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 Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1996 -> Dec -> Re: Genesis and Provenance

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: "Steven J. Powell" <sjpowell@access.digex.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 13:20:22 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 13:13:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Genesis and Provenance

> From: Theresa <70571.1735@CompuServe.COM>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Genesis and Provenance
>
> >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.

Are you perhaps confusing sales and advertising with the real world???

>     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.

We have three parts to this:

	1) The film stock (and if there is any),
	2) The content of the film,
	3) Those who made the film.

Dating the film stock does authenticate the film stock.  If the footage
was shot in 1987 I would still like to know who did it but only _after_
a very long and very enjoyable period during which we peel the flesh off
the bones of those who have been promoting this as anything but a
hoax...<grin>

>     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.

What you have isn't proof.  It doesn't matter if Santilli and a cast of
hundreds or even thousands it.  Until we know if there is film stock,
and until we know the date of that film stock, we don't know anything.

> > 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?

You have to answer that question for yourself.

> >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.

Did you forget about the scene showing a guy in military uniform on the
other side of the 'window?'

> The person claiming to be cameraman can tell us who was involved and
> what is on the table.

Just noise, hot air, unless it can be verified.

>     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.

I don't understand why you would be more interested in unverified
chit-chat from an unsubstantiated source about an unverified film, but
to each his or her own...

> > 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.

Okay...<grin>

--

Thanks, take care.
John.

([]][][][][][][][][][][][][][])
[                             ]
[  sjpowell@access.digex.net  ]
[                             ]
([]][][][][][][][][][][][][][])