UFO-Forschung - UFO-Absturz bei Roswell 1947 ? Teil-46



The Roswell Corner

Trust me!

Don Schmitt was interviewed by Kevin Randle about the Roswell slides. The resultant exchange gave us more of Don Schmitt twisting the truth to make himself appear to be innocent of any mistakes made. Some of the major points were:
1. He never associated the slides with Roswell
2. He had doubts about the slides during the BeWitness program and the day after the BeWitness program

3. Dew and Beason could have manipulated the slides so the placard could not be deblurred These are all demonstratively false.

  1. Prior to BeWitness, Schmitt did a promotional video answering questions posed by Jaimie Maussan. Schmitt is on record stat-

    ing, “It will certainly be the most important event in our lifetime because we are demonstrating not only photographic evidence but we’re also demonstrating what all these witnesses have reported to us collectively through all these years and as a result we will also be naming and pointing out, one by one, all of these people, who if still alive, would be able to say, “That is exactly what I saw back in July of 1947”. This shows that Schmitt was linking Roswell to the slides.

  2. The day after BeWitness, Tom Carey and Don Schmitt appeared on Jaimie Maussan’s program. They were giddy about the pro- gram. Carey stated that the skeptics were choking on the evidence. Schmitt challenged skeptics to debate the experts, who proclaimed the body as non-human. At no point did he voice any doubts about the slides or even questioned the presentation in any way. In the days before the deblur, Schmitt did NOT publicly state any doubts or question the slides even though, as he states now, he was seriously questioning them. Was Schmitt being dishonest on television or is he being dishonest now?

  3. This idea that the slides were manipulated in a way that prevented them from being deblurred is false. I clearly demonstrated that Bragalia’s slides could be deblurred in the last issue of SUNlite. David Rudiak is on record as stating he could deblur his images once the RSRG demonstrated how it could be done. He also stated that the quality of the image he received was just as good as the one Dew presented on his web site. If Dew was trying to alter the image, one would think that every image he presented would have the same manipulation to prevent the deblurring.

The facts speak for themselves and they indicate that Don Schmitt is not telling the truth now or he was not telling the truth the day after BeWitness. Can people trust Don Schmitt to tell the truth after all of this?
Meanwhile, Tom Carey was interviewed by Rob McConnell and he revealed that when the group had gone to Chicago before BeWit- ness, they had seen both slides. If this is true, how can Carey stand idly by while Schmitt declares they had never seen the full slides before BeWitness? Carey then went on McConnell’s show a second time so he could better explain what happened. His new story is that there was another slide of the body that showed the placard clearly. Dew never showed this slide to Carey and Schmitt. Howev- er, Dew did give a copy to Maussan, who gave it to Dolan. Carey’s implication is that it was this slide that was deblurred. Of course, nobody has ever seen this “third slide”. The image Dolan posted on the web the next day had the placard whited out/overexposed! Carey’s excuse fell apart as fast as he mentioned. Either Carey is not very bright or he thinks that people listening to him are just stupid. This is just another fabrication. In my opinion, both he and Schmitt have problems with telling the truth about a great many things. Readers of their books should recognize this and question everything they write that can not be independently verified. Thankfully, Kevin interviewed Curt Collins, who took the time to set the record straight about the Roswell slides. Curt did an excel- lent job exposing the false claims of Don Schmitt and Tom Carey. If you are a Don Schmitt and Tom Carey apologist, you should listen to this interview.

Dr. Rios Lopez gave the Palmer mummy a scientific classification

Dr. Rios Lopez has gone as far as classifying the mummy as Reptil humanoide macroefalo, which translates into a large headed reptillian humanoid. I am not sure if this subclass of Reptillia even exists in the scientific literature. It appears that Rios Lopez simply made up his own name. Of course, science frowns on such things. To classify a new species requires a thorough investigation and an actual specimen to examine. Perhaps Rios Lopez can explain how he arrived at this classification, in what scientific journal he revealed this new species, and if anybody in the scientific community has officially recognized this classification?

Quelle: SUNlite 6/2016

Raumfahrt+Astronomie-Blog von CENAP 0