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: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 14:01:36 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:36:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Genesis and Provenance

> From: James Diss <76710.234@CompuServe.COM>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Genesis and Provenance

> John Powell wrote in an answer to Theresa about the AA film;

> It ain't gonna happen that way.  Many people have stated that this is
> simply the only way to go, and that may be the reason why Mr Mantle
> has 'buggered off' to put it bluntly.  Take any other 'shattering'
> event from the mid-eighties, and what do you find?
> Proof that's attacked as 'slanted', people coming down on sides and
> conspiracy buffs connecting even more dots in an effort to get things
> to look the way they want.
> Look at Dr Wolf at the moment, or Dulce, or even MJ-12.

Not good examples if you're discussing proof.

> Consider the fact that one of the first things I heard about Kodak is
> that they wouldn't verify this because of their military connections.
> Bull.

Kodak will test the film stock.  They have _always_ been willing to test
the film stock.

> They wouldn't verify this because of the loss of their credibility, so
> we have the inestimable 'Italian connection' give some fairly
> meaningless reports on the film/copy/cutting room floor snippets.

At _no_ time, including now, has Kodak _not_ been willing to test the
film stock with relevant image on it.

> Lets push for a couple of independent labs to look at this,
> arbitaryily chosen at random from a list.

Because _only_ Kodak can conclusively verify Kodak film.  Anything else
would be something less.

--

Thanks, take care.
John.

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