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
circlemakers.org (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 circlemakers.org 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
Circlemakers.org 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
http://www.poetry-archive.com/b/matilda.html )
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
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.
ReplyDeleteThis 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.'
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.
DeleteAnthony, 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.
Delete> 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?
I am no fan of Anthony Bragalia. However he might like to see my comment on Wingfield in Bob Sheaffer's previous blog entry.
ReplyDeleteThough 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.
ReplyDeleteIt 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....
@AJB
Delete> 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.
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.
ReplyDelete
DeleteThanks 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 circlemakers.org 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
www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/Crop-Circles-The-Art-of-the-Hoax.html).
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
@the Duke
Delete> 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.)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/264186113/Degh-Vazsonyi-1983-Does-the-Word-Dog-Bite-Ostensive-Action-a-Means-of-Legend-Telling
Terry:
DeleteThe 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
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.
ReplyDeleteThey 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).
Lance
Lance,
DeleteIf 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.
Del-
ReplyDeleteYou can name call all you wish...it says more about you than about me. People that make abusive and insulting remarks have nothing to offer, just like you.
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.
DeleteGreetings,
ReplyDeleteAs 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.
Regards,
Gilles Fernandez
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!
ReplyDeleteIn 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.
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)?
DeleteCount Otto:
DeleteOn 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"
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.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.blueblurrylines.com/2015/04/cash-landrum-ufo-fresh-look-by-george.html
CDA-
ReplyDeleteArticles 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.
I posted this on the previous blog entry:
ReplyDelete"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.
No, you're not missing anything, flip. This "slides" baloney is the dumbest since the "face" on Mars!
DeleteOne 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.
> mummy
DeleteZoam, 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.
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.
DeleteHi 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
ReplyDeleteOops, sorry Robert, I guess u can get to the blog from the data your site asked for, anyway here it is https://quasialien.wordpress.com/
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Maurice
@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.
ReplyDeleteAll 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.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGentlemen, 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.
ReplyDeleteDear Robert,
ReplyDeleteI cannot email you for some reason, my email address is
1a2bcea@gmail.com.Would 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
Peter.
Hard to believe people still fall for these hoaxes.
ReplyDelete"I WANT TO BELIEVE" only goes so far...