Possible original photo of the Roswell craft

-----

Answering two questions in one...

Quote:

---

Posted by Decibellistics

This is a silly question but, has a timeline ever been created for the documented crashes and sightings? At least the big ones i suppose.

---

Not a silly question at all. The book to get is Ryan Wood's Majic - Eyes Only... which documents all the crashes, one by one, analyzing them for their degree of reliability as reports.

http://www.majesticdocuments.com/sto...icEyesOnly.jpg

E.g. Roswell, which is heavily documented and with literally hundreds of witnesses, gets a top rating. Other reported crashes are little more then intriguing rumors, and get a much lower rating.

But there are a surprising number of very strong 'cases', with multiple witnesses coming forward, as well as other evidence. I believe Ryan chronicled over 70 ... maybe more by now.

One of the most intriguing reports, researched extensively by Linda Howe, is a craft that crashed in Utah in 1953 that was so huge that it could not be possibly be moved at that time. Linda believes they bought the land and buried it... not impossible by a long chalk. She spoke about this on Coast to Coast AM on 2 December, 2005.

Quote:

---

Posted by Dougall

The comparison photos match as far as I can see. Bill can you date the old photo as far as when it became available?

---

I know nothing about the provenance of the old photo. I wrote to Jerry Pippin today.... I found it on his site two years ago, but it was isolated with the caption "Roswell Escape Pod Craft, 1947 Photo (?)" in connection with Roswell radio show interviews he was doing at the time.

If he tells me that he was given the image by an ex-serviceman at Roswell, then that would be highly significant. But that's jumping the gun... I've not heard back from Jerry yet. I'll let you know what he has to say.

When I lived in Roswell not one person ever mentioned UFOs! That was in 78/79. That base was nothing but empty buildings then.

- Interesting jubilee, Roswell 1947, and fascinating material. Thanks for sharing.

- My focus for now have been on the video of the "ET body".
Speaking from a background as photographer over many years, also with experiences from
filming and developing analogue 8 and 16-mm film, like the original footage of this videoclip.
It is hard to conclude, and maybe no point, but I examined the video and made some notes.

The film consist of 6 different cuts of varying length ( jumps in time/space ), giving chance for the scenery
and the body to have been altered inbetween each of the 6 segments. ( some changes seem to been done )

Here are some boring tecnical facts:
The videoclip is
37 second 11 frames long ( QuickTime, ntsc-format ) and consist of 1122 frames. ( 30 frames is 1 second film )

The "ET" body can be seen at:
02:29 - 07:21 - Whole body from top, side. ( 30 frames lost to dust, white-out and blocked view )
camera holding still at distance. body seems covered with some sheet.
07:22 - 08:24 - Whole body from top, between two persons.
camera paning left, overexposed.
11:20 - 13:24 - Middle body below head, from side, between two persons.
camera moving left, overexposed. ( someone splashing paint on legs ?)
14:21 - 16:05 - Whole body from bottom. ( 21 frames lost to noise and white-out )
camera moving left, partly overexposed.
21:11 - 22:09 - Upper body from top side, "over shoulders"
camera tilting down, up, right. overexposed.
24:04 - 28:25 - Upper body below head from side, between persons.
camera moving down, right. overexposed.
28:26 - 35:12 - Lower body, mostly feet, from bottom, between persons.
camera moving up, left, right. partly underexposed.

Summed up from a total of:
37 second, 11 frames total length of video
19 second, 09 frames show the "ET body", with different angles, distance and framing.

The visual side of this videoclip is poorly made or badly damaged, and suffer loss of information from overexposure and contrast.

Views of the head / face :
06:03 - 07:21 ( from distant, looks covered with sheet, overexposed )
08:06 - 09:00 ( from top side, partly covered, overexposed )
14:03 - 15:22 ( from bottom, head looks covered by mask or textile.)
20:26 - 22:00 ( from top side, close to body, heavily overexposed )
This last footage of the head has good view and framing, but any detailed
information on features of the "ET" face is whiped out by the overexposure.
From the total of
37 second, 11 frames of video, only
04 second, 25 frames show the head / face from different position and distances.

The camera is allmost constantly moving around, showing more interest in the surrounding spectators than the ET on the ground.
The cameraman is deliberately keeping away from the head, seen clear in the cameramovement on multiple occations.
Why he does that is speculation. Two explanations spring to mind:
- He was told to film the head as little as possible, or did it as a "military reflex".
- He knew it was a dummy (doll) and by his cameraman-instincts avoided both
the head, and giving too much still and clear views of the "body"

The visual quality of the material is so poor that its either a result of imcompetence, large multiple technical disasters,
or deliberate action. It could well be the last.
How they manage to make such bad quality on so important material is puzzling.

...

For technical comparison, here is some amateur footage from the same period of time.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=lMF7UF_zC1k
( not exactly stoneage )


and here is a short film from way back in 1903, an early flight by the brothers Wright.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=uT2dQ...eature=related

..

Quote:

---

Posted by noxon medem

- Interesting jubilee, Roswell 1947, and fascinating material. Thanks for sharing.

- My focus for now have been on the video of the "ET body".
Speaking from a background as photographer over many years, also with experiences from
filming and developing analogue 8 and 16-mm film, like the original footage of this videoclip.
It is hard to conclude, and maybe no point, but I examined the video and made some notes.

The film consist of 6 different cuts of varying length ( jumps in time/space ), giving chance for the scenery
and the body to have been altered in between each of the 6 segments. ( some changes seem to been done )

Here are some boring technical facts:
The videoclip is
37 second 11 frames long ( QuickTime, ntsc-format ) and consist of 1122 frames. ( 30 frames is 1 second film )

The "ET" body can be seen at:
02:29 - 07:21 - Whole body from top, side. ( 30 frames lost to dust, white-out and blocked view )
camera holding still at distance. body seems covered with some sheet.
07:22 - 08:24 - Whole body from top, between two persons.
camera paning left, overexposed.
11:20 - 13:24 - Middle body below head, from side, between two persons.
camera moving left, overexposed. ( someone splashing paint on legs ?)
14:21 - 16:05 - Whole body from bottom. ( 21 frames lost to noise and white-out )
camera moving left, partly overexposed.
21:11 - 22:09 - Upper body from top side, "over shoulders"
camera tilting down, up, right. overexposed.
24:04 - 28:25 - Upper body below head from side, between persons.
camera moving down, right. overexposed.
28:26 - 35:12 - Lower body, mostly feet, from bottom, between persons.
camera moving up, left, right. partly underexposed.

Summed up from a total of:
37 second, 11 frames total length of video
19 second, 09 frames show the "ET body", with different angles, distance and framing.

The visual side of this videoclip is poorly made or badly damaged, and suffer loss of information from overexposure and contrast.

Views of the head / face :
06:03 - 07:21 ( from distant, looks covered with sheet, overexposed )
08:06 - 09:00 ( from top side, partly covered, overexposed )
14:03 - 15:22 ( from bottom, head looks covered by mask or textile.)
20:26 - 22:00 ( from top side, close to body, heavily overexposed )
This last footage of the head has good view and framing, but any detailed
information on features of the "ET" face is whiped out by the overexposure.
From the total of
37 second, 11 frames of video, only
04 second, 25 frames show the head / face from different position and distances.

The camera is allmost constantly moving around, showing more interest in the surrounding spectators than the ET on the ground.
The cameraman is deliberately keeping away from the head, seen clear in the cameramovement on multiple occations.
Why he does that is speculation. Two explanations spring to mind:
- He was told to film the head as little as possible, or did it as a "military reflex".
- He knew it was a dummy (doll) and by his cameraman-instincts avoided both
the head, and giving too much still and clear views of the "body"

The visual quality of the material is so poor that its either a result of imcompetence, large multiple technical disasters,
or deliberate action. It could well be the last.
How they manage to make such bad quality on so important material is puzzling.

---

Good contribution - thank you!

Various thoughts:

• This must be multiple-generation copy, of course.
• I take your question totally about why the cameraman is so erratic and not holding still and focusing on the body.
• You'd think that either he was not meant to be there and had no access to the body (in which case why were they letting him film?), or he was there TO film the body.
• The ET may have been alive and considered to have been a medical emergency - hence the cameraman might have had no access at the time.
• This cameraman may have had a different job, and captured this footage in passing. (Maybe, for instance, he was there to film the craft, and was on his way there - and then all this happened with the body, so he grabbed it.) Maybe ANOTHER cameraman was filming the body.
• There might have been sections of still focus on the body which were edited out / part of a different film. What we're seeing here might be the 'cutting room floor' left-overs.

What is your opinion as a film-maker? (Does it 'feel' real?)

This I think has been discussed elsewhere - I'd appreciate any links to earlier (intelligent) analysis. At the moment, including what I wrote above in earlier replies, this is all I know.

Quote:

---

Posted by Richard

[B][I]
It concludes, for the well being of the public, of course, and the protection of national security, that "the US must be perceived as being the top of the heap, and every effort must be made to insure that there is, and never has been, a threat to the country."

---

Thanks Richard for that amazing document ... awesome ... !!

"Protection of National Security!!!" What a pathetic excuse to keep us further in the dark and totally dumbed down to the level they choose!!! The bloody cheek of it !!! Simple ... 'truth is' They have no right to choose what 'truths' to give us Absolutely shameful!!!

I often wonder what direction humanity would have taken had we been privy to this information at that time ... yes, we would be a different race as of now!!!

viking

the film is very persuasive -- looks like chaos.
the film quality would suggest years of oxidation.
but, anything so fantastic as this, wouldn't the camera man
have lingered on the alien?
at one point the camera dips down to the alien's head and quickly
bobs up and away to show the crouched officers.
that kind of camera work is pretty consistent with hoaxer videos.
that said, it's compelling enough to generate all this discussion.
if a hoax, damn you again.

[ I posted my reply before viewing this pages additional input and archival films. gotta be more careful.
the wright bros. footage from 1903 looks better than the 40s alien footage.
the latter, a case of extremely poor film storage? I don't know.]

as for the photo comparison, I've stared at both images and can't quite see the 'fingerprint',
although the topography in both is very similar.
any chance to do an overlay (bw bottom, colored top) comparison to match it up better?
that way the 2 images could be resized and lined up perfectly, if it's there.
I could do it in photoshop, but since I can't see it, I wouldn't know where to start.

Quote:

---

Posted by jimmer

" - as for the photo comparison, I've stared at both images and can't quite see the 'fingerprint',
although the topography in both is very similar.
any chance to do an overlay (bw bottom, colored top) comparison to match it up better?
that way the 2 images could be resized and lined up perfectly, if it's there.
I could do it in photoshop, but since I can't see it, I wouldn't know where to start.

---

- Then this can possibly help you starting ...
Have tried to adjust the new image to the style and format of the old, so to easyer see
the clearly excisting match between the landscape in the old and new picture.
Two versions of adjusted old-new composit is embedded, one with 4 referencepoints (a-d)
marking some of many similarities in the terrain and hillside formations in both pictures.

Some technical points to evaluating the likeness of the scenery of the images:
- the sun is in a different angle in the two pictures, give different shadows (other time of day).
- different types of camera-lenses have been used, giving difference in perpective/distortion.
- the photos, old and new, are taken from slightly different positions, angle and hight.
- Some erosion have taken place in 63 years, and maybe material have been dumped there.

...

Attachment 1259 - ' - Attachment 1260
- click on images to enlarge -
( Image left is without the a-d referencepoints, they are included in Image right.)

- here the original composit from Bills archives:
Attachment 1261

- For me the landscapes in the old and new pictures seems to be the same,
with a (more than) very high probability of being at the exact same location.
- If the position in the new image is confirmed as the Roswell crash-site, and
the old photo is a genuine, proven, documentation (from the time, place, object)
then visual evidence show that the object in the old one is the "UFO" in question.
..
- or maybe to call it an "UCO". - Unidentified Crashing Object
...

Quote:

---

Posted by noxon medem

Attachment 1259Attachment 1260
- click on image to enlarge -
( Image left is without the a-d referencepoints, that is included in Image right.)

- here the original composit from Bills archives:
Attachment 1261

For me the landskape in the two pictures ( before, after, old, new ) seems to
be the same, with very high prabability of being at the same place.

---

Neat work. I'm totally certain it's the same location.

Given that this spot is right in the middle of nowhere (hundreds of square miles/ square km of almost featureless ranchland), and that all Roswell researchers agree that witness testimony has correctly nailed down the exact crash site, this leaves no other conclusion that I can think of apart from that in this photo we're looking at the "egg-shaped" or "teardrop-shaped" craft.

A job for someone: to identify the dimensions, using the people in the photo to calibrate. I figured a rough estimate... I'd be most interested in other calculations.

After thinking that after all these years I had finally seen and heard everything that could possibly be said about Roswell this thread pops out of nowhere! Personally I find the two comparative images to be much more compelling than the new video of the body on a stretcher due to the poor quality of the film, however I don't think this footage should be dismissed until its origin can be confirmed even if it doesn't turn out to be Roswell related.

I used to be quite disappointed that the 1947 Roswell incident is often referred to as the "Mecca" of UFOlogy as there is plenty of other fantastic cases with strong evidence out there (not necessarily crash related), but this really is quite exciting.

excellent and accurate work, noxon medem.
I'm on-board, after reviewing your good work.
as with bill's epiphany, this could be one of those real breakthroughs, sitting around for years,
waiting for discovery, analysis and verification.
proud of be here to witness this exciting turn of events.
I'd go viral with this. how about a bill ryan narrative video? would be a fascinating and important addition to the roswell saga.
one last thought. is there a way, after the side by side comparisons are displayed,
to actually 'overlay' the key reference points/shapes (a-d), a point to point reference
verifying the two images? that could put it over the top with a 'goose bump' moment.

Here are 4 Overlays of the 2 pictures matched up as best as possible with several different position's.
Top Image is the least translucent.

75-percent-opacity
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/n...nt-opacity.jpg



60-percent-opacity
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/n...nt-opacity.jpg


46-percent-opacity
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/n...nt-opacity.jpg

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original for comparison
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/n.../unaltered.jpg

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/n.../Original2.jpg




Thanks go to my wife's skills :)

one question though , wasn't it supposed to be a crashed "craft" ? apparently there was debris covering a large area , this craft ( to me anyway ) seems pretty intact . not trying to debunk . I am a firm believer in the Roswell incident , just trying to find the thruth. As for the film we could sit here and debate all day, but we werent there so we don't know what was going through the cameraman's head. we might think that if WE saw an extraterrestrial we'd carefully film it making sure to get all the details but I dunno about you but if I saw one, the adrenaline would run pretty high who knows how I'd react I'd probably forget to press "play " lol !!! Plus there are a lot of people running around things seem hectic , not really perfect filming conditions , anyway just my thoughts not really important but damn it makes you dream doesn't it ? that could be an ACTUAL craft from another world . It gives me shivers . I hope I live to see the day ! :)

Did anyone else notice these?

I've highlighted them.. Are they humanoids, or cacti or something? The shape of them is uncanny if you think about it.

Two look like they are wearing some kind of helmets and are standing around as if surveying the scene and one looks like he is sitting or crouching under the rear end of the craft, reaching out. And the final shape struck me as that of a humanoid climbing out from under the front of the craft crash-site.

Does that hold any ground, or has this been noted before?

If they are people then the craft must be longer than 15 feet, almost twice that... or the people are very short?

Anyway I'm not asserting anything here, at this point, anyone else looked into it?

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/3...rashpeople.jpg

Quote:

---

Posted by Baelsfire

Did anyone else notice these?

I've highlighted them.. Are they humanoids, or cacti or something? The shape of them is uncanny if you think about it.

Two look like they are wearing some kind of helmets and are standing around as if surveying the scene and one looks like he is sitting or crouching under the rear end of the craft, reaching out. And the final shape struck me as that of a humanoid climbing out from under the front of the craft crash-site.

Does that hold any ground, or has this been noted before?

If they are people then the craft must be longer than 15 feet, almost twice that... or the people are very short?

Anyway I'm not asserting anything here, at this point, anyone else looked into it?

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/3...rashpeople.jpg

---

I would be highly surprised if anyone else did not see these humanoids, even after a limited viewing :)

Thanks for the outline work :)

Quote:

---

Posted by beyondmyctrl

one question though , wasn't it supposed to be a crashed "craft" ? apparently there was debris covering a large area , this craft ( to me anyway ) seems pretty intact . not trying to debunk . I am a firm believer in the Roswell incident , just trying to find the Truth. As for the film we could sit here and debate all day, but we weren't there so we don't know what was going through the cameraman's head. we might think that if WE saw an extraterrestrial we'd carefully film it making sure to get all the details but I dunno about you but if I saw one, the adrenaline would run pretty high who knows how I'd react I'd probably forget to press "play " lol !!! Plus there are a lot of people running around things seem hectic , not really perfect filming conditions , anyway just my thoughts not really important but damn it makes you dream doesn't it ? that could be an ACTUAL craft from another world . It gives me shivers . I hope I live to see the day ! :)

---

It's my understanding that their were 2 sites. The main impact site which was reported and another which involved a possible EEV or Emergency Escape Vehicle which was spotted after a fly over by Air Force Recon.

Quote:

---

Posted by Baelsfire

Did anyone else notice these?

I've highlighted them.. Are they humanoids, or cacti or something? The shape of them is uncanny if you think about it.

Two look like they are wearing some kind of helmets and are standing around as if surveying the scene and one looks like he is sitting or crouching under the rear end of the craft, reaching out. And the final shape struck me as that of a humanoid climbing out from under the front of the craft crash-site.

Does that hold any ground, or has this been noted before?

If they are people then the craft must be longer than 15 feet, almost twice that... or the people are very short?

Anyway I'm not asserting anything here, at this point, anyone else looked into it?

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/3...rashpeople.jpg

---

A very valid question. I didn't think about it before. This may be one of the original photos taken by the Recon Personnel showing the survivors and injured. Amazing.

Keep in mind that the damage may be more on the other side of the ship that is not visible in this photo. We may be seeing the top of the ship intact, but the underside may have sustained much of the damage.
Bill "the Doctor"

Quote:

---

Posted by beyondmyctrl

one question though , wasn't it supposed to be a crashed "craft" ? apparently there was debris covering a large area , this craft ( to me anyway ) seems pretty intact . not trying to debunk . I am a firm believer in the Roswell incident , just trying to find the thruth. As for the film we could sit here and debate all day, but we werent there so we don't know what was going through the cameraman's head. we might think that if WE saw an extraterrestrial we'd carefully film it making sure to get all the details but I dunno about you but if I saw one, the adrenaline would run pretty high who knows how I'd react I'd probably forget to press "play " lol !!! Plus there are a lot of people running around things seem hectic , not really perfect filming conditions , anyway just my thoughts not really important but damn it makes you dream doesn't it ? that could be an ACTUAL craft from another world . It gives me shivers . I hope I live to see the day ! :)

---

Keep in mind that the damage may be more on the other side of the ship that is not visible in this photo. We may be seeing the top of the ship intact, but the underside may have sustained much of the damage.
Bill "the Doctor"

Quote:

---

Posted by beyondmyctrl

one question though , wasn't it supposed to be a crashed "craft" ? apparently there was debris covering a large area , this craft ( to me anyway ) seems pretty intact . not trying to debunk . I am a firm believer in the Roswell incident , just trying to find the thruth. As for the film we could sit here and debate all day, but we werent there so we don't know what was going through the cameraman's head. we might think that if WE saw an extraterrestrial we'd carefully film it making sure to get all the details but I dunno about you but if I saw one, the adrenaline would run pretty high who knows how I'd react I'd probably forget to press "play " lol !!! Plus there are a lot of people running around things seem hectic , not really perfect filming conditions , anyway just my thoughts not really important but damn it makes you dream doesn't it ? that could be an ACTUAL craft from another world . It gives me shivers . I hope I live to see the day ! :)

---

roswell---yawn...there is overwhelming evidence of ET's and ufo's for anyone who's mind is even slightly open to it...there are new UFO pictures and sightings everyday somewhere on this planet...here's a good one for today

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...tted-city.html

personally,I'm really not so interested in pictures...what interests me is who are they and what do they want...THAT IS WHAT MATTERS and you can communicate with them if you work on awakening your inner senses...that is WHAT IS IMPORTANT...

Quote:

---

Posted by shiva777

roswell---yawn...personally,I'm really not so interested in pictures...what interests me is who are they and what do they want...THAT IS WHAT MATTERS and you can communicate with them if you work on awakening your inner senses...that is WHAT IS IMPORTANT...

---

sure, who doesn't want to get to the bottom of it all. that's why we're all here.
but this re-discovered roswell image put in context with the purported site photo
is something new, imaginative and possibly the only photographic evidence of the incident.
why wouldn't we be exciting and engaged?

and thanks to aztar and wife for the overlay efforts. it's getting more interesting.
I wonder -- since you have the images, could you try a 'threshold' high contrast of the archival image,
tinted red or a good contrasty color, superimposed on a grayscale of the modern site image.
I wonder if any good plot points would be exposed.
thanks again. jimmer

Roswell (1994) movie The UFO cover-up

A good dramatization.

http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/9...ie?tab=summary