Roswell Slides Solve the mystery in 1.5 minutes (Your independent verification welcomed)

a reply to: thepixelpusher

just to be snarky - the hoaxers conduct in the aledged " roswell slides " case [ i use hoaxer deliberatly ] goes above and beyond any sort of " mistake "

unless they are 3rd rate idiots - they cannot have made " mistakes " at that level

even ignoring thier pervious history

the 2 YO boy mummy - was obviously a child mummy in a museum environment - and to claim different requires epic dishonesty or stupidity beyond the pale .

so - whats your HONEST opinion ? are they :

a ] willfull hoaxers

b ] too stupid to be left unsupervised

you will not be surprised to learn that my opinion is c - both

originally posted by: LiteraryJourney

A watershed moment for ufology. This hoax could set ufology back 50 years.

I do not agree on this.

The "Mexico City - so called Roswell Slides" event has been simply a "Non-Event".

The shame goes on the proponents: Adam Dew, Maussan, Carey and Schmitt.
But that is all.

And, by the way, I do not like at all the term "Ufology"
In itself it is a totally meaningless term.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

Our good member "Literary Journey" provided a link to the plaques in the museum that it is believed holds or held the child mummy. You can easily see how the placards are identical in type and border treatments.

exactly, this is another key point, and set of evidence.
The "style" of the two placards are very similar.

Font, border, and style of writing.

I have no doubt that the photographs (slides) were taken at the Mesa Verde Museum in Colorado.

originally posted by: LiteraryJourney
a reply to: thepixelpusher Isaac has contacted the Chapin Mesa Archeological Museum. He'll get back to us when they get back to him.

This is the official response from Mesa Verde National Park, which I received last night in response to an email I sent a few days ago -

"Recently we've received inquiries based on internet reports concerning the ancient remains of a human child which used to be on display in the Chapin Mesa Archeological Museum. We consulted with our National Park Service colleagues, who gave us this guidance: Out of respect for this child and his/her family, it was taken off public display many years ago. Although it was common practice in the past to display human remains in museums, we now try to treat them with the same respect we give to our own family members who have passed away.

There are many historical reports in the public domain of human remains that were recovered from various archeological sites in the Southwest in the early years. Interested readers can research authors like Dr. Jesse Walter Fewkes of the Smithsonian Institution and Gustav Nordenskiold. It's important to remember that, regardless of how the remains were treated at the time of recovery, each was someone's parent, child, and/or sibling. All should be treated with respect."

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
Should we revel in someone's mistakes

It was NOT a mistake, it was clearly a mummy, and they even whited out the card so people could not read it! Deliberate fraud is what it was.

Thanks, IsaacKoi, awesome research work!

-----------------------------------

LiteraryJourney, on page 5, posted another evidence which went unnoticed.

this is the infamous slide of Adam Dew,
notice the glass shelf and the vertical metal perforated bar that supports the glass:



------------------------------------

and this is a picture of the shelves at the Mesa Verde Museum, found by LiteraryJourney.

Notice the glass shelves and the vertical metal perforated bars supporting the shelves:



They look very similar, if not identical.

In the second picture, it appears that the vertical metal bars have been repainted with the same light blue color of the wall.

--------------------

Any more doubts?

originally posted by: IsaacKoi

originally posted by: LiteraryJourney
a reply to: thepixelpusher Isaac has contacted the Chapin Mesa Archeological Museum. He'll get back to us when they get back to him.

This is the official response from Mesa Verde National Park, which I received last night in response to an email I sent a few days ago -

"Recently we've received inquiries based on internet reports concerning the ancient remains of a human child which used to be on display in the Chapin Mesa Archeological Museum. We consulted with our National Park Service colleagues, who gave us this guidance: Out of respect for this child and his/her family, it was taken off public display many years ago. Although it was common practice in the past to display human remains in museums, we now try to treat them with the same respect we give to our own family members who have passed away.

There are many historical reports in the public domain of human remains that were recovered from various archeological sites in the Southwest in the early years. Interested readers can research authors like Dr. Jesse Walter Fewkes of the Smithsonian Institution and Gustav Nordenskiold. It's important to remember that, regardless of how the remains were treated at the time of recovery, each was someone's parent, child, and/or sibling. All should be treated with respect."

Can they provide any updated image since the old mummy slidebox media image we have now?

The placards and the shelf holder bars match perfectly and the mystery is solved.

Again Isaac, thanks for yours and your teams fine work. The type of work your group did leads the way on the model of research. An open source approach. Also, thanks to other ATS'ers who helped in this and thanks to ATS for the ability to exchange opinions and information.

a reply to: HeywoodFloyd Thanks Heywood, And thank you Isaac. Wonderful job done by all. I must say that I feel that ATS played an integral part in this too. Specifically, this very thread. The OP, Isaac, did a wonderful thing by bringing to ATS the step by step on how to de-blur the image for oneself. This turned out to be crucial. I have no hard data on this, but I have reason to believe that this thread has had influence beyond the ethereal borders of ATS itself.

Human remains that were excavated from Mesa Verde were originally taken to two locations, the curation center located at the visitor center in the Park itself and the Colorado Historical Society (since renamed "History Colorado") headquarters in Denver.

When the mummies first went on display in Denver (late 1800s) it was apparently very popular, with people lined up around the block. But by the mid 1900s, the displays were considered kind of ghoulish and started lagging in popularity.

In 1990, Congress passed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and all the human remains held by the Historical Society and the National Park were given back to Native Americans for re-interment.

So the particular mummy in question is probably back in the ground, now.

However, there were interment records and if anyone really cared to do so, they could possibly go examine those records at either Denver or Mesa Verde and figure out where the Palmer mummy finally ended up. I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, I think it's important to follow this to the end simply to deprive the hoaxers of any oxygen to continue this charade. On the other hand, I really want that deceased child to be left to rest in peace.

And Pixel, I understand your stance on this, I believe. You're looking for a more civil discourse. A more humane reaction to the apparent foibles of others. And since that is in your makeup (admirable), that is true for you. That's fine. I'm not trying to change your makeup.

However, this deliberate hoax goes beyond the pale. There are instances, unfortunately, when the harshest of criticisms are not just warranted, but must be levied by all those interested in advancing this fledgling field of research. And to be clear, this was indeed a deliberate hoax, therefor, this is one of those unfortunate instances. How do I know? Because it's a freaking mummy in a museum.

originally posted by: HeywoodFloyd
Thanks, IsaacKoi, awesome research work!

-----------------------------------

LiteraryJourney, on page 5, posted another evidence which went unnoticed.

this is the infamous slide of Adam Dew,
notice the glass shelf and the vertical metal perforated bar that supports the glass:

------------------------------------

and this is a picture of the shelves at the Mesa Verde Museum, found by LiteraryJourney.

Notice the glass shelves and the vertical metal perforated bars supporting the shelves:

They look very similar, if not identical.

In the second picture, it appears that the vertical metal bars have been repainted with the same light blue color of the wall.

--------------------

Any more doubts?

To be fair, I have the same type of shelving racks in my man cave displaying my diecast collection... much of which is U.F.O. -related. :-)

a reply to: draknoir2 Cool spaceships! I think I may photoshop one of them on a sparkly night sky background, go to Mexico and hold a "beDazzled" show.

a reply to: LiteraryJourney

thank you.

However all the merit about the glass shelves and vertical metal bars thing goes to you, LiteraryJourney - kudos!

----------------------------------

There is a question, now:

Did Adam Dew and Jaime Maussan have malicious intent regarding to this slides affair?

My opinion is YES.

and I want to demonstrate why.

--------------------------------------

1. - Even after the May 5 money grabbing presentation in Mexico City, Adam Dew refused to provide publicly the FULL RESOLUTION SCANS of the slides.
Adam Dew (Slidebox Media) is the owner of the slides.

2.- Richard Dolan provided a 1700x1100 pixels image to Coast to Coast AM on the late evening of May 5th, and they published it (only ONE slide, however, not the other!).

it was this image (here resized at 500px, to comply with ATS standards):

“Exhibit A”

as can be seen, the placard writing has been totally blanked out (probably with Photoshop).

3.- here is a close up of the placard side of that image.
the blanking out operation is evident. Undeniable.

“Exhibit B”

4.- I repeatedly asked Richard Dolan to request Adam Dew to make public the high resolution drum scans of BOTH slides.

5.- Richard Dolan answered that it was not in his hands, but that from what he understood, Adam Dew was going to make the high resolution drum scans of the slides public in the near future.

6.- To be fair, a couple of days after the Mexico City event, as the first doubts emerged, Richard Dolan began distancing himself from the slides affair, making public statements.

7.- Then, Adam Dew (Slidebox Media) published on his website only the placard side of one slide - at high resolution, however (6598x5701 pixels).

This is a scaled down version of that image:

“Exhibit C”

now compare this image with “Exhibit A” and “Exhibit B” above:

Isn't the blanking out of the placard writing in “Exhibit A” apparent?

-----------------------------------

This is EVIDENCE of the malicious intent by Adam Dew and Jaime Maussan, since the inception of this affair.

-----------------------------------

originally posted by: HeywoodFloyd
a reply to: LiteraryJourney

Isn't the blanking out of the placard writing in “Exhibit A” apparent?

Not really. They are two different slides. Note the absence of the woman in the one with the readable placard. Seems the original photographer took two shots with different settings - maybe with and without a flash. It's possible that the placard in the original overexposed slide is whited-out just as we see.

originally posted by: torsion

Not really. They are two different slides. Note the absence of the woman in the one with the readable placard. Seems the original photographer took two shots with different settings - maybe with and without a flash. It's possible that the placard in the original overexposed slide is whited-out just as we see.

If so, why then Adam Dew still to this day refuses to release publicly the high resolution scans of BOTH slides?
(or at least 4000 x 3000 pixels size)

- the full slides, not just one part of one of them -

what else he has to hide?

originally posted by: torsion

originally posted by: HeywoodFloyd
a reply to: LiteraryJourney

Isn't the blanking out of the placard writing in “Exhibit A” apparent?

Not really. They are two different slides. Note the absence of the woman in the one with the readable placard. Seems the original photographer took two shots with different settings - maybe with and without a flash. It's possible that the placard in the original overexposed slide is whited-out just as we see.

I'll have to admit that we may have been wrong about the whited-out placard - it is probably just overexposed from the flash. After playing with the contrast and brightness it becomes clear that there are words there.



Of course that doesn't excuse their choice of the illegible shot over the legible [after enhancement] one.

I think the biggest mistake in this is going to be that they introduced this as a paid event. No scientific find should be introduced that way. So don't expect Dew or Maussan to ever comment further on the mummy revelation.

a reply to: draknoir2

I am highly impressed by that "Gerry Anderson" collection. You even have a Space 1999 "Eagle Freighter/Transporter" which was hard to get hold of even back in the late 70s. Is that an original from back then?

Anyway sorry I digress but U.F.O, Space 1999 and Captain Scarlet were all from the era before 99.99999% of the planet had heard of Roswell, Jesse Marcel and dead aliens. U.F.O was actually a series that seemed to weave an awful lot of themes and memes that also became part of the lore.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

While I've said my piece and will stop hammering on the perps, er, promoters...

I do want to say that I believe the biggest mistake was the hype and declaratory statements about "smoking guns", "definitely not of this Earth", "the debunkers will be sorely disappointed", etc... when those who made those claims now say they never saw a clear image of the slide(s) with the placard, failed to do a simple Google search to find hundreds of images that were VERY similar looking, and worst of all, bought the ridiculous back story.

It's my suspicion they felt proving the slides were from the 1940's or 1950's would be enough to cast doubt on the fact the image was obviously a mummified child on a glass shelf in a place that in no way looked like a lab or any secured military space. The first time I looked at it I thought of the tourist trap museums along Route 66 back in the day.

Springer you were right. In rethinking this, did they think of the downside? That if it were a mummy, which it is, and they charged everyone for this? Why the showy event billed as the smoking gun and groundbreaking world important event? It wasn't a lapse in judgement it was beyond that. It did not deliver in any way.

I'm only sorry that the mummy was not still on display because that opens up questions in some people's mind that haven't seen the matching display evidence tags and shelving structure from the museum mentioned on the placard. Thankfully Coast to Coast AM did their release on the mummy. But without the mummy this image could live on and that would be sad indeed.

One thing I'll give to the researchers is that they had some pretty good experts feed them some very bad information. Did you see the list of who gave them the thumbs up on it being unusual?

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
I think the biggest mistake in this is going to be that they introduced this as a paid event. No scientific find should be introduced that way. So don't expect Dew or Maussan to ever comment further on the mummy revelation.

Yes - I agree no scientific find should be introduced this way. Unfortunately there was very little science behind this find anyway. Even people in the UFO community were airing doubts long before any hint of a slide had been seen.

I don't think (and I don't think you do) that there is anything specifically wrong with "UFO Conferences" where the public have to pay to attend. It costs a lot of money to organize and the hosts and speakers have every right to make a reasonable return from their work. The paying public quite rightly want value for money and to be amazed or at least entertained. That's all fine as long as a line isn't crossed and people are not relieved of their cash under false pretences. Unfortunately in this case they were.

Ray Santilli also did something similar back in the mid 1990s with his fake alien autopsy.

Now I said way back in the thread how the perpetrators of the "Hitler Diaries" were jailed for 3 years but people like Santilli were allowed to keep their fortune. What is the difference here?

Well Santilli did not interact directly with the individual consumers and sold the TV rights to international media companies. They all benefited from high TV ratings, and thus increased advertising revenues (and probably from VHS tape sales back in the day). Faking 'real' history (the Hitler Diaries) was seen as 'fraud' against the world in the 1980s. Whereas the Roswell story was seen as little more than mythology in the 1990s. So there was never any real groundswell built against Santilli. Can you be sued for faking fakery?

It remains to be seen if people will seek refunds from organisers of "#Be Disappointed" and seek legal action if any refunds are not forthcoming.

How badly does it damage the Roswell story and ufology in general now I've given it a bit more thought?

Well I'm not sure? Most of the people on the planet don't even care and haven't paid any attention to this story. Ufology never has been credible as a real 'science' it's more akin to astrology than biology.

So it may damage Schmitt and Carey (as they seem to only concentrate on Roswell) . Richard Dolan has probably just enough plausible deniability to lie low for a while and then move on. But move on to what?

The UFO conference circu(s)it will probably continue and also dwindle as a generation passes. But in lieu of any real solid modern UFO tales, no new alien liaisons to report and a need to continually re-invent the 'classic' cases their future is doomed. So perhaps ufology can learn from this and move on to a more objective, scientific methodology.

We've been told for so long that "....we can't handle the truth". But the truth is we are sick of the lies.

originally posted by: Springer
a reply to: thepixelpusher

I do want to say that I believe the biggest mistake was the hype and declaratory statements about "smoking guns", "definitely not of this Earth", "the debunkers will be sorely disappointed", etc... when those who made those claims now say they never saw a clear image of the slide(s) with the placard [...]

I second that.
Plus the money grabbing scheme (still going on today).

originally posted by: Springer

It's my suspicion they felt proving the slides were from the 1940's or 1950's would be enough to cast doubt on the fact the image was obviously a mummified child on a glass shelf in a place that in no way looked like a lab or any secured military space. [...]

That's the point.
I wonder how was it possible that (especially) Richard Dolan, who is an intelligent investigator and writer, did not immediately realize that the slide was not showing a Top Secret military environment (or Top Secret lab), but evidently a museum exhibit.

Dolan always said he was not endorsing the slides
(but the others in my view exploited his reputation in their show).

However, on May 4th, right after seeing the slides for the first time he released a statement, in which he considered the slides "compelling" and "They will not be easily debunked".

In the following days, Dolan distanced himself from the slides affair and then he openly declared (3 or 4 days ago) that in his opinion there is no evidence that the cadaver shown in the slides has extraterrestrial origin.

---------------------------

On the opposite, Adam Dew, Tom Carey and Maussan, in spite of the overwhelming evidence, still persist...