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: James Easton <100626.2242@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 18:22:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 01:06:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Genesis and Provenance

Regarding...

>Date: 15 Dec 96 01:20:03 EST
>From: Theresa <70571.1735@CompuServe.COM>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Genesis and Provenance

Theresa Carlson wrote:

<<Until the origins can be proven, or the US Government acknowledges
ownership, our hypothetical original film would simply be film of unknown
provenance, which has been dated to 19whatever.>>

>Well, not exactly.  If the footage is real government footage, this
cameraman is an eyewitness.<

Theresa,

What cameraman?

There is no "cameraman", that was the point. <g>

Well, yes, there obviously is a cameraman of some description, but without
any evidence that he hasn't lived around the corner from Ray Santilli all
his life, he's not a corroborative witness.

If there was indeed an authentic cameraman as claimed and he did come
forward, then a lot of things would probably change, but until then, even
if some meaningful film was dated it would still only be film of unknown
origin from that date.

Strictly, if the "debris" footage was authenticated as archive film, then
as that shows someone in military uniform, it would imply a link with the
US military.

Being pragmatic, I dare say that if it was proven beyond dispute that the
"autopsy" footage did amazingly originate from 1947 film, that would
actually be sufficient for most people!


>If he is an actor and was hired to play the part, he is still a witness. A
witness to a hoax".

Yes, himself and several others.

>A  rather significant first hand witness, either way.

Absolutely!



James.
Internet; 100626.2242@compuserve.com