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: HoustonSky@aol.com
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 14:02:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 17:17:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Genesis and Provenance

HI Theresa,

Never one to keep my mouth shut, I'm going to butt in again.

> <<It's what Bob may contribute as evidence which has to deemed credible or
>  otherwise.>>

>     How do you determine if the evidence is credible?  What Bob says about
> the Kodak testing is in conflict with what another well known researcher says.


Check the "evidence" yourself. Or you can rely on someone you trust.

>      On December 4th, the SIGHTINGS show aired a new segment about the
Autopsy
>  Footage. This segment featured testimony from Kent Jeffrey, Dan McGovern and
> Joe Longo.

>  Kent Jeffrey stated in the broadcast:

>    "Kodak has been standing by since July 1995, waiting for the film.  If
> they were given only one or two frames, they could adequately analyze this
> film, and determine one way or another whether it is genuine 1945 film."
>  ----snip---
>   Note:  I don't know why Kent said 1945, but he did. -T.

>     Bob Shell says Kodak wants  or needs a couple of feet of film and would
>  prefer to have a whole reel.  These two statements are in conflict with each
>  other.  Is Kodak giving differing information to different people?  Or are
>  one or both of these two researchers misleading the public?

Below I will include an excerpt from Kent's SCAM article. It contains the
same quote essentially. That article's date was March 1, 1996. Why is this
news now?

A better question to ask would be who has the most to gain by misleading
anyone?

Figure that one out and it might help you to understand who is _could_ be
misleading who.

As for Kodak giving different statements one could speculate that one "hears"
the answer they want to hear. It would probably be best for you to contact
Kodak yourself and see what they tell you.

Here's an except from Kent Jeffrey's article "Santilli's Controversial
Autopsy Movie":


Eastman Kodak in Rochester, New York, has been standing by since July 1995
with an open offer to authenticate the film's date of manufacture. I
confrimed this fact in  a recent telephone conversation with Tony Amato, the
Kodak motion-picture product specialist who would oversee the authentication
process. Amato told me that Kodak has received repeated promises during th
last six months from Santilli through an intermediary in the United States
that film meeting the required criteria was "on its way."

According to Tony Amato, while the short-term loan of a complete reel of film
would be desirable, Kodak would be willing to work with as little as two or
three frames. ..."

[end excerpt].


With the exception of the 1945 statement (I haven't seen the program, so I
don't know what this about) how does what Jeffrey said on "Sightings" differ
from the article, published last March?

Seems to me that these are not new claims by Jeffrey. Why are you now just
raising this point?  It was in April that Santilli said he would not work
with Kodak. One could speculate that Santilli's announcement of distrust of
Kodak in April was a direct result of Jeffrey's article. Perhaps Kodak
finally made it so easy for him to provide the film that he decided that he
needed a new excuse. I'm not saying that is what happened but the timing is
interesting.

Although Jeffrey's article was not footnoted much to the chagrin of Michael
Hesemann, whom you congratulated on his article in Nexus, the Jeffrey article
does quote Amato. He should not be hard to find. Check it out yourself. Phil
Klass checked with Kodak (a spokesperson by the name of Jim Blamphin, if I
remember correctly) and he was told the same thing. This was reported in one
of Skeptics UFO Newsletter (probably April or May).

And then there is the email that James and others have seen from Tony Amato
at Kodak... how many times does Kodak have to say something before they can
be taken serious? Or do we just keep making excuse for Poor Ray?

>  <<I've asked him to clarify exactly what he's implying and if he's seriously
>  suggesting, as it appears he is, that it's all part of some conspiracy.>>

>       I've never cared much for conspiracy theories.  They are always too
>  convenient.  But I have to say that I have seen some strange things related
>  on with this story that I don't know how else to explain.

But a conspiracy theory is just what Ray needs at the moment. Looks like some
are going to provide him with one.

Rebecca