I wrote the following piece a few hours before the alleged deciphering of the placard of the Roswell Slides was announced, indicating the body depicted is that of a two-year-old mummified child -- although the deciperhing itself is being claimed to be a hoax.
This is very much in line with how it has gone for the entire episode, which I participated in as the closing speaker to the event in Mexico City on May 5, was surrounded in controversy, debate, and invective.
I will simply add that when you throw yourself into the public arena, controversies are hard to avoid. It's just part of my life. I try to manage through the twists and turns the best I can. The only things I can fall back on is (a) doing my best, which is often inadequate, (b) being brave enough to speak my mind when I feel I have truth, (c) having the integrity to be candid and honest at all times, even if it disappoints other people, and (d) treating others with grace and respect as much as possible. I don't do anything perfectly. All I can do is to give things my best effort. At the end of the day, and at the end of one's life, that is really all we have.
[The following was originally posted to Facebook May 8]
Since returning from Mexico City, I have been in communication with many people regarding the so-called Roswell slides. I attended the event in the first place because it seemed to have the potential to unveil important information. I had not seen the slides beforehand, but did have conversations with some of the principals who had. During those conversations, I was also told about the analyses performed on them. So I decided to go, and at no point was I ever asked to endorse the slides.
After arriving and seeing the slides, and especially hearing the analyses in more detail, I felt the overall picture presented was compelling. The analyses by Jose de Jesus Zalce Benitez, Richard Doble, and Dr. Luis Antonio de Alba Galindo argued that the body depicted was not a human being. Since I am not a physiologist, I never felt qualified to debate that point.
My problem is this: when I simply look at the pictures, I see what many other people are seeing -- an interesting museum piece. One that looks like other examples that are on the web. With the acknowledgment that looks can be deceiving, I still keep coming back to that.
On top of this, there have been some very good critiques coming in. Recently, Nick Redfern posted a good analysis on the “Million Dollar Museum” in New Mexico, which he suggests may be where the slides were taken. Perhaps this is the answer, or perhaps it’s something else. But it is clear that the arguments promoting the slides as depicting an extraterrestrial have to overcome some serious objections.
It’s frustrating that the analyses by the three scientists have not been published in text form on a website where others can read them and respond to them. I told the group in Mexico City that this needs to happen as soon as possible, and they agreed. But it has not yet happened.
Although I previously stated the slides would not easily be debunked, it seems more relevant to me that they don’t need to be debunked so much as to be proven to be something anomalous. That is where the burden of proof lies.
For all the hoopla that accompanied and followed the Mexico City event, and all the furor that followed it, I feel it was a worthy endeavor. I believe the people involved are honest.
But for me, until the proper analyses are published, and until we have had time to read critiques of those analyses, and until there are strong replies to some of the critiques that are currently published, I cannot consider these slides as evidence of extraterrestrials.