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 -> 1997 -> Apr -> Re: Seeing is not believing

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Sean <Tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:52:51 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 21:46:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Seeing is not believing

>From: BOB SHELL <76750.2717@CompuServe.COM>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Seeing is not believing

>Certainly Sean.  Nice to see someone really doing some thinking
>about all this.

I do like to think, many thanks.

>  Also, the fact that this
>creature even existed was a serious blow to "Jack" whose
>religion is one of the fundamentalist sects.  He still refuses
>to even consider the idea that these "freaks" were space aliens.

I have found this to be the case with many "religious" people. I myself
believe in God, and will continue to do so even when I shake the hand of
the first "alien" that offers it, BUT My argument is and shall remain,
Where in the Bible does it say that God *only* created life here on
Earth? To my knowledge it does not. It has been "suggested" that perhaps
Jesus himslef was in fact an alien, now this I find *extremely*
insulting.

>Good point!

Thanks.

>Yes, if these are special effects dummies, the person/persons who
>made them are nothing short of genius.

I'd have to agree with that.

>Yes and no.  Kodak initially verified the film as absolutely from
>1947, but this was a mistake caused by misinformation in the chart
>they use to identify film age from edge codes.  The problem is that the
>film I have examined is copy film, not camera original.  It does have
>the proper chemical composition and edge code for 1947, but without
>examination of some of the actual camera original film, all testing
>is really inconclusive.

I bow to your expert opinion :-)

>Whether the actual number is six I do not know.  The roll which has
>been claimed to show Truman is stuck together, and has not yet been
>unstuck.

Lets pray that it does eventually does.

>There are at least two different bodies.  Maybe three, but the one
>shown in the tent footage is not seen clearly enough to be certain
>whether it is different.  Yes, making the two bodies would have cost a
>substantial amount of money, and it makes no sense to make two
>bodies and film two procedures when only one of them has commercial
>potential.  The first autopsy, the one not released, consiste in large
>part of a detailed "gynecology" exam which could not be shown on
>television anywhere in the world, and thus is worthless from
>an exploitation point of view. To me this argues heavily against
>it being a special effects creation.

Yes it does does'nt it.


>The creatures shown in the film are not grays.  In life they were said to be
>pink, and turning grayish after death.  Just as human corpses do.
Still does'nt quite answer the question, How would you discribe us as
"humans" to an Alien race?

>>over it ever since.

>Many believe that the film is real

I would like it to be.

>and is an intentional release by
>the US Govt or by some group within the Govt.  Yes, your scenario
>is possible.  Hand us the proof, but do it in such a way that the
>bulk of the UFO community discounts it and discards it.

and I totally agree with this argument.

>Yes, Sean, so am I.  And it is likely that so are these little
>creatures who crashed and died in the NM desert in 1947.

Hmmm...

I am a passenger on this spaceship, Earth
Sean [Jones]
http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/