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

originally posted by: LiteraryJourney
a reply to: HeywoodFloyd Heywood,

Here is TC's still defiant statement which was posted on Kevin Randle's blog 2 days ago -

kevinrandle.blogspot.com...


Pertaining to Dew - nada. In hiding.

Thanks, LiteraryJourney,
yes, I had read that statement...
but after yesterday's Don Schmitt backing off, I guess Tom Carey and Adam Dew are in utter despair

I was (am) eager to see if Tom Carey has the same courage and dignity of Schmitt.

About Dew, well... he is a businessman, after all, and the owner of the slides, so I don't expect much from him

Quite interesting article here; a case study of the 1864 Parville French alien hoax, which parallels our most recent alien/mummy hoax - History repeats -

-mysteriousuniverse.org...

Well, there was a little bit of excitement and interest there for a moment... and then it all evaporated, like always.

And so the ufology doldrums continue.

ATS has some pretty thorough reviewers. The UFO images usually get a very deep review and many times the image is identified.

This site, like no other one like it, has the best talent to sleuth things.

For anyone whose interested, George Knapp has asked me to come on Coast to Coast AM Sunday night www.coasttocoastam.com to discuss this and how the Roswell Slide Research Group (which had a few ATS members on it) and the ATS community helped (if not LED the way) in putting the kaibash on this debacle...

I'd be happy to discuss anything you all want me to bring up, I'll be on for the first hour of the show.

a reply to: Springer

HI Mark. I think I'd like you to ask George a few things. (Mainly based around the things we've discussed already).

i) Having looked at those slides whether he thinks there really was a story there. (No matter how people tried to decorate the back story they still look like a mummified child in a museum)

ii) How this episode will impact on 'commercial ufology'. Will we see it fade away? And how can it be revived?

Cheers MM

a reply to: mirageman

Will do, great questions.

a reply to: Springer

Springer, I highly respect George Knapp and my main concern over this fiasco was Richard Dolan's participation. Can you ask George if he feels this has irreparably damaged Dolan's reputation? Dolan has been his guest multiple times and I always felt George had a good relationship with him. Thank you much!

a reply to: Springer Springer,

We have created a group of UFO "high priests" whom we believed had some special talent or knowledge. Alas! They have naught any special gift nor do they care for the value of our beliefs.

I feel that this UFO community should crystalize into a more structured and cohesive movement. We are the first truly digital generation and as we connect virtually in this venue, we come closer to forming such a collective mind. In a rather literal way, we ourselves are a mesh-network, a pro bono ad-hoc group with equal skill sets.

Are we prepared to come together in search of answers? It is a turning point where ego meets the greater good, and those who lead must be willing to be the greatest servants.

Are we prepared to form a serious panel? To invite a few real scientists and philosophers? Can we reengage people like the great Jacques Vallee? Can we become a truly open movement and yet be cohesive? Are we willing to pass on the glory of money, trophies and discoveries?

Truth will only come out in this manner. The overt commercialization of ufology has been its downfall.

Forget the money, for the answers to our questions will be all of mankind's greatest reward in history.

a reply to: LiteraryJourney

You pose great questions that I've been asking since 2003 (when we started ATS in earnest)... Maybe the time has FINALLY come...

I for one certainly hope so.

a reply to: Springer

Springer I'd like to have you ask George:

Q: Because we don't seem to have many UFO bolts or alien bodies laying around, do you feel researchers and media are compelled to fill their content with opinions that cater to people's need to believe that "we are not alone"?

It's about time you get back on C2C to show this site is unlike others out there. Well deserved!

a reply to: LiteraryJourney

I agree wholeheartedly. I think the biggest thing to come out of this was that open source study gave us answers in days instead of years. Having researchers drawing boundaries around the items they seem to want to control or claim as their own is old school in the age of the internet and immediate communications through social media.

The only issue is that if a researcher is making a living off their presentations they will be reluctant to lose the scoop by presenting new information to an open source public audience before they publish their early findings; especially if it took a great deal of effort to research and personal expenses. It's always the money thing that stands in the way, even for good researchers.

New research models are needed.

When you think about it. ATS really is part of that new research model. People post information. Others join in to provide feedback, opinions and their own assistance in researching an answer.

a reply to: Springer


my questions for the Coast to Coast AM show are:

1.- How is it possible that intelligent researchers like Don Schmitt, Tom Carey, Richard Dolan DID NOT immediately realize that the slides were not showing a Top Secret military environment?

the clues were clear at first sight:

A.- glass shelves (glass shelves in a Top Secret military environment??)

B.- other artifacts on display, behind the cadaver

C.- a placard near the cadaver, and other placards near the other artifacts behind (placards in a Top Secret military environment??)

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

2.- Why the promoters did not provide publicly high resolution scans of the TWO slides right after their show in Mexico? (at 4000x3000 pixels or more)

and - by this day - they still have not provided them!!

This behaviour lead to further suspicions that the promoters (Adam Dew and the others) had several things to hide.

I had requested on May 6th the high resolution scans of the TWO slides on Richard Dolan's Facebook wall. To no avail.

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

3.- quote (statement from Tom Carey):

“Regarding the placard, through a contact, we had the Photo Interpretation Unit at the Pentagon in Washington, DC take a look at it. They said that it was "unreadable."

“A copy went to a company in New York that conducted the analysis on a major historical artifact. That company's response was that the placard was "unreadable."

“Another copy went to the people at Adobe, Inc. Their response? "It's unreadable."

With SmartDeblur, a software developed by a Russian developer, in 40 minutes the placard writings were deciphered by Nab Lator and others of the “Roswell Slides Research Group” and by members of ATS.

Question: the Pentagon and Adobe Inc. are so incapable and incompetent?

* note 1: Adobe Inc. is the company making Photoshop (for the few that don't know).

** note 2: it takes just one Russian man to win over the whole US Department of Defense.

From Paul Kimball's blog, The Other Side Of Truth -

"This in from one of our RSRG members who is in contact with Maussan's camp:

"Schmitt is telling Maussan that he confessed due to pressure from a company that'd he'd named, but that actually had not conducted an analysis. The company's lawyer has forced him to deny everything. This is believed to be an excuse by Schmitt to get him out of trouble with Maussan."

And so it continues..."

I have a question, where is Adam Dew?

a reply to: CosmicRay
Probably moving back home into his Mom's basement. Seriously, I suspect we'll never hear from or about him again.

a reply to: LiteraryJourney

If we do, it'll probably be because he changed his first name to "Mountain."

originally posted by: Springer
I'd be happy to discuss anything you all want me to bring up, I'll be on for the first hour of the show.

I'd be interested in your views on:

(1) Whether the UFO community will learn lessons from the Roswell Slides incident;

(2) What, if anything, will change in relation to UFO research going forward.

I'm not very interested in the impact on the credibility of any particular individual. My interest is in the bigger picture in terms of improving the quality of UFO research.

These are issues I try to bring up every couple of years. As I said in a thread in 2014:

The current state of UFO research is so frustratingly poor that its amusement value continues to decrease.

2014 is likely to be the year when I either launch a new project within ufology (which has the working name "the UFO Collective") or quit the subject altogether. I'm rather torn between these apparent options.

The Internet has given us all access to more information and resources than previous researchers - however, this does not yet appear to have been translated into better quality investigations/research.

I'll paste below some relevant parts of a list of ironies that exist within ufology, several of which are relevant to this most recent fiasco - but are of wider significance:

Ironies within ufo research : Item 1 - Many UFO researchers are so busy reinventing the wheel that they cannot spare the time to find out that their work is duplicating previous efforts (often in less depth than those previous efforts...).

Ironies within ufo research : Item 4 - Some ufologists like to complain that scientists and others will not look at their evidence, but when asked to share their evidence react with suspicion, excuses and a lack of cooperation. Some other ufologists are willing to incur considerable expense to share material. Can you guess which category those making the most sensational claims tend to fall into and which ones get the most attention?

Ironies within ufo research : Item 5 - Some UFO researchers (including skeptics) like to keep material to themselves, while simultaneously claiming that their material would withstand any amount of testing. When the material eventually emerges, it often collapses rather suddenly and dramatically.

Ironies within ufo research : Item 27 - Teams of UFO hoaxers seem to have more fun, get more financial rewards and (generally) work together more amicably than the members of most "serious" UFO research groups.

Ironies within ufo research : Item 28 - The UFO groups that make the loudest calls for government archives to be made openly available are the least likely to openly and freely share material from their own archives.

Ironies within ufo research : Item 30 - UFO hoaxes circulate far more widely than evidence exposing UFO hoaxes. This results in UFO hoaxes continuing to circulate years after evidence exposing the hoax has been largely forgotten.

a reply to: HeywoodFloyd

I agree with 99% of everything you wrote above, the 1% that I may disagree with and can speak to is software.

One of the truisms of the digital age is the fact one lone Russian (or any other brand of human for that matter) programmer, who is brilliant, and thinks of something nobody else thought of yet, could in fact generate code that is light years ahead of anything ANYBODY (Pentagon, Adobe, etc...) else has.

It happens almost daily in the tech world.

The question on this point, in my opinion, is how long has this version of Smart Deblur been out and how widely known was it?

In other words, is it reasonable to expect the Pentagon's photo analysis people would have known of it? Is it reasonable to expect that the other experts who the promoters reached out to would know about it?

My point is incompetence, laziness, and ignorance are not necessarily evidence of fraud and my experience has been these traits are shockingly more common at these levels (government and big corporations) than one would care to acknowledge.

The rest? Yeah it looks pretty fraudulent that they refused to release the high resolution images (and according to most accounts, still do to this day). Why wouldn't you unless you were hiding something you REALLY thought could put an abrupt end to your endeavor?

a reply to: Springer

Looks like Archive.org has the first capture of the Smart Deblur website on Dec. 29th, 2012

The earliest entry looking through Google with a custom date search is June 26, 2012.

Source

The curious thing is if I use the image of Vladimir Yuzhikov taken from his earliest website contact me page in Google images search I get identifications back for Vladimir Yuzhikov and Alexander Korchagin using the same image.



I tried replicating getting multiple names using the images of other people from LinkedIn and could not get it to it like what I got for Vladimir Yuzhikov. Another mystery to be solved?