Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1996 -> Dec -> Here

From: Theresa <70571.1735@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 11 Dec 96 11:25:03 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 03:27:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Genesis and Provenance

<<Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 07:32:12 -0500
From: "Steven J. Powell" <sjpowell@access.digex.net>
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Genesis and Provenance
References: <2.2.32.19961211070336.00b5ad20@globalserve.net>>>

 To John Powell,

 <<That's an incredibly silly premise.

Dating the film merely dates the film, nothing more.  In no way does it
prove ownership.  Santilli has already claimed ownersip and has the
copyright, and he's _not_ a US citizen.  If the US gov't wanted the film
they'd have two options:>>

    Silly or not, it seems to have worked.  If you saw my message to James
Easton, I mention the videos of the footage been or being sold by other vendors
on that premise even without the US Govt. claiming it.

    You are correct, dating the film does nothing else. It does not
"authenticate" the footage. If the footage was shot in 1987 we still don't know
who was involved in making it.  Not all people are interested in finding out who
did it. I just happen to be one that is.
    That person that is claiming to be the cameraman is involved now.    Whether
he is actually the cameraman that shot the footage or not, he is still involved.
I think the fact that there is an actual person claiming this, besides Santilli
is significant.  I don't think Santilli could have done this whole thing by
himself, and now there is more proof that he didn't.

<<Sorry, but this is just a convenient dodge to allow Santilli to continue
to market his hoax.>>

     And he should continue.  Particularly if he is able to market it even
though people think its a fake!  No one is being forced to look at the footage
or to purchase it so what harm is being done?   If the networks paid good money
and got good ratings they are not likely to complain.  Few others spent any
money on it.  Any money that went to Santilli, that is.  It's a good hoax, well
thought out, well prepared, and not so cheaply done,  not your usual 'saucer
dangling from a string'.


<<If your alleged cameraman turns out to be a cameraman from the 40s
that's wonderful but it tells us nothing about the Santilli footage.
There would also still be _no_ connection between the cameraman and the
Santilli footage.  We would _still_ need to date the film to know it is
from that era.>>

   Dating alone will prove nothing other than that deformed human bodies or
special effects existed in whatever year it turns out to be.  There is nothing
in the footage to show that the military or any government agency was involved.
The person claiming to be cameraman can tell us who was involved and what is on
the table.

    So yes, I think more information can be gained from the "cameraman" than
from dating the film. At least the information that I am interested in.   I know
that all people aren't interested in knowing the who and the what of it, and I
wouldn't expect them to.

 <<Logic would tell us that the quickest and easiest choice for us is the
one that requires the least time and work.  The lowest time/work option
for Ray is to get the film dated.  The lowest time/work option for us is
to get the film dated.>>

    The time and work doesn't bother me.  It's a hobby.

<<Now, finally, please state why you think _any other_ choice makes more
sense, and please do so by refuting the simple logic stated above.>>

     I would chose the one that would give me the the most answers.  Dating the
film would only answer one question.  Many people have stated that would be
enough for them.  But I want to know more.

     Regards,

      Theresa Carlson