The announcement that slides dating from 1947 found to have belonged to lawyer Hilda Ray and her husband Bernerd Ray (a top oil exploration geologist working in NM and TX during that time) have caused what can only be described as an internet sensation. Awareness of the slides existence was heightened very recently by the fact that individuals have taken a “screen grab” of one of the slides that appeared in a documentary preview by one Adam Dew, entitled “Kodachrome,” and attempted to enlarge and enhance it.
Since then, opinions have been proffered and amateur “analysis” has been conducted. Verdicts on just what the slides show have been rendered, often with impassioned, mean-spirited response and heated accusations. Inflammatory remarks, name-calling and near-libelous allegations have been made by people who have not been privy to a clear version of the slide nor seen the other existing slide at all- and without the benefit of review of the professional, scientific study that has been conducted on the them. And this negative, knee-jerk reaction to the slides existence began far earlier, even before the release of any image at all!
The truth of the matter could not be more different from what the noisy naysayers maintain . . ..
If, as the saying goes, a picture is worth 1000 words, this attempted enhancement gives only 250 of them. The fact is this: this is a video screen grab from a computer monitor –it is a picture of a picture of a picture– which has been taken at a distance of a slide in its frame. It is not a photographic print made from the slide, nor does it show the slide’s projected image on a screen.
Importantly, this poor-quality image is not even in color as are the original Kodachromes (a sepia-tone was applied to the image in the video.) The size and perspective of the being –and its texture and shape- is hugely distorted and important key details are unable to be seen.
A reproduction of an image can only be as good as its source material – and that source material was intentionally modified in the preview video. Bear in mind too that this is only one of the two slides that exists. This slide is the least interesting of the two. The other slide provides greater clarity and with far more detail revealed.
None of the photo-scientists who analyzed the slides were working with such degraded material like a video screen grab- they were working with the ‘raw’ original slides and with high-definition enlargements of them. This is not so of the many who give ill-informed opinions about them.
Finally, the image on the video was only offered as to give an idea or preview of the ‘real deal.’ It was not intended by any means whatsoever to be used to technically dissect the image or to offer the ‘full view’ of what the slides actually show. It is difficult to understand what some people do not understand about that.
There have been cries from some quarters that the slides are not authentic, or depict a mummy or even a hydrocephalic deformity. And these cries are as loud as they are incorrect.
To address the question of dating of the slides and the possibility of photographic deception, here is a summation of analysis done by experts from industry and academia:
• The film is manufacture coded (edge code dated) as 1927 or 1947 or 1967
• The protective lacquer used on the film is from the 1930s to 1960, eliminating the year 1927
• The cardboard sleeve used is 1941-1949, eliminating the year 1967 and leaving 1949 as the latest date the film was exposed
By simple process of elimination using these findings, we are left with the year 1947. Allegations that somehow the owner of the film was able to locate, purchase and take undeveloped, pristine and preserved Kodachrome filmstock from the specific year 1947 and find a way to take a picture with it and have it successfully developed using the old stock is ludicrous. I challenge anyone anywhere at any time to today find such 1947 cardboard slide sleeves and unused 1947 Kodachrome film, find an appropriate camera, take a picture of what is shown, and then have it processed.
If the being depicted in the slide was made in 1947 was a model or dummy, it in no way correlates to the 1940s concept of what ‘Martians’ look like and everything like what witnesses to the bodies at Roswell reported. Too, the slides were found hidden amongst well over 100 other slides taken by the Rays in the 1940s, so everything must be viewed within this context.
To address the question of whether or not the being depicted is that of a mummy or of a hydrocephalic:
• Hydrocephaly is a condition whereby there is an abnormal accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid in the ventricles of the brain causing bulbous enlargement of the skull. The treatment is to use a cerebral shunt to regulate amount, flow direction and pressure of the fluid. However, there are two things that must be understood. According to the journal Annual Review of Hydrocephalus, the long-term survival of hydrocephalics before 1960 (the year shunts were introduced as a treatment) was exceedingly low. Dr. Spyros Sgourus says that there was “high morbidity and mortality associated with treatment of hydrocephalus in the 1930s and 1940s.” According to the Review, in the 1940s, before shunting was established, infants with hydrocephalus had a very poor prognosis for survival. The fact is that the being pictured in the slides is between 3.5-4.0 feet tall and because of this is not a hydrocephalic infant. The skirted female legs (stocky like Hilda Ray) shown in the slide give us a very good sense of the length of the being she is looking at.
• Clear versions of the slides depict a being whose anatomy does not correspond to a human being. The limbs (legs and arms) are exceeding thin, frail and fragile, characteristics that are not associated with hydrocephalus. In fact, the torso (which has been opened) and rest of the body look nothing like any known case of hydrocephalus in history. The skull too, is enlarged but not ‘bulbous’ which is characteristic of non-shunted hydrocephalics.
• The being’s head is severed from the body (not evident in the screen grab) and one eye is missing. The chest and the abdominal cavity are missing. Hydrocephalic corpses are kept intact in medical study and display.
• The being has no teeth and has wide-set eyes. Lack of teeth and wide set eyes are not known to be conditions associated with hydrocephaly.
• In the actual slides it is evident that the being has only four fingers. To my knowledge, mummies and hydrocephalics are not typically missing a fifth digit.
• A detail not known or revealed to anyone but those who have seen the slides is that close-ups of the being’s face show a very ‘pointed’ chin, a chin that in no way resembles a human, mummified or hydrocephalic. In fact, the facial features do not in any way match that of other known hydrocephalics or mummies.
• One commenter (Gilles Fernandes) has shown a side-by-side comparison of the video grabbed slide and an infant mummy. He circles the feet of both, making a comparison and implying that they are one and the same. However, the image Mr. Fernandes offers is that of a specimen who is far, far shorter than 3.5-4.0 tall. And what is depicted in the slide is not a foot at all, but something else, perhaps a piece of debris lying on the surface. The being’s feet actually end behind the placard. In the actual slide there is even another similar, smaller such item which can be seen.
• This ‘placard’ is not very evident in the video grab image. However, it has been enlarged by experts and the writing, in red ink, is handwritten, not typed, as would be found in a biological display in a museum.
• Most importantly, the placard, as well as the support structure that the being rests upon, are clearly ‘temporary.’ The structure looks very make-shift, resembling a quickly-assembled ‘erector set’ type deal, with beams that have ratchet holes in them. The set-up in no way whatsoever resembles that of a professional museum display. It is not a well-crafted, pristine glass museum display box, but something not meant to be at all permanent. There is also a military-green blanket upon which the being rests, atypical of any such museum display of other biological specimens.
• Mummies are desiccated. This being was obviously either recently alive before the fatal pictures were taken, or had been embalmed.
• The Rays hid these two slides away and separate from the other slides found in a chest and were only discovered by the owners much later, as if to indicate that these two slides held special importance and meaning.
Some rabid skeptics have disparagingly termed the whole slide affair as ‘a circus.’ If it has in some way become one, it is not at all due to the actions of those who seek to study and present the slides. In fact it is outsiders who have tried to insert themselves into the saga who are the real ringmasters.
It began with a ‘leak’ of the story nearly three years ago. An anonymous individual apparently contacted researcher Nick Redfern and divulged what he knew. Nick then –understandably- began contacting researchers to gain more information. When word of the slides existence became public, very sick behavior ensued:
• This author had his computer system hacked in an attempt to gain more information about the slides, or perhaps to obtain the slides themselves.
• Other researchers including Nick Redfern and Tom Carey (who had his stored documents ‘crypto-locked’ with malware) were also hacked.
• Information and names obtained from my stolen emails on the slides investigation was made public on a website (before being deleted.)
• Some people began contacting -or threatened to contact- involved photo scientists and witnesses (including a 90 year old man) in an effort to either gain more information or to derail the investigation.
• Money was stolen from my credit card account in a ‘skimming’ scheme resulting from the hack of my computer system. Bank investigators are currently engaged in resolving this.
• Accusations of hoax were made even before any release of any type of the slides. I was directly accused of being ‘a liar’ and other defamatory and legally-actionable comments were made against me and my reputation.
• Phone calls were placed to me in the wee hours by blocked callers who threatened me with ‘exposure’ as a fraud and my family members have even been harassed.
• Some have recently blogged accusing investigators of “pretending” to be hacked to build publicity and mystery. Falsely reporting that a crime has been committed (charges have been filed with the FBI) is a federal offense.
Some have said that the whole thing has been done to make money. But what has really motivated the slides investigation is a sense of obligation to truth and to history. What these skeptics fail utterly to understand is the great expense –both personal and monetary- that this slide investigation has cost. Who do they think paid for the expert analysis of the slides? Who do they think paid for repeated visits to places like New Mexico, Texas and Rochester? Who paid for the hotels, car rentals, meals out? On whose dime and on whose time do they think all this investigation was done? This has all been self-funded by the owner and the investigators. And every moment that has been taken investigating the slides is a moment that has been taken away from making a living or time with family. Frankly the gall that some have to suggest that this should all be unpaid effort is beyond belief. And despite attempts at gaining mainstream media interest, none was obtained. A public venue was chosen and a live broadcast planned (on May 5th) that has to be paid for by someone, and a self-funded documentary such as Mr. Dew’s was produced. Skeptics should thank those involved, not condemn them. And as the discoverer of the slides, why shouldn’t the owner enjoy recompense? I cannot understand why some insist this should be a volunteer effort and that everything should be done for free. That said, this author has neither received nor sought any compensation- but I do not in any way at all find any fault for those that do.
Perhaps as interesting as the remarkable story of the slides themselves is the remarkable story of how people have dealt with such news. Jealousy, a sense of exclusion, and an inability to accept the possibility of what the slides do represent have all been in evidence during the slides saga. The compulsion by some to insert themselves into the story and to offer their judgment even before the slides and study are presented is worthy of a psychology study. Indeed, what the slides say about life beyond Earth is as telling as those who live upon it.