Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books 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 Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Dec -> Here

From: Theresa <Tcarlson1@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 21:31:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 02:58:08 -0500
Subject: Re: The X-Factor' (issue 25) - Question to Corso

>Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:39:56 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: The X-Factor' (issue 25) - Question to Corso

Dear Bob,

>Yes, Theresa sent me her overlays a while ago.  She has
>demonstrated that if you adjust size and angle it is possible to
>make the upper outline of the left thighs line up in images from
>the two autopsies.  But when you do this "manipulation" (Theresa
>objects to my use of that word), then NOTHING else in the images
>lines up, not even the lower outline of the same thigh.

For some strange reason, you seem to be the only one that didn't
notice that this particular frame from first autopsy has the
object's axis rotated differently.  Everyone else figured that
out and went and captured stills that were at the proper rotation
and found that way more than just the left thigh lines up. The
overlay you received was created to show that the bodies were on
both on their backs.  But it made people curious and they went
and checked.

Bob, did you capture frames and do your own overlays? I know you
weren't part of the peer group, but I still suggest that you you
do that anyways. I have no doubt that other people will.

There are frames in the released footage that need no rotation of
the frames to see the matches. I just happened to like that
frame.

As far as resizing, it's a little more than just resizing it to
fit the "other" body.  The frame that Mark sent me is an odd
size, probably because it was cropped, printed, scanned etc.. But
we have a scale to that first autopsy still. Other items that can
be matched to objects in the released autopsy appear in the
still.  The instrument tray, some of the instruments on that
tray, the autoclave and the pan on top of it in the background.

You see there were some constants there to work with. You can
call it manipulation, but it isn't done haphazardly.

A lot of the things that seem to be bothering you about my work I
already explained on my video presentation. I simply couldn't
afford to make a bunch of videos. It was quite expensive as it
was. (And I still have one daughter to put through college.)
Since you had already dismissed the preview without checking into
it yourself, I didn't see any use in sending you any more.

I wish I could afford it though. I explain some of the
difficulties and limitations of working with 2D images of 3D
objects. Some things that are helpful for people that aren't
familiar with image analysis such as yourself.

Now, even if you do all this and you still say that only the left
thighs are a match, how do you justify those matching?  You stated in
November, 1995 that the left femur on SUE was broken and the lump
there was swelling from. You stated that your medical professionals
confirmed this.  So, both bodies have broken femurs and both swelled
the same? Both have a lack of bruising in the inner thigh area where
said swelling appears?

Are these the same medical professionals that look at it and say
that it looks like a real body?

And that's not all. If you don't line up the bodies, there are
blemishes on both that are in the same areas and the same shape.
How?  We can't say that they both sustained the same injuries.
SUE's right leg is half gone and SALLI's appear to be pretty much
intact.

>I have talked personally to everyone who is known to have seen
>both autopsies.  Every one of them stresses differences in the
>bodies rather than similarities.  Since Philip is one of those
>people, perhaps he would care to comment on his own impressions
>of the similarities/differences of the two bodies.

How observant were those people that saw the first autopsy?  I
have a message from you that you quote Philip M. as saying that
the body in the first autopsy was "shriveled up like a raisin".
No matter what way I look at this still from the first autopsy, I
can't describe it in anything like those terms.

If your counter is that he was confused about the first autopsy
and the tent footage, go back to my first question as it is even
more relevant in that case, how observant were the people that
were allowed to look at this? If they couldn't keep the different
footages straight, don't expect them to keep different bodies
straight.

The similarities in the two bodies are just an interesting aside
for me tho.  What convinced me was the inconsistencies in the
"blood" marks in the footage.   I can not conceive of any way
this could have occurred in a real autopsy.  Why haven't you
addressed this instead of beating on some body comparisons?

Complaining about the overlays may get you a lot of attention but
the real story is in the released autopsy.  These things people
can look up for themselves on the copies of the videos they
already have. This is what convinced me, and in the end is what
will probably convince most.

Ray Santilli has already given me his "explanation" or "best
guess" or what ever it was.   Do you have an explanation also?

I know that you have a CD to sell and that this is probably a bad
time for you to have to look at things objectively.  I have
offered this information as evidence not proof, as I already
stated.

Proof is up to each individual, but they should have as much
information as possible to make that decision.

Early on in this saga, Ray Santilli offered some photocopies of
some labels alleged to be on the autopsy  film cans.  Those
labels were studied and researched.  Mr. Rob Irving did excellent
research on them, and I double checked his work on my own.
Will you be offering the information on that research on your
version of the CD?

The camera man's tale doesn't work. Many points there, will you
be including those?

If you really want people to make up their own minds about this,
give them ALL of the information.  You have the opportunity to
make a difference,  and maybe even set a precedence in this
messed up field.

   Please?  Pretty please, Bob?

   Regards,

     Theresa Carlson

    tcarlson1@Compuserve.com