The Cash-Landrum UFO case publicity made a splash in 1981, but had a second wave starting in 1983 after the filing of the lawsuit against the US Government for 20 million dollars in damages. The suit stuck to the details of original incident, avoiding later embellishments such as the legend of the scorched road being removed and replaced by men in unmarked trucks.
Despite the resolve of Betty Cash and Vickie Landrum, there was not sufficient evidence to take the case to trial, and as attorney Peter Gersten later revealed, it was a bluff:
“The lawsuit was brought in hope that behind the scenes the government would say, `Let’s keep this quiet, we’ll take care of the medical expenses and make sure nothing else happens’."
Houston Chronicle, Texas Magazine, Page 8, 2 Star Edition, 11/17/1996
The article below on the Cash-Landrum lawsuit was sent to me by Martin Kottmeyer from his clippings of UFO stories from the 1984 period. It's typical of the coverage at the time and likely came from the tabloid National Examiner. It’s a good summary of the story, but has a few notable variations from canon. Quotations in newspapers, especially tabloids can’t be trusted for fidelity, but it’s interesting that Vickie refers to helicopter searchlights, something absent from earlier accounts. Betty Cash had breast cancer, but said, “The doctors told me radiation definitely caused my cancer.” The tests run during her original hospitalization were negative for radiation exposure.
The other point of interest is Vickie’s reference to the “Pentagon man,” which eventually evolved into a veiled death threat: “He questioned me and I answered him, and then he told me that people had died for less than what I was trying to do.” Vickie Landrum from her appearence on “Sightings” TV episode, segment: “Physical Effects,” July 31, 1992.
The Cash-Landrum case occurred at the same time lore surrounding Roswell was being developed, and distrust of the Government and the belief in a “Cosmic Watergate” UFO cover-up was central to them both. Without a villain to explain the lack of evidence, about all that is left are stories.
(From Sociology and Social Research, May- June, 1948.)
It is interesting to examine the making of public opinion in the matter of the "flying saucer." Public opinion is, of course, not a thing, but the mixture of responses of a number of people to similar or related stimuli. This mixture takes form as a stereotyped, verbalized concept which is, for all practical purposes, a thing and thus used as the basis for action.1 The flying saucer is an excellent subject in that it is almost wholly a manufactured concept, lasting a short period of time and, so, easy to study. It is, in addition, not too closely tied to the emotional colorations of prejudice and habit which would distort a similar study of opinion on Russia, vivisection, or the home.
It was of little immediate interest when a pilot in Idaho “saw” a flying saucer. The wire services carried the story, tongue in cheek, and, having little news in the area, kept it alive from day to day with recapitulations of the original. Early the stereotyped concept was suggested; the term “flying saucer” was simple, so homely that everyone could visualize it. It was at once given authority by its appearance in the press. "There must be something to it. I read it in the paper.”2 Later, we will see, the concept was strengthened by repetition, repetition by variations, “scientific" evidence and speculation, photography, analogy, wit, denial, apology. Newspapers, through juxtaposition, headlining, and suggestion, soon related it to other concepts, to well-established stereotypes and slogans — “the greatest air force in the world" and universal military training to protect "the American way of life" from "the menace of red- Fascism." Other events were soon reported which fitted the general pattern of the first story of early June 1947. A pilot "saw" one of the "what'sits" at 10,000 feet, going at 1,200 mph. When next “seen" the saucers had already acquired common, if vague, attributes of shape, size, speed, and altitude, and in a day or two had added "a blue, fiery tail," or "two tails like a comet." They came out of the West.
So far there had been only a groping toward a plausible concept, with a gradual elimination of less easily grasped characteristics such as "disintegration," lateral and/or vertical revolution, and a "blister" for the pilot. Seemingly, however, the picture was about complete, for the wire services and editors the country over began to “lay” the story, concentrating all news of the event in one place, featuring the story by headlining and position, dramatizing it through pictures, invoking every “expert" in the land for pontification.
If we take Los Angeles as an example, it is interesting to note the lack of "live" news at the moment. The sensational Overell murder case had become involved in legal technicalities. There had not been for some time a sex crime where the “partially clad body" of a beautiful, young woman had been found.3 At the national level, John L. Lewis had been “good” for several weeks, coming to terms with the big steel companies, and the Russian”front" was still stalemated. In the week of the saucer story St. Louis was concerned with the threat of flood and Chicago was involved in bitter discussion of rent control, but these were matters of local interest. In most of the nation it was a “ low” week, from an editor's viewpoint.4
The scarcity of news was thus a large factor in the rapid increase of interest in the story. This increase is shown by a table, based on the Los Angeles Times:
DateTotal Inches Page One Inches
July 4 6
July 5 28
July 6 92 36
July 7 136 32
July 8 95 18
July 9 57 13
July 10 8
Samples of flying saucer headlines
The Los Angeles Herald Express, on July 7, devoted over half the front page to the story, putting it in the same class as V-J Day and the "Black Dahlia" sex murder. The national coverage is somewhat less than the Los Angeles average. The Chicago Sun, not a “yellow" sheet in the usual sense, devoted 194 inches, 60 on the front page, on July 8. The story was displayed with two “end of the world" headlines, an 84-point and a 72-point streamer, both 8 columns.5 This is little less than the V-J Day display.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer was more representative of the conservative press, with a peak of 68 inches and a maximum of 18 inches on page one. The St. Louis Post Dispatch, recognized for its sense of news values, did not go above 55 inches, and never displayed the story higher than the fold of the front page. Both papers tended to treat the saucer as a human interest feature and not as news.
Any such discussion by the press is, of course, a repetition of the concept. Whether the story is based on “ acts" or not, whether it is "true" or not, does not matter; for public opinion is often based not on a thing, measurably objective, but on a picture of a thing, repeated. It is better, perhaps, as Hitler demonstrated with his “big lie,” that the basis of the concept be not easy to demonstrate, allowing for the creative imagination of the teller and the lazy credulity of of the hearer. It follows, then, that the use of variation in report is an obvious strengthening factor. The skeptic is deceived by this lack of dogma, saying to himself, “ of course the stories are fantastic, but they have something in common; some common experience produced them." He thus maintains his sense of objectivity and can discuss the matter "rationally." In a sample mass-observation interview 6 it was found that few denied the simple concept, the majority merely attacking details which seemed to weaken the validity of the whole : e.g., “ as big as a five-room house,” "it disintegrated before my eyes." Another function of variation is that the individual is not inhibited but can exalt himself by observing some new features of the saucer. The conservative individual, too, is not unduly offended. He may accept the older, “proved” parts of the concept and reject the new, perhaps more specific in detail.7 Such repetition, in all its variations, and the endorsement by the authority of the press are the two basic “causes” of public opinion about the flying saucer. Other forces, however, were at work.
“Scientific" evidence and speculation were soon brought to bear on the subject, strengthening the authority of the press. A “savant" "sees" one and, headlined, achieves authority far beyond that usually invested in a dairy inspector, which he was. Other “experts” report their observations: a meteorologist seems to give credence to the man-made aspect of the phenomena by denying that they are meteors; an engineer, who turns out to be only a pilot, chases one of the objects, discussing it later in terms of a plane spotter, another form of “expert” ; a priest finds something in his back yard, still hot, and takes three days to admit it is a hoax; the FBI, stereotype of accuracy and dependability, investigates; physicists explain that “all rapidly moving bodies look elliptoid.”
The photographer presents his "factual" evidence, a series of blurs on a negative. Artists reinforce the concept with Buck Rogers pictures. Historians discuss the appearance of saucers in past years — the strange missiles over Sweden in 1946, something in San Francisco a few years ago. The air force admits one “flying wing," which might look like a saucer but it is still on the ground.
With few exceptions the experts do not say that the discs exist: The spot on the film might be; the drawing could represent; the shape is possible; history has recorded something. In fact, usually buried deep in the story, is the statement or inference that the expert does not credit the stories at all. But the denial is in terms of the things it denies.
Such denial merely serves to instill the picture more firmly in the public mind For it is obvious that a denial is as much a repetition of the concept as is an affirmation.8 Especially strong is the denial by the air force, so firmly stated that it must conceal “top drawer" secrets.
Wit, too, is a denial, making homely the unusual. The homely we can accept. Ridicule also strengthens our belief, clearing away our doubts with the acid of emotion.9 So we find the saucer joke, the saucer gag, and clever ridicule working with the "straight news" story to make familiar the unusual. The concept having been fixed, interest in it is maintained at a strategic level by relating it to the public tensions of the moment. One newspaper displayed the story between news of Russian aggression and features on compulsory military training.
Such juxtaposition is, of course, accidental in most cases, but a glimpse at the less responsible press will show how editors can build tension merely by relating other tensions. Such news as that of the atomic bomb, Russia, and our "shell of an army, a handful of 1,500,000 men" is soon read with eyes "big as saucers." By suggestion the public is led to see dangers which may not in fact exist, for example, the chaos which will result if the discs are part of a "foul plot of the Reds," -who are "out for world domination." By juxtaposition the press can suggest without a grain of evidence. By innuendo concept is related to concept, each reinforcing the other, wheels within wheels.10 The deliberate display techniques used by many papers, three of four in Los Angeles, is sound "journalism" perhaps, if weak logically.
We have seen how the concept was developed, how through repetition and the authority of the press and "experts" it became accepted. The pattern has much in common with the creation of Hitler's "Jew" or the manufacture of a stock "Communist." It is the die by which un-American activity committees mold the stereotype "un-American." It is the blueprint of the unsemantic world of unreason.
If, as the President's Commission on Civil Liberties has stated, we are in for a period of ogres, of witch hunts, and of jousting with the straw men built of hate, then it seems wise that we study the method by which they are introduced to the public. It might be useful when someone tries to prepare the way for a man on a White Horse.
Notes
1 See Sofia/ Distance, a Syllabus, University of Southern California.
2 (Citation missing. Deals with story receiving authority solely due to being covered by the press.)
3 During the short span of the saucer story Los Angeles seems to have solved the problem of the "sex-fiend." Cf. Lincoln Steffens, Autobiography of Lincoln Steffens, p. 285 ff., the chapter entitled, “I Make a Crime Wave."
4 Papers studied closely include those of Los Angeles, St. Louis, Chicago, New York, Columbus. A quick survey of Atlanta, San Francisco, Dallas, Cleveland, and Cincinnati papers showed no significant differences.
5 72 point equals 1 inch.
6 Redlands, California, July 10.
7 Cf. our ideas of "One World," a concept which most accept because it has the authority of age, 8 or 10 years, and because of its generality, which each can interpret. Many, however, reject the details of such a concept, which are its logical projection.
8 "Coca-Cola does not refresh" is almost as effective as "Coca-Cola, the pause that refreshes." Cf. the kidding of product and sponsor on some radio shows.
9 Cf. the use of wit in anti-Semitism and the deliberate manufacturing of the “darky," happy-go-lucky, shiftless. Magazines such as the Saturday Evening Post have well-known formulas for Negro characters. Cf. also the force of ridicule in building the self-stereotype of minority groups as "God's chosen people."
10 Cf. from the congressional debate on the Atomic Commission : Lilienthal was born in Lithuania; Lithuania is now part of Russia; so, it is suggested but not stated, Lilienthal is a "Red."
About the Author
Herbert Lewis Hackett, as a boy in 1929
At the time of the article, Herbert Lewis Hackett was Assistant Professor of Journalism, Ohio Wesleyan University Delaware, Ohio. He was an instructor in the department of journalism and English, and also taught writing skills training into the framework of an introductory course in sociology. He was the author of several books on writing. Here's a brief biography by his grandson, Ethan Daniel Davidson:
My grandfather was Herbert Lewis Hackett, born 16 January, 1917, Rangoon, Burma. He ended up back in the States, by the outbreak of WWII. After having earned his PhD in Linguistics from University of Michigan, he was drafted into the Army, commissioned as a Captain, given the assignment of teaching English to German POWs at a camp in Shamrock, Texas. He seems to have gotten into a fight with his CO after hearing of his father's death, and was ultimately discharged; it's my understanding he was a very reluctant conscript anyway. It was while working at the camp that he met the daughter of an itinerant preacher: Sarah Wilborn. Herbert and Sarah moved frequently, as Herbert was a college Professor: Arkansas, Salt Lake, Lansing, Buffalo. Herbert died of a heart attack in Buffalo, 1964.
Herbert L. Hackett, 1957
He didn't seem to have much else to say about UFOs, but used them as an example in his 1957 book on writing clearly, Understanding, and Being Understood:
"Is the report on the facts consistent within itself? This question implies that facts should not contradict themselves. An early report of the flying saucer, for example, stated that it moved at two thousand miles an hour, and that it had a "blister" in which two or three men were observed; yet that speed would make it impossible for an observer to note such details.”
It didn’t end there, and reports and rumors of UFO burns became a staple in UFO literature. In 1977 movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind introduced the concept to millions, and was highlighted in the scene where Roy Neary shows his wife his burns from a UFO, and insists that it is not a "moonburn."
Val Johnson
There were other cases shortly before the Cash-Landrum event with UFO burns, some that received nationwide news coverage. The Jerry McAlister UFO sighting on September 11, 1980 has previously been posted here. His case featured a huge, brilliant UFO that allegedly left the witnesses suffering eye damage and radiation burns.
Before that, a much more famous case featured some details that would be found again in the Cash-Landrum case. On Aug. 27, 1979, Deputy Sheriff Val Johnson was driving along a lonely road at night, when he saw a blindingly brilliant UFO above the road ahead. Unlike the C-L case, he didn’t stop, and his vehicle collided with the UFO. The car was damaged, and he suffered injuries including “welder’s burns” to his eyes. When help arrived, Johnson was taken to the hospital for an examination and to treat his injuries. Unlike the C-L case, there was extensive visible damage to his car, and it was preserved as evidence and carefully examined.
That’s Incredible!
There’s another possible connection to the Cash-Landrum case. The popular television show, “That’s Incredible!” debuted in March of 1980 and ran until 1984. It often featured UFO cases, and in its first season they aired a segment on the Val Johnson story. It featured a reenactment of the event, and an appearance by investigator Alan Hendry of the Center for UFO Studies. Johnson was presented as a credible witness, and it showed that his doctor, employer and family stood behind him.
What was strange, though, was that at the end of the segment, host John Davidson asked Johnson a question out of left field.
“Was it a religious experience for you?
Many times these events are a religious experience.”
A strange and seemingly scripted question, perhaps to allow Johnson the opportunity to unburden on the topic. The effect was to suggest that UFO sighings are expected to have a religious element.
Vickie Landrum in particular put emphasis on how she initially took the UFO to be the Second Coming. She said, "The Bible says the sky will split and in a rain of fire, Jesus will come."Could the Cash-Landrum witnesses have been influenced by this program, perhaps in how they reported their story? In 1981, they appeared on “That’s Incredible!” themselves.
The rare segment with Val Johnson on “That’s Incredible!” recently surfaced on YouTube. It’s certainly interesting in and of itself, for the insight into his case it provides, and as a bit of UFO history.
In the last few weeks, I was invited to talk on two different programs about the Cash-Landrum case.
Micah Hanks' The Gralien Report Podcast:
TGR 07.13.15. The Cash Landrum Incident: New Details?
Within days of the Rendlesham incident, halfway across the world a similar UFO observation would occur near Dayton, Texas, which forever changed the lives of two women, Betty Cash and Vicky Landrum, along with Vicky’s grandson Colby. The story, known today as the Cash Landrum incident, is well remembered in UFO literature, but is there reason to question certain aspects of the long maintained story, and can any new information be determined by a careful examination of early witness descriptions? Finally, we look at theories about the case espoused by members of the skeptical community, and ask whether aspects of these investigations haven’t offered equal amounts of conjecture, comparable to that of UFO advocates, albeit from an ‘opposing’ viewpoint.
Curt Collins is a UFO researcher and founder of the website BlueBlurryLines.com where he posts his work. Among other cases, Curt has taken a particular interest in the Cash-Landrum Texas UFO Encounter. The Cash-Landrum incident took place in 1980. Betty Cash, Vickie Landrum, and Vickie’s seven-year-old grandson, Colby Landrum, claimed to have encountered a UFO on the road near Dayton, Texas. It made the vehicle very hot and the group apparently suffered from physical effects due to the encounter.
In this interview we talk to Curt about how he got involved with UFO research, his findings regarding the Cash-Landrum incident, his work with the Roswell Slides Research Group, and much more.
Both Micah and Alejandro did a great job asking questions about the Cash-Landrum case, and I was able to focus on some different aspects of the story for each show. As usual, I left lots of things out, and mangled a few details, but I enjoyed talking about the case and appreciate the opportunity to get the word out about it. If you've got any questions about things described on the programs, or just want to discuss the case, please post a comment.
Also, if you are visiting this page for the first time, welcome aboard, and please check out the case files on the Cash-Landrum case found at Resources: Articles and Documents.
To summarize the Roswell Slides history: Tom Carey put together a Dream Team to produce the ultimate Roswell book. The project got sidetracked, but Carey continued to work with his writing partner Don Schmitt, assisted by Anthony Bragalia and David Rudiak, who both had provided help for the Witness to Roswell book. Then, the slides entered the story. As much as possible, I’m going to let the players themselves tell the tale.
The slide collection seems to have been owned by a couple in Midland, Texas, Bernerd and Hilda Ray. Adam Dew claims that a friend’s sister salvaged some slides while cleaning out a house that was going to be demolished.
“A quick timeline as I understand it: Hilda died in 1988. Slides discovered when emptying out a garage outside of Sedona (Cottonwood we think) in 1998. Slides were deemed intersting (obviously old color slides) but not fully examined until around 2008. While I think that the home may have belonged to Hilda's lawyer, there is no way to know for sure as the woman who found them didn't keep records of the homes she cleaned out. ...I don't think the slides came from Hilda's home.”http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-many-slides-stories.html
Adam Dew of SlideBox Media, LLC
The woman’s brother told Dew about the slides in 2012. Dew formed SlideBox Media, LLC and took the lead in marketing the slides. The show started coming together when he contacted Carey and Schmitt.
Secrets Exposed
Bragalia's article as printed in UFO Today magazine.
While the search for a profitable platform for the slides was on, details about them leaked out. Anthony Bragalia wrote an article outlining that the slides, “showed a corporeal being. It was a humanoid, most certainly not of earth and it was dead.” Based chiefly on Bernerd Ray’s profession as a geologist, Bragalia speculated that,
“Given this background on the slides we are now confronted with an inescapable truth:
A prominent geologist who explored the New Mexico desert in the 1940s is directly associated with two 1947 Kodachromes depicting a humanoid corpse as found at Roswell.”
In other words: a weird picture of a body was found, and a scenario was imagined, trying to tie it to Roswell. In the comments, Bragalia states, “I am aware that two 1947 slides of a dead alien do not equate to tissue slides/samples or the actual cadaver itself. But given the confirmed authenticity and provenance of the slides- it is as close as we will ever come that kind of physical evidence.”
Provenance. That’s a funny word to use when there’s nothing to tie the content of the slides to UFOs, Roswell, the military or even the United States of America. It can’t be proven these slides were taken by the Rays. As Adam Dew notes, it can’t be determined who owned the house where the slides were found.
Wait and see, they say!
There is very little left to wait for, just the allegedly clear images of the slides themselves. The promoters and their associates have been discussing the details of the slides and voicing their conclusions about the slides since 2013. The delay in showing them was due to the search for a platform to release them, and they’ve chosen an entertainment venue, Auditorio Nacional in Mexico City.
Due to the carelessness in the “Kodachrome - A Documentary - Official Trailer,” images of the slides have been isolated, and “leaked” online. According to one insider, it is as good or better than what he could see viewing them on a lap top.
Eyewitness testimony about the “Roswell Slides”
Larry Lemke posted about examining the slides, and has posted the best description available about what is depicted.
Early in March, 2014, I met with the owner of the slides, viewed them, and talked to him about his plans. (Actually, I viewed digital reproductions of the slides.) ... The owner affirmed that it is his intent to present the slides and their story to the public in a non-sensationialistic forum, after he has satisfied himself as to their authenticity. He feels he is nearing the end of that phase.
He goes on to describe the photographs: 1. There are 2 photos, taken in an indoor setting.
2. The photos are of poor quality (focus, exposure) compared to virtually all the other photos in the same collection. For this reason, edge detection, contrast enhancement and other photoanalysis techniques are warranted and are being used.
3. The photos appear to have been taken about 4 or 5 feet from the humanoid, from a position slightly above it.
4. To my eye, the humanoid is lying on a clear glass shelf and is surrounded by either clear glass walls and/or a full glass enclosure. The enclosure appears to be more like a rectangular box than like a bottle.
5. In one of the photos, a woman is standing behind the glass case (visible from approximately the waist down). In the other photo a man is visible in the same location, leading to speculation that the man and the woman traded places and took turns taking pictures.
6. The humanoid is not immersed in a fluid; it appears to be open to the air (at least if the lid were off).
7. The glass shelf/ box that the humanoid is on/in appears to be supported on shelf brackets that are connected to vertical, metal supports. The vertical supports are perforated at regular intervals (nominally, 1 inch spacing) by drilled holes. The shelf arrangement gives the appearance of a laboratory apparatus rack.
8. The humanoid is lying on its back, with its head to the camera’s left and feet to the right.
9. There is some type of placard on the front of the glass case, with (currently undecipherable, out-of-focus) writing on it. (Shades of the Ramey memo!) It is my suspicion that this placard is the source of the idea that the genital area of the humanoid was deliberately covered up in order to escape the wrath of the censors when the slides were developed. I don’t think that is the case. From what I could see, the genital area was not visible to the camera due to the view angle of the camera. I suspect that the placard simply serves to identify the contents of the glass case.
10. The proportions of the humanoid appear to be slightly different than a “normal” human, but probably, no single dimension of the body is outside the range of naturally occurring sizes. The length of the head (crown to chin) is approximately the same length as the torso (neck to crotch). The arm length (shoulder to wrist) is approximately the length of the torso (i.e., the wrist joint is approximately aligned with the hip bone). The leg bones are long, compared to the arms.
11. Given that the body is about 3 feet long, if it is human, then it must be either a child or an adult with a developmental disorder. (Human Trisomy 17 has been suggested as a candidate.)
12. I could not see digits on either the hands or feet, and so could not count them.
13. The mouth is open and no teeth are visible.
14. The skin of the humanoid is smooth and appears to have shrunk taut against the bones (ribs, legs, arms, cranium). Whether this is due to natural effects of death (saponification, dessication, etc.) or is the result of some post-mortem treatment (embalming, freezing, etc.) is not clear.
15. The head appears to have been severed from the top of the spinal column and then replaced, lying at an unnatural angle relative to the torso.
The leaked image must not be all that bad. Lemke refers to it as showing more detail than what he was shown of the originals.
"Nearly a year ago I saw what I would consider low resolution computer screen images of the slides for a period of about 10 to 15 minutes. ...
the images I saw at that time were of poor enough quality that I could not see other features that others were claiming to be present. ...
It wasn’t until I saw the cleaned up images earlier today that I could see enough detail to form an opinion...Having looked at the cleaned up image produced by the Germans over at the UFO Conjectures site, it looks to me like a hydrocephalic child is a pretty good fit. ... possibly an Andean mummy." http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2015/02/roswell-slides-and-video-clips.html
Physical Evidence?
Supposedly, Kodak experts have certified that the slides are authentic. The team promoting the slides has focused on discussing their age and supposed authenticity of the slides, but that’s only a small part of what’s important about them. We need to see proof of several other things before they can be considered evidence of anything. Tom Carey was the one to first make an official teaser announcement about the slides and what he claims they are. “We have come into possession of a couple of Kodachrome color slides of an alien being lying in a glass case,” he said it was, “3 and a half to 4 feet tall, the head is almost insect-like. The head has been severed, and there’s been a partial autopsy; the innards have been removed, and we believe the cadaver has been embalmed, at least at the time this picture was taken.
Tom Carey
In the promo video used in the beWitness press conference, Jaime Maussan asks Tom Carey if the slides are physical evidence, and Carey responds, "I think it's physical evidence. I think we have physical evidence." Carey then goes on to say, "A picture is worth a thousand words."
No, it’s not physical evidence, and it’s important to understand when a picture has value. Usually, a photo can begin to be considered supporting evidence only when time, location and the photographer are known. In addition, it’s vital to know what instrument recorded the data. We don’t have the camera or any of the other information about how the slides of the body were taken. The other claims are all based on speculation, trying to make the slides and the Ray’s history fit into the narrative of the Roswell story.
Don Schmitt
Don Schmitt has been somewhat more cautious in his statements, emphasizing the witness testimony collected in their books. Maussan asked him if it is the greatest story of all time. “One of the greatest stories. I always say of the millennium, so in the last thousand years, yes.”
More Eyewitness testimony about the “Roswell Slides”
From a beWitness promo video
Anthony Bragalia said,
"Clear versions of the slides depict a being whose anatomy does not correspond to a human being. The limbs (legs and arms) are exceeding thin, frail and fragile, characteristics that are not associated with hydrocephalus. In fact, the torso (which has been opened) and rest of the body look nothing like any known case of hydrocephalus in history. The structure looks very make-shift, resembling a quickly-assembled ‘erector set’ type deal, with beams that have ratchet holes in them. The set-up in no way whatsoever resembles that of aprofessional museum display. ... I believe that this is a 'private viewing' of a creature recently deceased, partially autopsied, and preserved.”http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-roswell-slides-update-by-tony.html
Not everyone agrees with his assessment, and many have found that the photos closely resemble an ancient body on display in a museum case being photographed by a tourist.
Placard: Employees must wash hands after touching alien?
“Because poor focus seemed to be the main problem, I tried various refocusing software, but couldn't get what I thought were consistent results. ... Tom Carey wanted me to have a look because of my work on the Ramey memo. But there is much less to work with here, such as unknown circumstances and font, quite unlike the Ramey memo. I'm not claiming to be a full-fledged image processing expert, and when examination of the placard in high resolution is hopefully undertaken after May 5 by multiple qualified people, maybe we will get a definitive answer as to what is shown. As Robert Hastings just wrote... the placard is the key to resolving this thing (or somebody finding something like a child mummy that is an exact match to what is shown.)
“I agree that it makes no sense that the Rays could casually photograph an alien corpse on display somewhere. Further, there is that woman in the dress standing in one of the pictures. From the low quality screen captures we've seen, the dress does NOT suggest a military nurse standing in the picture, but a civilian. I agree it looks more like a civilian setting, perhaps a museum, perhaps somewhere else.?"http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-roswell-slides-and-me.html
Tom Carey and Jaime Maussan
Jaime Maussan asks Tom Carey, as a physical anthropologist, to explain what type of creature is pictured in the slides, and if it is a primate. Carey says it is bipedal, but does not recognize it as being human, but that, “Certainly, in our taxonomic categories that we use since Carolus Linnaeus described the order of primates, it certainly does look like it would be classified as a primate, perhaps even a hominid.”
A quote from Witness To Roswell by Carey & Schmitt, pages 35-37:
“In science, where the bottom line is also the search for truth, Occam’s Law of Parsimony, a.k.a. Occam's Razor, is used to decide among competing hypotheses the one that best explains the observed data. It holds that, with all other factors being equal, the simplest hypothesis that explains the most observed data is the best, and must prevail. Thus employed, it serves as a tool for eliminating competing-but-lacking theories, hypotheses, and from others being considered.”
Ergo, a picture of a hominid in a glass case is a dead Roswell alien.
Since there is no actual evidence provided by the slides, the promoters are trying to prop it up by marrying it to the Roswell research done by Carey and Schmitt.
The Cinco de Mayo show
The slides were originally said to be awaiting presentation in a non-sensational format, but that changed. Jaime Maussan came on board, arranging for the venue and advertising, billing it as a chance of a lifetime, to be able to witness a historical event, the presentation of evidence of extraterrestrials.
As best I can tell, the program will go something like this: Jaime Maussan as host, Carol Rosin will introduce Edgar Mitchell, who is there as part cheerleader and part celebrity endorsement. Adam Dew will introduce the story about the mysterious well-connected Rays, then Carey & Schmitt will pick it up and frame it in the context of Roswell (probably giving with a recap of their research and digs, bringing out an alleged witness to testify it looks like what he saw at RAAF.
Witness testimony.
The slides will be projected, then the CGI hologram of the body onstage. Richard Dolan fits in there somewhere, supposedly helping us digest how this Disclosure will change our World. Maussan will probably close the show with a speech about how everyone has witnessed history, the cast will take a final bow, the lights will come on. An announcer may direct the audience to pick a up a few souvenirs on their way out.
Be WITNESS, The Changing the of History will feature technology: three-dimensional holographic, a first in Mexico and the National Auditorium, an event with unique characteristics in order to be direct witnesses of extraterrestrial reality on Earth, a unique and unrepeatable event.
It ain't over 'til it's over
A sequel? KOB 4 reported that "The (Roswell International UFO Museum & Research Center) museum says there will be a presentation on the pictures in Roswell during the UFO festival in July." Alejandro Rojas informs me that, "Don and Tom are board members and present every year." Additionally, Don Schmitt has several solo convention appearances booked. What about scientific study of the slides? Adam Dew says he's asked around a bit, but that science will have to wait until after the show.
"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."
Some further reading on the "Roswell Slides" story:
