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: HoustonSky@aol.com
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 12:38:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 03:31:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Genesis and Provenance

In a message dated 96-12-11 02:10:05 EST, To Stan Friedman, Theresa writes:

> From: Theresa <70571.1735@CompuServe.COM>
>  To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>  Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Genesis and Provenance

[...]

>  <<, having an officer of the court review all the documents about the
> cameraman
>  that Ray said existed, and then meet with the cameraman and then verify
with
> the
>  Personnel
>  records center in St. Louis and then issue a statement that all is well
> without
>  revealing the name and location ofnteh cmaerman would go a very long way
>  wouldn't it??>>

[...]

>       There is someone claiming to be the cameraman, who's face has been
seen
> on
>  video, and a man claiming to be the cameraman's son, who's face was also
> seen.

Yes, it has been reported by Kiviat on the Leeza show that this interview
exists. Has he seen it yet?

Bob Shell has seen it.

Michael Hesemann has seen it.

I'm not sure who else has seen it but those two are hardly disinterested
parties. They did offer somewhat differing accounts of the interview, didn't
they?

>  Whether these men are actors or are who they say they are, they exist now
> beyond
>  just Santilli's say so.  And they have to be considered into the equation.


I don't know if they exist beyond Santilli's say so. The people I refer to
above have at times shown a certain disrespect for objectivity.

> We
>  can no longer claim that someone claiming to be the cameraman that shot
this
>  footage doesn't exist.

A cameraman has always existed.

>     In an online interview last night, Robert Kiviat said that, if it were
up
> to
>  him, he would be happy to show the video of the cameraman interview to
> McGovern,
>  or anyone else that thinks that they could identify him.  But he has to
have
>  Santilli's and the cameraman's permission to do this. Santilli of course,
> wants
>  money. His motives haven't changed. The cameraman would have to come
forward
> in
>  order to give his permission and if he were to do that, we wouldn't need
>  McGovern, because someone would recognize him.

But McGovern could be an important verifier of facts. The offer Lt. Col.
McGovern extended was genuine.

Having said that, Stan's suggestion was excellent also. I'm sure it is an
offer that Santilli has heard before. Wonder why he won't take anyone up on
the offer.

What are the chances that we will ever see the alleged cameraman's face
and/or the face of his son?  Would Santilli sell the interview for money
_without_ the cameraman's approval? How much money would it take? (I'm
planning on the winning the lottery soon <g>)

>      I think authenticating the cameraman is far more important than dating

> the
>  film.

Yes. That is important. But dating the film is very necessary and important
also. What are the odds that either will happen?

I saw Slim at the travel agent's  earlier this evening. <g>

Rebecca