The Roswell Slides Steal the Show!

[mike]

A Short Slides Redux

Some years ago, while an attic was being cleaned out, a chest was found containing many Kodachrome slides. Two Kodachrome slides were later found to have been separately hidden in an envelope within the inner lining of the chest’s lid. The chest and its contents were traced and found to have belonged to an intriguing, childless couple that are now deceased.

This author made the discovery that the husband, Bernerd A. Ray, was an Oil Exploration Geologist working the fields in New Mexico and the Permian Basin (which includes the Roswell region) in the 1940s for a company that would later become part of Texaco. In 1947 he was the President of the Texas chapter of the American Institute of Petroleum Geologists, which also at that time ‘folded in’ the State of New Mexico. After 1947, Bernerd became a ‘ghost’ in his profession and did not publish nor appear to be active with the Institute ever again.

Hilda Ray, Esq.

Bernerd’s wife was Hilda Blair Ray. Researchers Tom Carey and Don Schmitt and the current owner of the film learned that Hilda was a highly respected lawyer with a high-end clientele and possible intelligence connections. A private pilot, she maintained favorable relations with well-placed individuals in both the public and private sectors during the 1940s. The other slides in the chest (over 100) are often found depicting accomplished people, including Dwight Eisenhower. This is a couple who were of the highest integrity. And both had contacts and activities that could have fortuitously enabled them to obtain these slides. And neither would have been the type to hide away hoaxed images as part of some sick prank, only to have those images found decades later by happenstance. This busy professional couple was also philanthropic with no propensity to prank.

Why The Slides are Genuine

Professionals from a range of disciplines who have seen the slides agree that they depict a small humanoid creature –a formerly living thing- that is not a prop nor a genetically defective human. And importantly, the being that is shown in the slides does not correlate whatsoever to the depictions of aliens extant in the popular culture of the 1940s (such as those that appeared in pulp magazines like Amazing Stories or movies like Buck Rogers) What the slides depict were not even part of the public psyche of that time. This is not how people envisioned things from outer space to look like back then. Instead, these 1947 slides reveal a being that looks like the beings found in the desert in 1947 as described by the witnesses to Roswell.

 

[mike]

There is of course the issue of Roswell deniers in this case as well

The inference of circumstantial evidence linking these slides to Roswell is part and parcel of this case

This humanoid is not a deformed person, mummy, dummy, simian or dead serviceman. It is not a creature that finds its origin on Earth. And given that the slides of this creature were taken the very same year as the Roswell UFO crash; that the appearance of the creature matches the reported appearance of the Roswell crash aliens; and given that the person who was in original possession of the slides was a geologist working the New Mexico desert throughout the 1940’s, it is not a jump or stretch to then conclude that these slides indeed show the corpse of one of the creatures found fallen at Roswell.

So for those who have decided Roswell didnt happen (in the ET narrative version)

Will already be looking at these slides via that filter. And will likely reject this case ipso facto on that basis.

Its almost a pity this connection is made, since it creates two hurdles to jump within the genre

 

[Constance]

Here's the link to the photos
Fold3 Viewer
It starts at the end, hit the arrow to go left.

Thanks for the link. I've read the BB file up to page 69; it is an education in itself concerning the attempted coverup going on in the 1950s and the muddled communications and miscommunications going on among AFOSI, ADC, and Blue Book. I'm inclined to agree with Jan Aldrich that there might have been two sightings photographed/filmed at Edwards that day from two different locations. The most recent researchers to comment on the case are the authors of the recent UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry quoted on this page from the NICAP website. Here is an extract to the point:

"No one from Blue Book, ADC, or from wherever the interrogators had originated bothered actually to look into the possibility of a balloon misidentification. Fortunately, there was in this case a conscientious Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations at Edwards AFB who did so. Lt. Colonel Raymond Klein checked on the balloon launch and obtained the data on it (it was being followed and recorded at ten-minute intervals). Klein knew exactly where that balloon was throughout the theodolite filming experience, and wrote ATIC with his analysis: "Based on the above track made and the location of the observers at the time of sighting, the weather balloon released at Edwards could not have been the unidentified object reported."42

"Back at Blue Book such information made no difference. The case solution to this day reads "Confirmed balloon." Incidents such as this one at Edwards AFB are stunning examples of what depths Blue Book had reached. It was doing something. But that something had nothing to do with the nature of UFOs."

Close Encounters & 1957

 

[Constance]

OK, hold up for a second, are you saying that one of the most infamous catch phrases from good ole Gordon Cooper is just another inaccurate, mythologized UFO sound bite and that all his stuff about aliens landing and getting out is all stuff he just made up? WTF is up with that character as he's spun all manner of interesting strange claims over the years.

BTW what the hell is that odd pair of drawings on page 39? That was the most interesting part of Fold3, along with the suggestion that our overestimation of the army obfuscation needs to be reigned in a might.

I wouldn't be so sure that Gordon Cooper made up what happened at his location that day at Edwards AFB. What's available concerning the case from BB concerns something going on in another part of the base, well scrambled in the followup as is clear in the BB file.

I also wondered about the two weird drawings on page 39, with no label or notes referring to them.

 

[Constance]

Also, isn't the footage Cooper referred to the footage that was offered to Robert Emenegger on one occasion and to both him and Linda Moulton Howe on a later occasion by some government insiders seeking their cooperation in a documentary for supposed public release?

 

[DissectionStalker]

Also, isn't the footage Cooper referred to the footage that was offered to Robert Emenegger on one occasion [...]

This is another reason why you need to watch that doc Mirage Men. You can see him talk directly about it. No filters!

 

[Constance]

So for those who have decided Roswell didnt happen (in the ET narrative version)

Will already be looking at these slides via that filter. And will likely reject this case ipso facto on that basis.

Its almost a pity this connection is made, since it creates two hurdles to jump within the genre

I see your point. But it is what it is. So many people who follow the ufo subject have dug their heels in re Roswell despite increasing evidence of its reality over the last decade that there will no doubt be continuing battles in these venues. I still think these slides might have a sobering effect on a broader public, depending on how persuasive the event in Mexico City turns out to be, and how widely it is broadcast. I saw a reference to its being livestreamed on the internet, so that reach is likely to be wide.

 

[Constance]

This is another reason why you need to watch that doc Mirage Men. You can see him talk directly about it. No filters!

Oh please, D.S. It might be a marvel of filmmaking skill but I know what its producers' intentions are and have long been. Have you pursued the links I posted in the Armen Victorian thread?

 

[DaveM]

I'm sorry... this whole alien slide thing leaves a bad taste in my craw. The people behind this are trying to make it sound like two slides of supposed aliens from 1947 are definitely from Roswell. That is a damn big leap to make in my opinion.

The fact that all the info about who is truly behind the scenes paying for this is hush-hush, makes me very suspicious.

Just knowing that the event is being held in Mexico City, my BS meter is starting to peg knowing that Jaime Maussan might be part of the festivities. Run as quickly as you can if that is the case.

 

[Sentry]

A preview of the announcement:

 

[boomerang]

Confirmation of authenticity of the slides is only as good as the expertise and integrity of whatever "experts" have pronounced them to be genuine. I haven't read far enough in to understand who is authenticating. But I'm wondering if the slides will subsequently be made available for inspection upon request by other recognized experts in the field of whatever the heck this is.

Of course I would love for them to be genuine and revealing. At the same time (and especially looking at the size of that auditorium) I'm catching a faint whiff of PT Barnum in the air.

 

[DaveM]

Just a faint whiff?

Confirmation of authenticity of the slides is only as good as the expertise and integrity of whatever "experts" have pronounced them to be genuine. I haven't read far enough in to understand who is authenticating. But I'm wondering if the slides will subsequently be made available for inspection upon request by other recognize experts in the field of whatever the heck this is.

Of course I would love for them to be genuine and revealing. At the same time (and especially looking at the size of that auditorium) I'm catching a faint whiff of PT Barnum in the air.

 

[boomerang]

My friend Shepherd Johnson posted this on Facebook a while back:
"Let's put a major ufological myth to rest. That of Gordon Cooper filming a UFO at Edwards AFB and then the film being confiscated and never seen again.
You've seen it in interviews with Gordon Cooper, namely James Fox's material and you hear people like Steven Greer and Michael Schratt promoting this story.

1.) It's not so secret. In fact Blue Book has a file about this story here: Fold3 Viewer and
2.) the film wasn't spirited off to some secret three letter agency facility, in fact there are stills from the film in the Blue Book files here: http://www.fold3.com/image/6974276/"

Sad thing is, the eyewitness accounts in Blue Book don't match with Cooper's more exciting version of events.

No where is it guaranteed that astronauts and other national heroes do not con or confabulate. Still, I'm not quite so willing to write off Cooper's version of events. We have no solid chain of custody evidence for the original footage and how it was handled and processed. My impression of Blue Book is one of a wide spectrum of objectivity on the part of its staff. DISCLAIMER: I have not read the Blue Book version of the incident.

I don't believe Cooper himself claimed to have witnessed or photographed the object. But I think we are left with another possible problem.

On page p. 4, under section b. 4, it's stated " The observers were specialists in the field of photography". So we are left to wonder how presumably competent observers working in what was probably a Classified space could have been so convinced that anything as mundane as a small balloon was something strange enough to warrant putting their careers and reputations on the line by raising what was presumably a mild stink about the matter.

No smoking gun here either. But it seems that something doesn't jibe.

 

[Burnt State]

The case will really only be satisfying to those who believe in the ETH imo.

Those who say aliens are not real wont buy it
Those who say the distance is too great will declare the slides unconvincing
And those who favour an esoteric explanation over a simple extension of the existing model of reality will likewise find some intellectual offramp and declare they prove nothing.

Of the remaining true believers some will find these compelling some wont, so the total significance of this case is likely to be marginal.

But as a critical believer myself, im kinda hoping to be convinced.

Unfortunately, the endless cycle of ufology, and it's great carrot, is the imminent promise of the confirmation of alien life. Roswell is the great bridesmaid to this marriage, but alas, never the bride.

I'm curious about the location for the broadcast - why the greatest concert hall on earth, though no great concert will be playing? And why out of country - is this about markets and the greater likelihood of actually selling seats to this venue, or is this presentation taking place in a side auditorium to the main venue? Why did it not get sold in America to major tv for big money? Is Roswell dead or is the evidence just not that convincing?

As always the promise is enormous, but it has not generated very much mainstream interest. Alien Autopsy this is not. If anything it promises to be a skeptics' feast with ravenous debunkers circling overhead. I think you are right. It is marginal and will be very difficult to get past that. I expect much pomp and circumstance on the way down the aisle leading to the big event.

 

[mike]

Confirmation of authenticity of the slides is only as good as the expertise and integrity of whatever "experts" have pronounced them to be genuine. I haven't read far enough in to understand who is authenticating. But I'm wondering if the slides will subsequently be made available for inspection upon request by other recognized experts in the field of whatever the heck this is.

Of course I would love for them to be genuine and revealing. At the same time (and especially looking at the size of that auditorium) I'm catching a faint whiff of PT Barnum in the air.

He sounds like he has the necessary experience with Kodak film



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.

 

[Constance]

I'm curious about the location for the broadcast - why the greatest concert hall on earth, though no great concert will be playing? And why out of country - is this about markets and the greater likelihood of actually selling seats to this venue, or is this presentation taking place in a side auditorium to the main venue? Why did it not get sold in America to major tv for big money? Is Roswell dead or is the evidence just not that convincing?

Which network or cable outfit do you think would have presented this event in the US of all countries?

 

[DissectionStalker]

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.

Unfortunately, UFO photos are sooo unproven except as fakes, hoaxes, and unclear or clear, many decades ago on film, and were sometimes fooling experts for years before the hoax was confessed too. That being the Belgium photo as a recent example.

I hope the images will be offered in high resolution to view online. I'm thinking human, perhaps with physical deformities, or human disguised. 1947 got a lot of publicity in that region of the USA about the UFO and bodies/aliens(?), so these photos could have still been faked about the incident.

The incredible hype continues; Mexico loves UFO's too.

Roswell is Legend and will never die. It is the "Moth-man into the Flame".

Is there proof the slide film was developed in 1947 or much later in time?

 

[Constance]

1947 got a lot of publicity in that region of the USA about the UFO and bodies/aliens

Say what? That is to ask, how much have you read of the Roswell research?

 

[Burnt State]

Which network or cable outfit do you think would have presented this event in the US of all countries?

Fox - didn't they handle Alien Autopsy? Given just how many different shows are out there chasing UFO's and opening up Hanger 1 etc., I'm actually a little surprised that there isn't a deal with any number of stations and entities who are all over the UFO thing in a big way. Is it that their price was too high perhaps?

 

[Burnt State]

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.

and that part is certainly very compelling. I would imagine that any film emulsion processed over 60 years ago would easily show some specific age unless they were kept air tight or frozen. Kodak made some great archival film so whatever it is it's going to look good.

I still question two pieces. Where are the slides from this roll that came before and after these specific shots as those contextual pieces are important and speak directly to a specific, continuous narrative.

The other thing I find actually odd is how it could be specific to 1947? Usually film coding is not year specific but is specific to a group of years and I would think it would be more accurate to say that this film was from a range of years. Some slide processing facilities will date stamp a slide, which is what I'm familiar with looking at my family slides, but many are also undated, so I don't see how the expert can say it's 1947 and not from 1943-1949 for example. I could be wrong but it seems like the specific year is being forced.