UFO Conjecture(s)

Friday, February 27, 2015

Fred Hoyle is vindicated? (I think so)

http://www.space.com/28681-theory-no-big-bang.html

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

The Many Slides Stories

Paul Kimball, in a comment for the posting proceeding this one, writes that if the slides story is a concoction – a con like MJ-12 or the Alien Autopsy – that’s the story, and my effort to keep the topic on point -- the body seen in the slides – is not the only story to be aired.

He makes a point, which was exampled years ago in the Piltdown Man hoax, which took in many “brilliant men” (such as Teilhard de Chardin and Clarence Darrow).

But I don’t see a created con with the slides story, even though there are some iffy people involved. (Need I name them?)

Paul Kimball’s position is this (which he provided via an e-mail):

“Like I said, I actually feel sorry for Bragalia. He might be an unpleasant, borderline psychotic true believer, but I don't think he's part of the con. He just happens to be a patsy - the Lee Harvey Oswald, as it were. Just like Friedman was with MJ-12. And you can quote me on that.”

A little harsh maybe but that’s between Tony and Paul; it’s an invigorating back-and-forth, full of the ufological vituperation with which we are all familiar.

Yet, there is a story, besides the possible con job story. And it’s the actual content of the slide(s): the image thereupon.

What is it? Where was it displayed? Who took the photo? Why?

And then there is the alleged Roswell connection. Is that a real story possibility? I’m not so sure, although I think the slide body was the inspiration for the Scully/Aztec fiction. (But that for another time, as I’ve worked that conjecture to death here already, many times.)

There is also the story of the Rays, Hilda and Bernerd, who were supposedly the takers of the slides or holders of the slides, as they were allegedly found in Hilda Ray’s house.

But that’s also a story: who found the slides? Why did they keep them in their garage for ten years or so without a scintilla of interest in what they showed?

Then we have the Roswell guys getting involved. Another story: why and how?

There are a plethora of stories in this slides mess, all inter-related or seemingly so.

And the possibility of a con job -- an Alien Autopsy-like concoction  -- seems to be a stretch , for me, at least as far as Anthony Bragalia is concerned.

I told Tony he is a prisoner of his belief in the slide body depicting an extraterrestrial or Roswell flying disk crash victim, but he stands by his belief. He’s seen the slides in fact and close up, and he has some corroborating “evidence” that allows his belief and/or faith in what the slides depict.

I’m skeptical, and he knows that.

But there are stories here, contrived stories perhaps but real stories too.

And I think we’re really at the preface of those stories, some of which I’ll keep gnawing at here, until my visitors and readers become extremely nauseous, as many are already.


RR

Monday, February 23, 2015

A Clarification about the Kodak “alien” and its nakedness

A few fellows commented that my observation about the Kodak "alien" was not pertinent, but Loki gets it.

First off, if this were a secret exhibit, for scientists and/or the military, and the Ray’s or someone stumbled upon it or were invited to a viewing, one would not expect the genital area to be covered, unless Hilda Ray was considered too sensitive to see sexual parts of an extraterrestrial.

But if it were an open exhibit, we might expect the genital area to be hidden to assuage public sensibilities.

Then if the “being” was on display as an example of something special, one would see accompanying elements – clothing, uniform, and other noteworthy accoutrements: The Tutankhamun exhibit of that famous pharaoh or Lenin’s tomb and showing in Moscow, where artifacts associated with such dignitaries were (and are) included.

If the Kodak “being” was a body from the alleged Roswell crash, but only displayed for medical or scientific reasons, one might understand that only the eviscerated body would be displayed, but not with the genitalia covered. (Forensic professionals, the military, or scientists from various disciplines would not be prohibited from viewing sensitive areas of the body,)

If the “being” is a display of a being in final distress and displayed for others to view, such as the Elephant Man was, then the genitalia would, very likely, be hidden or covered.

The detail of the missing outer garments of the being is pertinent, just as it was for the caveman found in the Alps, 1991:

"Ötzi's clothes were sophisticated. He wore a cloak made of woven grass and a coat, a belt, a pair of leggings, a loincloth and shoes, all made of leather of different skins. He also wore a bearskin cap with a leather chin strap. The shoes were waterproof and wide, seemingly designed for walking across the snow; they were constructed using bearskin for the soles, deer hide for the top panels, and a netting made of tree bark. Soft grass went around the foot and in the shoe and functioned like modern socks. The coat, belt, leggings and loincloth were constructed of vertical strips of leather sewn together with sinew. His belt had a pouch sewn to it that contained a cache of useful items: a scraper, drill, flint flake, bone awl and a dried fungus.
The shoes have since been reproduced by a Czech academic, who said that "because the shoes are actually quite complex, I'm convinced that even 5,300 years ago, people had the equivalent of a cobbler who made shoes for other people". The reproductions were found to constitute such excellent footwear that it was reported that a Czech company offered to purchase the rights to sell them.
However, a more recent hypothesis by British archaeologist Jacqui Wood says that Ötzi's "shoes" were actually the upper part of snowshoes. According to this theory, the item currently interpreted as part of a "backpack" is actually the wood frame and netting of one snowshoe and animal hide to cover the face." [Wikipedia]
RR

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Forbidden Planet: Forbidden UFOs

Watching TCM's presentation of the 1956 movie, Forbidden Planet, one has to recognize that the creators of the film had a grasp of what an extraterrestrial culture might be like: The Krell

The Krell, who died out 200,000 years earlier in the film's scenario, had a culture derived from millennia of technical, artistic advances.
An advanced race of beings, who traverse the galaxy (or universe) would not be, if we understand intelligence and evolution of species (no matter from where) correctly, frail beings traveling in frail craft, subject to failure, as Roswell believers have it.

The idea of a crashed flying disk is ludicrous on the face of it.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that lightning or some other unexpected Earthian surprise brought down a space-traveling craft and its crew.

Would the crew not have accoutrements of an advanced kind, artifacts too futuristic to be understood by those recovering their downed ship?
Is there any evidence of such artifacts -- and I'm not talking about the prosaic items Corso provided in his book? None have shown up in any overt, obvious way (a support of CDA's argument about how crazy it is to think science and scientists would keep a Roswell alien crash secret, all these years).

The problem with UFOs and Roswell is that the indications and reports by alleged witnesses are too mundane to support an advanced race of extraterrestrial travelers.

(Moreover, the Earth, as I keep noting, is too insignificant to attract a space-traveling species: the galaxy and universe itself have more, many more, interesting places to visit, despite our desire to see ourselves as a special creation on a special planet.)

RR

The Kodachrome "being" -- where are its clothing?

The allleged alien, depicted in the controversial Kodachorme slides, is exhibited without apparel, or "space taveling gear."

Are we to suppose that extraterrestrial travelers, especially those witnessed, or exhibited as the Kodak slides being is, arrive on a strange planet, devoid of protection against weather or unknown biologic hazards as germs, radiation, et cetera?

That aside, why is the Kodak "being" provided without dress or clothing, or helmet or gloves -- apparel one would expect to be part of interplanetary travel, and exhibited if the glass enclosure is a showcase of some kind?

Was the supposed Roswell flying disc environmentally sound (equipped) to allow the crew naked presence, as they traveled the stars?

Something doesn't compute.

RR

Airship extraterrestrials?

No, just human species.

RR

Saturday, February 21, 2015

The Kodachrome Roswell/Alien Slides: Provenance

I found, from the original news about the so-called Roswell slides, the Bernerd/Hilda Ray connection to be interesting.

But now we learn that the slides, while ostensibly found in Hilda Ray’s home, cannot be definitely tied to Hilda or Bernerd Ray, as Kevin Randle also notes at his blog.

Circumstantially, one can assume (and the operative word is “assume”) that the slides belonged to Hilda (and Bernerd) Ray.

But that certainly doesn’t indicate that they took the photos represented in the slides, as Mr. Randle also notes.

That the woman who found the slides held them for ten years, without any scrutiny, is also troublesome.

In the art world, provenance (of a painting) is the crux of authenticity and value.

With the Kodak slides, provenance is iffy at best.

This forces the topic to what is pictured on the two slides allegedly showing a humanoid form of some kind.

While the slides may be shown to have been taken in 1947. by virtue of Kodak dating, that Roswell is the site or origination of the images on the slides is even more iffy.

From the original story-line that Bernerd Ray, a geologist on a trip with colleagues near Roswell in 1947 who stumbled upon the Roswell crash and surreptitiously took a photo of a military operation mopping up a flying disc crash with bodies, we have now moved to a scenario quite unlike that: beings showcased in a glass enclosure, already eviscerated and examined, which would not have taken place so quickly (forensically) to allow the exhibition to be dated to July or August 1947.

There are many problems with the Kodachrome story, more questions now than originally, and the fellows involved have got many more explanations ahead of them, questions I don’t think the May 5th Mexico event can answer or will answer.

RR 

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Adam Dew's TV Interview about the Kodachrome/Roswell alien slides (and a Mexico City event promo too)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7n9GSez2jk

Sunday, February 15, 2015

Roswell media misinformation in 1947

I found this excerpt in an archive from ten years ago, which highlighted journalistic errors (New York Times?) during the Roswell hub-bub in 1947.

The excerpt and archive may have come from a listing at David Rudiak's all-inclusive Roswell blog in 2005 or so. (I have no idea from where we got the material, and I apologize for that.)

The information is interesting, despite the egregious misspellings of names (Haut and Brazel):

Rancher Hears the Story

    Haught added the "disk" had been examined at Roswell field and forwarded to higher authorities.
    Events leading to the issuance of Haught's bulletin were pieced together as follows:  W. W. Brizzell, a rancher, found the remnants of the balloon last week. In near-by Corona, N.M., Saturday he heard about the national disk epidemic.  He decided to notify the sheriff.
    Sheriff George Wilcox relayed the information to Roswell field, where Maj. Jesse A. Marcel was assigned to investigate.  The major went to the ranch and took the collection of sticks and foil into the custody of the army.
    Newton explained the object, when rigged up, looks like a six pointed star, is silvery in appearance, and rises in the air like a kite, mounted on a 100 gram balloon.  He said a radar set is used to follow the balloon and winds aloft are charted through a triangulation process.  He added he had used similar balloons during the invasion of Okinawa to get ballistics information for heavy guns.

RR

Saturday, February 14, 2015

The planet Mercury, close-up

http://www.businessinsider.com/closest-photos-of-mercury-2015-2

John Podesta's "mea culpa" about UFOs

http://news.yahoo.com/outgoing-obama-adviser-john-podesta-s-biggest-regret-of-2014--keeping-america-in-the-dark-about-ufos-234149498.html

Nick Redfern's take on the Kodachrome slides hacker

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/02/spying-on-the-roswell-slides/

(I have a thesis, and supporting material of who the hacker, or one of them, was and it's a person I've excoriated here, a guy who's used my previous postings for his pseudo-name: Through a Glass Darkly, the St. Paul phase that I used in a posting and which my suspicioned hacker grabbed as he had with other comments and phrases I've used.)

RR

Madness and UFOs

There are unexplained things seen in the skies of Earth, and then there are odd incidents on the ground, associated with flying saucers or the UFO phenomenon.

The mixing of the two distinct kinds of “UFO observations” causes an irrational interpretation of both.

But one is open to physical investigation and the other is only open to psychological or neurological interpretation.

The first may be exampled by the 1952 Washington D.C. event(s) or the so-called Phoenix lights sightings or maybe the 2006 O’Hare airport sighting.

The second is exampled by the 1979 Robert Taylor episode in the Dechmont Woods area of Livingston, West Lothian, Scotland or the 1977 LaRubia incident which is detailed here:

A raft of UFO-recounted incidents that bespeak psychological or neurological maladies is noted by Rob Morphy at Mysterious Universe:


One aspect of the organic or mental disruption oriented episodes has never been looked into by UFO investigators as far as I know, and that’s the syphilitic possibility (paresis), where the “witness” may have the infection which affects the brain in varying stages, resulting in symptoms, illness, and sometimes death, as noted, inadvertently in such incidents as that of LaRubia, and causes “witnesses” to hallucinate.

One might scour UFO accounts for madness or hallucinations brought on by illnesses or brain diseases incurred by syphilis or cancer, even onset Alzheimer.

That no UFO investigator has the credentials for such evaluations, nor has taken the time to seek out colleagues who might have the expertise to look at UFO events caused by brain diseases or psychological maladies goes to the dearth of explanation for many UFO sightings listed in the literature.

RR

Friday, February 13, 2015

Accessing The Dark Web (where UFO things you've never seen reside)

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2884092/how-darpas-memex-search-engine-could-help-your-business.html#tk.nl_today

We were planted?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/03/aliens-send-space-seed-to-earth_n_6608582.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

The Desire to Debunk and Fuck with People: The Slides Imbroglio

Pressing Adam Dew for proof of a college degree is off the mark and ridiculous.

His work is what counts not what schooling he’s had or hasn’t had.

Examine his output, and criticize that if you must.

As for Gilles Fernandez’ museum cacophony to disprove the Kodachrome slides images (or alleged “alien” pictured), that’s what Gilles does: debunk, vibrantly, anything that smacks of an attempt to show UFOs and UFO accoutrements as extraterrestrial.

Gilles is livid when it comes to an idea of ETs visiting the Earth.

His sojourns at his web-site and his visitations to UFO blogs and web-sites here are rife with incomprehensible refutations that one has to take with a grain of salt.

Gilles is not objective, nor does he have the open mind of a searcher for truth: he is a hardened skeptic who throws everything he can find at those who even suggest that UFOs might be examples of extraterrestrial visitation.

I don’t see the Kodachrome slides as evidence of a Roswell crash or an alien [ET] body, nor do I think UFOs come from galaxies far, far away.

But that doesn’t mean the idea of ET visitation is impossible; improbable for me, but not impossible.

Throwing tepid water on UFOs and now the Kodachrome slides we are dealing with is a thing that swells Gilles’ ego, nothing more.

He has been discredited by his countrymen in the past and by me and others recently for his Airship nonsense.

But I like him, and so do the UFO skeptics in the UFO community here; Gilles is funny and very French, like Monsieur Hulot.

But let’s not give him more publicity than he deserves.

RR

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Why can't we be discussing this "alien" (in my world)


The Kodak image (a simulation?) in color (and compared to the previous real Kodachrome slide offering) from Gilles Fernandez

French UFO researcher Gilles Fernandez offered these colorized images and comparison in a link for a comment at the Adam Dew material posting here:
Mouse over image and click to see photo(s) larger.

But the colorized images don't seem to be of the same "being" shown in the sepia toned photo from the actual Kodoachome slide.

I think Monsieur Fernandez is mucking around here.

RR

The interest in the Kodachrome "Roswell/alien" slides?

Despite the call for surcease in the Kodak slides story (or circus to some), one can see from the visitors to this blog that UFO folks are intrigued by the controversial topic:
(Mouse over image and click to see it larger.)

The story, as messy as it has become, still resonates like no other in the UFO pantheon of tales, because Roswell is allegedly involved?

We UFO bloggers are loath to keep at the story but here it is, important, in one way or another, for skeptics, ET believers, UFO buffs generally, and UFO quidnuncs.

Let's hope it dies down soon as it is time-consuming and irrelevant to the UFO phenomenon itself; it really is.

RR

Monday, February 09, 2015

Adam Dew provided this update and clarification about his Kodachrome slide participation

I'll say this, I fully understand and appreciate all the skepticism.  The first time I saw the slides I had the same response.  But the story, by any measure, is fantastic and continues to get more interesting.  A few random notes on all this that might answer some questions:

Tom and Don were very skeptical of the slides (out of fear of another hoax) for more than a year.  I pursued them.  It wasn't until I finally had them vetted by film experts that they were willing to connect me with the witness to offer an opinion.  Tom and Don were not with me the first time the witness looked at the slides.  He's now seen them a second time with Tom and Don present and he had the same reaction to them.

I've shown the slides to several people with varying scientific backgrounds.  I have one of the most prominent anthropologists in the US on film looking at the slides.  He hasn't decided if he's willing to go on the record publicly yet.  But if I can get Ross to agree not to bother him, I might get lucky.  Almost universally, when anyone with a science background sees the slides they say something along the lines of "that's a fake."  I think that's an interesting response when we know they are not fakes.  Even NDT had that response.  I'd assume if it's obviously human, then that would be their first take.

As far as I know there are no anthropologists in this country who think they've seen what many Roswell witnesses say they saw in 1947.  There is no frame of reference. There is no text book.  This creates an obvious dilemma when the people who say they saw bodies near Roswell also say they were humanoid in most respects.

So I then decided to try to find some people who had personal encounters with the supposed Roswell bodies and see what they think of the slides. Some of you might be willing to flatly discount the personal experiences of someone like the man in our doc trailer, but I don't.  I'm not going to call him a liar.  He's never tried to capitalize on what he says he saw.  So it's the witness's word against everyone else's at this stage I suppose.

I'm not sure what else I need to do prove that they were not staged or faked.  I thought having them vetted by the worlds foremost Kodachrome historian would have been sufficient but I guess I was mistaken.  The professor featured in the trailer is a prominent photo historian, but not the Kodachrome expert who analyzed the slides.

Another note about the dating.  Our expert noted that there is a protective lacquer on the slides that can been seen when held up to the light.  I've since found out that lacquer was discontinued in the early 1960s in the development of Kodachrome.  The slides show almost the exact same image, same angle, just slightly different color temperature and focus.  We've had David Rudiak and experts from Adobe try to decipher the placard with little luck.

I wish we could move past the "dating" discussions, but I hear some people think I found some old unused Kodachrome, staged the photos, had them developed before 2010 (the last year Kodachrome was ever developed), added the protective lacquer,  and have been sitting on the slides ever since.

Would Hilda and/or Bernerd take multiple photos of a mummy/preserved body with hydrocephalus?  Even the anthropologists who've seen the slides don't offer a definitive opinion, but you guys seem pretty certain.  I've spent nearly three years trying to find what's in the images but I've had no luck.  Please send all pictures of hydrocephalus mummies on display in the 1940s to SlideBoxMedia@gmail.com.

AD