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: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 12:06:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 00:04:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Genesis and Provenance

Regarding...

>Date: 21 Dec 96 14:18:42 EST
>From: Theresa <70571.1735@CompuServe.COM>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Genesis and Provenance

Theresa Carlson wrote:

<Yes, I've seen transcripts of interviews with Tony Amato at Kodak.>

>    In the interview does Tony Amato say that they are willing to do the
tests
on only one or two frames or give any other requirements on the amount?<

Theresa,

Yes, the following extract from a response to Bob Shell might help clarify
this issue for anyone who's interested:

Bob,

In your statement, which Philip Mantle has now circulated, you suggest that
Kodak have not "acted in good faith".

Are you sure this is really supported by the evidence?

During September 1995, Tony Amato was asked if he could clarify what
requirements Kodak had specified for testing any film. He replied:

"We don't have a requirement. All we need is a few inches of film. Mr.
Shell
has three frames of the film of the empty room. We can authenticate
those frames, but only those frames. It was Mr. Shell that has suggested to
provide an entire roll therefore the roll would be authenticated".


He also commented:

"Well, we haven't got any film yet to take a look at. We have been told
that we will have some film and we have been waiting months now.

...Mr Shell has left me a message saying that he does have three
frames to send me. But I have not seen them.

...Yes. We have to do a destruct test. But we only need two inches of film
to do that.

...My position now is: we set up the test once we have the film in hand. I
can't go spending peoples time on a wish".


In the January 1996, Skeptics UFO Newsletter (SUN), we heard that:

   When we informed Blamphin* that Shell had earlier told SUN that a Kodak
movie film specialist in Rochester, named Tony Amato, had agreed to test
the Santilli film without charge if Shell would provide a two-inch long
sample from the autopsy film [SUN #35/Sept. 1995], Blamphin said he would
talk to Amato to confirm such an offer. Several days later, Blamphin
confirmed Amato's offer.

   Shell told SUN during our Sept. 7 interview that Santilli had agreed to
provide the two-inch strip of autopsy film. But when SUN next talked with
Shell, on Oct. 6, he reported that Santilli's financial partner, a German
named Volker Spielberg -- who, reportedly, had stored all of the original
autopsy film in a Swiss vault -- had flatly refused to provide the two-inch
strip that Kodak needed.  Shell explained that because Spielberg had put
up the money to acquire the film, he "owned it" [SUN #36, Nov.  1995].

*A spokesperson for Kodak's public affairs office.


The problem at this point appears to have been the refusal, or inability,
to provide a corroborative film sample. No fault of Kodak's.


During October 1995, you explained the current position on the sample
frames you had:

Kodak has refused to do anything with this film. They want to see a strip
at
least 50 frames in length so they can do some sprocket spacing
measurements.

Spacing of sprocket holes was changed around 1960 when new equipment was
installed, and Kodak can easily determine whether the film was made before
or after this equipment change if given a long enough strip.

Kodak also needs to see a strip which is intact from edge to edge, since
this is an important measurement to determine film shrinkage.  Film shrinks
as it ages.

Kodak also wants to perform chemical tests on a piece of film which can be
firmly established to be from the same film on which the alien appears.
There is no hard evidence that the film Bob Kiviat and I have is from this,
only strong circumstantial evidence.  That's not good enough.
[End]


Would you agree there was no dispute with Kodak's intentions at this point?


In your latest statement you comment:

"I spent a lot of time working with Ray and got Volker to agree to supply
such a
strip for them.  At this point they said they needed 16 feet, at which
point I
got disgusted with them and gave up on them".

It was my understanding that the only reference to "16 feet of film" was by
Peter Milson, at Hemel Hempstead and had no bearing on Tony Amato or your
arrangements with him.

That aside, the statement that Ray/Volker had actually agreed to supply a
strip of at least 50 frames in length, is central to your claim that
Kodak's requirements had been met.

However, on 8 December 1995, you mentioned that, "I have forwarded a
detailed description of Kodak's requirements to Volker Spielberg via.
Merlin, and have received a response that he is not willing to provide what
they are asking at this time.  He has indicated that he may soon be willing
to provide "about half" of the 50 frame strip with the creature on it that
Kodak wants".


So, at this point, there was in fact a refusal to supply the 50 frame
strip, and at best, you might some day have access to about half of what
Kodak apparently now required. Then again, you might not.

But the problems still all lie with the absence of any corroborative film.


When were you subsequently told that the full 50 frame strip was definitely
to be made available? Or was this perhaps just another indication from Ray
that some day things might change.


I'm trying to square this with Ray's comments from the 24 March 1996
conference, that there was no way Kodak were going to be asked to test any
film in the first place.

I'm also trying to square it with Ray's comments to Philip Mantle, at the
end of 1995:

Q: Why hasn't a segment of film showing the 'creature' on it been released
for analysis.

A: Plenty of film has been released with a variety of images including
images of the autopsy room. Giving away film with the creature would be a
last resort as the frames are far too valuable. I think it is also
unnecessary as it is part of the same material already released.
[End]


Doesn't this confirm that there was in fact never any intention, or perhaps
the ability, to provide a meaningful film sample to you?


>>The absence of any corroborative film is hardly your fault. But at what
point was the decision taken not to involve Kodak in any theoretical
testing - it must have been sometime before the 24 March conference?

Was this Ray's decision, your recommendation, or a mutual agreement?<<

>None of the above.  It was a statement supposedly made by Ray which I knew
nothing about until after the fact.<

The statement was made by Ray during the CompuServe conference and I
believe there's still a transcript in the library.

Again, if you didn't know it had been decided that Kodak would specifically
be precluded from any potential testing, it does all suggest that Ray was
telling you personally what he maybe thought you wanted to hear, but he
knew this would never materialise.

As you acknowledge, Ray is capable of doing so, although not necessarily
intending to be deceitful.


On the question of film verification, Ray mentioned something puzzling
during that conference:

Ray Santilli: Yes there are further plans with regard to the verification
of the film and this will hopefully be done at the time of the cameramans
interview.

Q: Can you give us more details about the verification of the film you plan
to do.

Ray Santilli: Sorry I cannot right now apart from saying that the matter is
in hand and with an independent.


It did perhaps indicate a change of attitude, but I wonder....

Could this simply have been a reference to the independent testing of
Philip Mantle's non-corroborative sample, which Professor Malanga was to
undertake?

We haven't heard of any other candidates since March of this year and
Professor Malanga's testing does seem to have taken place around the same
time as the "interview".

It seems a reasonable assumption that's what it referred to and basically,
there endeth the film "testing".
[End]


In essence, I don't believe the evidence supports Bob's premise that Kodak
have placed obstacles in his way.

I do believe it's apparent that there was never any intention, or the
ability, to provide a meaningful film sample to Bob Shell and that was
always the only obstacle.


I'll copy this mail to Philip Mantle and perhaps Philip can comment on the
possibility that the independent verification mentioned by Ray Santilli,
was the work to be undertaken by Professor Malanga.



James.
Internet; pulsar@compuserve.com