Friday, May 1, 2015

Guest Post: The "Roswell Slides" depict Alien MATILDA by George Wingfield

To follow up on my previous Blog posting, I am posting this guest article by George Wingfield. The opinions are his, not necessarily mine. Comments are welcome.

Robert Sheaffer

The "Roswell Slides" depict Alien MATILDA

by George Wingfield

Most people will have probably have lost interest in the highly dubious “Roswell Slides” story by now so I hesitate to trouble any of you with it further. However, since Jaime Maussan’s “UFO Special Event” is still a week away, it’s worth looking at what it has been possible to establish during the past month:
(1) The so-called “Roswell Slides” discovery is a carefully prepared scam.

(2) They have nothing to do with Roswell or any supposed flying saucer crash there in 1947. The alleged Roswell connection has been deliberately devised to attract and deceive UFO/alien believers who would probably not have bothered with yet another of Maussan’s fake aliens from Mexico.

(3) Veteran UFO/Alien fraudster Jaime Maussan and the man who first revealed the existence of the Roswell Slides, Adam Dew, are quite aware of the slides’ real origin.

(4) The supposed story of their origin involving Hilda Ray, finding the slides in a house clearance in AZ, etc., is completely false apart from the fact that some of the slides are marked "HILDA RAY" which is a sly reference to RAY Santilli's fake alien "HILDA".

(5) This scam is entirely similar to Ray Santilli's "Alien Autopsy" scam of 1995 and the fake alien and the photographic slides were produced by the same people.

(6) The special effects alien dummy was prepared and photographed by London based (Rob Irving, John Lundberg and Rod Dickinson) that made alien dummy HILDA for Santilli's Alien Autopsy film in the UK twenty years ago.

(7) The slides have been specially prepared using old 1940s-style cardboard sleeves to hold the transparency film so as to deceive UFO researchers that they originate from 1947. It is unlikely they will ever be released now as one could soon see they are fakes.

(8) The "UFO Special Event" in Mexico City to be hosted by Jaime Maussan on May 5, 2015, exactly twenty years to the day after Santilli unveiled his "Alien Autopsy" scam in 1995, has been planned to give maximum publicity to the fraudulent claim that this is the ultimate proof of a genuine alien. Maussan will play the same role as Santilli did.

(9) The prime creator of this new "Roswell” alien dummy, John Lundberg, was director of the 2013 documentary film Mirage Men. He sees the production of the slides and the Mexico City event as an act of "ostension". That is, the displaying of a supposedly genuine alien body (or photos, or replicas of an alien) to UFO/alien believers whose faith will be reinforced since they are meant to be unaware it is a scam.

(10) John Lundberg has declined to answer questions about the Roswell Slides or admit that he and his friends created this new hoax. He has also declined a recent invitation to appear on The Paracast which would have allowed hosts Gene Steinberg and Christopher O'Brien to question him about his involvement.

It would be difficult to appreciate the extent and the deviousness of the Roswell Slides deception without being familiar with Ray Santilli’s Alien Autopsy hoax of 1995 and the people who were behind that. That scam is believed to have netted Santilli a million dollars or so from the sale of copies of the film footage to TV channels, program makers, film-makers and researchers worldwide such was the interest and the demand from those who believed it to be genuine. With each copy of the Alien Autopsy footage sold, Santilli provided a disclaimer saying that he could not guarantee the material was genuine and that he had to include the disclaimer for legal reasons. He did, of course, know full well the film footage was faked and he should have been charged with fraud anyway.

I researched the Alien Autopsy scam at the time and was able to reveal the names of the three chief hoaxers who had created the special effects alien dummy and taken part in filming its supposed autopsy. My report on this can still be found on the internet at:-

I have never had any reason to withdraw what I wrote there twenty years ago and from that time on Santilli’s dummy alien became known as Alien HILDA (Hoaxed Irving-Lundberg-Dickinson Alien). Although there is no doubt that the Alien Autopsy film was an elaborate hoax there are still UFO/Alien believers who like to think it was genuine.

John Lundberg, the most prominent of these three hoaxers, was the director of the 2013 film documentary Mirage Men whose central character was the arch-deceptionmonger of US ufology Richard Doty. Everyone who is interested in the UFO subject should see this film which reveals just how much of modern UFO mythology has been shaped by the campaign of disinformation and deception woven by Doty and others based at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, during the 1980s. Lundberg has always been fascinated –if not obsessed— by such deception and disinformation which is one of the reasons that he made this film. With the Roswell Slides he is attempting to supply more of the same.

These three hoaxers started out by making crop circles in England during the early 1990s. Although they admitted they were circlemakers they never admitted making any specific formation. They justified what they did by saying it was art –crop art— but denied the deception dimension of what they were doing. One could say that their work was more like that of an illusionist, or magician, than that of a regular artist. From these beginnings they went on to fake UFO photographs and even contrived UFO fly-bys using things similar to Chinese lanterns to deceive Steven Greer and his CSETI people who went out on skywatches in Wiltshire, England, during 1992. From crop circlemaking (or, maybe one should say, circlefaking) and UFOfaking, these three progressed to alienfaking in 1995 with the production of alien dummy HILDA for Ray Santilli.

Their circlemaking activities and their website led by degrees to lucrative contracts to make crop circles for a whole variety of customers such as UK newspapers, TV channels, film-makers, companies and corporations who wanted their logos --or maybe some publicity ad-- imprinted in the wheatfields of England and then photographed from the air. The team of three, sometimes with additional helpers, made crop circles to order in the UK, the USA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and other countries often charging many thousands of dollars a time plus expenses.

One of their best known crop circles in recent years was made for a computer electronics manufacturer in December 2013. John Lundberg and Rob Irving were commissioned to make a huge elaborate crop circle near Chualar, CA, for Nvidia who wanted to publicize their ultrafast Tegra microchip. The chip was announced a week later at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Lundberg and Irving’s giant crop circle resembled a vast replica of the microchip. With most commissions doesn’t reveal its authorship of the crop circles which they produce but sometimes it is disclosed and also the fact that a large elaborate circle like the Nvidia one can cost tens of thousands of dollars.

If the crop circle side of the business is the most lucrative one then alienfaking commissions are the most secretive. Apart from the Alien Autopsy and the Roswell Slides no other such productions are publicly known nor what is charged for such productions. One can be certain that these alienfakers watch the reactions of their target audience closely on blogsites and websites dealing with such matters. Acceptance by members of the UFO community is important since everything depends on belief.

John Lundberg popped up recently on one of The Paracast forums dealing with the “Roswell Slides” which he had joined with a view to checking the reactions of those who are fascinated anything to do with Roswell. On the forum he called himself ‘Ostension’ which is probably a term that is lost on many people.

Having lived years ago in staunchly Catholic Ireland I am very aware that "ostension" is the displaying of the sacrament at the altar during the mass so that it could receive the adoration of the communicants who have come up from the congregation. In these secular days some may be unaware that the sacrament is the bread (or communion wafer) and the wine that communicants receive during the mass. Transubstantiation is the supposed change whereby, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the bread and wine used as the communion sacrament become --in actual reality -- the body and the blood of Christ.
Not that many people, even Catholics, actually believe this today, but the parallel here to the displaying of a "genuine" alien body --or at least a supposed photographic slide of one-- at a meeting of UFO True Believers in Mexico City is not lost on some of us. That's a real piece of what Lundberg would call Perception Management for you. If such ostension actually works, one can assume that it will fill the coffers of that celebrated UFO high priest Jaime Maussan.

There is no other definition of ostension in the dictionary but John Lundberg defines it in the following terms on his Wikipedia page:

"Entire legend plots can be reduced to an allusive action. If a narrative is widely known individuals may become involved in real life activities based on all or part of that narrative. This is ostension in action; when legend alters or shapes the behavior of people. Real events patterned on an urban legend, fact mirroring fiction. In a nutshell? To folklorists, ostension is the real-life occurrence of events described by a legend. Legends we live."
Ostension is apparently John Lundberg’s justification for creating the Alien Autopsy and now the so-called Roswell Slides. There’s money in it too but to simple folk like me this is simply an attempt at mass deception that is entirely similar to the deception practiced by Richard Doty and his colleagues with regard to the UFO subject back in the 1980s. So those of us who are interested in the UFO subject should be acutely aware that there are people out there who are seeking to manipulate our belief systems by various forgeries, fakery and deception.

Finally I think this new alien dummy, successor to the infamous HILDA, needs a new name which really should be MATILDA. That, if you hadn’t already guessed, stands for Maussan’s Maussan’s Absurd Trick: Irving-Lundberg-Dickinson Alien.

MATILDA is particularly appropriate since that was the name of the little girl in Hilaire Belloc’s Cautionary Tales (1907) who told such dreadful lies:
Matilda told such Dreadful Lies,
It made one gasp and stretch one’s Eyes,

Her Aunt, who from her Earliest Youth, 
Had kept a Strict Regard for Truth, 
Attempted to believe Matilda: The effort very nearly killed her …….. 

(for the rest of this cautionary poem and its sad ending see )

Maybe one day a real extraterrestrial alien will catch up with Maussan, Dew, Lundberg and Irving and if that ever happens one wonders if they’d know what to do. Perhaps they would suffer a similar fate to the wretched Matilda who everyone had ceased to believe?
George Wingfield
April 30, 2015


  1. You have no idea what you are talking about George Wingfield. Robert, I am surprised that you would even run this. It is near-libelous.

    This is not a fake, scam or dummy. I simply do not know where to begin to refute this hatchet-job of an 'article' other than to say the slides are real, the narrative is real and that this is nothing whatsoever like the 'Alien Autopsy.'

    1. Hahaha you're just as big of a clown as the rest of these frauds, only an utter fool would believe this load of crap. It's you that has no idea what he's talking about. You're a joke and a goddamned fool.

    2. Anthony, I hope I am clear when I say that I don't know if Mr. Wingfield is correct, but his assemblage of coincidences is far stronger than your shitty stream of innuendo linking the slides to Roswell.

      > some of the slides are marked "HILDA RAY" which is a sly reference to RAY Santilli's fake alien "HILDA".

      That is poetry! But is it true?

  2. I am no fan of Anthony Bragalia. However he might like to see my comment on Wingfield in Bob Sheaffer's previous blog entry.

  3. Though not my fan, CDA (and I do not seek them) I do appreciate your insight into this Wingfield character. Believe it is a mummy child or a hydrocephalic if you all wish to- but do not believe this to be a made-up hoax or 'social experiment' - because it is not.

    It reminds me of the now-discredited Paul Kimball and his accusation that we all 'made up' the email hacking incident. There is nothing fake or hoaxed about any of this.

    Richard, we do not know each other well, but well enough that I am certain that you do not believe me to be a "Ray Santilli." Given our private correspondence I am amazed that you have chosen to give a platform to Wingfield's contention that we have used a prop or model and that the slides are special effects...are you going to yourself weigh in on this idea of it all being an intentional fraud? I think that you should....

    1. @AJB
      > It reminds me of the now-discredited Paul Kimball

      Paul is not discredited. But I will tell you, Tony (as I told Paul today on Twitter), that I was disappointed when he stated his May 4 "reveal" of the slides was just a prank. Very lame of Paul to do that.

      > I am certain that you do not believe me to be a "Ray Santilli."

      For what it's worth -- and you did not ask me -- I do not think you are a Santillli. I think you are deluded, but that is a lesser sin.

      > I am amazed that you have chosen to give a platform to Wingfield's contention

      Don't be amazed. It is a viewpoint completely worthy of discussion, even if it turns out to be totally wrong in the end.

      And remember, Tony, both Kevin Randle and Rich Reynolds have hosted your guest posts about the slides, even though they completely disagree with your certainty about the figure in the photos!

      Don't be a hypocrite, Tony, be tolerant of informed opinion.

  4. John Lundberg did not have anything to do with faking the alien autopsy film. The man who led the team that faked it is Spyros Melaris and the man who made the dummies is UK sculptor John Humphreys. Wingfield does not have a clue.


    1. Thanks for saving me the bother of pointing this out, Unknown. The whole tale was unravelled by Philip Mantle & friends years ago. PM himself, having started with some faith in Santilli's film, was honest enough to go where the evidence led him and accept the obvious. By "obvious" I partly mean that anyone with the slightest knowledge of autopsies, pathology, even basic theatre hygiene—let alone the unhinged premise that there were any aliens to dissect in the first place—could see as clearly as if it were a curly red hair floating in a glass of warm gin that the thing was hokum.

      Mind you. I wouldn't put it past John L to come up with such a wheeze, partly (let's suppose) to wind up George W but not least because he has a mischievous sense of humour. But I kind of doubt it. The real joke here is that George W is somehow convinced that his discredited hypothesis, which by the way amused and perhaps even flattered the circlemakers no end, deserves obsessive recycling with even less to substantiate it than there was first time round. His wittering that Lundberg & Irving were in Claifornia a while back has about as much substance as the accusation that I once slept with Jimmy Carter because I happened to be staying at the same NYC Sheraton the same night as he, back in 1980 or so. Oh, and I quite like peanuts.

      George W clearly has no knowledge of folklorists' jargon—the seminal paper is "Does the Word 'Dog' Bite? Ostensive Action: A Means of Legend-Telling" by Legh and Vazsonyi (1983: how long ago is that?)—and no apparent awareness of the function, uses, care & feeding of hoaxes in the field of fortean phenomena. Nor does he seem to have been very assiduous in finding out. This seems to me a major omission for one with George W's interests. He also seems not to have noticed that Rod Dickinson hasn't been associated with for at least a decade (maybe longer) and, indeed, as a now-respectable academic seems to have distanced himself somewhat from his nefarious nocturnal past. Here, in short, is not a reliable witness, old School tie notwithstanding.

      John L's "poetic and evasive" response to Robert is no more or less than what any conscientious ostensionist would say, admitting nothing but perhaps taking the opportunity to swirl a few dark hints about, because the nub of this kind of art is anonymity and confusion and mystery. The Nameless therefore stick together in the Great Invisible, as the older generation of circle-makers did. So I don't think you can take his reply as a covert admission—I'd suggest it's more a matter of him standing by his fellow nods-and-winkers and their famous blind horse. The point of the game, as Rob Irving once put it, is to keep the game going (see
      Such games invite, and usually get, the participation of the likes of Bragalia, Dew, Wingfield et. al., whether they realize they're actually on the pitch & swinging, or not. (Skeptics are there too—I think the only one who cottoned on to this was dear old kindly Unca Phil.)

      In that gaming sense, the art in the hoax is intrinsically a kind of social experiment. It may take a few years to find out who set it up, and maybe we never will. But Dew & Carey & Schmitt & Bragalia, if they're not trying to con us, have certainly fallen heavily for this one and at best are conning themselves. I love it.

      —Peter B

    2. @the Duke

      > a curly red hair floating in a glass of warm gin

      I have not heard this phrase before. Google (strongly) suggests it was used only once before in the entirety of human history, that is, in 1998, to poleax a certain Jerome "Encyclopediatrix" Clark, Esq.

      Do you have a source, Duke? Or is it your own composition?

      (I am hoping it was from my favourite Jerome: Jerome K. Jerome.)

      > "Does the Word 'Dog' Bite? Ostensive Action: A Means of Legend-Telling" by Legh and Vazsonyi

      I have put this article on Scribd. Get it while you can. (If it disappears, it is on JSTOR.)

    3. Terry:

      The phrase was adapted by me from one reported by the late, egregious Frank Smyth, he of 'Vicar of Wapping' fame. If memory serves, Frank had the expression "plain as a red hair floating on a pint of mild" from a West Yorkshire policeman, while researching his book on the Yorkshire Ripper. I like to think I pumped up the "Eeugh!" factor a bit.

      I had forgotten about that UpDates post. Made me smile as I re-read it. Dear old Unca Phil.

      —Peter B

  5. I am going to have to lean towards Tony on this one. All the signs suggest to me that this is not a calculated hoax. Although Adam Dew and Jamie Maussan may well know that the slides don't depict an alien, the various deluded UFO "researchers" involved (actually just UFO believers with zero critical thinking skills) are probably sincere in their belief in the thing.

    They are setting the event up just like a Bigfoot photo or video reveal: using the trapping of science (since real science doesn't work for them), presenting UFO nuts as "experts" and blending small spoonfuls or truth with huge dollops of bullshit.

    On May 6th? Nothing will have changed one iota. UFO nuts will have another dubious story that they will refer constantly (even if the slides are instantly debunked, which I suspect has a good likelihood of happening).


    1. Lance,

      If I am understanding Mr. Wingfield correctly, he is not suggesting that Carey, Schmitt and company were perpetrators of the alleged hoax, but among the targets thereof as biased researchers which were expected to do a poor job of vetting the incident. Robert's previous post particularly addressed that.

      That stated, I agree with you that verifiable evidence is in order and that there are a lot of loose ends between the slides and the circle makers. It's interesting, but I would like to see more conclusive evidence if it's available.

      BTW, I thought Gilles' recent post was also interesting. It raises points that should be further addressed as well.

  6. Del-
    You can name call all you says more about you than about me. People that make abusive and insulting remarks have nothing to offer, just like you.

    1. You tell him, Tony. As someone who does background checks on his debate opponents, and threatens to call the cops on people who try to verify your assertions, you hold the moral high ground.

  7. Greetings,

    As previously pointed here or there, and imho, Mister Wingfield claims about the Alien Autopsy "fake" and the persons involved he claims are not matching the general consensus and the most serious investigations already made (for example the "best of them", aka P. Mantle book).

    So, it makes me "skeptic" and sounds "problematic" (at this stage) about the claims regarding now the Roswell Slides themselves he did and the more or less precise scenario Mister Wingfield proposed. For example, the date of bewitness conference matching the 5 may 1995 first public release of the AA is imho purely coincidential for several reasons regarding the timeline of the slides saga.

    Anyway, all leads are interesting, to be validated or not. Myself did not exclude the hoax or social experiment of some sort (in my blog) despite I have some personal reserves regarding this scenario.

    But the "burden of proof" is for all, and regarding the previous "strong" claims made by Mister Wingfield, I need more than "hearsay".

    If, as the author claims, "the slides have been specially prepared using old 1940s-style cardboard sleeves to hold the transparency film", there is imho possibility to forensicaly analysis validating or not this claim/possibility.


    Gilles Fernandez

  8. I'm not sure what this bizarre post is doing here! The deeply eccentric George Wingfield is just taking a whole lot of quotes from various websites, some of them almost verbatim, adding some peculiar ideas of his own, and presenting them as if they were firmly established facts when many of them are theories or simply opinions. I think he may even be more or less quoting my own comment regarding cardboard slide holders on this very blog as if it were objectively true, not my own guess as to something I think may quite likely turn out to be true!

    In any case, if the firm he alleges built the dummy he thinks is shown in the pictures did so under conditions of extreme secrecy as he claims, how does he know about it? He seems to have been excessively influenced by Jacques Vallee's paranoid worldview, and for decades he's been trying to link all manner of things together into patterns that hint at various arcane conspiracies with baffling agendas.

    The idea that assorted Fortean hoaxes which seem vaguely similar are all linked by some sort of secret hoaxing cult when the motives are obvious - money, mischief, or a bit of both - is completely unnecessary, contradicts facts established beyond reasonable doubt, and is suggestive of mental health problems at the lower end of the schizophrenic spectrum.

    Deducing that the name "Hilda Ray" is a secret clue referring to Ray Santilli plus the acronym HILDA invented by George Wingfield and used by nobody else to refer to Santilli's alien dummy, therefore a scam perpetrated for purely financial reasons by people in another country is somehow about him, is very schizoid thinking indeed!

    Ah well. Soon we'll know everything about these worthless snapshots. Except that we won't. The slides themselves will not be on display - a fact revealed only after all those very expensive tickets had been sold to people who presumably expected them to be, and would not have bought the tickets otherwise.

    And it's already been stated that the slides are grainy and out of focus, and therefore cannot be appreciated properly without a little bit of enhancement. So I take it the pictures we'll finally get to see tomorrow will show evidence of digital manipulation for which there's a pre-existing excuse, and there will be no opportunity to compare them with the originals to see exactly what's been tampered with?

    It doesn't really matter anyway. Some people will make a fair bit of money from this, but nowhere near as much as Ray Santilli did. Over here in the UK, the media have almost totally ignored it. Possibly the fact that we're having a general election on Thursday is a factor, but really, it's just that this is "Unconvincing Alien Autopsy Film II" 20 years after everybody stopped caring about that, only nowhere near as good on any level. Nobody gives a monkey's, and quite right too.

    1. Fair comment. But would you agree, Count, that Wingfield makes more sense than Braglia (if you have been following his histrionic assertions on other blogs)?

    2. Count Otto:

      On May 6, which of these three news stories will get the most space in the UK press:

      1. The forthcoming election
      2. More news and pics of the latest royal baby
      3. A headline stating: "Proof that WE ARE NOT ALONE"

  9. This Wingfield character is all over the map in these two goofy conspiracy rants. Typically, it's as if he's oblivious to Occam's razor and doesn't allow facts to restrain his flights of fantasy. Paranoia finds comfort in conspiracy.

  10. CDA-

    Articles on the slides have been in the UK press, as recently as this morning. This includes the Mirror (which had the article below the royal baby article) the Daily Mail and Metro.

  11. I posted this on the previous blog entry:

    "I can accept that a family trove of pics were found, then someone looking through them saw one they couldn't easily recognise. If they were predisposed to believing in alien visitations, or showed it to someone (hoping for some feedback as to what it was) who was predisposed, then it could quickly snowball from there. Maybe it's a hoax, but Occam's razor says to me it's just good old confirmation bias and misidentification, which other more opportunistic people have taken advantage of."

    I'll add to that that I found Printy's (and RSRG's) explanation of the slide being of an Egyptian child mummy to be quite convincing, especially the side-by-side photo comparison.

    On the other hand, all I see here from Wingfield is a pointing towards the similarity of two names given to the 'aliens'. I'm totally on the skeptic side but if you're going to call hoax and point to people you think did it, you better have more evidence than "these guys make crop circles", the use of a pseudonym and a shared 'alien' name. (And as others have pointed out, he got the sculptor wrong for the alien autopsy film) Come on, this is the kind of logic presented by cranks. Is this satirical? I'm not up on all the UFO stuff mind and this is my first real time learning about Roswell so if I'm missing something here, let me know. -- Ok, having read several other pieces by Wingfield I can see he's as conspiracy-minded as the UFO believers.

    1. No, you're not missing anything, flip. This "slides" baloney is the dumbest since the "face" on Mars!

      One entirely predisposed doofus saw the slide and thought, "Hey, that mummy looks like a space alien!"

      Then, "How can I make some money with this?"

      It's that's simple.

    2. > mummy

      Zoam, don't be so close-minded. The slide figure could very well be a grade-schooler's (poorly rendered) science project. Or a still photo from the Alien Autopsy film reboot (because everything gets rebooted). Or a crime scene photo from Ed Gein's basement. Or just a rendering glitch in our holographic universe. Or...

      Enough from me: I welcome guesses from everyone.

    3. Thanks. I've now seen the high-res pic on Coast to Coast and am more firmly in the camp of it being a child mummy. Wingfield's "hoax" also looks even more dubious now.

  12. Hi Robert, first time I write on your blog, I like it very much really. It's interesting and clever made. I'm a very young seasoned professional, with much interest in possible extraterrestrial life. I do agree that everything that comes from Maussan must be taken with a grain of salt..Well, I write u to let u know that I'm writing kind of a novel, that u might find interesting. I'm asking to the persons I like in the ufo community to let me know what they think about that. Also sorry, English my second language..I don't know if to go on writing or quit. I've been waiting long time to write it, then I think time has come. Would u be so kind to give it a look and let me know your thoughts ? Cheers, Maurice

  13. Oops, sorry Robert, I guess u can get to the blog from the data your site asked for, anyway here it is

  14. @Terry the Censor: the fact that George Wingfield seems to be a few plans from outer space short of the full nine doesn't make him an altogether bad researcher. He's obviously quite bright, and he's very dedicated to this stuff indeed. Much of his research into this sorry affair was pretty good. It's just that he doesn't know when to stop, because he has to twist everything around to make it all fit into weird conspiracy theories that exist only in his head.

    All the same, he does indeed make more sense than Tony Braglia & friends, because he's taking real facts and trying to put a bizarre personal spin on them, not telling deliberate lies in a cynical attempt to part fools from their money.

    @cda: I haven't been following this farrago minute by minute, so I didn't get back to this thread in time to make the prediction you asked for. However, it wouldn't have required especially powerful psychic gifts to predict the bleedin' obvious. For some strange reason, a much-hyped but in the end dismally feeble UFO hoax in Mexico got substantially less media coverage in the UK than the general election due to take place two days later.

    And of the papers that did bother to mention it in any detail, all were at the bottom end of the intellectual spectrum - the kind of tabloids obsessed with celebrity bikini photos - and every single one of them illustrated the story with pictures of a certain exceedingly fake dead alien from 20 years ago.

    The new royal baby came somewhere in the middle. She's perfectly heathy and in no way unusual apart from being royal, so there isn't much for the papers to say. But of course, if she makes a funny face or waves her arms or something, we'll doubtless get massive press coverage of the event.

    Though ironically, thanks to the completely bonkers theories of David Icke (which, unlike certain shameless con-artists on the other side of the Atlantic, he's actually sincere about), there are probably more people who think Princess Charlotte is a space alien than who, now that we can get a proper look at them, believe these pictures have anything to do with aliens, Roswell, or anything else other than lining the pockets of certain greedy hucksters who will doubtless pop up again in a couple of years with something similar.

  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

  18. Gentlemen, as someone having witnessed UFO phenomena in the sky, I have come to believe in the possibility that one or more EBE were retrieved from the Roswell crash in 1947. However, to give any credibility to these two slides as the "undeniable smoking gun" proof of extra-terrestrial life is equal to discredit the entire field of UFO research. In addition to the highly-questionable setting for display of such a valuable EBE cadaver (issues with military security, alien contaminants and the sort); it is impossible for any reasonable person not to object to the obvious financial/monetary motivations of its promoters. There is no shred of credibility left for the people who are now desperately trying to avoid possible fraud charges. I personally wanted these slides to succeed in moving us closer to "Disclosure." However, it is probable that Majestic 12 have managed to "feed" another brilliant disinformation ploy to those whose economic and "professional" well-being rides on publicizing these types of hoaxes to the public. I personally know Jaime Maussan and wanted very much for him to succeed. It is very sad to watch an otherwise Awarded Journalist throw 40 years of credibility into the basket for a handful of dollars. If after a life-time of experience investigating the UFO phenomena, Jaime is firmly convinced these slides show an Extraterrestrial Biological Entity, then with all due respect, either the entire EBE existence is a hoax or the call for monetary gain exceeded any calculations about reputation and credibility. We are living in an open society with formidable research capabilities at our disposal, so the promoters of this evident "cruel hoax" should have known that we (the UFO community, pros and ammateurs) would dig deeply and find the Adam Dew interviews, the Wister Institute photos for 2397.37 Thebes child-mummy and it's subsequent transfer to the National Museum of Natural History, of Dr. JH Slack's 25th dynasty mummy under catalogue No. NMNH-381235 acquired on April 17th 1958 from the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia.

  19. Dear Robert,
    I cannot email you for some reason, my email address is you mind to supply your mail address
    My name is Peter May, a skeptic much like yourself.
    I have some points about Nick Pope an Rendlesham.

    Kind regards



Keep your comments relevant, and keep them civil! That means no personal attacks will be allowed, by anyone, on anyone. Commenters are welcome to disagree with me, or with other comments, but state your arguments using logic, and with a civil tone. Comments in violation of these rules will be deleted, and offenders banned.

Comments should be in English, although quotes from foreign-language sources are fine as long as they're relevant, and you explain them. Anonymous postings are not permitted. If you don't want to use your real name, then make up a name for yourself, and use it consistently.