Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Navigation UFOs Paranormal People Places Area 51 Random Top 100 Catalog What's New Search... ...for this word in: Page Titles Page Contents Book Title/Author Help New Catalog Items (Random Selection) The Are No Electrons: Electronics for Earthlings (used trpb) - $8.00 Predestined Love: Authentic Case Histories of Reincarnation (used pb) - $4.00 War in Vietnam - Assortment The Postwar Epoch: Perspectives on American History Since 1945 (used trpb) - $4.00 The Franchise: A History of Sports Illustrated Magazine (used trpb) - $8.00 None but the Braves: A Pitcher, A Team, A Champion (autobiography of Tom Glavine) (used hc) - $7.00   Other New Items | Main Catalog Page | Subjects   2000+ new & used titles, including hundreds you won't find at Amazon! Log-In Here For Advanced Features Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Apr -> Here Our Focus

From: budscan@juno.com (Bud Jamison)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 23:36:40 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 10:47:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Seeing is not believing

>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Re: Seeing is not believing
>>From: budscan@juno.com (Bud Jamison)
>>Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 21:18:20 EDT

>Ok, lets pick some nits.

>When Ray first saw the film in Florida, he says he phoned Kodak
>while he had the film in his hands, talked to them about edge
>codes, and was told that the film was absolutely from 1947.
>That's why he agreed to buy it.

>Later, in a letter on Kodak stationary, an official of Kodak
>Denmark stated that the film was definitely from 1947.

>The problem, as I have been told by Kodak personnel, is in the
>chart used to identify film.  This shows the edge code, a square
>and a triangle, as being solid for 1927 and 1947, and as being
>drawn in outline for 1967.  Kodak people, being presented with a
>solid square and triangle, would naturally say that the film was
>definitely 1947 (since no one has suggested it is as old as 1927)
>if they were unaware that this is simply a mistake in the chart.

>So we do have official written verification from Kodak that the
>film was 1947, but this was wrong.  When Ray stated that Kodak
>had verified the film, this is what he was referring to.

>Bob

Again, I say, _NO_one at Kodak, or anywhere else, has verified any frames
from the original film that had BOTH the date codes, AND identifiable
scenes from the 'autopsy'.

If they exist, there would be NO good reason for not giving them to
someone to verify.  That point alone is good enough reason to doubt the
film, but there are FAR more, IF one looks at it critically, and not
through rose-colored glasses.