The Curse of the (Roswell Slides) Mummy?

The Roswell slides promoters seem to be obsessed with the idea that real researchers are all convinced that the "being" depicted in the Roswell slides is a mummy. Yes, that is a possibility that many have raised, but no-one has yet put that forward as a final conclusion (although I am still happy to take orders for my "It's a mummy, dummy" merchandise!).

So while no firm conclusion has yet been put forward publicly by the skeptics (as opposed to the promoters, who have positively asserted it to be a space alien from the supposed Roswell crash), could it have been a mummy? Is that prospect so far-fetched?

Well, no... as anyone who isn't a Roswell-is-aliens true believer (or a con man looking to soak money out of said true believers) would understand. Mummies were fairly common sideshow and carnival attractions back in the 1940s. For example, here is a newspaper article from the Hanover Evening Sun in late August, 1947, for a fair in Hannover, Pennsylvania (courtesy of Tim Printy):

Is this or something like it the Roswell slides being? 

You'll have to wait until May 4th to find out for certain. But one thing is for sure - when the slides promoters tell you that it absolutely can't be a mummy, they clearly don't know very much about mummies, or history.

Paul Kimball

Bragalia on mummies and the "Roswell slides"

Child mummy at Penn Museum

This just in from Anthony Bragalia by way of e-mail to Lance Moody, Tim Printy and yours truly. It's the first note I have ever received from him wherein he doesn't threaten me, so I suppose that constitutes progress of a sort. Anyway, here is the letter as it was received.  

Given the ‘anti-sliders’ group’s belief that the slides depict a mummy and their forthcoming conclusion, here is a summation I am sending to several interested parties to help people to understand that the being shown in the slides is simply not a mummy. One must understand that we have thought about the ‘mummy possibility’ thoroughly and have consulted experts and cannot come to the conclusion that it is for these reasons: 

SKIN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6F7xcPcfeA 

There are two basic types of mummies: Accidental and Intentional. 

Accidental mummies have their bodies preserved through atmospheric conditions such as extreme cold or burial in snow or ice. This short video is the best example of mummification through accidental exposure to extreme cold. 

Intentional mummies have their bodies preserved through the application of chemicals and the removal of all organs, and then use desiccation (or extreme drying) to fully dehydrate the remaining corpse. Wraps are then applied, sealed with resin. 

The slides being does not have the skin-look of an accidental mummy. 

The slides being does not have the skin-look of an intentional mummy- it simply is not desiccated. It appears to have been recently embalmed or dead. There is an ‘organic’ patina to the skin tissue. It is possible that their skin is more resistant to necrosis - but no matter, the skin appearance of the being depicted in the slide is not the skin of a mummy. 

FOUR DIGITS 

The being depicted has only four digits (fingers) instead of five like a human mummy. 

EYES 

The being depicted has very wide set eyes. Its eyes/eye sockets are also twice the size of any human. 

FACIAL FEATURES 

The face features and countenance appear totally non-human. The lower part of the face has an almost ‘insectile’ look and the upper part appears frog-like/amphibian. The chin is ‘pointed’ in the extreme, unlike any human. The head is large, but not hydrocephalic. 

EARS 

The ears (such as they are) appear vestigial. They are ‘embedded’ into the skull and they are pointed at the top. 

APPENDAGES 

The limbs (legs and arms) are disproportionately long relative to the body. They are very, very thin and ‘spindly.’ The body appears to be about 3.5 feet long, just as the beings reported at Roswell. The image that anti-sliders are working with is compressed and gives a false sense of size. The body itself is very frail-fragile and under-sized. 

ENCASEMENT 

Though very difficult to discern, the being appears to be placed in a glass container. It does not however, resemble those display cases found in museums and we have looked at dozens of such images. It may be tubular. And the being rests on hastily-cut blanket resembling green-colored military blankets used at the time. The entire setup seems very ‘make-shift’ as if it is temporary storage allowing for viewing with intended transport to another location- not at all ‘permanent.’ 

FRAMING OF THE SLIDES 

Finally, the pictures themselves were not ‘framed’ properly- they are taken ‘askew’ as if taken surreptitiously in a hurried fashion. Had they been taken at a museum, the framing of the slides would have been far better. Every other slide found in the chest is wholly different than the slides of the being in terms of the angle they were taken and the framing of the shots. 

HIDING THE SLIDES 

The Rays hid them separately from the rest of the slides as if to assign them special meaning. There are no other pictures of any other beings in the chest- including those of mummies. There are no other museum pictures. No other ‘travel’ slides were found separately packaged and hidden away from the other slides as were the slides of the being. 

THE SLIDES OWNER 

And given the 1947 provenance of the slides; and that Ray worked the Roswell region in the 1940s as an oil exploration geologist who was confirmed to have taken photographs using Kodachrome film while on oil explorations in NM; it is difficult to come to any other non-Roswell conclusion. 

INDEPENDENT WITNESS CONFIRMATION 

A Roswell vet who saw the bodies acknowledges this is what the slides depict; and that these 1947 slides reveal a creature very similar to those reported at Roswell. 

For all of these combined reasons, most everyone who has viewed the actual two slides agrees that the being depicted is humanoid, but not human.

Anthony Bragalia 

None of this should come as any surprise given that it's Mr. Bragalia, whose "research" on this has been driven by belief from the first day. Despite what he says, the most likely answer to the identity of the body is a mummy on display. The Roswell Slides Research Group is investigating this angle extensively, and we will post our findings when we are ready. Still, I post it here in the interests of fairness, even though it doesn't really contain anything new.

Meanwhile, I'll give the final word to UFOs-as-space-aliens true believer Robert Hastings, who wrote today:

I will conclude by predicting, perhaps redundantly, that this affair will end badly for the Roswell Slide promoters. If, as I contend, the body in the slides is the mummy of an Inca child, or some such, then Carey, Schmitt and Maussan will owe the whole world an apology. They should also seriously consider returning whatever money they made as a result of their unfortunate, unfounded and misguided claims.

If you can't even convince Hastings of the space alien nature of the person depicted in the slides, you know that you're in real trouble.

Paul Kimball