes. Make sure you choose carefully before being further deceived by the hoaxers with their Plan B fabricated deblurred message and opting to join the mummyist camp.

I'll say it again: I'm only interested in finding the truth of this matter.

George Wingfield (that's my real name and that's my real photo on the left)
 
vesvehighfolk said:
Slow down here
.what evidence dose any one have that the deblured placard is a hoax?
Click to expand...
It's like squeezing dry and desiccated lemons for juice - I don't understand how evidence can be discounted.

@George Wingfield you are aware that other people from that team and other people in general achieved the same results independent from Nab and that all but Jaime from the original pro slide camp accept these findings? Why do you keep beating this dead horse? And will you beat on Isaac Koi as well. Are all pseudonyms to be discounted?

You are familiar with a history on planet earth where in order to be accepted in their chosen professions highly skilled women frequently took on pseudonyms and lived as men in order to write, paint and discover? Should they all be ignored & erased from history as well? I find your biases in this matter incomprehensible and puerile.
 
George Wingfield said:
George Wingfield (that's my real name and that's my real photo on the left)
Click to expand...

It is not lost on me that you are the one in bringing these certain claims to “Paracast City”, nor is it lost that you are the professional Ufologist/conspiracy theorist. If you think that anyone by disagreeing is going to kowtow by your statement, you’re sadly mistaken my friend.
 
mac said:
I threw out all my Mark Twain literature, how dare he. :eek:
Click to expand...

No, I'll forgive Samuel Clemens who never hid the fact that his pseudonym was Mark Twain (rather than the other way round). He lived down the road from here in Hannibal, MO, and he was a good guy though a bit before my time.
 
Discounting the placard it has been shown that.
1.the case is a museum displsy case.
2. A black head most likely a wolfs head is in the same case with display placard planly viable!
3. The body is mummified at least 100 plus years old.
4. There is no evidence that it is a dummy.
The slides show a mummy in a museum. .
The end..
 
Ok I will lay this out there if you believe that the slides show ANYTHING other than a mummy please post what you think the slides show and why hard evidence only please..
 
S.R.L. said:
It is not lost on me that you are the one in bringing these certain claims to “Paracast City”, nor is it lost that you are the professional Ufologist/conspiracy theorist. If you think that anyone by disagreeing is going to kowtow by your statement, you’re sadly mistaken my friend.
Click to expand...

"S.R.L.", I don't know who you are, but let me put you straight on a couple of things. I am hardly a professional ufologist though I have taken an interest in the UFO phenomenon for many years. I am NOT a conspiracy theorist and, as for kowtowing, I really don't care what anyone thinks. What I have done is to present the clearest possible evidence that the "Roswell Slides" were a carefully prepared hoax and also suggested who was behind it. I have withdrawn the suggestion that Jaime Maussan commissioned this hoax himself and it certainly looks now as if he was a dupe rather than a villain. I've seen all this deception before with Santilli's Alien Autopsy scam and the similarities are striking. Do I need to set the evidence out again?

Whatever you think about the slides, at least look at the "creature" again and consider what I've said about the impossibility of it ever having been a human child. The authors of the hoax have been present on this forum and others and are very probably reading this.
 
Burnt State said:
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?
Click to expand...

These are also facts that matter, Burnt. Surprised you can't see this. Not to see this seems inconsistent with your general requirements for a respectable ufology.
 
Last edited:
George Wingfield said:
Look carefully too at Tony Bragalia since I'm told that he is using a false name and has probably been well aware that the Roswell Slides were a hoax all along. Any of these folk can come on this forum and dispute what I say but I doubt that they will.
Click to expand...

George, some people use pseudonyms because their work as ufologists, if known, would compromise their credibility in the fields in which they earn their livings, provide for their families, etc. Isacc Koi appears to be such an individual; I've read somewhere that he is a barrister in England. It's obvious why he would use a pseudonym in his work in ufology. I read in a post at Randle's blog that 'Tony Bragalia' is a pseudonym and that the individual behind that pseudonym does not post a photograph of himself or disclose his actual residence to anyone. There might be a number of legitimate reasons for his maintaining his privacy. His research concerning the Roswell metal and its investigation by the PTB, for example, has certainly angered those who argue for prosaic explanations for the Roswell crash, including the security agencies responsible for publishing disinformation about it. Having read a great deal of his Roswell research I find it impossible to believe that he would participate in a hoax that would undermine the credibility of the alien crash hypothesis concerning Roswell. To do that would be completely inconsistent with his persistent and productive investigations concerning the Battelle Institute's role in analyzing the anomalous properties (widely reported) of the Roswell metal, and his investigations turning up two early reports concerning its qualities (long hidden and attainable only with great efforts on his part) and the ufo-related activities of the authors of that work in investigating ufo reports in that period that went to Battelle rather than to Blue Book. If you read this research by Bragalia I'm fairly certain that you will no longer be able to suspect him of being a disinformation agent seeking to dismiss the alien hypothesis concerning Roswell.

I think the only way to evaluate the intentions of researchers using pseudonyms is to examine the actual content of the research they produce and its implications concerning the major question concerning Roswell, i.e., what crashed there in July of 1947 and why it's important to find out what it was.
 
Last edited:
A big knock on both sides of the debate is that Nab Lator and Anthony Bragalia are fictitious names. If they want us to believe their stories, use your real names.
 
George and I are having two different conversations per mummy/dummy/alien. I believed before the May 5th show that it would be almost impossible to identify the body conclusively, and since this field is 100% missing the last chapter, I held no emotions on it. But what I did get caught up in is personalities on all sides going into the "reveal" and coming out of it. I also noticed a lot of hiding of evidence and of people's names. It's a turn off. A huge turn off. Both this site and many others experienced new bloggers with missions, the actual Dream Team withheld (who knows what now), and the clean up team withheld names and sources in how they reached their objective. No matter how you slice it, there's little grey area here. If people want to come to this field and dabble in the fine art's of UFO/alien, they should be prepared to say who they are. I don't actually have the same issue with bloggers per se, but I do when that person/persons infiltrate a blog to cause disruption. Also, I have a "strong" curiosity on who hacked the dream team and what they managed to get.
Bloggers here and elsewhere, who just come to discuss latest news aren't selling something to the field in general. In fact, their just customers. We're not obligated in the same way that leaders of the field are.
 
I confess, my real name, given to me at birth, was K. Keegan Barnes. My current name was chosen by me and agreed upon after I was adopted. FWIW: my avatar picture is really me dressed up in trickster garb stolen from the Middle Ages. I can say w/ some confidence that George is George, although I've always wondered who he really works for, I first met him at the Eureka Springs conference 20 years, one month and 20 some odd days ago back in 1995... :cool:
 
DaveM said:
A big knock on both sides of the debate is that Nab Lator and Anthony Bragalia are fictitious names. If they want us to believe their stories, use your real names.
Click to expand...
I disagree - names are as arbitrary and irrelevant as any word for any object or concept. What matters is how consistent the voice is and are the ideas vital. Many people here have pseudonyms for varying reasons. Maturity and respectability dictates that they are all acknowledged as human beings and their ideas and attitudes are given their due. After all, what's in a name?
 
Back
Top