The Roswell Slides may be images of the mummy of a two year old human child, according to the placard beside the body, that researchers involved said during, before and after the presentation could not be deciphered. As our news story reveals, it was indeed possible to decipher it–assuming that the work done on it is not itself a hoax.
The image may be genuine, but at the same time, critical analysis of the placard apparently was not done.
I assumed that it had been. Prior to the presentation, Roswell researcher Don Schmitt said that the placard had been extensively examined and could not be read. He stated, "This will be part of the event, part of the program in May, that all of these analytical reports, all of the analyses, all of the main experts as well as the photographic experts who examined- there’s a placard, very fuzzy, that can not be legibly read by the naked eye, yet we’ve had everyone from Dr. David Rudiak, to Studio MacBeth, even the Photo Interpretation Department of the Pentagon, as well as Adobe have all told us that it’s beyond the pale, that it cannot be read, it is totally up to interpretation.So, we truly feel we have performed due diligence; we have done everything we can to substantiate and prove what is contained within these slides, whether it is something of a human malady or something truly extraordinary."
I call on him now to tell us exactly which Photo Interpretation Department of the Pentagon became involved, and what they told him. Did they give him anything in writing? Who are the specific individuals involved? We need to know, especially because there may be a double level of deception here if the Pentagon is involved. (Remember my last version of this journal, where I talked about the labyrinth? I forgot to mention that it’s a labyrinth of mirrors.) I say a double level of deception for three reasons: first, according to the 1947 MK Ultra document, if it is authentic, the creatures found in the Roswell crash had bodies like those of children; second, the placard could have been written by somebody who thought it was an ordinary child but was wrong; third, it could have been written by somebody who knew that it wasn’t a child and wished to conceal that.
I said in my previous version of this journal, "the Roswell slides were shown yesterday in Mexico. Due to Anne’s illness, I was not able to attend, but a friend telephoned me from Mexico to give me his impressions, which were that they were quite extraordinary. He also said that the presentation itself was impeccable and there was every evidence of a high level of careful analytical effort." And so it appeared.
I stand by my previous comments about the ambiguities that are going to be involved.
I very well remember the days of the Roswell Video, and the strange events that followed in my life. I was asked by Ray Santilli to write a book about the film, its discovery, and all that had subsequently transpired. I told him that I was open to this, but would need a single frame of film with emulsion on it for testing prior to my going any further. I was sent a strip of white leader, which was useless. When I repeated my request, I was told that removing even a single frame was out of the question because the film was too precious. I was left to wonder if there even was a film, frankly, or if it was all on video.
However, I also showed the video to an anatomist, who at once concluded that the body was not human because the visible sixth finger was not a repeat of the fifth, and human beings do not have genetic encoding for six fingers. And yet, he was certain that it was a corpse because of the way the skeleton appeared beneath the visible outer flesh. In fact, there was general agreement that it was a corpse, so much so that a criminal complaint was briefly considered as the use of a corpse in this manner, as entertainment, is illegal in many jurisdictions. Had it been a human corpse, the sixth finger would have to have been identical to the fifth. Santilli later "admitted" that it was all a hoax, but I have my doubts. He was vulnerable in a lot of ways, and could easily have been pressured by authorities to say whatever they wanted him to say. Or, for that matter, paid.
So I was left at a loss. No smoking gun film, but a medical opinion that supported the authenticity of the video!
My best guess is that the same sort of thing will eventually unfold here. Even if the slides are indisputably authentic, some odd level of ambiguity will enter the picture at some point. To give you an idea of what I mean, here is a quick analysis of the slide that Richard Dolan released to Coast to Coast AM yesterday, by one of the sharpest-eyed photo analysts I know (here, he is reacting to a new, larger version of the slide.)
"This version gives me much more confidence in its legitimacy. Here the woman’s figure is more obviously present in the top of the photo..The glass shelf seems to be supported in the middle by the white column — you can see the support brackets extending to both the near and far edges. What looks like a chair back could actually be some sort of placard clipped to the far edge of the glass shelf. The large, dark lump beyond the body looks like some other piece of charred remains resting on the far half of the shelf along with bits of other stuff. The bright area beyond looks like an area where window light is hitting the wall, and the smaller very bright areas look like reflections off the top of the glass case — though that doesn’t quite square with the height of the white perforated column, which seems to be taller.
"The motion blur suggests that the source of illumination was probably not an on-camera flash unit, but multiple sources including window light (as seen on the woman’s dress), some overhead light and also a source behind and to the left of the camera. That would tend to explain the positions of some of the wall shadows. What looks like a vertical shadow could instead be the far corner of the glass case.
"Kodachrome was a very sharp, non-grainy film with highly saturated (intense) color. But its sensitivity was very low, so a slow shutter speed would have had to be used (hence the blur) and the image would have probably still been way underexposed. So my guess is that the image had to be brightened considerably in the scanning.
"There are still a few questionable aspects of the photo, such as the overexposed card covering the leg. My guess is that if the slide were scanned at its original brightness, the overall image would be dark, but the card would be readable."
If our Roswell visitors were (are and will be) from the future (if such is possible) then there are going to be anomalies like this in any attempt to concretize their reality, because the Grandfather Paradox will never allow us to pin down with certainty that any of it is, absolutely and finally, real. This is because the Principle of Least Action will not allow violations of the paradox. This means that, while physics does show that time travel is possible, the Principle of Least Action will always force it down paths that prevent violations of the Grandfather Paradox. (This may have recently been shown empirically in an experiment at the University of Queensland.)
To defeat this as much as possible, time travelers will disguise themselves as something other than what they are, something that is far outside of reality. The more efficient they are at this, the less they are likely to disturb their own past enough to trigger resistance. They will be engaged in a balancing act. Their purpose in traveling to their past will be to do exactly what the Grandfather Paradox resists: alter our present in order to improve their own.
That’s if they’re time travelers. If they are travelers from a parallel universe (if such exist), then there will also be ambiguities. This is because they do not actually exist in our universe. They may be here, but that doesn’t mean that our reality agrees that they are. In fact, it does not agree, will not agree and cannot agree. This is going to mean that, no matter how convincing any proof of their presence may be, it will always be affected by anomalies that don’t seem to make sense.
Just like the Roswell Video, there are contradictions that cannot be resolved, not entirely. And, as I have said many times, and I can assure you that this is true: if there is ever disclosure of the government’s full record of this, the level of ambiguity will not be reduced, but rather increase. To understand this clearly and simply is–simply–not going to be possible. The reason is that we are dealing with reality on a new level in coming into contact with these others, whatever they are.
Even if they are aliens from another planet in this universe, the ambiguities will remain. This is because their minds and ours cannot address reality in exactly the same way. The way different species see things is infinitely varied. What happens as consciousness shines its searchlight about is that it resolves an ambiguous reality into forms that fit its perceptual system’s functional abilities. When two minds grounded in fundamentally different biology with different legacies of experience observe the same reality, there are going to be stress lines. Reality wants to focus into just a single coherent pattern. But it can’t, not with two different minds attempting to focus the same ambiguity differently.
I have lived this experience, and the stress lines I speak of are very real. They express themselves, at least among us, as confusion and fear.
When I looked on the face in the one slide I have seen, I was struck at how similar it was to the expression on the face of the alien in the Roswell video. But wasn’t that debunked? Oh, yes, it both was and wasn’t.
So, let the debate begin. I can assure you of one thing: both sides will be both right and wrong at the same time, about the same issues. If the Roswell video is fake, why the anatomically correct six-fingered hands? If the new slide is really of a nonhuman (or a human from the future) then why does the placard say what it does, if that is indeed what it says?
The new slides may well be of a human child. So are we face to face with yet another hoax? Or are we looking at a nonhuman being that is similar in appearance to a human child? If so, why does the placard simply identify it as a child?
I love labyrinths, fortunately. You should, too, as we live in one. It’s called reality–unless, of course, that’s just a hologram…
Subscribers, to watch the subscriber version of the video, first log in then click on Dreamland Subscriber-Only Video Podcast link.