Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

New Roswell Evidence


sonofkrypton

Recommended Posts

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4544764/amp/UFO-hunters-ZOOM-faded-Roswell-photo.html#ampshare=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4544764/UFO-hunters-ZOOM-faded-Roswell-photo.html

Apologies for posting a daily mail article, researchers have zoomed into the now infamous "wreckage" picture, it appears the memo on general rameys hand describes bodies in the wreckage

 

What do we think

 

I have to say as much of a sceptic as i am this is like king Arthur for me where I want to will it to be true!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
15 minutes ago, sonofkrypton said:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4544764/amp/UFO-hunters-ZOOM-faded-Roswell-photo.html#ampshare=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4544764/UFO-hunters-ZOOM-faded-Roswell-photo.html

Apologies for posting a daily mail article, researchers have zoomed into the now infamous "wreckage" picture, it appears the memo on general rameys hand describes bodies in the wreckage

 

What do we think

 

I have to say as much of a sceptic as i am this is like king Arthur for me where I want to will it to be true!!

Thing is sonofkryton, how could there possibly be that much information contained in that old photo, it just wouldn't have been possible to capture that detail in an old shot like that I'm sure. It's made up.

I do like the tone of your post though. And by way of a conciliatory gesture, I think there is some basis for King Arthur. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a pretty thorough look at this topic, with the key posting (imo) here:

As an update, my attempts to either get access to, or get a better scan of, the negative, were unsuccessful.  As far as I can see, any attempt to interpret the wording with any degree of surety, is pretty much a fantasy.  It *is* getting close to legible.. but it's simply not close enough..

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chrlzs, 

Could we not get new Scans in the near future if the College would agree to it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Chrlzs, 

Could we not get new Scans in the near future if the College would agree to it? 

Hiya LS.

I can't remember the *exact* response I got - it was on an old computer, old email account - I'll try and dig it up to find out who it was I corresponded with.  What I do recall is as follows...  I did find out where the negatives were - I think it's mentioned in that old thread - but they were unwilling to grant access to some loser in Australia (ok, that's not quite the words they used.. :) ).  I didn't really expect them to post it to me, so that was hardly a surprise!  But I did get pointed to the existence of very high res (8000 ppi ? I'm relying on faint memories here..) scans that had been done of the negative using more recent equipment, and the analyst who did them was reported as saying that he was still unable to decipher the image - it was just not sharp enough.  If they were indeed 8000 ppi scans, then that is certainly sufficient resolution to answer my basic complaint about the quality of the existing scans, but the fact that these alleged higher-res scans weren't produced, and we have to rely on the guys word... that's not so great.

At that point I reached a dead end, but maybe it's worth revisiting.  I'm at work now, when I get home I'll try to dig up the responses - maybe there's someone at UM who's nearer, that might be able to actually visit the location of the negatives and dig deeper, maybe we can find a source for those 8000ppi scans...

FTR, this (as posted on that old thread, here) is the best I saw, from a 1000ppi scan:
592e5268ae1ae_All-60B1000dpi_reduced.thumb.jpg.17aa3f78732bc78a09b593a024f423a6.jpg
(you may need to click it to see it @ full size, but note that I've actually resized it downwards to fit on the page and done a little light post-proc to 'improve' the image)

BTW, ppi means pixels per inch - your average paper scanner might do 1,200ppi, while film scanners start at 2,400ppi (low-res), and go to 4,000-12,000ppi (hi-res).  For medium or large format film, 4,000ppi is usually enough.. so 8,000ppi should have been plenty if the image was properly focused, not motion blurred or blurred due to a poor lens, etc...

And from looking at the image above, I suspect that it is in fact slightly out of focus - the image is simply not as clear as we need it to be, to reveal its secrets... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

I don't know Chrlzs, it looks close to legible. I think almost everyone can see that "disc" in quotes. That's pretty interesting in and of itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a huge skeptic of UFO's until I actually stepped outside my house one night and looked up to see one hovering 20 feet over my house at 2am in the morning

Still though, I am a skeptic of the existence of the MJ12

Am also related to one of the supposed original members of the group, but my family never said anything about flying saucers, lol, they just mentioned his real life work as a scientist 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Onoma said:

I was a huge skeptic of UFO's until I actually stepped outside my house one night and looked up to see one hovering 20 feet over my house at 2am in the morning

Welcome to the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sweetpumper said:

This was the most disturbing one I saw because it was daytime. The rest have all been lights at night.

https://ufosoverthedesert.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/unidentifiable-metallic-sphere-over-albuquerque-new-mexico/

Cool, bet it was awesome

What I saw was flat black, thin, no windows or protuberances, had a very strange surface ( But then again I have very bad visual snow at night, lol )

No lights, no sound, made no wind from any propulsion

Just sat there hovering over my house for a few seconds, then slid off into the dark

lol

 

Looked absolutely nothing like the " Tr3b " pictures everybody posts to tell me what I saw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
16 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Hiya LS.

I can't remember the *exact* response I got - it was on an old computer, old email account - I'll try and dig it up to find out who it was I corresponded with.  What I do recall is as follows...  I did find out where the negatives were - I think it's mentioned in that old thread - but they were unwilling to grant access to some loser in Australia (ok, that's not quite the words they used.. :) ).  I didn't really expect them to post it to me, so that was hardly a surprise!  But I did get pointed to the existence of very high res (8000 ppi ? I'm relying on faint memories here..) scans that had been done of the negative using more recent equipment, and the analyst who did them was reported as saying that he was still unable to decipher the image - it was just not sharp enough.  If they were indeed 8000 ppi scans, then that is certainly sufficient resolution to answer my basic complaint about the quality of the existing scans, but the fact that these alleged higher-res scans weren't produced, and we have to rely on the guys word... that's not so great.

At that point I reached a dead end, but maybe it's worth revisiting.  I'm at work now, when I get home I'll try to dig up the responses - maybe there's someone at UM who's nearer, that might be able to actually visit the location of the negatives and dig deeper, maybe we can find a source for those 8000ppi scans...

FTR, this (as posted on that old thread, here) is the best I saw, from a 1000ppi scan:
592e5268ae1ae_All-60B1000dpi_reduced.thumb.jpg.17aa3f78732bc78a09b593a024f423a6.jpg
(you may need to click it to see it @ full size, but note that I've actually resized it downwards to fit on the page and done a little light post-proc to 'improve' the image)

BTW, ppi means pixels per inch - your average paper scanner might do 1,200ppi, while film scanners start at 2,400ppi (low-res), and go to 4,000-12,000ppi (hi-res).  For medium or large format film, 4,000ppi is usually enough.. so 8,000ppi should have been plenty if the image was properly focused, not motion blurred or blurred due to a poor lens, etc...

And from looking at the image above, I suspect that it is in fact slightly out of focus - the image is simply not as clear as we need it to be, to reveal its secrets... 

It's Greek to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Lest you folks be thinking this is dead and gone...  thanks to a keen eye'd UMer who emailed me a link (one that frankly, I should have been able to find myself!), I think I now have the best scans that will be available.  From my first look, frankly they still look short of what is needed, but as far as I am aware no-one has used image stacking/'super-resolution' techniques on a combination of the new ones and also the best of the old ones....

So, in my spare time (of which I have little, sorry), I'm slowly gathering a selection of different scan files so I can process them and see if anything good comes out of it...  In the meantime, if anyone knows of any other sources of reasonably good quality scans of that famous picture, other than the ones already cited, now would be a good time.  

The higher resolution scans are in an open Dropbox location - but you really need to go to ATS (*carefully*) using this link and read Isaac Koi's posts:  http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1094798/pg1

I've not hotlinked it as at times I have 'problems' visiting that site - apart from anything else it is a bandwidth-hogging site and often uses loud advertising and other annoying techniques, so go there at your own risk and with shields up!

Be back later but it may be weeks or longer... 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last I seem to recall, one person had managed to make out a phrase involving the words “the disk” being transported somewhere, has there been anything more than that or was that just a result of wishful thinking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point, many 'experts' have referred to words they claim are 'unmistakable'.

To me, that claim is laughable..  :D  The scan above is about as good as I've seen, and the new one is little different - I'd invite anyone to show the scan to an unbiased person and ask them if they can make out any words at all.   If you are pre-disposed (aka biased) towards certain words, then it takes very little imagination to make one of those smudges fit...

There is also the unknown of what the document is - it is referred to as the Ramey memo, but it could even be a note given to the journo or something completely different....

 

Anyway, once I've gathered the best scans together and 'averaged' them, I'll drop back and show you the results (and the source scans), but please.. nobody hold your breath - I'm busy with other stuff... :) 

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Cincinnati said:

Anyone watch the recent expedition unknown on this?

Yes. They got the actual negative of the news photo and had a neutral expert analyze it. He said in the first legible sentence the word everyone sees as "victims" is actually "viewing". But the word people see as "disc" might truly be disc...or it could be the word "rise". He didn't seem to be able to decipher much. Hopefully future technology will be able to do more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Here is part 4 of "Expedition Unknown" where the subject is brought up and a new scan is made of the negative that is then analyzed by a specialist ...  He comes up with quite a different reading but there is one word he's not sure about... Starts at 25 minutes:
 

 

Edited by ufoscan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Seeing as how there is no evidence whatsoever to support a crashed UFO near Roswell, nor anywhere else on Earth, it is impossible for that memo to have any mention of such. Those who resort to believing that UFOs crash cannot realize that they are operating with a mind that has been mentally conditioned and therefore have no concept of what's truth and what's b.s. Something similar to those who think that the Phoenix "lights" were caused by ETs. Those living in Phoenix looked up and saw a beautiful starry sky. The flares were not dropped over Phoenix but at a distance that did not allow them to be seen and only those living in the hills could see beyond to the flare dropping space and the popular video that everyone thinks was shot over Phoenix has been proven to not be so by the daylight video shot shot from the same nighttime vantage point. The nighttime video was superimposed on the daytime video and you see each flare dropping behind corresponding hills. So there you have the proof for that event and the proof for the Roswell balloon train is in the original report of what was found.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.