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: XianneKei@aol.com
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 01:07:47 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 10:58:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Seeing is not believing

> Date: 16 Apr 97 10:01:14 EDT
>  From: BOB SHELL <76750.2717@CompuServe.COM>
>  To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>  Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Seeing is not believing

>  >From: budscan@juno.com (Bud Jamison)
>  >Kodak, officially, has never verified anything.  Individual employees of
>  >Kodak, without any official authority, have verified the pieces of film
>  >that they saw as possibly being from 1947, but NONE of those pieces
>  >contained anything to prove they were from the film in question.

>  Ok, lets pick some nits.

Yes, lets pick some nits!!! I just love nits!

>  When Ray first saw the film in Florida, he says he phoned Kodak

WAIT A MINUTE! The "internal flight" was to Florida? You know that for sure?
Or are you guessing? Or has Ray told you that? OR have I missed this new
piece of the puzzle?

>  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.

I seem to remember something about this. But I also remember someone saying
that Ray didn't know about film. It has been claimed he didn't know about
edge codes. Is he a fast learner? How did he know to call about the edge
codes?

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

I don't think that Tommy Jensen is an official from Kodak but I'm prepared to
be wrong about that. Why doesn't someone call Kodak Copenhagen and find out
if Tommy Jensen still has a job and what his capacity is or was in 1995?
That's one more nit to pick.  But the "letter" I saw looked like a fax memo
message. It was sent to Tripple Entertainment. But the film that Tommy Jensen
was given was referred to as "countdown footage." That is something which is
added later. It is not part of the footage. Even Ray, who knows nothing about
film should know that!

And I think that is what you have ignored here. It was a point made by Bud
Jamison: "... but NONE of those pieces contained anything to prove they were
from the film in question."

So before you go blaming a problem with the chart, admit that KODAK in
Denmark never saw any film that was from the autopsy footage. It doesn't
matter that the chart was wrong. Kodak has NEVER had any footage readily
identifiable from the autopsy footage. Get some of that to them, and then
we can bring in that problematic chart.

[snipped the mess about 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.

No, you have verification that the strip of film that Tommy Jensen at KODAK
in Denmark saw was from '47. So he verified some countdown footage. Please
note, I did not call it leader because I know that is a nit you like to pick.

Go find some more nits.

Rebecca