Blogarchiv

Sonntag, 9. August 2015 - 16:00 Uhr

Astronomie - 24Augen-Teleskop nimmt jeden Abend ganzen Himmel auf

.

EYES ON THE SKY  Engineers finished installing the Evryscope in northern Chile in May. The 24-eyed instrument has since been snapping pictures every two minutes on nights with clear weather.

.

Wide-eyed array in Chile scopes changes in the southern sky

The Evryscope might look like an upside down colander repurposed as a set piece for Star Trek. But its actual purpose is to make a movie of the entire southern sky.
“People think it looks strange,” says Nicholas Law, an astrophysicist at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, “but it’s doing what it’s designed to do.”
Because a typical telescope has a narrow range of view, using one is like studying the universe through a drinking straw. But every two minutes the Chile-based Evryscope, with 24 telescopes working as one, images a patch of sky so wide it would take 32,000 full moons to cover it.
The Evryscope has stockpiled about 250,000 such images since it started filming in May, Law reported August 5 at a meeting of the International Astronomical Union.
Tracking the entire sky through time, stopping only for bad weather and sunrises, lets the Evryscope see things that other telescopes might miss. Supernova discoveries, for example, typically go only to those lucky few who happened to be looking in the right direction at the right time. This mushroom-shaped telescope, however, can hunt for anything that fades, flashes or flickers in the night, from planets crossing in front of their suns to stars exploding in other galaxies.
Quelle: SN

Tags: Astronomie 

1564 Views

Sonntag, 9. August 2015 - 11:15 Uhr

Raumfahrt-History - 1970: Skylab

.

Aus dem CENAP-Archiv:

.

---

Quelle: CENAP-Archiv


Tags: Raumfahrt 

1419 Views

Sonntag, 9. August 2015 - 10:30 Uhr

Raumfahrt-History - 1974: Merkur-Sonde Mariner-10

.

Aus dem CENAP-Archiv:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Quelle: CENAP-Archiv


Tags: Raumfahrt 

1534 Views

Sonntag, 9. August 2015 - 10:10 Uhr

Astronomie - Astronomen nehmen Feinabstimmung bei Sonnenflecken Aufzeichnung vor bei einem Datensatz der vier Jahrhunderte zurückreicht

.

Galileo recorded some of the first observations of sunspots.
-
Astronomers have fixed an embarrassing discrepancy involving the longest observational record in science: data on sunspot activity that stretch back four centuries. The discovery has ramifications for understanding how the Sun has affected, and could still affect, life on Earth.
Notably, the revised sunspot tally shows that solar activity has not risen in recent decades, as once thought1. Some had linked this idea of a sunspot 'Grand Maximum' to hotter temperatures on Earth.
“We find no such Grand Maximum,” says Frédéric Clette, an astronomer at the Royal Observatory of Belgium in Brussels. “There has been nothing exceptional about the level of solar activity.”
He described the work on 7 August in Honolulu, Hawaii, at a meeting of the International Astronomical Union.
Sunspots are breakouts of magnetism on the Sun’s surface that reflect roiling activity within. The practice of counting them dates to 1610, when Galileo and others used the newly invented telescope to discover dark blotches marring the face of the Sun. Such records eventually revealed the roughly 11-year cycle of solar activity.
Spot the error
Clette and his colleagues spent four years working to recalibrate two official sunspot lists2. One of them — the International Sunspot Number — was started in 1849 by an astronomer at the Zurich Observatory in Switzerland, and later extended with older historical records. The second list, the Group Sunspot Number, was developed in 1998 by US researchers3. It tallies groups of sunspots rather than individual ones in an effort to eliminate observers' inconsistencies.
The International Sunspot Number also attempts to account for variations caused by seeing conditions and the ability of the person reporting the numbers. But the two sunspot counts occasionally diverge.
Clette and his team identified several sources of systemic error in the two lists, such as the fading eyesight of an ageing observer in Switzerland who was seeing fewer sunspots over time. In other cases, skywatchers were focused on making other solar observations, so if their notes do not mention sunspots this does not necessarily mean that none were present.
The team developed a method for choosing a main sunspot observer for a given interval of time, while ensuring that observers from adjacent periods overlapped to give smooth transitions. Recalibrating the two lists caused the suggested Grand Maximum in the latter half of the twentieth century to disappear ― a change largely due to the correction of data collected around 1893, when the Zurich Observatory switched directors.
“Previous work tying the increase in solar activity to the increase in global temperature here on Earth clearly overestimated the role of solar activity in global warming,” says David Hathaway, a solar physicist at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California.
Hot topics
Given the intense public interest in solar forcing and climate, the work is likely to be carefully scrutinized. Douglas Hoyt, a solar physicist and co-inventor of the Group Sunspot Number, says that the new reconstruction is “not very convincing”. Among other things, he disagrees with Clette's team discarding the results of a particular observer in the late nineteenth century, and he says that other studies support the idea of a slow rise in sunspot numbers in the past several centuries.
Still, the revised numbers resolve a discrepancy with a third list kept by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which showed about 30% more solar activity than the International Sunspot Number did. Douglas Biesecker, a solar physicist at NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center in Boulder, Colorado, says the reconstructed record and the agency record now agree more closely.
The World Data Center for sunspots, based at the Royal Observatory of Belgium, started using the new lists on 1 July.
Knowing the range of past solar activity could help researchers to better predict future solar cycles, says Biesecker. The military and others use sunspot numbers to anticipate possible satellite damage from solar storms.
Clette says that the discovery confirms the importance of historical records. “We can be happy that people who didn’t know anything about magnetic fields on the Sun cared to count spots and write down lists,” he says. “Day after day, sometimes for their whole life.”
Quelle: nature

Tags: Astronomie 

1589 Views

Samstag, 8. August 2015 - 22:30 Uhr

Astronomie - ALMA verbessert die Möglichkeiten für die Suche nach Wasser im Universum

.

Erste Interferenzmessungen der Band 5-Empfänger

Nach mehr als fünf Jahren Entwicklung und Konstruktion hat ALMA erfolgreich einen neuen Frequenzbereich anvisiert. Zunächst wurden mit den Band 5-Empfängern die ersten Interferenzmuster aufgenommen, die speziell für die Detektion von Wasser im lokalen Universum ausgelegt sind. Band 5 ermöglicht außerdem die Untersuchung komplexer Moleküle in Sternentstehungsgebieten und protoplanetaren Scheiben. Auch Moleküle und Atome in Galaxien des frühen Universums können detektiert werden, wodurch der Blick bis zu 13 Milliarden Jahre in die Vergangenheit reicht.
ALMA beobachtet das Universum im Radiowellenbereich - Licht, das unsichtbar für das menschliche Auge ist. Das schwache elektromagnetische Glimmen des Alls wird mit Hilfe von 66 Antennenschüsseln eingefangen, von denen jede einen Durchmesser von bis zu zwölf Metern aufweist. Die Empfänger transformieren diese schwache Strahlung in ein elektrisches Signal.
Um einen breiten Frequenzbereich untersuchen zu können, ist jede ALMA-Antenne mit bis zu zehn verschiedenen Empfängern ausgestattet, wobei jeder speziell dafür ausgelegt ist, einen bestimmten Wellenlängenbereich abzudecken. Der neue Band 5-Empfänger ist der achte Typ, der integriert wurde, und arbeitet im Wellenlängenbereich von 1,4 bis 1,8 Millimetern, was Frequenzen von 163 bis 211 GHz entspricht. Das ermöglicht die Untersuchung eines Teils des elektromagnetischen Spektrums, der bisher nur wenig untersucht wurde.
"Band 5 wird neue Möglichkeiten für die Erforschung des Universums eröffnen und zu neuen Entdeckungen führen", erklärt Gianni Marconi von der ESO, der für die Integration von Band 5 verantwortlich ist. "Zum Frequenzbereich des Empfängers gehört ein Bereich, in dem eine Emissionslinie von Wasser liegt, die ALMA in Regionen nah um Sternentstehungen untersuchen kann. Die Erforschung von Wasser ist natürlich wegen seiner Rolle für den Ursprung des Lebens von großem Interesse."
Mit Band 5 wird ALMA auch die Emission von ionisiertem Kohlenstoff von Objekten kurz nach dem Urknall erfassen können, was die Untersuchung der frühsten Epoche der Galaxienbildung ermöglicht. "Diese Bande wird es Astronomen außerdem erlauben, junge Galaxien und das frühe Universum etwa 500 Millionen Jahre nach dem Urknall zu erforschen," erläuterte Gianni Marconi.
Die Band 5-Empfänger wurden ursprünglich von der Onsala Space Observatory's Group for Advanced Receiver Development (GARD) an der Chalmers University of Technology in Schweden in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Großbritannien und der ESO unter dem von der Europäischen Kommission unterstützten Rahmenprogramm FP6 (ALMA-Erweiterung) entworfen und gebaut. Nach dem erfolgreichen Test der Prototypen wurden die ersten Empfänger im ersten Halbjahr 2015 zusammen von NOVA und GARD gebaut und zu ALMA geliefert. Zwei Empfänger wurden für die ersten Beobachtungen genutzt. Die restlichen der insgesamt georderten 73 Empfänger sowie Ersatzteile werden bis 2017 geliefert [1].
Endnoten
[1] Die ESO hat den europäischen Vertrag für die kryo-gekühlten Empfänger mit NOVA abgeschlossen, dem Forschungsinstitut für Astronomie in den Niederlanden, in Zusammenarbeit mit der Onsala Space Observatory’s Advanced Receiver Development group. NRAO hat die hoch-präzisen lokalen Oszillatoren gebaut, mit denen die Empfänger so abgestimmt werden können, dass die Signale aller Antennen präzise miteinander kombiniert werden können. Auf diese Weise werden Bilder mit einer sehr hohen Auflösung ermöglicht.
Weitere Informationen
Das Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) ist eine internationale astronomische Einrichtung, die gemeinsam von der ESO, der US-amerikanischen National Science Foundation (NSF) der USA und den japanischen National Institutes of Natural Sciences (NINS) in Kooperation mit der republik Chile betrieben wird. Getragen wird ALMA von der ESO im Namen ihrer Mitgliedsländer, von der NSF in Zusammenarbeit mit dem kanadischen National Research Council (NRC), dem taiwanesischen National Science Council (NSC) und NINS in Kooperation mit der Academia Sinica (AS) in Taiwan sowie dem Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (KASI).
Bei Entwicklung, Aufbau und Betrieb agiert die ESO für ihre Mitgliedsländer, das National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), das seinerseits von Associated Universities, Inc. (AUI) betrieben wird, für den nordamerikanischen Beitrag und das National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (NAOJ) für den ostasiatischen Beitrag. Dem Joint ALMA Observatory (JAO) obliegt die übergreifende Projektleitung für den Aufbau, die Inbetriebnahme und den Beobachtungsbetrieb von ALMA.
Quelle: ESO

Tags: Astronomie 

1559 Views

Samstag, 8. August 2015 - 17:44 Uhr

Raumfahrt - ISS- Expedition 44 züchtet Salatpflanzen für verzehrfertige Mahlzeiten

.

Astronauts on the International Space Station are ready to sample their harvest of a crop of "Outredgeous" red romaine lettuce from the Veggie plant growth system that tests hardware for growing vegetables and other plants in space.
Credits: NASA
.
Fresh food grown in the microgravity environment of space officially is on the menu for the first time for NASA astronauts on the International Space Station. Expedition 44 crew members, including NASA's one-year astronaut Scott Kelly, are ready to sample the fruits of their labor after harvesting a crop of "Outredgeous" red romaine lettuce Monday, Aug. 10, from the Veggie plant growth system on the nation’s orbiting laboratory.
The astronauts will clean the leafy greens with citric acid-based, food safe sanitizing wipes before consuming them. They will eat half of the space bounty, setting aside the other half to be packaged and frozen on the station until it can be returned to Earth for scientific analysis.
NASA's plant experiment, called Veg-01, is being used to study the in-orbit function and performance of the plant growth facility and its rooting "pillows," which contain the seeds.
NASA is maturing Veggie technology aboard the space station to provide future pioneers with a sustainable food supplement – a critical part of NASA’s Journey to Mars. As NASA moves toward long-duration exploration missions farther into the solar system, Veggie will be a resource for crew food growth and consumption. It also could be used by astronauts for recreational gardening activities during deep space missions.
The first pillows were activated, watered and cared for by Expedition 39 flight engineer Steve Swanson in May 2014. After 33 days of growth, the plants were harvested and returned to Earth in October 2014. At NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, the plants underwent food safety analysis. The second Veg-01 plant pillows were activated by Kelly on July 8 and grew again for 33 days before being harvested. The seeds had been on the station for 15 months before being activated.
The Veggie system was developed by Orbital Technologies Corp. (ORBITEC) in Madison, Wisconsin, and tested at Kennedy before flight. Veggie, along with two sets of pillows containing the romaine seeds and one set of zinnias, was delivered to the station on the third cargo resupply mission by SpaceX in April 2014.
The collapsible and expandable Veggie unit features a flat panel light bank that includes red, blue and green LEDs for plant growth and crew observation. Using LED lights to grow plants was an idea that originated with NASA as far back as the late 1990s, according to Dr. Ray Wheeler, lead for Advanced Life Support activities in the Exploration Research and Technology Programs Office at Kennedy.
Wheeler worked with engineers and collaborators to help develop the Veggie unit from a Small Business Innovative Research project with ORBITEC. Dr. Gioia Massa is the NASA payload scientist for Veggie at Kennedy. Massa and others worked to get the flight unit developed and certified for use on the space station. The purple/pinkish hue surrounding the plants in Veggie is the result of a combination of the red and blue lights, which by design emit more light than the green LEDs. Green LEDS were added so the plants look like edible food rather than weird purple plants.
"Blue and red wavelengths are the minimum needed to get good plant growth," Wheeler said. "They are probably the most efficient in terms of electrical power conversion. The green LEDs help to enhance the human visual perception of the plants, but they don't put out as much light as the reds and blues."
Wheeler, Massa and Dr. Gary Stutte, all from Kennedy, previously investigated similar experiments to grow plants in the Habitat Demonstration Unit at NASA's desert test site near Flagstaff, Arizona, in 2010 and 2011. Wheeler said Veggie will help NASA learn more about growing plants in controlled environment agriculture settings. Similar settings include vertical agriculture, which refers to stacking up shelves of plants that are grown hydroponically and then using electric light sources like red and blue LEDs. This kind of system is popular in some Asian countries and beginning to grow in the U.S.
"There is evidence that supports fresh foods, such as tomatoes, blueberries and red lettuce are a good source of antioxidants. Having fresh food like these available in space could have a positive impact on people's moods and also could provide some protection against radiation in space," Wheeler said.
After the first crop of lettuce was returned from the space station, Massa began working with a team of flight doctors and NASA safety representatives to get approval for the crew to eat the produce.
"Microbiological food safety analysis looks very good on the first Veg-01 crop of romaine lettuce," Massa said.
Besides the nutritional benefits, could growing fresh produce in space also provide a psychological benefit? Alexandra Whitmire, a scientist at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston is involved in research to answer that question.
Whitmire is the Behavioral Health and Performance Research scientist for NASA's Human Research Program. Her team supports research related to reducing psychological risks on a Mars mission.
"The Veggie experiment is currently the only experiment we are supporting which involves evaluating the effects of plant life on humans in space," Whitmire said.
Her team is focused on crew behavioral conditions, performance reduction, and team communication and psychosocial adaption.
"Future spaceflight missions could involve four to six crew members living in a confined space for an extended period of time, with limited communication," Whitmire said. "We recognize it will be important to provide training that will be effective and equip the crew with adequate countermeasures during their mission."
The countermeasures could include things like meaningful work. Habitat-related modifications also could include plant life. Whitmire said Earth studies have shown plants are associated with well-being and optimal performance. Plants potentially could serve as a countermeasure for long-duration exploration missions.
Massa agrees: "Besides having the ability to grow and eat fresh food in space, there also may be a psychological benefit. The crew does get some fresh fruits or vegetables, such as carrots or apples, when a supply ship arrives at the space station. But the quantity is limited and must be consumed quickly."
Having something green and growing--a little piece of Earth--to take care of when living and working in an extreme and stressful environment could have tremendous value and impact.
"The farther and longer humans go away from Earth, the greater the need to be able to grow plants for food, atmosphere recycling and psychological benefits. I think that plant systems will become important components of any long-duration exploration scenario," Massa said.
The system also may have implications for improving growth and biomass production on Earth, thus benefiting the average citizen. Massa said many of the lessons NASA is learning with Veggie could be applied in urban plant factories and other agriculture settings where light is provided by electrical light and water conservation is practiced.
"We hope to increase the amount and type of crop in the future, and this will allow us to learn more about growing plants in microgravity," Massa said. "We have upcoming experiments that will look at the impacts of light quality on crop yield, nutrition and flavor, both on Earth and in space."
The team at Kennedy and Johnson hope that Veggie and space gardening will become a valued feature of life aboard the space station and in the future on Mars.
Quelle: NASA

Tags: Raumfahrt 

1544 Views

Samstag, 8. August 2015 - 17:30 Uhr

Raumfahrt - ISS-Crew-Mitglieder für Missionen im Jahr 2017 bekannt gegeben

.

This will be the first space flight for four astronauts from the crew - Russian cosmonaut Nikolay Tikhonov, US astronauts Mark Vande Hei and Jack Fischer and ESA astronaut Thomas Pesquet.
.
International Space Station (ISS) participants have announced the crew members for mission to the orbiting laboratory in 2017, NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) said on Friday.
This will be the first space flight for four astronauts from the crew - Russian cosmonaut Nikolay Tikhonov, US astronauts Mark Vande Hei and Jack Fischer and ESA (European Space Agency) astronaut Thomas Pesquet.
Tikhonov and Vande Hei will fly to ISS aboard the Soyuz spacecraft together with experienced Russian cosmonaut Alexander Misurkin in March 2017 to join Pesquet, US astronaut Peggy Whitson and Russian cosmonaut Oleg Novitskiy. Two months after that, Pesquet, Whitson and Novitskiy, who will start their mission in November 2016, will return to the Earth, to be replaced by another experienced Russian cosmonaut Fyodor Yurchikin, ESA astronaut Paolo Nespoli and US astronaut Jack Fischer.
"The Expedition 51 and 52 crews will continue important research that advances NASA's journey to Mars while making discoveries that can benefit all of humanity," NASA said. "With adequate funding and technical progress on NASA's Commercial Crew Program, astronauts Vande Hei and Fischer are expected to be at the station during the first test flights of the Boeing CST-100 and SpaceX's Crew Dragon spacecraft, targeted for 2017."
In the future, NASA plans to use Boeing CST-100 and SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft to send its astronauts to space. Over the last years, US delivered its astronauts to space using Russian Soyuz spacecraft. Boeing CST-100 and SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft are planned to be completed by 2017, but NASA fears that it may be postponed due to insufficient financing. US Congress refuses to allocate funding for these purposes in 2016. NASA announced earlier this week the extension of its contract with Russian space agency Roscosmos until 2018. The contract envisages using Russia’s Soyuz spacecraft for delivering US astronauts to space.
Quelle: TASS

Tags: Raumfahrt 

1382 Views

Samstag, 8. August 2015 - 16:24 Uhr

UFO-Forschung - UFO-Absturz bei Roswell 1947 ? Teil-37

.

48 HOURS that SHOOK the UFO- LOGICAL world
The RSRG may not have shaken the entire UFOlogical world but it did make an impact. During the May 5th presentation we were told that a long list of experts tried and failed to resolve the wording on the placard at the feet of the body in the slide. It was also implied that everyone would have access to the high resolution images of the body after May 5th. However, on May 6th and 7th, no high resolution images of the placard were released. One fairly high resolution image was presented on Coast to Coast but the placard was essentially whited out. The same could be say for the slide shown at the presentation in Mexico City. Even Dew’s presentation of images were nothing more than squiggles on a screen. These were not useful in deblurring the placard. At least
.
one member of the RSRG, by the screen name of Nab Lator, was very interested in looking at the placard and taking a crack at it. Fortunately, the group had been able to contact somebody, who had access to a high quality scan of the slides. By May 8th, the scan was given to the group for evaluation. What transpired over the next two days is an interesting account and I felt it was worth sharing with the world. All times listed are Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
May 8th
0157 AM EDT - The placard image was posted on the RSRG facebook page.
.
0358 AM - Nab Lator releases his first results and says he can read “made of two”.
.
0711 AM - Tim Printy arrives and sees the first attempt, “OOOOOO.....that is interesting. Boy, that first word is probably the key word. Might it be “Mummy” as in Mummy made of two.....Maybe I am seeing Faces in the clouds.”
8:05 AM - Nab Lator reads it as “Of two year old boy”
8:06 AM - Isaac koi reads it as “mummified body of two year old boy”.
8:07 AM - Curt Collins says he sees it that way but only after being prompted.
8:20 AM - Tim Printy remarks, “I don’t want this to be a Ramey memo kind of thing. Mr. Magoo can see what he wants to see. That being
said, it is compelling.” He wonders if the other slide might help.
8:22 AM - Nab points out the other slide, which was on the coast to coast, appears to be too bright/blurry. 9:29 AM - Nab reveals the deblur that clearly says “Mummified body of two year old boy.”
.
9:30 AM - Tim Printy responds, “Are you kidding me????? That is no Ramey memo”.
9:43 AM - Ricky Poole “F’ing amazing work guys!”
9:46 AM - Isaac Koi: “I have to ask as well: Are you kidding Nab Lator?? If not, well, bugger me with a broomstick - as we say here in the UK.” 10:00 AM - Nab Lator: “Not kidding. There’s an “Edit blur” button. I cleaned the clutter a bit in the blur model et voilà”
11:28 AM - Tim Printy asked permission to share the image with Ted Molczan, Peter Brookesmith, and Robert Sheaffer with the re- quest that they keep it confidential until we revealed the information. He desired to get them to read the placard without prompt- ing and see the same thing the group was seeing.
11:48 AM - Lance Moody arrives and states: “You guys see that Right? “Mummified Body of Two Year Old Boy”
11:53 AM - Lance Moody remarks, “Sorry guys, I may be out of the loop. Is this a real deblurring of the placard or are you guys joking
around?”
11:57 AM - Nab Lator: “No we are NOT joking.”
12:02 PM - Lance Moody: “Photoshop filter is shit--don’t get anything useful.”
12:29 PM - Curt Collins: “What now, get an independent party to retrace Nab’s steps without being prompted/coached on what to look for? Someone with no knowledge of the slides, if possible.”
12:32 PM - Chris Rutkowski: “So I would agree that the first line likely is: MUMMIFIED BODY OF TWO YEAR OLD BOY”
12:55 PM - Tim Printy mentioned the words of William Hyzer regarding the Ed Walter photographs, “The power to alter images is a cause of great concern among forensic image examiners and by those who depend upon their images to convey impartial information regarding a scene or object. Elements within an image can be fabricated, enhanced, distorted, shifted, cloned, erased and/or transferred to another image with a precision that virtually defies detection. Those who doubt the creative potential of digital image processing should see the film Terminator II.” He was concerned about this not being an accurate reproduction of what the placard really says. Tim added that he was getting pretty good results with the program but not as good as Nab Lator.
1:16 PM - Nab Lator: “I was lucky with my first try at editing the blur model. It’s hard to reproduce exactly and there is no way to save the blur model as far as I can see. Haven’t looked enough maybe.”
.
The next two hours had people playing with the software trying to get the best image and read the smaller text.
3:02 PM - Chris Rutkowski asks the question everyone was thinking: “Good work. And - um - why didn’t the “experts” or “investigators” do this?”
3:09 PM - Nab Lator asks the question: “Should I write an e-mail to Adam Dew to show the best deconvolution so far and ask for a better scan?”
4:02 PM - Nab Lator contacts Adam Dew.
4:31 PM - Chris Rutkowski: “Just to verify... the scanned image that was deblurred is the same one that was shown at the Mexico event?
No one did a bait-and-switch?”
4:39 PM - Chris asked for the source of the image. There was a discussion about vetting the source.
4:43 PM - Chris Rutkowski was concerned this might be a plant: “So why is this version relatively clear? Are we being led deliberately
astray?”
4:50 PM - Lance asked how we were going to release this image.
5:04 PM - After much discussion, Chris Rutkowski again brought up the concern about provenance
5:10 PM - Tim Printy reports that Molczan, Brookesmith and Sheaffer all read it the same way. He also mentioned that, since Dew is aware of our findings, we should present this information in the next 24-48 hours.
5:16 PM - Nab Lator came up with the second line, “At the time of burial the body was clothed in a xxx-xxx cotton” and Lance Moody agreed.
5:18 PM - Tim Printy remarks that because Dew knew of our work, he might create some sort of scenario that explained it. 5:19 PM - Ricky Poole: “Seems pretty cut and dried short of an accusation of tampering by Dew.”
5:20 PM - Stephen Miles Lewis arrives and is ecstatic about our results.
5:21 PM - Curt Collins says that they can’t spin this away.
5:43 PM - After a discussion about being able to release the original image, Tim Printy comments that he doesn’t think we need to and the final product might inspire people to beg Dew to release a high resolution scan.
5:46 PM - Isaac Koi says it would be desirable to release the original image.
5:51 PM - Curt Collins says we need to make a video.
6:03 PM - There was concern expressed for our source. We did not want to betray them
6:17 PM - Ricky Poole: “It is a tougher sell if we can’t provide the means for others to reproduce it. We give the “noisy negativists” grounds to balk and be noisy negativists.”
7:06 PM - Lance Moody provides his best effort from the source image.
.
7:37 PM - Lance Moody: “Burial wrappings consisted of these small cotton blankets”
More time spent working on getting the best possible image and attempts to read the other lines in the placard.
9:18 PM Curt Collins reports putting up the findings on his blog because the image was accidentally leaked elsewhere. 10:12 PM Dew uploads the placard image file to his web site (see the next page - time could have been 10:12 PM CDT)
May 9th
12:33 AM Paul Kimball reports that Rich Reynolds is saying that Bragalia states the image is a fake.
12:47-1:02 AM Paul Kimball expressed concern over provenance and was thinking that it might be necessary to expose the source.
.
He was concerned we were being “set up” with a fake image. Tim Hebert agreed. Paul wanted us to work under higher standards than UFOlogists.
1:05 AM Tim Printy pointed out that the proponents can prove the results are fake by releasing the high resolution images. 1:11 AM Curt Collins takes responsibility for making the call to go public.
1:16 AM Tim Printy reports that Adam Dew has now put the high resolution image of the placard up for all to see.
1:23 AM Dew sends Nab Lator a message - “Your photoshop work is not that good. smile emoticon even visually its obvious” 1:26 AM Both Paul and Lance recognize that this is a breakthrough.
1:29 AM Paul uploads his blog posting about the slides.
1:37 AM Tim Printy noticed that Anthony Bragalia posted his scans.
1:45 AM Both Lance and Tim Printy have difficulty with debluring Dew’s and Bragalia’s scans.
1:50 AM Tim Printy reports that he can deblur some of the words in Bragalia’s file_text image.
2:02 AM Lance is having better results with Bragalia’s file_text image.
2:16 AM Tim Printy produces an image that shows the words “of two year old boy” from Bragalia’s file_text image.
2:35 AM Tim Printy produces a similar result with Dew’s image. This implied that the original image was correct and not a plant.
3:35 AM. Nab Lator notes that it is difficult to deblur Dew’s placard. He gets different results every time using “analyze blur”.
3:52 AM. Nab Lator states that the Dew image has much more contrast than the image we were using 24 hours ago.
5:03 AM Nab Lator states he is having problems getting a better result with the Dew image using Smart Deblur 2.2. One can read “Of two year old boy” at the top.
5:27 AM Nab Lator is telling everyone that the GIF files that are not animated make it appear that we photoshopped the placard and that we need to remove them from blogs.
8:30 AM Curt Collins is recommending we make a movie of how to deblur it. 8:33 AM Nab Lator gets a better image showing the entire first line of text.
.
9:41 AM Stephen Miles lewis states he can see the top line in the Dew image without the deblur tool now that he knows what to look for.
9:50 AM Curt Collins states that Alejandro Rojas wants to know the settings for Deblur so he can replicate the results. 10:24 AM Lance Moody arrives and is informed we are trying to reproduce our results with the Dew image.
10:43 AM Lance Moody agrees with Nab Lator that the Dew scan is very contrasty
10:59 AM Tim Printy reports to Lance that he can get some of the same readings we got with the other scan but it is not consistent. (At this point, some of us did not quite understand the program and were using varying deblur models that did not quite work. We also did not realize one could save the deblur models that did work.)
11:11 AM Nab Lator states he is having problems replicating results
12:19 PM There were exchanges about misleading images on the RSRG site that gave the false impression that we had photo- shopped the result.
2:08 PM Isaac Koi reports that Dew is referring to the RSRG as a “group of internet trolls”
2:09 PM Nab Lator notices that the image on Dew’s site appears to show the words “Two year old boy” in it.
2:11 PM Tim Printy told Nab Lator that we needed to meet Curt’s request of doing a step-by-step or video.
2:15 PM Nab Lator is in contact with Jeff Ritzman who is trying to reproduce our work.
2:20 PM Isaac Koi agrees we need a step by step so others can reproduce the work.
2:21 PM Nab Lator confesses he was uncomfortable with step by step because he is getting different results every time. About that time, he changes from version 2.2 to 2.3 pro, which allows saving the deblur file.
2:34 PM Nab Lator points out that the scan we were using the day before had been cleaned up to remove scratches and dust and that Dew’s version was not.
3:09 PM Lance Moody points out that the histogram of Dew’s scan indicated that it may have been manipulated and was probably not the original scanned image.
3:21 - 3:32 PM Nab Lator explains what he is doing for all to follow. He reveals his results with the scan which reproduces most of the information.
3:32 PM Curt Collins reports the natives are getting restless since we have not responded to Dew’s claim that we photoshopped all of this.
3:41 - 3:46 PM - Tim Printy is starting to get consistent results by manually editing the blur model as instructed by Nab Lator. He posts the results from two images in a row.
.
4:05 PM Jose Antonio Caravaca reports that Tony Bragalia has posted an article where he describes the group as rabid skeptics and that we were hoaxing the placard.
4:31 PM, Tim Printy posts his first video for use where he uses his own deblur model to demonstrate how to deblur the placard image provided by Dew.
5:04 PM Nab Lator finally produces a good deblur model and shows the results.
.
5:10 PM, Nab Lator provides Tim Printy his deblur model and a second video is created.
5:30 PM Paul Kimball uploads the video to the RSRG site
6:03 PM Lance produces his video. It is added to the RSRG site
6:38 PM Paul Kimball reports receiving an email from Rich Reynolds reporting that Tony Bragalia is starting to change his tune and feels he was duped by Adam Dew.
8:28 PM It was noticed that Frank Warren, who was working independent of the RSRG, was reporting he has the same results as us.
8:58 PM Paul Kimball reports that Adam Dew stated on Kevin Randle’s blog: “I hope you guys are being fully honest about your work... because if you’re trying to pull a fast one... you’re going to set debunking back many many years.” This was one of the last statements made by Dew publicly for almost three weeks as he distanced himself from the debacle. Around midnight, Tony Bragalia posted an article where he accepted the RSRG’s findings. He adds that he has discovered the body was a mummified native American boy discovered in 1894 and put on display in the 1930s at the Mesa Verde museum.
.
Postscript
After the revelation that the scan could be deblurred, there were many groups/individuals, who produced the same results. The RSRG web site presented many of those results as proof that we were not photoshopping anything. However, the biggest validation of our work came when we received confirmation from Smart Deblur’s designer, Vladimir Yuzhikov. On May 15th, Philip Hernandez of the RSRG reported that he finally had a response with the above image showing Yuzhikov’s deblur attempt. One wonders if Dew, or somebody else in the slide promoter camp, had contacted Mr. Yuzhikov two years earlier, would we be here to- day discussing slides showing a mummy?
-
The Heroes of the Roswell Slides saga
As is often the case in history, there are those who receive the accolades for great victories and those who were behind the scenes that produced that victory. While everyone knows the great generals and admirals, nobody remembers the sailors and soldiers, who played vital roles in fighting those great battles. It was their sacrifice that were the keys to victory. The same thing happened in the case of the Roswell slides expose’.
Shortly after the May 5th event, one of our members gained access to a scan of the slide that was better than the one Richard Dolan had released on the coast to coast AM web site. This came from an unnamed source, who was possibly under the threat of legal action for what they were doing. Within hours of receiving the image, Nab Lator had begun to deblur the placard. The public reveal of this image forced Adam Dew to let everyone see the actual scan of the placard and this resulted in others deblurring the writing on their own. It is this individual, who is to be honored for exposing the Roswell slides for what they were. It is likely that, eventually, the image of the body that had the placard that could be deblurred would have surfaced but the release of the image to the RSRG sped up that process. I personally want to thank that person for sending the Roswell slides back into obscurity for whence they came.
There are other heroes worthy of mention. Many members of the RSRG were instrumental in examining the evidence but there are two individuals that deserve mention. The first is Nab Lator, whose initial efforts inspired the rest of us to help him determine what the placard stated. The second individual was not even a member of the RSRG until very recently. Shephard Johnson was the one, who chose to contact the Eisenhower library and officially demonstrate there was no Ray-Eisenhower connection that was considered a fact by the slide promoters. However, Johnson’s best work was when he took the initiative to file a Freedom of Infor- mation Act request with the National Park Service and release the documents that demonstrated the body was nothing more than a mummy.
The villains of the Roswell Slides saga
One can suggest that Don Schmitt, Tom Carey, and Anthony Bragalia are the primary villains in this UFOlogical drama. Some of their behavior during this whole event was nefarious. Accusations and insults were hurled at those who felt the slides showed a mummy or something else. People skeptical of the slides (not just skeptics/debunkers) were portrayed as people who were vin- dictive and not searching for the truth. Don Schmitt’s tirade on the March 8th episode of Contacto with Jaime Maussan was full of hate and vitriol. Bragalia chose to work behind the scenes spreading rumors, without good evidence, about people in the RSRG. Contrary to what they stated about being interested in the truth, their behavior and evaluation of the evidence appeared to be influenced mostly by their personal belief that the slides were of an alien body.
Another villain appears to be the owners of the slides. Adam Dew seems to have been answering to them. The names of these people were unknown to the world until Jaime Maussan appeared to state that somebody by the name of “Joseph Bissell” had the slides and they were not going to be in Mexico city. Because of the language barrier, Maussan appeared to mispronounce the man’s name. The RSRG identified him as Joseph Beason and his sister, who found the slides, as Catherine Cecilia Beason. Joe had ties to Adam Dew through the video industry and building web sites. It was Beason, who appeared to be controlling what was happening. He may even have been the person that put up the comments about the RSRG being “Internet UFO trolls”, who were “repeatedly spreading lies”.
Adam Dew is also a villain. Either under the orders of Beason, or through his own paranoia, he withheld the slides from serious investigation by competent individuals. He set up the “Kodachrome” website in an effort to drum up support for a film he hoped to produce. One can speculate that he viewed this as his chance to get out of the business of doing low level sports videos and get into the big world of producing real documentaries that would appear on cable networks around the world. We saw some of his amateurish efforts in the May 5th event. There was a scene where he was reenacting the discovery of the slides. What I could see on the screen did not impress me very much. The problem is, over the past few months, Adam Dew did not seem interested in the truth. His, or Beason’s, reaction to the deblurring of the slides demonstrated this. Dew, or Beason, went out of his way to denigrate the work and then ran away when it became obvious that he was wrong.
Then there is Jaime Maussan. He has always claimed to be some sort of “respected” journalist but I have yet to see any significant resume’ outside of the world of UFOlogy. He blindly accepts most UFO stories and then promotes them. Either it is because he is very dumb, very gullible, or very clever. I think it is the inability to differentiate between reality and fiction but is it possible that he knows the difference and is using UFOs for personal gain? Is it possible that he thinks that UFOs are nonsense and only does this programming for the notoriety, fame, and money? We will never know for sure but he still is a villain here because, without him, this event never would have happened.
It seems that this group was never interested in “Truth and History” when it came to the Roswell slides. It was all about fame and/or money at all costs. This makes the participants, who went out of their way to promote this disaster, villains.
---
How did the Roswell slides measure up?
In my opinion, the Roswell slides saga played out almost as I predicted. SUNlite has covered the story for two years with the last two issues providing counterarguments to those presented by the promoters. I half expected to be surprised on May 5th and be- yond. Instead of being impressed, I was underwhelmed by the presentation. While many of the predictions I made about the slides did come true (there were some that did not), the biggest surprise was how easy it was to identify the body in the slides.
In SUNlite 6-5, I stated:
The reason that the slides have not been revealed is that the “research team” fears one thing above anything else. They worry that the source of these slides may actually be identified as something other than an alien body. The internet is full of sleuths with access to all sorts of information that can reveal a great deal. If somebody were to identify this “body”, it would be an incredible failure on the “team’s” part.
While it was not a case of identifying the body, the placard was finally read by our group with little effort once we became proficient at using the SmartDeblur program.
In SUNlite 7-1, I wrote:
These assurances about great UFOlogical revelations have been made before and they have never lived up to the promises. I expect the same will occur with the slides. Ten years from now, the slides will probably be mentioned in the same breath as the “alien autopsy”
This also appears to have come to pass. Many people felt swindled by the May 5th event. There were quite a few comments with the “I told you so” theme made by various individuals in UFOlogy.
In Sunlite 7-2, I predicted:
If they are successful, there will be problems for Don Schmitt, Tom Carey, and Tony Bragalia.... (they) have pinned their reputations and lives on this being the crown jewel to the Roswell story. To coin a poker term, “They are all in”. After their hand is revealed on May 5th, we will see if they have a winning hand or are bluffing.
History has shown that all the slides promoters had in their hand was garbage that would have been beaten by a pair of twos. In SUNlite 7-3, I remarked:
I envision that they will show the slides for those in the auditorium but they will not be very high resolution and may not be much better than the images we have seen on the web so far. The actual high resolution images are probably going to be safe guarded because, once they are out there, those precious items will be all over the Internet.
This was not quite what happened. After the presentation, where high resolution images were shown, only one image was given for all to see. Image 11 was somewhat overexposed and the placard could not be read. Image 9, which was the one with the best placard image, was not initially made available. When the RSRG deciphered the placard, Dew was forced to release a high resolu- tion copy of the placard. A few days later, when it became apparent the Roswell slides ship was sinking, Dew and Maussan released a full copy of slide 9.
I also stated in the same issue:
I seriously doubt that Carey, Schmitt, Bragalia, Dew, or Maussan will apologize for their actions if the body in the slide IS identified as something earthly. I suspect that, if is identified, they will either ignore the identification or find reasons to reject it.
I missed a bit on this as well. Bragalia’s apology did recognize that the it was mummified two year old but he did not apologize to the RSRG, who he had accused of hoaxing the placard reading among many other things. Don Schmitt gave an apology and then reversed it a few weeks later! In an interview with Jaime Maussan prior to the BeWitness program, Tom Carey laughed at skeptics and stated they would never apologize for being wrong. Do you think that Carey will ever apologize to the skeptics for the things that he stated about them and his failure to research this properly? The silence is deafening......
---
The scientists who would not look at the slides
One of the claims made by Adam Dew, Don Schmitt, and Tom Carey was that they tried to get American scientists to look at the slides but they refused to look or comment. I have to wonder how seriously they tried. According to Adam Dew, they had con- tacted only a half-dozen anthropologists during their research.
...because most of the American anthropologists that we’ve tried and we’ve tried maybe half of a dozen that we have tried to go and show it to. Only one or two would even look and offer an opinion. And some won’t even touch it. They won’t even give us a chance to look at them... 1
We have no evidence that this is true and we don’t know who they tried to contact. Did they personally go to their offices and talk to them or did they simply send them an e-mail without the slide (We now knew that Dew did not share the slides with everybody for fear they might get out)? Getting e-mails or phone calls from strange people not in their field would probably make anybody avoid responding to them.
Don Schmitt would add that these scientists would rather lie than tell everyone the truth:
One extremely prominent anthropologist told us you will never get an American scientist who will tell you the truth about these slides... aren’t we surprised....most laboratories are government funded. That is how they keep them on a short leash and as a result we had to leave the country. Canada...Mexico...I want to assure all of you every anthropologist, every forensic expert, every pathologist told us that this was something non-human.....2
He conveniently left out the“prominent”anthropologist’s name, which makes this story hearsay and unverifiable. Based on Schmitt’s track record, we have to assume this is probably an exaggeration. It is possible that the individual stated that they would not call it “non-human” but I doubt they would say they would lie about what the body appears to be.
Tom Carey would state in a MUFON radio interview that the Anthropologists would hang up the instant the word Roswell was men- tioned.3 Remember when Carey and Schmitt stated they never called them the Roswell slides? If that were true, why would they tell scientists that the slides were associated with Roswell? Mentioning Roswell would mean that they were looking for a specific answer. Anybody interested in getting an unbiased response would simply say this came from a private collection and they would like an assessment of what type of body it might be.
The truth about what these scientists probably stated appeared in a February 10 comment by Adam Dew on the UFO Conjecture(s) blog:
What I’ve found is it is a nearly impossible task to get someone with a scientific background to look at a photo of a body with any hu- man-like characteristics and say it’s something other than human...4
This means that these scientists, who did comment, told them that the body was human and probably said that it was a mummy of some kind. The rest of the statements made by the promoters are, apparently, a myth created to make it appear that there is some sort of grand conspiracy regarding the slides.
Unable to get American scientists to call the body non-human, the slide promoters went shopping for opinions that fit the conclu- sion they had already reached. The first individual they picked was Richard Doble, who was an old classmate of Carey’s. I do not be- lieve he has a doctorate in Anthropology. If this is true, it means that he is little more than an amateur in his profession and can’t take his opinion seriously. The other experts used were from Mexico and seemed to have ties to Maussan. Of course , these individuals concluded the body was not human. However, we still have to wonder about those American Anthropologists, who commented about the body in the slide but had their opinions ignored/swept under the rug by the promoters.
Will the real anthropologists please stand up?
In order to set the record straight many people started contacted anthropologists for their opinion about the slides. The most successful in getting responses was Philip Mantle. Unlike the slide promoters, he had no problems obtaining responses from his queries and publishing them5:
Dr Daniel Antoine, Institute for Bioarchaeology - Curator of Physical Anthropology:
Based on the photograph, this appears to be the mummified remains of a very young child. The mummification process is likely to have been natural (i.e. buried in a very hot or arid environment) but it may also have been intentionally embalmed.
François Gaudard, University of Chicago:
To me it looks indeed like a mummy: the mummy of a child. The item on the other side of the mummy appears to be remnants of mummy
bandages, but it is difficult to tell for sure. However, since some parts of the mummy look a little shiny, for example, the right hand and just below the ribs, it makes me wonder whether it could be varnished or made of plastic? And also why is the text on the label not visible as if someone was trying to hide something?
Frode Storaas, University Museum of Bergen:
This seems to be a mummy, but not from old Egypt. Mummies are found many places. The photo indicates that this mummy is exhibited, or stored, somewhere and by someone who probably can tell more.
Dr. Suzanne Onstine, University of Memphis
It does appear to be human remains (and likely a child), although the photo is too blurry to tell if artificial mummification procedures were done. It is certainly possible the body was naturally mummified due to dry climate and soil. That kind of thing happened all the time in many cultures.
S.J. Wolfe, Director of the EMINA (Egyptian Mummies in North America) Project.
Okay, it is a mummy, but very hard to tell if it Egyptian, South American or European. I see no wrappings of any kind, it appears to be a child or youth. Do you have a provenance on the slide??? That may help the determination.
Dr. Ronald Leprohon, University of Toronto:
Where was this shot taken? It looks like a museum. What did the label say? Did you ask the folks there? I’m sure they’d have information on their displays. It certainly looks like a mummy but it’s pretty blurry so it’s difficult to see properly. Sorry I can’t be more helpful, and good luck in your quest.
Dr. Patricia Podzorski, University of Memphis
Based on the image you sent, it appears that what you saw is the preserved remains of a human body, or a good imitation thereof. Since no wrappings are clearly visible in the photo, I can not determine the culture (Egypt, Peru, Asia, North America, etc.) or the date/ period (ancient or recent) of origin . Given that the head is turned slightly to the side and the color, it might not be an unwrapped ancient Egyptian mummy, but I am not able to be certain based on the visual information.
Salima Ikram, American University in Cairo
I confirm that the photo is of a mummy of a child, possibly Peruvian or even Egyptian.
Denise Doxey, Curator, Ancient Egyptian, Nubian and Near Eastern Art. Museum of fine arts, Boston:
Yes, that would appear to be the mummy of a small child.
This indicates that there were anthropologists available to examine the slides and willing to comment. Most indicated that it looked like, or was, a mummy.
-
Failed promises
On February 10th, Adam Dew told us that his quest for further analysis would not stop with BeWitness:
I will continue to show the slides to more pediatricians/forensic pathologists/etc. And after May 5, every forensic pathologist on Earth can take a stab at it. 6
Since May 5th, he has provided us with no new reports from scientists outside the Maussan influence. However, we do have these observations by scientists, who have examined the images. Even without knowing the contents of the placard, it appears they have come to the conclusion that it is probably a mummy of some kind.
More nails for the coffin
On May 17th, the Spanish television program, Cuarto Milenio, offered a rebuttal to the claims made by Jaime Maussan’s experts.
Granada, Spain. On that program, Professor Botella stated:
I want to start by saying that for me all this is a fable, because I do not doubt that this is a child, mummified in a natural way. It is a mum- my dehydrated by heat. [...]
In the photos there is nothing extraordinary. The report speak of many things which are not seen, nor is it true that you have a large head and the bulging forehead is logical for a child.
The body has all its ribs, has elbows, and even the color is appropriate for a mummy. The body does not exhibited signs of having been subjected to an autopsy.
(Translation by José Antonio Caravaca)7
On the website “La Nave del mysterio” (The mystery ship), another expert, Mercedes González, of the Institute for Scientific Studies in Mummies (IECIM) SPAIN, weighed in about the slides. Her opinion was:
1) It is appreciated that the subject is placed on a glass shelf, which, in turn, is supported by a bracket dark embedded in a metal rack white. If we add the reflexes that can be seen, we can say that the individual in question is inside a glass case.
2) This is a child mummified body, with all the characteristics of human beings, ergo, a humanoid.
3) It is impossible to determine whether the preservation of the body was due to natural or anthropogenic processes.
4) The size of the head seem larger than normal, but this is something common in children individuals mummified because at the de- hydrate the body, produces the consequent reduction, so the head seems, in relation to the body, of more great proportions to normal. 5) It is very difficult to specify the age at which he could die the individual, since there is no object that can be used as a scale to determine the actual length of the body and, through it, to infer the possible age of the subject .
6) In one of the slides can be seen clearly the floor of the room, and a wooden bench and in the top of the image, what appears to be another showcase. That is, we are talking about a body exhibited in a museum or similar institution.
Given the poor quality of the two slides, it is impossible to extrapolate any further evidence. The rest are but mere inference, which of them most implausible, considering that have been developed from these images.8(Translation by José Antonio Caravaca)
Once again, we have scientists more than willing to comment about the slides. The problem is, these are not the answers that the slide promoters want to hear. It appears they probably did hear these kinds of responses prior to May 5th but chose to ignore them in favor of the opinions that met their expectations. .
Desperate times call for desperate measures
Desperate for a rebuttal of the growing list of scientists, who were calling it a mummy, Jaime Maussan interviewed Tom Carey’s anthropologist friend, Richard Doble, again. The highlight of Doble’s interview was the statement, “There are scientists who will say almost anything”9. One could draw the conclusion that Doble would “say almost anything” to help out his friend or because he already has stated that it was not human and his reputation is on the line. Can we really accept his opinion as unbiased?
Maussan also decided to introduce an anesthesiologist by the name of Richard O’Connor.10 However, Maussan fails to mention that he was the “executive director” of the “Crop circles research foundation” and has a strong interest in UFOs.11 Even with this bias, he would recognize when he had made a mistake. When the FOIA documents were released showing the body, O’Connor would change his opinion:
...it seems to me like it’s drawing us towards the conclusion that this photograph does represent a Native American child.....12
Maussan continued to look for others who could proclaim the body as “non-human”. His presented a doctor by the name of Fernan- do Espinoza, whose sole area of expertise is that he is a vascular surgeon from Florida. I could find little about his level of experience other than what Maussan stated. He seems to have no knowledge about mummies or any significant accomplishments besides his current position as a vascular surgeon. I would trust his opinion in his area of expertise but not when it comes to identifying mummies.
Further efforts involved a biologist, by the name of José de la Cruz Ríos López, attempting to demonstrate that the body was too long to be a body of a two year old boy. The problem with that analysis was obvious to many outside observers. Lopez used the fist of the woman in the background to use as a ruler for measuring the body. The woman was much more distant from the camera than the body, which would mean that the body would appear much larger than it actually was. Such sloppy work was done because Lopez did not understand the principles of perspective or because Maussan demanded that he produce a measurement that fit his own preconceived conclusions.
Maussan had retreated to the position of using obscure, and possibly unqualified, individuals to perform measurements on photo- graphs and evaluate a possible mummy in order to prop up this collapsing case. It was the last refuge of a man desperately trying to keep his reputation alive.
Secrets and science
The question now is, “Why is that Philip Mantle was able to get anthropologists and other experts to comment about the slides and Dew was unable to do so?”The answer appears to be that Mantle went to these scientists with no desire for secrecy or a spe- cific desired conclusion. Meanwhile, Dew appeared to approached them wanting to hear only one answer. It may be possible that he never allowed them to look at the slides unless they agree to sign an Non-disclosure agreement (NDA). If that is the case, it is no surprise that professionals might have ignored him because they weren’t interested in this kind of secrecy. It is interesting to point out that Dew let it slip out that some of these scientists did view the slides and commented that it was human. It seems he chose to ignore these comments because Tom Carey, who has a master’s degree in anthropology from 1974, told him different and that he had a anthropologist friend, who said it was an alien body!13 One can also speculate that Carey told Dew the myth that scientists do not want to look at UFO evidence because they are afraid of their reputation being tarnished. Dew, anxious to make a splash with the production of his documentary, then repeated it to everyone as if it were true. Adam Dew’s greed and belief made him blind to the truth about the body in the slides.
---
Trying to erase and rewrite history
One item that was observed by the Roswell Slides Research Group (RSRG) was that certain individuals, who had become promot- ers and chroniclers of the slides quickly began to distance themselves from their past involvement after May 9th. Rich Reynolds has always had a desire to delete blog entries that didn’t end up making him look good or resulted in commentary he did not like. In my opinion, he did a disservice to history by deleting a lot of what one of the promoters, Anthony Bragalia, had been publicly stating along with evidence that indicated what Bragalia would later say was not accurate. Fortunately, I did manage to retrieve some of this history and evidence before it vanished forever. Now we can document Bragalia’s metamorphosis from vicious slides enforcer to slide critic.
The death
On May 9th, Anthony Bragalia wrote a piece regarding the work of the RSRG in deblurring the placard. In that writing he opened with the following statement:
The public reveal of the infamous “Roswell Slides” last week has caused an internet uproar, the likes of which have never been seen before. And evidence is now accumulating that rabid slide-skeptics may have even committed photo-fraud to discredit these slides. They have voiced concerns that the being depicted is a child mummy in a museum and are apparently willing to do anything to make their point. I have deliberately waited to make any lengthy public comment on this until now...
That started a rebuttal of the deblurring, where he indicated that professionals had identified the body in the slides as not being human and that the work of the RSRG was nothing more than a hoaxed image using photoshop. He then went on to say that he was still confident that the slides showed a being that looked like it came from Roswell.
About the same time this was presented on Rich Reynolds blog, the RSRG had finished its deblur of the Dew image and conclusively proved that this was not a hoax. Within 12 hours, Bragalia had changed his mind and wrote a new piece where he admitted that it was not a Roswell alien and it was a mummified child.
The resurrection
With that article, Mr. Bragalia attempted to start his resurrection from the Roswell slides fiasco by being the first to publish the
1
story about the body in the slide being a mummy found at Montezuma castle in 1894. While he mentions the RSRG as a group
of Skeptical researchers as the source for his discovery, he glossed over the fact that, less than a day before he had hurled insults and accusations at the same group of researchers. At the time, the RSRG was far too busy finalizing their work on the deblurring to be bothered with such minor details as to where the body had come from. His discovery was nothing more than a simple Google search of the words in the deblurred placard, which was replicated within hours by others. In the end, because of his article, An- thony Bragalia was given credit by some in the media for having solved the mystery.2 Mr. Bragalia still attempts to promote his find as significant.
The transfiguration
In order to absolve himself of any wrongdoing, Bragalia had to alter everyone’s perception of him from willing collaborator to trusting dupe. Bragalia then targeted Adam Dew as the prime reason for the failure of the slides. In his post May 9th statements Bragalia stated:
What people must understand is that I never saw the true-view of the slides and placard that we see today. I viewed digital reproduc- tions of the slides and its elements that were -I know now- manipulated. This was done by photo-cropping, light-blasting, color contrast changes, and by employing selective resolution. due to Dew’s techniques, I never saw the second placard on the opposite side of the body. I never saw the black furry/hairy head, I never saw the other room in the background in the second slide. This individual deliberately ob- scured the text of the placard in the slides, in one version, appearing luminescent it was so bright.
Using a photo-forensics analysis program and running the best-available version of the first slide through an image analyzer, I found that the image Dew provided Maussan was only 84% of last-saved quality. There is evidence of brightness enhancement and the application of light blur. The placard enlargements that I received over a period of a year were entirely bogus3
It is now evident that Dew ‘enhanced,’ ‘brightened,’ cropped, and manipulated color, contrast and resolution of the slides. This ‘enhance- ment’ is evident in the digital images that he made public. The skin has a more ‘organic’ patina in Dew’s version (using light blasting) as evidenced by the comparatively ‘lifeless’ skin of the Palmer excavation photo. He ‘sweetened’ and ‘tweaked’ the versions that I was made privy to, as well as those the public saw, and the photo released today by NPS proves this.4
And the placard versions that I was provided that were generated by Dew were deliberately of low resolution, had color-contrasts applied, and in many other ways were altered by him. I was dealing with a deceiver and with images that were not true images.5
Missing from all of this whining about Dew’s manipulation of the images are some important facts. Prior to May 10th, Bragalia was enthusiastic about the quality of the images he had received and evaluated. He also claimed to be one of the few people, who had access to the highest resolution images.6 Some of the comments Bragalia made regarding the quality of the images indicated that certain details were visible:
.
The lower part of the face has an almost ‘insectile’ look and the upper part appears frog-like/amphibian. The chin is ‘pointed’ in the extreme, unlike any human...Though very difficult to discern, the being appears to be placed in a glass container. It does not however, resemble those display cases found in museums and we have looked at dozens of such images. It may be tubular. And the being rests on hastily-cut blanket resembling green-colored military blankets used at the time. The entire setup seems very ‘make-shift’ as if it is tempo- rary storage allowing for viewing with intended transport to another location- not at all ‘permanent.’7
Clear versions of the slides depict a being whose anatomy does not correspond to a human being.8
He also indicated that he had access to both slides.
The other slide provides greater clarity and with far more detail revealed.9
If the images were so poor and he only had limited access, why was he making such observations? Even if he had access to poor quality images, Bragalia still had a chance to point out that he was not happy with the slides he received. On May 6th, everyone had access to a high resolution image of slide #11. Many noticed the artifacts in the image and thought the body looked like a mum- my. They had no problems with the color of the skin. Between May 6 and 9th, Anthony Bragalia remained silent. On May 9th, he broke that silence in order to call the RSRG a bunch of rapid skeptics. He also felt that the slides were just fine and did not indicate a mummy was involved:
The dehydrated appearance common to all mummies is missing entirely from the slide image being. It appears that the slide being may have been embalmed, not desiccated. They are definitely not identical nor even comparable.... I have personally viewed well over 500 Google images of such un-bandaged mummies and have yet to find anything that coincides with that of the being in the slides.10
In this commentary, where he remained convinced this was not a mummy, Bragalia never mentioned having any reservations about what the released image showed compared to the ones he had in his possession. During those three days, he had every opportu- nity to publicly state that this was not an alien being and Adam Dew had misled him.
Bragalia’s post May 9th claim that the images of the placard he received were poor, do not appear to be correct. I know for a fact that at least two of the four he had posted on Rich Reynolds Blog could be deblurred enough to read the top line. The third was difficult to deblur with some of the words being partially visible. The fourth, which could not be deblurred, was the one from slide 11. It was apparently overexposed by the flash or lighting.
Anthony Bragalia can tell everyone he was duped by Adam Dew but his actions, prior to May 10th, indicate otherwise.
.
Born again?
Bragalia is seeking redemption for his failures in the Roswell slides saga by trying to portray himself as a major player in solving the Roswell slide mystery. While his post May 9th minor achievements associated with the body in the slides are to be acknowl- edged, his self portrayal of what transpired before May 10th appear to be inaccurate. Mr. Bragalia is trying to paint himself as the innocent victim but the documented history indicates otherwise. He had the slides in his possession for over a year but chose to ignore the possibility of this being a mummy. Like those who were tasked to deblur the placard, Bragalia did not try hard enough to solve the mystery. He allowed his beliefs to affect his investigation of the slides. It was clear to many that Anthony Bragalia had difficulty differentiating between wild speculation and establish facts. If it were not for the work by the same “rabid skeptics” he continuously denigrated during his promotion of the Roswell slides, Bragalia would still be proclaiming that this was a dead body of a Roswell alien. He can try and rewrite his participation in all of this but Tony Bragalia left a paper trail that indicates he was not as innocent as he tries to portray.
---
Matt Graeber and Bruce Duensing RIP
While I never was much of a follower of Bruce Duensing, I know that he was a respected commenter on many blogs. I don’t re- call strongly disagreeing with anything he had to say. Not that it really matters because it is always sad to see somebody you know, whether you agreed with them or not, pass away.
Matthew Graeber was in contact with me just after I started SUNlite. He was a friendly person, who was also a gifted artist. Unfor- tunately, his health was slowly deteriorating when we started exchanging pleasantries. Matt sent me many of his old articles and artwork to use as I saw fit. He was often amused by the antics of the Roswell crowd and probably would have found the recent Ros- well slides debacle fascinating. Had he been healthier, he would have created a humorous masterpiece. About a year ago, he sent me an e-mail saying he could no longer communicate because of his failing health. I had hoped that he might rebound and start chatting again but this did not happen. I am sad to see Matt’s passing and I will try to include more of his artwork in future issues to commemorate his contributions to UFOlogy.
.
Quelle: SUNlite 4/2015

Tags: UFO-Forschung 

1555 Views

Samstag, 8. August 2015 - 15:36 Uhr

UFO-Forschung - UFO-Absturz bei Roswell 1947 ? Teil-36

.

BeWoeful: The death of the Roswell slides
Against my better judgment, I chose to invest $15 of my hard earned money and three hours out of my life on the “BeWitness” program. I half expected to be surprised with new revelations about the slides because the promoters were so adamant that they were images of an alien being. In a poorly organized presentation, Maussan practically put his audience to sleep as he tried to build suspense for the big reveal. When the program was complete, I was asking myself, ”Why did I waste my time and money?”.
BeBored: May 5th was mostly a snooze fest
There is an old saying that I learned, early on in my naval career, which stated, “prior planning prevents piss-poor performance”. Most of what we did involved a plan. That plan did not always work in the heat of the moment because events might change the situation and one had to adapt as one saw fit. However, when it
came to presentations, they usually went off like clockwork. It was
practiced and everybody had a time and place to be. In the case of BeWitness, there appeared to be not much of a plan. Instead of two or three hours, the program took five hours. Most of it was extremely boring.
The most boring parts of the program involved the videos of wit- nesses recounting their experiences with the Roswell crash. Some of them were just not believable at all. Are we really supposed to believe some guy was able to access the Roswell file from the Blue Book records (a file that does not exist) and examine it with no repercussions even though it was highly classified? The Elea- zar Benavides interview lasted over twenty minutes! He tended to mumble and had to be prompted by interviewers to keep on track.
It wasn’t just these videos that were boring. The speakers seemed equally unprepared. James Hurtak, who was the keynote speak- er, set the tone for the program. His speech was poor, he did not excite the audience, and he droned on about some sort of cosmic brotherhood. Among much of the discredited evidence he pre- sented, was the 2004 Mexican AF FLIR video. Despite this being satisfactorily explained as distant oil well fires, it was being pro- moted, once again, as evidence of alien visitation. Another loser for the program was Paul Hellyer, who repeated his crazy stories about alien races and government conspiracies. Nobody takes this guy seriously but Maussan put him up there, warts and all.
The one group of individuals that were not supposed to disappoint were Don Schmitt and Tom Carey. I don’t know about others but I was disappointed. What started as a biased presentation of the Roswell case history, quickly evolved into a rapid showing of slides
that they did not have time to explain. They had way too many There were a lot of jokes on the internet about the Roswell slides. The best was provided by Jeff Ritzmann. slides and not enough time. As I said, Prior planning...... They did
manage to stop at each and every slide that showed their books. I guess they probably had quite a few on display outside available for purchase. The end of their talk focused on how Frankie Rowe described the heads of aliens looking like crickets.
.
The most promising speaker was Adam Dew but his presentation was not very good. He revealed that much that had been learned about Hilda Blair Ray was second hand at best. In some cases, it was third hand. Dew continued to promote the idea that Hilda was close to the Eisenhowers. His best evidence appeared to be that the Rays took the photographs of the trailers at Kansas State. Since Milton Eisenhower was at Kansas State, then by default, this meant that the Rays knew Milton. This backward kind of logic was prevalent throughout his presentation. Dew revealed that all he was good at was recording people telling stories. There are enough of those in the Roswell myth already. It would have been impressive if he had actually gone the extra mile and verified these stories. If he wanted to prove Hilda was a pilot, why didn’t he just look at records of pilot licenses. The failure to provide one document that the Rays knew the Eisenhowers or Bushes in a meaningful way indicated that these were anecdotes and not real ev- idence. Like many Roswell investigators, Dew seemed to be more interested in manufacturing history than verifying it. His biggest piece of evidence seemed to be the story about the slides being separate from the others and supposedly hidden from view. This was based on the testimony of one woman, who appears to have a financial stake in all of this. If this was the best that Dew had, he was on some very shaky ground.
After the slides were revealed, the program went to an intermission but many viewers, including me, thought it had ended. It was only later that I learned that the experts were allowed to speak about the body in the slide. I had to watch the rest of the video stream the next day to watch them explain their analysis. I was very disappointed to see them speaking in Spanish with no English subtitles. While the Spanish language was spoken in the theater, many English speaking viewers on line were unable to understand anything that was said. The only person that spoke English was Richard Doble and his analysis was just too bizarre to accept as being valid.
Probably the most ridiculous part of the presentation was having a 3D alien standing and walking on the stage. It was not very impressive and something was apparently lost in the streaming video.
The stream ended at this point but I believe that Richard Dolan spoke last. From what I understand, his talk was not that impressive. After five hours of having to sit in a chair on stage, waiting to speak, I would have been mentally, and physically, exhausted.
The program was a train wreck that tried to cram five pounds of crap into a one pound bag. I am not sure why Maussan did it this way but it certainly did not earn him any respect from some of those I saw commenting about the program. When the show was over, I had felt that I had not really received any satisfactory answers regarding the slides.
BeMissing: There was no edge code
One of the important pieces of evidence mentioned in the run up to the May 5th event was that the slides year of manufacture
1
was 1947. Last SUNlite, I questioned the claim of Anthony Bragalia that the edge coding dated the film to the year 1947. The
truth of the matter was revealed when Dew presented a statement by Robert Shanebrook, who only limited his year of manufac- ture to 1945-1950.2 He apparently had no edge code evidence. This was verified when a scan of the entire slide 9 was presented at milenio.com on May 6th.3 There were no “edge codes” on the slide in the form of shapes like triangles/circles/+ signs. All one could say was the slide was developed and mounted in the late 1940s. What was considered factual (the film was manufactured in 1947) prior to May 5th, turned out to be a myth.
.
BeMini: Smaller than advertised
We are told that the body was 3.5-4 feet in length but not shown how these measurement was made. After the image was shown on the BeWitness presentation, Richard Dolan convinced Adam Dew to release a good resolution scan for Coast to Coast.4 Using that image, I made some preliminary measurements to see
how tall the body might have been
The best way to measure the body is by knowing the dimensions of the frame holding up the glass shelf the body was laid upon. I examined some frames at my work and the hole sizes for them. The hole on the left is the light shelving frame, which is close to what appears to be seen in the photo- graph. The heavy duty frame is on the right. The range of hole size appears to be between 0.4 and 0.6 inches. Assuming that the frames in the photo- graph are similar, we can calculate the approximate size of the body:
.
-
Assuming the actual hole size was 0.5 inches and using the 19 pixel measurement in the image, this puts the entire body length at about 3 feet. However, that probably wasn’t the real body length because one has to account for foreshortening in the image and the fact that the hole is further away from the camera than the body. Since the amount of foreshortening appears to be minimal, it is likely that the body is probably smaller than these estimates due to the body being closer to the camera than the frame support. If these values are correct, it brings into question the estimates made throughout the months that the body was 3.5-4 feet in length.
During the BeWitness presentation, Dr. José de Jesús Zalce Benítez demonstrated how he came up with this number.5 It appears that he simply took the alien body, flipped it vertically, and then compared it to the woman in the background. If so, he was using a 1:1 comparison of the body to the woman. He stated it was precisely 1.2 meters tall at his presentation (in his paper he stated it was 1.2-1.3 meters tall).6 This seems rather odd for a scientist to give us such a precise number without using a precise tool to measure by, which the woman in the background is not.
Any person familiar with optics can tell you the problems with his measurement. The woman is farther away from the photogra- pher than the body and can not be used as an accurate measurement of length without knowing how tall she was or how far she was away from the camera (see the example of me and the palm tree). While we can’t tell for sure, I would estimate that she is 1.5 - 2 times further away than the actual body. If that is the case, then the estimates made by Dr. Zalce Benitez are 1.5-2 times too high. His estimate of 1.2 meters height (about 47 inches tall) would actually be 0.6-0.8 meters (24-32 inches). Since he did not demon- strate any methodology in his paper for everyone to examine, one must conclude that Dr. Zalce Benitez was making a “best guess”, which is not very scientific. His value for the length of the body is worthless.
.
BeWhere: Secret location or museum?
Prior to the program, Maussan and Carey were overly critical of skeptics using the image that was grabbed off the Dew film. That image, while very blurry, was pretty accurate as far as size and dimensions were concerned. In my opinion, had skeptics seen the real slides prior to the May 5 event, they would have destroyed the program before it happened. Of course, this is what was feared most by the promoters. The last thing they wanted was to have too much information in the hands of those “impatient strangers”, who might do what they could not do.
Prior to the May 5th event, Tom Carey described how the body was displayed:
...put together fairly quickly. Perhaps for a limited viewing. It is not in a museum(my emphasis). It’s in a indoor location. Where, we don’t
know but it is obviously, to us, for a limited viewing. It’s a temporary construction......7
.
When the high resolution images were revealed, many people noticed that there were other objects on display near the body and each of these objects had placards identifying what they were. In the low resolution images that were taken off the Dew film, most of the items behind the body were very difficult to see or were not visible at all. Now, we could see things on display on the other side of the body. They do not appear to be artifacts that one would find from a spaceship crash. What they were was not that important. What was important was that, contrary to what Carey said, this had all the earmarks of a museum setting. Was the alien placed in a museum for viewing or was the body simply a mummy as many people had proposed?
BeWishful: Speculation heaped upon speculation
In the heat of the moment during an interview, one can be forgiven for making mistakes. However, in this presentation, all the speakers were working from prepared statements with notes right in front of them. Making gross errors are not so easily over- looked. Were they just incompetent or were they more interested in telling people their version of events even if it meant getting the facts wrong. At one point in his presentation, Adam Dew showed a slide and proclaimed that it showed “White Sands” in New Mexico.8 Had he read SUNlite, he would have known it was the Great Dunes National Park in Colorado. The proof is easy if one just
.
does a search on the internet and flip the slide Dew was using. If one looks at the mountain range (see next page) on the left and compare it to the Dew image, after flipping, one can see this is a match. Dew could not even be bothered to see if he had the slide in the correct orientation! He chose to draw the desired conclusion that the Rays must have been in New Mexico instead of actually doing the research that would show otherwise. It is interesting to point out that the Great Dunes National Park is less than 200 miles from a place called Mesa Verde. This photograph, along with others from Colorado in the Ray collection, were clues that might have led investigators to the true source of the body in the slides. Blinded by his belief that this all had to do with Roswell and aliens, Dew ignored the evidence.
.
This is just one example of speculation disguised as facts in the presentation by Dew. We would eventually discover that the story created by Dew about how the Rays were influential people, who were friends with the Eisenhowers and the Bush family, was based solely on anecdotes that were not verified. Shepherd Johnson had inquired into that connection with the Eisenhower library and they told him there was no record of either of the Eisenhowers knowing the Rays.9 Dew’s theory about the Rays and their adven- tures was nothing more than a house of cards ready to collapse the instant a “gust of wind” came along.
BeBlurry: The debunkers will be disappointed
In the BeWitness program, Adam Dew listed four experts that were given high resolution images of the placard/slide in order to see if they could read it. After some time, Dew stated that they reported back that it could not be read. Readers may remember that Tom Carey publicly stated that the placard had been read, to some extent, by experts and that debunkers were going to be disap- pointed.10 Anthony Bragalia stated that some suggested they saw the name of a doctor from, or associated with, Wright-Patterson field.11 In an interview on March 15th, Adam Dew stated the following about the placard:
We will release the placard, but trust me, it’s been looked at by the best so far, and it’s unfortunate the picture was taken indoors and the placard in the two slides, the placard is just very difficult to decipher, mostly because it’s handwriting and it’s just that it is once you- it looks like you should be able to read it......When you zoom in, the lines all fall apart and it just becomes a mess of dots basically. People have their chance to decipher the placard themselves, but you know ideally we just don’t want people to just take wild swings and things and then we spend all our time combating false information, which is a waste of time.12
Dew’s concern about people trying to read the placard seems to have influenced him into only showing the images where the plac- ard was either overexposed, cut off, or whited out on the days after the big reveal.
Despite the claim that all these experts could not read the writing on the placard, one of the Roswell Slides Research Group’s (RSRG) members, by the name of Nab Lator (a screen name), seemed interested in trying. Another member was able to acquire a high resolution copy of the placard that was not overexposed or blanked out from a source that will remain unnamed at this point (see the hero of the Roswell slides article on page 25). Nab Lator’s initial attempts, on May 8th, inspired the rest of us to download the program he was using (SmartDeblur) to see if we could duplicate his results. Over the next few hours, several of us were reproduc- ing the same results with the image. The top line appeared to read, “Mummified body of two year old boy”. I forwarded the image to Peter Brookesmith, Robert Sheaffer, and Ted Molczan with a request to kept it confidential. I then asked them to read the placard and send me their readings separately so as to prevent influencing each other. They all read it as we had.
My original suggestion to the group was to release the information jointly. I also privately considered the possibility that it might be a good idea to send the images to some UFO proponents, like Kevin Randle, to see if they read it the same way. About this time, Nab Lator forwarded the image to Adam Dew to see if he could provide us with a better scan that could be used. While we awaited for Dew’s response, one of the images was inadvertently shown elsewhere. This prompted Curt Collins to post on his blog what we knew at this point in order to set the record straight. This started a series of events that would bury the Roswell slides for good.
While the UFO community was evaluating the evidence Curt published, there was some discussion and concern between the group’s members about the provenance of the image we were using. The possibility was considered that the image may have been “plant- ed” to discredit the RSRG. On the other hand, if the image was authentic, we did not want to reveal our source. We had to hope that the same image could be acquired from a known source so we could verify we weren’t being hoaxed and establish provenance.
When the Curt Collins piece appeared, the news spread like wild fire. Anthony Bragalia commented on the UFO Conjecture(s) blog that we were using a photoshopped image. In an effort to get an image with provenance, I challenged Bragalia to provide us with his high resolution scans so we could deblur them and show the results were achieving were not photoshopped. He did and I began to deblur one of them, getting similar results. Adam Dew also became upset by our results, declared it a fake, and put up a very high resolution image of the placard on his website. Unwittingly, both had presented us with the images of known provenance that we desired. The group then chose to deblur Dew’s image since it was of highest resolution and came directly from him.Because Dew’s image was apparently adjusted for sharpness/contrast it was more difficult to deblur and consistent results were hard to obtain. As the next afternoon proceeded, we became more proficient at using the software. Using Nab Lator’s guidance, I began to stumble onto a good model but could only get “ body of two year old boy”. Nab Lator was several steps ahead of the rest of us and produced a deblur model that was on target and produced the image that clearly stated “Mummified body of two year old boy”.
.
While this was all going on, Anthony Bragalia wrote another one of his pieces where he proclaimed that the RSRG was faking all of this in order to discredit the slides. In that story, he stated, “evidence is now accumulating that rabid slide-skeptics may have even com- mitted photo-fraud to discredit these slides.”13 As is typical in many of his emotional tirades, Mr Bragalia was wrong. The only thing our group was guilty of was not revealing the source of the original scan. Thanks to Bragalia and Dew providing us with images, this was no longer a concern.
Had Adam Dew gotten past his maniacal control of the slides and posted this high resolution image of just the placard for the entire world to see one year ago, somebody probably would have deblurred it. Then again, Adam Dew, and his associates, might not have desired to have the placard deblurred. One wonders if anybody had actually resolved the placard so it could be read prior to May 5th, would Dew, Carey, Schmitt, Maussan and Bragalia have listened?
BeMummy: The body in the slide
There is little doubt, at this point, that the body is what the placard states. The image was taken at the Mesa Verde museum. Research by various individuals has shown similarities with the museum floor, the frames and even the types of placards used in their displays!14 The mummy appears to have been returned to Montezuma castle in June of 1947, 15 which gives us a time line of when the photograph was probably taken. It seems likely that all the Colorado photographs were taken on the same trip. The motorcycle and fishing trip images show snow on the mountains, which may be an indication of spring or fall months. The Great Dunes national park images did not have that much snow but there were spots that could have been snow in the distant mountains. Another factor that has to be considered was wartime gas rationing probably limited travel in the United States until at least the fall of 1945. All of these factors indicate the slide images were probably taken between the fall of 1945 and June of 1947, when the mummy was returned to Montezuma castle.
So why didn’t Dr. José de Jesús Zalce Benitez say it was a mummy at the “BeWitness” presentation? One reason appeared to be that he was working with images that were blur-
ry. For the same reasons the placard could not
be read, some parts of the body could not be
examined properly. One of Dr. Zalce Benitez’s arguments was that the body had only three fin- gers.16 This is because the fingers were blurred together. When Nab Lator deblurred the entire image, we see that there seems to be four fingers visible and, what appears to be, the thumb peak- ing from behind the edge of the hand. It seems that at least some of Dr. Zalce Benitez’s analysis on the blurry photograph may have been a case of “garbage in = garbage out”.
.
-
BeAbandoned: Seven days in May
After the initial deblurred images were released, the Roswell slides enforcer (Tony Bragalia), hurled a line of accusations at the
17
RSRG stating we were guilty of a hoax. Within twelve hours of this appearing, Bragalia then posted another piece stating he
wanted to apologize to the native American community for using a mummified two year old boy as evidence of an alien spaceship crash at Roswell.18 Apparently, in the short time of writing his derogatory article about the RSRG and this article, he followed clues from the deblurred placard and...surprise...located the source of the mummy in the photograph. It was so easy, even a devout cra- shologist could do it.
Bragalia’s apology appeared sincere to some but it rang hollow for some members of the RSRG. Those of us, who had been blasted with threatening e-mails and false accusations, felt he needed to publicly apologize for his fanatical actions during the past few months. How Mr. Bragalia could apologize to the native Americans but not apologize to various members of our group is beyond me.
Bragalia also threw Adam Dew under the bus in his article. He claims that Dew did not give good enough images to those analyzing the slides. I disagree. In one of the images (file_text) that Bragalia posted on the UFO Conjecture(s) web blog19 (which I downloaded before Rich Reynolds apparently decided to remove the evidence of his participation in all of this), I was able to read “Of two year old boy” after just a few tries with Smart deblur. Therefore, Dew did provide them images that could be deblurred. The issue seems to be that the analysts did not have the proper skill set or the patience to actually do the job properly.
The remaining four individuals did not want to let go. They essentially kept repeating that the RSRG was composed of a bunch of debunkers/internet trolls, who had hoaxed the image even though we have demonstrated to everyone how to deblur the placard.20
.
As things unfolded over the next week, Don Schmitt, Tom Carey, and Adam Dew grew increasingly silent. They did not appear on any podcasts or radio programs. They had gone underground waiting for some magical event that might save them as many in UFOlogy apparently weren’t buying the story that the RSRG had hoaxed the placard image.
On May 14th, Jaime Maussan stated in a press release that Don Schmitt and Tom Carey were both still accepting the evidence that the being in the slides was non-human.21 Later that day, Don Schmitt would changes his tune and issue an apology that indicated he was ashamed for allowing his beliefs to affect his evaluation of the evidence properly:
I now realize that the image in the slides is a mummy as specified by the display placard. At this time I consider the matter concluded and intend on moving forward. 22
He also mentioned being “overly trusting when he should have known better”. He would later clarify that he was too trusting of the scientists and the other individuals who conducted the analysis on the slides.
Meanwhile, Tom Carey would not concede defeat. Perhaps he felt he could not because of some statements he made in interviews with Jaime Maussan. On March 22, they both declared that the debunkers/skeptics were incapable of admitting they were wrong:
JM:...I hope these people start to rethinking because they are going to be remembered too because what they have done is bad TC: You can count on one thing though Jaime when they are shown to be in error they will never apologize
JM: They want to get away with it.
TC: It is not in their makeup.23
On May 3rd, Carey went further:
TC:....this thing is not human....they will cling to something, I guarantee you. It is hard to admit that you are wrong.... JM: You have to if you are honest with yourself.
TC: It is very difficult for some people and I think these critics are those people. It would be very hard to. Just think about it, their whole world, if this is true, their whole world is crumbling.....Oh my goodness, what am I going to do now....
JM: This is going to destroy them.
TC: Normally, it will do that. For someone who is obsessed.....and these people are obsessed. From what I have read, they are obsessed with this. They are not seeking truth. They are seeking to destroy us because to have it real will disrupt their whole universe of belief.24
One wonders how silly both of these men must have felt after the placard had been deblurred. All of these statements now applied to them! They were faced with choice of being hypocrites or admitting they had failed to perform the due diligence on the slides over the past three years. Of course, they chose the greater of two evils and began to compound their mistake.
Adam Dew did not avoid additional criticism either. His story was partially told when Bryce Zabel revealed his association with the slides over the past year.25 Apparently, Dew contacted him and they met in August 2014, where he was shown the slides. Zabel wanted Dew to show the slides to various news outlets and studios so a proper analysis could be done and the slides could be pre- sented in a professional setting. Dew would have none of it. If he did that, he would lose control of the slides and any revenue they could generate. Zabel was later contacted to be part of the BeWitness production but chose not to participate because of what he knew about the slides. Bryce concluded by implying that the BeWitness and Adam Dew productions were an amateurish effort that was doomed to failure.
Jaime Maussan was being hounded by many people demanding answers. He became the promoter’s fireman trying to come up with weak excuses to fend off the criticisms come from all points of the UFOlogical compass. He kept repeating that the experts had spoken and it did not matter what the placard stated. Maussan had convinced himself this was not a human body or a mummy. After Bragalia had recanted, Maussan turned on him implying that he was a nobody. He even suggested that he had something to hide because nobody had ever seen him and there are no photographs of him on the internet.26 When Schmitt bowed out, Mauss- an ignored it and offered a bounty for a photograph of the mummy ($5000).27 Maussan had drawn a line in the sand in an effort to save the slides and his tattered reputation.
BeDeceitful
The effort to save the slides from becoming the Alien Autopsy would require people to ignore what the placard said and focus on what the experts had to say about the body. Maussan started this process by having Richard Doble restate his case that the body was non-human and proclaim it was not a mummy! Desperate for somebody else to give a favorable assessment of the body 
in the slides, Maussan then had an anesthesiologist, by the name of Richard O’Connor, tell everybody that the body is non-human. O’Connor is also the “executive director” of the “Crop circles research foundation” with a strong interest in UFOs. One can hardly call this an objective observer. While slide skeptics were producing respected anthropologists to proclaim it was probably a mummy, Maussan was desperately seeking anybody with a degree to state that the body was non-human. He then proposed the idea that the placard was put there on purpose to hide the fact that it was a real alien on display!28
Adam Dew would eventually stick his head out of a hole in the ground and responded to Alejandro Rojas of Open Minds. He gave Rojas the same rationale that Maussan was employing. His argument was that these experts and Eleazar Benivedes trumped any deciphering of the placard.29 Dew then promptly disappeared again. On the same day, that Rojas mentioned Dew’s position, an- other one of the promoters appeared repeating the same message.
One must recall that on May 14th, Don Schmitt had conceded the fact that the body in the photograph was a mummy. On May 29th, he had changed his mind and jumped back on the slides bandwagon. In an interview with Jimmy Church, Don Schmitt used the failed argument that the RSRG used some sort of skulduggery to deblur the placard:
DS: But that is the curious thing. What were they reading? It was a screen grab.It was from the event in Mexico city. The slides have yet to be released and yet, off of nothing more than the internet, they’re able to read what nobody else has been able to read!
JC: How do you explain that?
DS: I can’t. I can’t and the point is, they can’t! They can’t!30
Don Schmitt has his facts all screwed up in this interview. The RSRG never used a screen grab to deblur the placard. Nab Lator first deblurred the placard using an image provided by an inside source. We, and others, then deblurred the image provided by Adam Dew and we CAN demonstrate/explain how it was done. Schmitt is either uninformed, incapable of understanding what transpired, or lying.
This kind of nonsense was repeated on June 2, when Carey finally found the courage to discuss the slides publicly on Jimmy Church’s radio program. Backed by his partner, Don Schmitt, Carey tried to portray the RSRG’s work as fake. Like Schmitt, Carey seemed completely uninformed about what was done:
So something has happened to this deblur program, I don’t know what. I am not a computer guy...now apparently they can read it and we could not before.... What I am telling you is the original slide appears to be cursive. The translated placard is in block letters. I don’t understand that.31
The “cursive writing” that he believes existed, had everything to do with the motion of the camera when the photograph was taken. In SUNlite 7-3, I specifically described how shutter shake is common when using slow speed Kodachrome film and slow shutter speeds. Not understanding this motion blur is what made it difficult to read and the writing to appear handwritten. David Rudiak, who Carey and Schmitt keep bringing up as being unable to deblur the image, admitted in mid-May that this was the reason he could not deblur the placard prior to May 8:
In fact, once I knew people were having success with Smart DeBlur, I got a copy and was very lucky to choose a setting second try that successfully deblurred the all-caps top line on the placard scan I was sent that exactly matched what Dew put up on his website. Thus nothing was being hidden by some imaginary manipulation of the placard image. It was there all the time to be deblurred if done right... Depends on the software used and time devoted to it. I also found that I was lucky to get a good setting second try. Even a slight variation from that setting resulted in garbage results. Now imagine getting the setting wrong from the beginning and trying 20 different varia- tions with bad results. After a while you can get discouraged and conclude that the software isn’t going to be successful...Again 20-20 hindsight that the image CAN be successfully deblurred using the proper software is ever so easy. Knowing that, you keep trying until you succeed in replicating the result....32
Note that he agrees the image CAN BE DEBLURRED using the software! One would think that Schmitt and Carey might have talked to their own expert before discussing this on Church’s program. Instead, they chose to ignore what Rudiak was publicly stating and use only his statements made BEFORE the placard was deblurred by the RSRG. All one can conclude from these statements is either Schmitt and Carey are clueless about how the software works and are ignoring input from others or they are just being blatantly dishonest. It would not shock me that they would say anything to preserve their credibility, which is so damaged at this point it is hard to believe anything they say.
As if implying that the RSRG were a bunch of hoaxers was not enough, the Schmitt/Carey team then chose to imply that Adam Dew was in on the hoax. They demanded that the slides be released to the public and a new drum scan be made of the slide.33 Once the slide is scanned, Schmitt and Carey then expected an immediate “reading” of the placard. Who was to read the placard? Will it be Schmitt and Carey, who do not understand how SmartDeblur works? I doubt they would desire David Rudiak, who is now aware of how the software works and can replicate the results. A new scan would not produce anything meaningful unless the original scan had been contaminated in some way and there appeared to be no evidence of this. This is just more of the same conspiracy minded madness prevalent in their thinking, where anything is possible but the truth.
Don Schmitt also repeated the party line that it is the experts that matter and not the placard:
....I am saying now that this isn’t finished that we are relying...we are going to leave this to the scientists, who are still standing their ground and saying “We stand by our original analysis, our original reports, we are still saying this is not a human body. We don’t care what the placard says!” And on top of it, additional scientists have now stepped forward... this is not the body of a two year old boy this placard claims this is a body of a two year old boy and it is not. It is three-and-a-half to four feet tall and in every other condition of the body is inconsistent with a two year old and even a thirty year old. So the plan now is that there will be a public science forum at a nation- al university where these scientists collectively will present their findings and if anybody is able to come and refute their positions, then so be it.....34
Schmitt ignores the fact that this is a mummified body that had many bits and pieces of it missing and the parts that were present might not be laid out precisely. For instance, just because no sternum is present, does not mean there never was one and the body is not human. This kind of logic would mean that a great deal of recovered skeletons are “non-human” because they are missing body parts or some body parts are disjointed. It is pseudo-scientific and these individuals, who are being used to promote this kind of logic, are doing so because they are motivated by biases that make them non-objective.
What we see happening at this point in the slides fiasco is the primary promoters are trying to avoid responsibility for the mistakes that were made. The “scientists” being presented have questionable backgrounds and have links to the promoters that do not make them independent. They also now have a stake in the slides outcome because it makes them appear incompetent. They either have to stick with their initial analysis or admit they were wrong. Like Tom Carey said, and demonstrated, it is hard to admit when you are wrong.
BeChallenged
It is clear that Schmitt had already been talking to Maussan, when he described the public scientific panel. Just a few days later, Maussan announced that he would hold a press conference on June 23rd, at the National Institute of Forensic Sciences, where the scientists could present their evidence in a way so the skeptics could challenge their findings. This was just another publicity stunt where these “experts” risked very little. They were not presenting their data to scientists but news reporters meaning it was nothing more than another “dog and pony show” like “BeWitness”. I would like to see an actual attempt for these gentlemen to present their findings in a manner that will determine how accurate their analyses are.
I am issuing a challenge to these experts to submit their papers to a scientific peer-reviewed journal, not associated with UFOs, where qualified scientists from their field can weigh in and agree/disagree with their conclusions. They are the ones proclaiming that this is a body of something not human, with the implication that it did not come from this earth. If their observations are cor- rect, such a discovery should be readily published with little argument. If these scientists do not have the courage to submit such a paper (or the paper is not accepted by the journal), it indicates that anything they have submitted to the promoters is essentially worthless and the body is actually human.
.
BeReneged
On June 10th, an image was presented by Jorge Peredo showing the body as a claim for the $5000 bounty Maussan had offered. It showed a different view of the body in a different setting with a different
placard. I commented in the RSRG that this was probably taken at the Montezu-
ma Castle museum after the body had been moved there in June of 1947. The
rearranged body and the different placard tended to indicate it was not a hoax but an actual image.
Instead of looking into the matter further, Maussan immediately proclaimed it a hoax and stated it was a painting and not a photograph:
I offered a reward for a photograph, not a painting, the enemies of the case were raised proclaiming victory. A fraud.35
The next day, Anthony Bragalia, and an associate, discovered the source of the image as being from a Picasa album uploaded in 2008 by a woman named Frances Hadl.36 The album showed photographs of the a woman’s trips through Arizona in 1957 and 1967. On image 51 of this collection, was the body image presented by Mr. Peredo. The title of the image in the photograph stated, “Montezuma castle mummy”. 37
Isaac Koi attempted to contact Frances and managed to get a response from her husband, Frank. He told Isaac that the photograph had been taken in December of 1956, when he was stationed in Arizona with the Air Force. Frank also provided a photograph of, what appeared to be, the slide in the mount.38 Even though the slide can not fully be seen, the placard is visible leaving little doubt that this was the same mummy photographed by the Rays no matter what Jaime Maussan was saying.
Maussan’s response seemed so hasty that it gave the impression that he was as dishonest as he was foolish. It indicated that he never intended to pay anybody the $5000 and the bounty was just an- other publicity stunt. Like Schmitt and Carey, Jaime Maussan could not “be honest with himself ” and admit he was wrong or apologize.
The final straw that broke the Roswell slides back came from Shepherd Johnson, who had filed a FOIA request for any information about the mummy. The resultant file was 186 pages long and documented the travels of the mummy between Mesa Verde and Montezuma castle. The most important item was this photograph of the mummy.39
.
Maussan responded by producing another photographic analysis by a Biologist named José de la Cruz Ríos López. In his analysis, Lopez states that the body in the photograph is actually 1.195 m long and not the 0.7366 m (29 inches) length stated in the FOIA documents.40 One must recognize the fact that Lopez is a biologist and not an optical expert. Like Zalce Benitez, he seemed to think in only two dimensions when examining the images. He failed to consider the problem associated with the fact that his “ruler”, the woman’s hand, was much farther away than the body itself. Notice how he puts the hand close to the glass shelf when the actual photograph shows the woman being more distant and out of focus compared to the items on the opposite shelf. Measuring the body with her more distant hand is going to result in the body appearing much longer than it really was. As I stated previously, a correction factor of 1.5-2 times ends up with the body being around the 29-inch measurement. This was just another failed attempt by Maussan to get an “expert”, of his own choosing, to produce the desired results.
.
With the release of the FOIA materials, Maussan felt there was a need to cancel his June 23rd press conference so his experts could evaluate the new evidence. We do not know exactly when this presentation will occur but there has been rumors of it being in Sep- tember. While, he was waiting for the new analysis, Maussan chose to present his interpretation of this information. According to Maussan, the Palmer mummy is NOT the body in the “Roswell Slides”. That body is different and these documents, and apparently
the placard, are nothing but disinformation.41 Maussan had gone down the conspiracy rabbit hole where anything is possible and the obvious is often ignored.
While the slide promoters did not recognize it, or refused to admit it, this was the final nail being driven into the Roswell slides coffin. Their actions beyond this point made them look like a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum because they did not get what they wanted.
BeWary....BeWatchful....and BeWise
The UFO field is full of charlatans and mistaken identities. When one puts this into a pot with people wanting to believe at all cost, it is a recipe for emotional discourse that does not allow for an objective evaluation of the evidence. All the members of the slide promotion group had their own personal motivations that affected how they looked at the image in the slides. These biases resulted them ignoring the warnings from both UFOlogists and skeptics. As a result, they were embarrassed to the point that they refused to believe they could have been so wrong about something that was obviously not an alien.
I originally had mixed emotions about the promoters when the RSRG deblurred the placard. I felt pity for them because they were so foolhardy that they allowed themselves to be duped. However, after seeing the way they reacted, that pity quickly disappeared. Prior to May 5th, members of the RSRG were threatened, belittled, and denigrated for trying to seek out the truth about the slides. After the placard was deblurred, not one of the promoters even bothered to express apologies either privately or publicly to the group. Instead, they renewed their name calling and insulations that we were deceitful individuals determined to undermine Ros- well and the slides. For a group of individuals interested in “truth and history”, they seemed unable to graciously admit that the RSRG had been the champions of truth and history and they were not.
These lessons will probably not be learned by the UFO community. I suspect that within the next two years, somebody will profess to have another smoking gun again and Jaime Maussan will probably promote it. It will be a case of lather, rinse, repeat and it will, more than likely, turn out to be a dud again. It is time for UFOlogy to put away their childish beliefs about UFOs that involve cosmic brotherhoods and government cover-ups. Once they drop this approach, they will begin to make progress in understanding the UFO phenomena.
For any person interested in the UFO subject, I recommend they learn to be skeptical of outlandish claims even if it appears to con- firm their beliefs. If they are proven wrong, they will be pleasantly surprised. If they are right, then they would have not lost anything. It is a win-win situation. Had the promoters of the slides took this approach, a lot of people would not have wasted their hard earned money and the promoters would have never looked like a bunch of fools.
---
The proper perspective
Jaime Maussan’s experts have been attempting to demonstrate that the body in the photographs is too big to be the same mum- my as described in the Palmer documents acquired via FOIA. Their attempts at computing the size of the body has relied upon using the woman behind the body as a ruler but they have used a 1:1 ratio, which is not an accurate measurement, since the woman is a different distance from the camera than the body. Despite the problems with such estimates these computations have become widely accepted by Maussan, Carey, and Schmitt. This article will attempt to demonstrate why these experts are wrong and, in the process, compute approximate distances to the body and woman.
Angular size measurements
In the 1940s, two of the more popular cameras in use was the Kodak 35 and the Argus C. Both used a 50 or 51mm lens. Assuming a 50mm lens was used, the field of view was 39.6 (W) X 27 degrees (H). With those values we can compute what the approximate angular size of certain objects are in the photographs of the body.
The image used by Maussan’s experts was slide 11, which means I have to use that one as well. There is no drum scan of this slide so we have to use the cropped image presented on Coast-to-Coast AM. Its dimensions were 1707X1111 pixels. This is a ratio slightly higher than the field of view for a 50mm lens. If 1111 pixels was the full height, then the horizontal dimension would have been less than 1707 pixels indicating the vertical dimension was probably cropped. It is possible that both dimensions are cropped but for the purpose of this exercise, I will assume that the 1707 pixels is the full width of the slide. Using the 39.6 degree value, we can now create an angular correction factor.
.
With these angular size estimates and known sizes for the objects, we can now estimate the distances to them from the camera.
Mapping the room
Computing the distances requires us to make some assumptions. The first was that we have used the proper focal length of the lens to compute the proper angular size. The second is to assume certain sizes for these objects. Despite the problems associ- ated with such assumptions, I still think it is possible to get approximate locations for various objects in the photograph.
We are told by Maussan’s expert, José de la Cruz Ríos López, that the woman’s wrist/fist is assumed to be 4 inches in width. I mea- sured my wifes wrist/fist and arrived at a value of 3.5 inches. Assuming a size of 3.5-4 inches, we can compute the distance to her hand using the formula:
Distance = Size/[2Tan(a/2)] where a = angular size.
One can also use the on-line calculator at http://planetcalc.com/1897/
This calculation results in the woman being at a distance of 69-79 inches (about 6 to 6.5 feet away).
The body is more difficult because it is positioned at angle to the camera. We have to make more assumptions. Since we know one angle of the triangle head-camera-feet (angle C), we can make some estimates of distance using the length of the body equal to 29 inches and using a range of angles that would keep angle C at 37 degrees.
.
Assuming these calculations are correct, then the head of the body is about 4 feet away and the feet is 2-3 feet away. One can now understand why Ríos noticed that the woman’s fist/wrist was too small by a factor of 1.5! It was not because the body size was wrong. It was because the woman was much farther away than the body.
Other objects locations and sizes can be determined with some assumptions. For instance, if the hole size were 0.4 inches, the distance would be 53 inches. For 0.5 inches, it would be 66 inches. Based on the previous computations, the 0.4 inch hole size is probably correct because the 53 inch distance is not far from the location of the head.
Computing the size of the placard is problematic since we don’t know what the distance is but we do know that it is closer than the feet. So we can compute a range of sizes based on possible distances:
.
The placard is closer to the camera than the position of the feet, which is why the ratio of the body to placard, in physical size, is going to be smaller than ratio of the angular sizes. This is the same reason the woman’s wrist/fist appears smaller in relation to the body.
The four foot theory
Jaime Maussan and his experts insist that the body is about 48 inches (1.2m) long. Since we know that they are using the woman’s wrist/fist as a ruler, we can see how far the body would be if it were 48 inches in length. Using the same table, we used for 29 inches, we get the following values.
.
When comparing both slides, it is interesting to note that slide #9 has a good depth of field and #11 has a poor depth of field. In slide #9, one can see the floor tiles and the distant bench in reasonable focus. In slide #11, the floor tiles are barely identifiable and the bench is nothing but a blur in the background. This was because the photographer(s) was using various F-stops to get the best photograph. They were performing a photography technique called aperture bracketing. Slide #11 probably had a very low f-stop setting of about 3.5 to 8 while slide #9 had a higher f-stop of 11 or 16. The depth of field for the probable settings in slide #11 can be computed at http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html. They are summarized in this table:
.
The interesting thing here is that the 48-inch body would have been photographed at about a five foot distance as noted by the distance table. At a distance of 6-6.5 feet, the woman would have been only about one foot outside the depth of field and should have been nearly in focus. This is confirmed by the distance to the head being around the same distance. It it is not out of focus the way the woman is. This indicates that she is farther away than the head. This is not possible in the 48 inch body scenario.
In the case of the 29-inch body, where the focus would have been closer to three to four feet and the woman would be about 1.5 times further than the head. She would have been well outside the depth of field and out of focus as we see in slide #11. The evi- dence in the photograph indicates the four foot body theory is not tenable.
Experiment
As a final check of these computations, I attempted an experiment with my digital SLR camera (A Pentax K-x) and took some photographs of a 29-inch rod. This is a photograph taken with a 35mm setting (52 mm equivalent for 35mm film) on my zoom and the focus set at 4 feet. I set the aperture at F 4.5 (the lens would not go any lower).
.
The following distances were measured for this photograph. The “hand” (a printout of a photograph with a physical width of 4 inch- es) was 75 inches away. The right end of the stick was 41 inches away and the left end was 49 inches (the angle to the right side was about 90 degrees). The cup (my museum artifact) was 6 inches behind the rod in the horizontal plane. The placard writings are 5, 6, and 7 inches wide in ascending order.
This is a close approximation of slide #11’s layout. The rod is about 34 degrees angular size and the hand is about 2.8 degrees. While the rod is a bit too far, the hand appears to be just the right distance. Notice how the hand is not sharply focused the same way the woman’s hand in slide #11 is not focused. If one uses the hand for a ruler, to measure the rod, one will get the length of about 48 inches for the rod even though its physical length is only 29 inches long. As previously explained, this is a flawed methodology and it is why Ríos’ measurements are inaccurate.
Conclusions
While these computations may not be precise, their results demonstrate why the body can be appear to be large and the wom- an’s fist/wrist can appear to be so small. It also gives us some working values to get a possible feel for where the photographer was in relation to the body and woman.
While Maussan’s experts appear to be intelligent individuals, none of them have mentioned any consideration of the woman pos- sibly being more distant than the body in their computations. Either they just did not understand this principle of perspective or chose to ignore it. In my opinion, that makes them incompetent or dishonest.
---
Quelle: SUNlite 4/2015 - Forsetzung: Teil 37

Tags: UFO-Forschung 

1645 Views

Samstag, 8. August 2015 - 11:30 Uhr

Luftfahrt-History - 1947: Flugzeug-Einsätze gegen Hagelschlag

.

Aus dem CENAP-Archiv:

.

----

Wie ein Hagelschlag ausfallen kann, kennen wir nicht nur aus neuerer Zeit, siehe 1931:

.

Quelle: CENAP-Archiv



Tags: Luftfahrt 

1411 Views


Weitere 10 Nachrichten nachladen...