Hat tip to Terry the Censor for tweeting this link. Highly recommended.
Yes, the pun is intended.
As I (and of course others) suspected as soon as we saw the picture, the alleged alien is a mummy. OpenMinds TV has an expose here. Good work by Alejandro Rojas and, in particular, Isaac Koi.
Make sure you download the Anthronotes study of the mummy, linked in the above post. And yes, there was a number on the skull.
So what have we learned? Here are some thoughts:
1. Jaime Maussan should no longer be considered a reliable researcher in ufology. To be honest, I’ve thought for some years now that he’s amazingly gullible. If you didn’t think he jumped the shark before, he’s in orbit now.
2. Ditto the above for anyone who promoted this “discovery”. You might think it harsh, but deal with it. This is precisely the sort of thing that gives serious researchers in this strangeness field (and others) a black eye. People who are this gullible and so prone to uncritical thinking shouldn’t be given any air time for their pseudo-research.
3. People who donated money to this cause ought to contact lawyers and sue. Maybe if that happened we’d see less of this BS.
Gosh – I wonder if Edgar Mitchell’s looking for a TV camera now. He was an astronaut, you know.
For those interested, the Black Vault posted a good summary of the suspicious aspects of this “smoking gun” evidence for proof of an alien body from Roswell. I especially wonder (with the Black Vault) why the card at the leg of the “alien” wasn’t enhanced along with the rest of the photo. Probably because that would tell us what it is — a mummy — and what museum it’s in.
I left a comment at the Black Vault site that contains the following about the “alien”:
Notice that there appears to be a number between the eyes, just above the left eye socket. Numbering skulls is no uncommon for Egyptian (and other) mummies. I’ve sent the photo to several Egyptologists who specialize in mummies for opinion – and, hopefully, for leads. I’m hoping that they have access to database information that has such numbers in record. We’ll see.
Someone in the Egyptology community will know if such records exist. The problem, of course, is accessibility. A lot of this stuff isn’t digitized — it still lives in card catalogs or cardboard boxes in museum cellars.
Here’s the news item. This was teased at IUFO.
I’ve seen the Kodachrome slide. I thought immediately it was a child mummy (it’s in some sort of display case). I’ve shown the photo to several Egyptologists. They said the same thing. You can see why when you juxtapose the “alien” photo (on the right) with a child mummy photograph. Funny how they both have the tell-tale body cavity opening:
Tracking down which museum specimen it is would be quite difficult, though, if indeed (and I see no reason to doubt this part) that it’s a genuine Kodachrome image from 1947.
The above link also has those touting this image as an alien “analyzing” the shape of the eye sockets. Honestly, big deal. Big eye sockets in skulls are familiar — like with these “alien” specimens:
These specimens are human. The first two are fetal skulls at, respectively, 20 and 21 weeks. The last is a one-year old. They all come from the same site – a medical supply company that specializes in osteological reproductions. Hey, they even have elongated skulls models (like you’ve seen at UFO conferences I bet):
The point with offering these skulls is that the “features” that folks will say point to alien origin (in a slide no less!) are not unusual — especially if the specimen is a child mummy. None of the skull shenanigans put out on the web by ancient alien theorists are unknown. Anthropologists and medical specialists have been all over that stuff for years.
Prepare for the defense of this to get goofy. The above link already has this comment from from Anthony Bragalia:
‘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.’ ‘
The Only Conclusion: This humanoid is not a deformed person, mummy, dummy, simian or dead serviceman.’
The Only conclusion? Play the goofy music now.
Pardon me, but child mummies were displayed in museums in 1947. And people using Kodachrome photography could have (and of course did) take pictures of them. Such photos were also real-time moments in 1947 (unless we’re in a Fringe episode now). Maybe Edgar Mitchell knows that no one took photos of child mummies in Kodachrome that year.
I can’t wait to see the data that rules out a mummy or the other options. If the “evidence” for ruling those out is “hey, the slide dates from 1947″ that doesn’t cut it – by a light year. If I sound jaded, it’s because I am. I’d love to see actual physical evidence for intelligent alien life. But after nearly two decades of engagement with those who do such research (and much of it is hardly careful — but there are exceptions), all such stories, leads, and breakthroughs have come up with nothing — and too many are just a hybrid (another pun) between speculation and bunk.
Editor’s Note: Another promotional video for the upcoming documentary, Kodachrome and the spectacle in Mexico City (exhibiting the so-called Roswell Alien Slides) was released by producer Adam Dew / Slidebox Media, yesterday (4-28-15).
In his Kodachrome documentary, Adam Dew interviews a man (and since his name is well known, I see no point in repeating it here) who was in Roswell in 1947 who said that the body in the slides resembled that he had seen in Roswell. Dew doesn’t give the name (though we all know it now) and said that he had been a lieutenant. The Yearbook produced by Walter Haut in 1947 has a picture of the man and shows that he was only a PFC, a low-ranking enlisted man.
Here’s what the records tell us. He served from March 14, 1946 to September 15, 1966 and that he retired from the Air Force as a Technical Sergeant (E-6). He is technically a veteran of WW II since the war wasn’t declared officially over until later in 1946. He does have a military pension but there is nothing in the record to show that he was ever commissioned. He arrived in Roswell on October 10, 1946 as a PVT (E-2) and on January 27, 1947 was promoted to PFC. On November 17, 1947 he was promoted to corporal (E-4) which is the lowest of the NCO grades (For those interested in these things Specialist (Spec 4, E-4) is not an NCO and technically a corporal outranks a Specialist).
His military career was honorable but not spectacular (as we can say about almost everyone). He apparently served in French Morocco, England and Greenland. His awards and decorations are those than everyone would receive during a military career.
So, where did Dew get the idea that he had been a lieutenant? I don’t know. Everyone who has interviewed him, with the exception of Dew, seemed to understand that in 1947, during the events in which we are all interested, he was a PFC. He ended his career as an NCO. Dew must have misunderstood something and the only place I have ever seen him referred to as an officer is in Dew’s preview of his documentary.
Although an exaggeration or inflation of a military rank would certainly be cause to question a witness testimony, in this case, it seems to be a mistake made by Dew rather than by the soldier. At any rate, it is quite clear that he was not a lieutenant in Roswell in 1947, that he was never a lieutenant and that he retired as a technical sergeant.
Editor’s note: Noted skeptic, Robert Sheaffer made the trip to The UFO Congress last week and posted his experience to his blog (while there), which in large part were the talks he attended by various UFO personalities–this included Mexican UFO journalist, Jaime Maussan. Towards the end of his talk, Maussan introduced Adam Dew, who (as our regular readers are aware) is one of the parties involved in the upcoming show, hosted by Maussan to reveal the so-called Roswell Alien Slides. In the aftermath, Sheaffer was able to get some face-time with Dew. With Robert’s permission, we present that dialogue here:
Afterward, a number of people sought out Maussan, but nobody was talking to Dew. I introduced myself to him, and began asking him questions.
Sheaffer: How did you first obtain the slides?
Dew: The slides were found by the sister of my friend as she was cleaning out a house to be demolished in Sedona, AZ. They said, Adam is a video expert, let’s give the slides to him.
Sheaffer: Who is the owner of the slides?
Dew: My company is the “owner” of the slides, it controls the slides.
Sheaffer: How did Schmitt and Carey get involved?
Dew: I’ve spent two years researching and investigating the slides. I wanted to speak to people who have seen the bodies.
Sheaffer: Did Schmitt & Carey claim to see bodies?
Dew: No, but they are the professionals. They spoke with credible people who did.
[I explained that Karl Pflock (certainly no UFO debunker) showed that all of the supposed “witnesses” who claimed to have seen alien bodies in Roswell have been discredited (“only four persons claiming firsthand knowledge of alien bodies have been interviewed by Roswell authors and identified publicly… there can be no reasonable doubt that none of the purported firsthand witnesses to alien bodies and a lonesome survivor is credible. Not one.” Pflock, Roswell – Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe, p. 118, 120.). I should also have mentioned Schmitt’s well-known loose relationship with the truth. (Neither Schmitt or Carey was at the Congress this year. I spoke with Schmitt when he was there last year, but nothing was said about the Roswell Slides.)]
Sheaffer: How did Maussan get involved?
Dew: Schmitt and Carey brought him in. Maussan offered a nice package.
[I explained how the fact of Maussan’s involvement made many knowledgeable people in the UFO field immediately suspect a hoax, given his reputation for promoting many UFO hoaxes in the past. I had the impression that Dew, clearly a newcomer to UFOlogy, was not familiar with Maussan’s oeuvre, or his reputation as a purveyor of rubbish. I suspect that Dew did not realize how much trouble bringing in Maussan would cause. He felt that some people were being very unfair and making unfair accusations about the slides, that they have not even seen. I referred to Maussan’s just-concluded talk, invisible beings and such, as illustrating my point. ]
Dew: “Was all of it fake?”
Dew: “How can you prove that?”
[I explained that the burden of proof is on Maussan to show that his wild claims are valid, not on me to disprove them. Dew agreed.]
Dew: I’m interested to bring this thing to the public, to people who don’t know Maussan. I just did an interview about this in Chicago, on WGN.
A few minutes later, Dew came up to me and asked if he could interview me about the slides! I agreed, and signed his standard release form.
We talked about the controversy over the slides.
I explained how Maussan’s involvement made people extremely suspicious of the slides.
He said to me, You realize, I hope, that nobody gets rich making documentary films? Look at my crew, he said, pointing to himself and his camera. I replied, yes, I have heard that before (I was thinking of similar comments made by Paul Kimball, when he took on the late Roger Leir.). But in a few cases, I explained, large sums of money have been made, the most obvious example being Ray Santilli’s Alien Autopsy hoax twenty years ago. Dew was indeed familiar with this.
When the Alien Autopsy video was shown on TV, it got tremendously high ratings and made a lot of money, even though most serious persons realized it was probably a hoax. But that couldn’t be proven yet. By the time that the hoax was exposed, Santilli had already made a great deal of money on it, and I said that many people think that you, Mr. Dew, will travel that same path. So I ended up comparing him to Ray Santilli, by which he seemed slightly taken aback, but I think he saw the reasoning behind that and took it humorously and without offense.
I closed repeating the observation that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof,” and that two photos of unknown origin, no matter what they seem to show, cannot possibly suffice to prove the reality of crashed saucer aliens. He seemed to agree with my point.
So if someday you see my face in one of Dew’s videos about the Roswell Slides, don’t be surprised!
I asked Dew did he live in Chicago? He said yes, that’s where I’m “based.” I don’t want to talk about where I live. He also told me, No matter what you hear on the internet, I really am a graduate of Northwestern University, in Journalism. I told him that I am a Northwestern graduate, too.
Based on our conversation, here is what I understand the history (and planned future) of the “Roswell Slides” to be:
• Through a social connection, Dew obtains a collection of historical slides. He discovers that two of them seem to show what looks like a supposed alien body.
• Seeking out ‘Roswell experts,’ Dew (not surprisingly) happens upon Schmitt and Carey. He contacts them and shows them the slides. They share it with members of their “Roswell dream team.”
• After convincing themselves that the slides seem authentic, Schmitt and Carey contact Maussan to arrange a profitable “unveiling” of the slides.
• Maussan presents an attractive offer which Dew accepts. The slides will be revealed to the world in Mexico City on Cinco de Mayo, 2015, which is also the twentieth anniversary of the premiere screening of Ray Santilli’s Alien Autopsy video before an invited audience at the Museum of London.
• Afterward, assuming that the slides are authenticated, Maussan told an Italian journalist that John Rao, the wealthy businessman who operates Open Minds (the promoters of the International UFO Congress), has expressed an interest in buying them. Assuming that takes place, next year’s UFO Congress (already scheduled to take place in the same location) will presumably have the Roswell Slides displayed in a glass case.
The history of modern UFOlogy could be at a turning point. The next May 5 in Mexico City, during a meeting in the Auditorium National, the journalist journalist and Mexican ufologist Jaime Maussan will present slides showing the body of an extraterrestrial being supposedly recovered following the Roswell UFO, which took place in July 1947. . . .
I reached via Skype Jaime Maussan, who has kindly granted me an interview, a few hours before his departure for Phoenix . . ..
Maurizio Baiata: Hola Jaime! Thanks to this Skype connection. I follow the unraveling of the case “Roswell Kodachrome Slides” from the beginning, a couple of years ago, but now we have the certainty and your ad twice before Tom Carey and then your, increases the expectation of May 5, when Mexico City you present your slides. I ask you a question bluntly: that circulating on Facebook is one of the slides in question?
Jaime Maussan: Yes, but it is a poor quality copy of the original, which is rather sharp and you can notice many details.
Maurizio Baiata: I expected the answer, because we know each other well and frankly I could never believe you, Tom Carey and Don Schmitt could have stumbled on an obvious fake, or you were making accomplices of a scam by imbeciles.
Jaime Maussan: It is not a scam. . . .
We have now heard more about the Roswell Slides, again from Adam Dew and again on video, though this comes from WGN-TV in Chicago. Dew was interviewed about the slides. He told us that the Rays, Bernerd and Hilda, divorced in the 1960s. He remained in Midland and she went to Arizona. Dew said that people have been contacting him about the Rays, so he was learning a little more about them. He implied that the Rays had taken the pictures, probably Hilda, though it could have been Bernerd. At any rate, the slides had wound up in Hilda’s possession and were only discovered long after her death. Although it was suggested at the beginning of the story that it was Dew’s sister who had been cleaning the house for an estate sale, it was actually the sister of a friend. Much of this we had already heard and already knew.
And now for a few observations from my end. I’ve sort of remained neutral on all this, but this preliminary nonsense is getting out of hand. A trickle of information leading to the big reveal on May 5… which reminds me of the trickle of information until the big reveal of the Alien Autopsy some twenty years ago. Remember we were being told all sorts of things about that, much of which turned out to be untrue such as Truman could be seen walking about on some of the footage and that there were more than two hours of film. We all now know that the Alien Autopsy was faked, those who created have been interviewed and the preliminary photographs taken as the alien was created have been seen. I published some of them, thanks to Philip Mantle in my book about alien conspiracies (and before my skeptical friends chime in, yes, they’re all basically about alien conspiracies but I mean the one called Alien Mysteries, Conspiracies and Cover Up.)
I believe it is safe to say that the slides are from the proper era. It seems that the coding on the edge is correct for 1947 and that the slides were mounted in cardboard sleeves available for a specific time seems to eliminate the other coding possibilities. Although we haven’t seen all the scientific testing that has been done and don’t have access to the chemical analysis of the film stock nor the chemicals used to develop and preserve the film, all do seem to be from the proper era. The slides were taken in the late 1940s, developed in that time frame, and are not part of a modern hoax.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that the slides show an alien creature. Though we have a poor quality slide to use as a base, there have been many examples that seem to show similar creatures, mummies actually, found in museums. They are close to the image we all have seen and if it isn’t an exact match with that on the slide, I’m not sure that is a problem. What we need to see is something that is far removed from those examples. Something that is truly alien in nature and I’m not sure how you’re going to prove the creature is alien especially if you don’t know who took the pictures, when they were taken or where they were taken.
I’ve listened to the arguments such as in the 1940s the aliens in science fiction didn’t have big heads, but that isn’t much of an argument. And, there are some examples of just that. Here is something else about the science fiction literature of those times. When talking about an advanced species, about what humans will look like in the far future, it seemed to always big with big heads and spindly bodies. The idea was that the brain would evolve and grow and the rest of the body would degenerate and shrink. Aliens, often thought of advanced humans, sometimes took on those characteristics (for those interested in this, see “The Man Who Evolved,” by Edward Hamilton published in 1931… type the name into Google and take a look at the cover for the April 1931 issue of Wonder Stories) For that reason, I don’t think much of the argument that no one was talking of creatures like seen in the slides. I believe that in the 1940s, when people discussed the evolution of humans (and granted, that would be a small number of people) the big head little body was sort of the default setting.
What all this means, simply, is even if they prove to the satisfaction of everyone that the film was exposed and developed in 1947 or 1948, they are not going to be able to prove it alien. The mummies seem to be too close and frankly, the best explanation is that the slides show a mummy found out in the desert. This has nothing to do with the Roswell case.
I hope for the best for them, but I fear it will end badly for them. Unless they have something better, something hidden from all of us and saved for the big reveal, I think we’re all going to be disappointed. This is, of course, just my opinion but since I have mentioned in the last couple of weeks, I figured I should make it official. I wish Tom and Don luck because they’re going to need it.
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.