My initial inquiries were met with abuse from several people involved in the event and I was told that since I had "not bothered to view the evidence," I had no right to comment. At this point, my only comment had been to ask what evidence was presented and whether it would be made available to the general public who hadn't been able to travel to Mexico.
Once the slides were released, my first thought was that it looked more like a human mummy than like any photo or drawing or even description that I had ever come across, of any alien. But I looked for statements from people who had attended the event and had listened to the presentations. Most of them agreed that it did not resemble an alien so much as a mummy.
I also noted the glass case, the object next to the body that was being claimed to be an alien, the small cards next to each item in the glass case (such as one commonly sees in museums), and the person standing on the far side of the glass case, apparently looking at the items in the case. All of these details, while they could certainly have been consistent with the late 1940's timeline of the Roswell event, also seemed more like a photo taken in a conventional museum rather than having anything to do with aliens.
At this point, I read a comment on someone else's article about these slides that raised a valid point (and I'm sorry I don't recall the name of the person who noted this) - if the slide film emulsion had been tested and found to date back to the late 1940's, implying that the image dated to around that time, why did the body (allegedly from the 1947 UFO crash) appear to be mummified? When was there time for that to happen?
The head is huge but the body is dessicated, as is normal when the body fluids dry out and the tissues shrink tightly around the bones. The disproportionately large head is also consistent with the proportions of a small child, since the skull does not grow at the same rate as the rest of the bones in our bodies. It starts out proportionately larger and grows more slowly, so the proportions between head and body are very different in adulthood.
Then the high-resolution slides were released to the general public, and almost immediately amateur researchers began running the images through deblurring software in an attempt to read the words on the placard next to the body in question. Almost immediately, several people reported the same results - the placard identified the body as the mummy of a two-year-old boy.
Now questions arise - if amateurs were able to get these results so quickly (and they seem to have been repeated by individuals all over the world, using the high-resolution images supplied by the event organizers), why were these slides presented in Mexico as proof of aliens?
Did no one attempt to read the placard in the years before the event, when hints were being dropped that these slides would be important? If not, why not? If they were, then who made the attempts? What did they find out? How many people attempted this? Did they discover anything? If not, why not?
How did amateurs get this information so quickly when experts could not?
Either way, someone is not telling the truth. Either the experts really couldn't get anything conclusive, but the amateurs (untruthfully) told the world that the placard proved the hoax; or the experts did get the same results, and withheld the information.
This part is just my opinion, but I don't believe they would have told the event organizers that they couldn't get anything if they did get results. There would be no reason for them to do so. Either they could read the card or they couldn't. So if there's a cover up, I think it comes back to whoever had the slides and asked the experts to review them. That person could have withheld the highest resolution images, or could simply have suppressed the results.
Why would anyone do this? Money. There was a huge event planned. Journalists involved with this event defended the ticket price, saying that it was necessary to rent a prestigious venue to release such important information, that the testing costs money, that experts' time must be renumerated. Fair enough points - unless the information being released is known to be inconclusive.
Several people who have researched and written books on the history of the events in Roswell in the 1940s were invited to come to Mexico. By doing so, their names lent credibility to the event, and many people purchased several-hundred-dollar tickets to the event itself, and spent more than that on travel and hotel costs. Thousands more paid to watch the live stream of the presentations online.
When it became clear that the two slides that were released during the five-hour event were not, in fact, the smoking gun that everyone had hoped they would be, tempers flared. Abuse was flung both ways across the internet, in podcasts and radio programs and blogs. Disappointment and disillusionment flooded many of those who had been following this event.
We do need to get down to fundamentals and answer the real questions. Who knew, before the event, that the slides had nothing to do with aliens? That person (or those people) are, in my opinion, guilty of fraud. They deliberately misrepresented facts for financial gain.
Those who participated in the event and lent their names to it, may have been fooled. But they are being held up as experts in the field. I've met these men, and I like them personally. But that doesn't change the fact that they need to be held to a higher standard than the "man on the street" who looks to them for guidance on determining which facts to accept and which to reject as untrue. I don't believe Schmitt, Carey or Dolan would intentionally defraud anyone. But they all need to be more responsible in their actions.
My personal opinion is that any who spent what must have amounted to about a thousand dollars to attend this event based on the claim that extraordinary evidence would be presented, would be right to claim "foul" and demand at least some of their money back. It seems that more was going on here than anything that can be explained away as an honest mistake.