This claim about those slides isn't new. It's still vaporware, and I'd think that a responsible researcher making this claim ought to wait until the claim can be supported. I'm not holding my breath.
-
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!
The Roswell Slides Steal the Show!
- Thread starter Sentry
- Start date
Free episodes:
You know, part of me is thinking to just wait and see, another part is calling B.S, cos if the slides were genuine I think they would be out in the open already.
The pressure would be unbearable.
If more than 2 people were aware of genuine photos of alien bodies, human nature dictates that they would swear a best friend to secrecy and tell them the secret etc. In no time the secret is out.
I do think that whoever owns these slides wouldn't hold onto them for so long, not profiting or benefiting in any way. What is so special about this month or year, that anyone would wait until now to release such evidence?
No matter what is on these slides, nothing will be proven either way. People will argue that the photos are real, but are photos of models etc. There is no way to prove anything in the pictures was a real living creature or not. It's a fuss over very little - the whole thing. If the photos were fabulous and backed up by firsthand eyewitness evidence, then that might be a different matter!
The pressure would be unbearable.
If more than 2 people were aware of genuine photos of alien bodies, human nature dictates that they would swear a best friend to secrecy and tell them the secret etc. In no time the secret is out.
I do think that whoever owns these slides wouldn't hold onto them for so long, not profiting or benefiting in any way. What is so special about this month or year, that anyone would wait until now to release such evidence?
No matter what is on these slides, nothing will be proven either way. People will argue that the photos are real, but are photos of models etc. There is no way to prove anything in the pictures was a real living creature or not. It's a fuss over very little - the whole thing. If the photos were fabulous and backed up by firsthand eyewitness evidence, then that might be a different matter!
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
Inside this ship that crashed they found some aliens,
which they put on some aluminum foil so that they wouldn't spoil,
so mama please don't take my Kodachrome away!
which they put on some aluminum foil so that they wouldn't spoil,
so mama please don't take my Kodachrome away!
Last edited:
Rizla
Paranormal Maven
Constance, of course we'll wait for them. We've been waiting a while. The mainstream media's complete lack of interest in these slides is... interesting. Ten or fifteen years ago, there would be a History Channel show by now. But there's nothing. I agree with the fellow from Manx-land... it would have made a big deal outside of "ufology" if evidence of the slides were convincing, but hey, I'm prepared to keep an open mind and be surprised. I'd love to be proved wrong!
stonehart
Paranormal Adept
Same here for sure on seeing them but I just don't know.. has the feel of a hoax.. just a hunch.
WASHINGTON -- UFOs were the topic of a panel discussion Wednesday night at American University, and one of the speakers used the occasion to reveal evidence he called a "smoking gun."
"We have come into possession of a couple of Kodachrome color slides of an alien being lying in a glass case," author and researcher Thomas Carey told the near-capacity crowd in Abramson Recital Hall.
He's been researching the 1947 Roswell incident since 1991.
"What's interesting is, the film is dated 1947. We took it to the official historian of Kodak up in Rochester, New York, and he did his due diligence on it, and he said yes, this filmstrip, the slides are from 1947. It's 1947 stock. And from the emulsions on the image, it's not something that's been Photoshopped like today. It's original 1947 images, and it shows an alien who's been partially dissected lying in a case."
Read more: http://www.wtop.com/41/3741410/UFO-experts-say-we-are-not-alone#ixzz3JMokWDAa
That the Kodak historian thinks these are from 1947 is fairly significant imo.
Thats not to say there isnt some scenarios that could be bogus. They could have been faked in 1947. Or someone may have found an old cache of photographic stock and chemicals and used those.
I while back i was lucky enough to be able to buy some rare vintage harmonicas, they were discovered in a box under the stairs in the basement of a music company that went bust. Its not beyond the realms of possibility, a box of photo stock and developer chems were found in someones basement.
Certainly the obvious effort to monetise this find does it no favours.
None the less i'm still keen to see them for myself, the description of insectoid intrigues me
"We have come into possession of a couple of Kodachrome color slides of an alien being lying in a glass case," author and researcher Thomas Carey told the near-capacity crowd in Abramson Recital Hall.
He's been researching the 1947 Roswell incident since 1991.
"What's interesting is, the film is dated 1947. We took it to the official historian of Kodak up in Rochester, New York, and he did his due diligence on it, and he said yes, this filmstrip, the slides are from 1947. It's 1947 stock. And from the emulsions on the image, it's not something that's been Photoshopped like today. It's original 1947 images, and it shows an alien who's been partially dissected lying in a case."
Read more: http://www.wtop.com/41/3741410/UFO-experts-say-we-are-not-alone#ixzz3JMokWDAa
That the Kodak historian thinks these are from 1947 is fairly significant imo.
Thats not to say there isnt some scenarios that could be bogus. They could have been faked in 1947. Or someone may have found an old cache of photographic stock and chemicals and used those.
I while back i was lucky enough to be able to buy some rare vintage harmonicas, they were discovered in a box under the stairs in the basement of a music company that went bust. Its not beyond the realms of possibility, a box of photo stock and developer chems were found in someones basement.
Certainly the obvious effort to monetise this find does it no favours.
None the less i'm still keen to see them for myself, the description of insectoid intrigues me
stonehart
Paranormal Adept
Fair enough points.
Still keen to see the slides myself but will remain skeptical.. it is all the fakes etc that have gone before so as you can guess I will not get my hopes up.
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
Film stock that old would have to have been frozen all these decades in order to have any possible use without producing just fogged film. Chemicals last, but colour chemistry development requires something much different than the home lab. Was it only documented that the film's edge label confirms a date? How about chemical tests to determine just how old the developing process was?
A simpler piece of course is context - these slides were supposedly part of a much bigger lot of slides - how about those? Where are they and what are they of? Surely those would be able to be published as they would help prove timelines and they would help to determine the order of shooting and development if they were part of the same roll. That would be the most important piece of the puzzle to verify, before we start arguing about whether or not the soft focus images are of actual aliens. That will be mostly impossible, with or without the photoshop age, as these are simply photos out of context. But if you could see what else was on that roll, well then you've got something interesting to work with.
A simpler piece of course is context - these slides were supposedly part of a much bigger lot of slides - how about those? Where are they and what are they of? Surely those would be able to be published as they would help prove timelines and they would help to determine the order of shooting and development if they were part of the same roll. That would be the most important piece of the puzzle to verify, before we start arguing about whether or not the soft focus images are of actual aliens. That will be mostly impossible, with or without the photoshop age, as these are simply photos out of context. But if you could see what else was on that roll, well then you've got something interesting to work with.
Doing some research, they reckon film can be stored for years in a freezer
How to Store Your Film and Keep it From Aging | eHow
Fixer and developer can also be stored for years but it varys from brand to brand.
B&W Developing chemical storage methods and times. - Photo.net B&W Photo - Film & Processing Forum
As for it keeping for 60 years. ?....... in a freezer..........?
It does seem an unlikely scenario. though if it were possible i can imagine someone finding old stock and saying to themselves i could use this to fake some alien pics and make some money. the fact that they are trying to milk this for money is about the only match though in this scenario.
But i imagine that IF and its a big if this could be done, i imagine that might pass the Kodak experts tests, correct stock/emulsion etc.
Which leaves us with pictures taken and processed in 1947, either fake or real.
47 is very early for the idea of the grey alien image to have been prevalent enough to warrant faking that image. Not impossible, but it does strike me as being at the far end of the possibility scale due to those factors.
Which leaves real, which given the mud in the water will never be able to be established beyond reasonable doubt.
So from my pov they wont likely be any sort of proof, but definately worth a look see.
Personally i doubt i will be able to decide real or fake given the circumstances, but that leaves it open. I may just be looking at the real deal and for that reason alone i'll be glad to have a look at them
How to Store Your Film and Keep it From Aging | eHow
Fixer and developer can also be stored for years but it varys from brand to brand.
B&W Developing chemical storage methods and times. - Photo.net B&W Photo - Film & Processing Forum
As for it keeping for 60 years. ?....... in a freezer..........?
It does seem an unlikely scenario. though if it were possible i can imagine someone finding old stock and saying to themselves i could use this to fake some alien pics and make some money. the fact that they are trying to milk this for money is about the only match though in this scenario.
But i imagine that IF and its a big if this could be done, i imagine that might pass the Kodak experts tests, correct stock/emulsion etc.
Which leaves us with pictures taken and processed in 1947, either fake or real.
47 is very early for the idea of the grey alien image to have been prevalent enough to warrant faking that image. Not impossible, but it does strike me as being at the far end of the possibility scale due to those factors.
Which leaves real, which given the mud in the water will never be able to be established beyond reasonable doubt.
So from my pov they wont likely be any sort of proof, but definately worth a look see.
Personally i doubt i will be able to decide real or fake given the circumstances, but that leaves it open. I may just be looking at the real deal and for that reason alone i'll be glad to have a look at them
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
Mike, I don't think that there was any verification that it was shot and developed in 47 only that the film is authenticated as being from 47.
Again - storing b&w chem - sure, but who would do such a thing, and the toxins for colour development makes the likelihood of chem storage hard to believe. The film stock could have been frozen easily. But it would probably be fogged - which could be mistaken as soft focus. A true expert would spot that immediately.
Still, without the other shots before and after these two isolated slides printed on film from 47 tells us how old the film is but not its date of shooting.
Again - storing b&w chem - sure, but who would do such a thing, and the toxins for colour development makes the likelihood of chem storage hard to believe. The film stock could have been frozen easily. But it would probably be fogged - which could be mistaken as soft focus. A true expert would spot that immediately.
Still, without the other shots before and after these two isolated slides printed on film from 47 tells us how old the film is but not its date of shooting.
TBH i'm no expert in film etc, but reading the quote
The expert seems to be quoted as saying the stock is 47, and the images are from 47
According to the official historian of Kodak up in Rochester, New York
While he may be an expert witness, the quote is hearsay. But the claim is this guy seems to think it must be original 1947 images.
I doubt we will ever know for certain, but since i'm a believer i cant help but be open to the idea they might be what they are claimed to be.
Sentry
Paranormal Adept
Yikes, the whole point of the thread was about how these unproven, unseen slides robbed an otherwise good opportunity for a good PR opportunity for UFO/UAP study. Carey just had to crow about his sideshow slideshow flea circus. He's really succeeded, because that's all people are talking about, the Roswell non-news.
Anyway, here's another article on it, chiefly of interest for the comments by Leslie Kean and one of the students from the university that attended the UFO panel.
Roswell UFO researcher claims to have picture of aliens - Openminds.tv
Anyway, here's another article on it, chiefly of interest for the comments by Leslie Kean and one of the students from the university that attended the UFO panel.
Roswell UFO researcher claims to have picture of aliens - Openminds.tv
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
All he's saying is that the stock is from 1947 which can be read by looking at the coding on the edge of the film. I do not see the verification that the emulsion was actually tested or not. Depending on storage you would be able to detect changes in the film material over time vs. what a fresh or more recent print would look like. Unless after shooting the slide was put into a freezer or other cold dark storage I would think that there would be some noticeable aging in he emulsion in terms of dryness and even colour shifts depending on the file speed. Kodachrome 64 is a pretty permanent, archival colour film. What's the speed on this film?
For me the expert's testimony is not specific to the image but to only the film. Time will reveal all as this continues to drag on.
For me the expert's testimony is not specific to the image but to only the film. Time will reveal all as this continues to drag on.
boomerang
Paranormal Adept
I'm still of the opinion that whatever happened at Roswell was very unusual, but more governmental than extraterrestrial. Operators of that caliber, IMO, would not immediately react to the discovery of a crashed alien disc with a full blown press release. Followed by an "Oops! Move along. Nothing to see here." I can't imagine a more effective way to motivate generations of the curious to look exactly there and for the wrong thing.
The first principle of stage magic is misdirection.
The first principle of stage magic is misdirection.
Except that hes not, he mentions the stock, the emulsions and in that context his conclusion the image itself was taken in 1947.
Not saying he cant be wrong, but the alleged statement from the "expert" is a bit more than just the stock is from 1947
and he said yes, this filmstrip, the slides are from 1947. It's 1947 stock. And from the emulsions on the image, it's not something that's been Photoshopped like today. It's original 1947 images
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
I think this could be a parsing issue regarding where the expert's quote ends and the speaker continues to give opinion. I read it that the expert has only verified the film's age. The sentence that follows tells us that the image has not been photoshopped. Do you think this is still the film expert speaking - giving an opinion on photoshop created images vs. emulsion based media that is capturing light over time? I don't see a detailed report from the film expert, or even a focussed quote, but just an opinion by the presenter.
"And from the emulsions on the image," which is a strange phrase on its own, I understand that the comparison being made here is that an old film image can not be manipulated or confabulated the way that a photoshopped, or contemporary image can be. But I don't see a confirmation that his image is from 1947, just that images shot on film can't have been photoshopped.
The leap in logic that claims it's an original 1947 image I see as part of the speaker stringing together a series of points to make a claim that somehow these are actual 1947 based images but that's just an opinion combined with a confirmation about the film stock's date. Who is interpreting the content of the image is another matter altogether i.e. not all film made in 1947 means that all slides made from such film were shot in 1947.
Given that there was no detailed report from the expert presented, not even a singular quote, and that there's no context for these images & that the delay for presentation is an ongoing promise it seems to me this is about as meritorious as Rick Dyer with an ape suit stuffed with entrails of animals and other muck. On a less bloody note it bears even more comparison to the confrmation of Bigfoot's DNA.
"And from the emulsions on the image," which is a strange phrase on its own, I understand that the comparison being made here is that an old film image can not be manipulated or confabulated the way that a photoshopped, or contemporary image can be. But I don't see a confirmation that his image is from 1947, just that images shot on film can't have been photoshopped.
The leap in logic that claims it's an original 1947 image I see as part of the speaker stringing together a series of points to make a claim that somehow these are actual 1947 based images but that's just an opinion combined with a confirmation about the film stock's date. Who is interpreting the content of the image is another matter altogether i.e. not all film made in 1947 means that all slides made from such film were shot in 1947.
Given that there was no detailed report from the expert presented, not even a singular quote, and that there's no context for these images & that the delay for presentation is an ongoing promise it seems to me this is about as meritorious as Rick Dyer with an ape suit stuffed with entrails of animals and other muck. On a less bloody note it bears even more comparison to the confrmation of Bigfoot's DNA.
I guess thats fair enough. I took
We took it to the official historian of Kodak up in Rochester, New York, and he did his due diligence on it, and he said yes, this filmstrip, the slides are from 1947. It's 1947 stock. And from the emulsions on the image, it's not something that's been Photoshopped like today. It's original 1947 images
To be an inclusive quote from the historian. But there is no way to tell where his quote starts and ends. It could be as you say that the last two statements are not those of the Kodak historian.
It is to be hoped that his report will be published in full as part of the provinence when eventually shared with us
We took it to the official historian of Kodak up in Rochester, New York, and he did his due diligence on it, and he said yes, this filmstrip, the slides are from 1947. It's 1947 stock. And from the emulsions on the image, it's not something that's been Photoshopped like today. It's original 1947 images
To be an inclusive quote from the historian. But there is no way to tell where his quote starts and ends. It could be as you say that the last two statements are not those of the Kodak historian.
It is to be hoped that his report will be published in full as part of the provinence when eventually shared with us
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
Agreed. But you'd think if this was all on the level we'd see the report at least instead of just dangling the promise of ripe fruit. Seems to me there's a whole lot of smoke and not enough fire. I can see why some in the field choose to distance themselves from it.