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 -> Feb -> Here

From: BOB SHELL <76750.2717@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 12 Feb 97 10:36:08 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:53:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Autopsy Cameraman photos

>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 07:00:34 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Steven Kaeser <skaeser@konsulting.com>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Autopsy Cameraman photos

Steve,

Nice to have you here.  Some clarification:


>The film strip story is an interesting one, and deserves a better >telling
>than I can do in a few words.  I actually corresponded with Tobin and >Shell
>in regard to this question, and have their clarifications.  Shell
>acknowledges that the strip he had been sent was a copy, and not an
>original, but Tobin has now acknowledged that the markings near the
>sprocket holes were not limited to a film printer that was manufactured
>after the mid 1950s.  I would note that the the "strip" of film that >Tobin
>viewed was one that was intercepted by Kiviat's group, which was shown >on
>the FOX program.  Bob has a different "strip", as did Philip Mantle.
>However, analysis of these strips would prove nothing.  There is no >image
>on them that can be tied to the video that has been shown, so even if >they
>were date tested to 1947 they wouldn't end the debate.

Right you are, mostly.  The film strip Bob Kiviat has at present is one loaned
to him by Philip Mantle (this is the one seen on the FOX broadcasts).  He was
supposed to return it to Philip, but instead sent Philip the smaller piece which
his agent had intercepted on its way to me.  So Kiviat has Mantle's piece and
Mantle has Kiviat's piece (and never the twain shall meet??), and the piece
Philip has is actually mine.  I have two other pieces, both comprising three
frames, and part of the sequence shown on the Santilli video prior to the
autopsy, but not identical to any frames on the video.  I have not been terribly
concerned with the dating for the reason you state.  If they are conclusively
dated to 1947, they are still copies, and do not show any part of the autopsy.
So dating these strips will not mean anything to the skeptics.



>According to Ray, there was only one reel that was of negative film, and
>the rest were either positive film, or positive prints.  Using negative
>film would allow you to easily make numerous copies of it, and given the
>subject matter I doubt that was the goal.  If memory serves, I seem to
>recall that the "cameraman" claims that he was rushed to the scene with
>little time to prepare, and had to use what film he had available.  >That is
>why he allegedly had so many reels that needed special attention.>

The one roll of negative film was included by mistake, according to Ray, and had
nothing to do with the autopsy.  Just some personal stuff the cameraman had shot
at some point.  The autopsy supposedly was all shot on Super XX film and given
reversal processing, that is processed directly to a positive.  There would be
no camera original negative of these rolls, although it is presumed that a
master negative was made from which the copies were generated.  To tell anything
conclusive about this film, we need a section of the camera original film, and
it is quite possible that neither Ray nor the cameraman have any of this.

Clive Tobin has finally admitted that the printer signature on the copy film
means nothing.  At least he is honest enough to admit his mistakes.

Ray does not know what this film really is.  Nor do I.  All we have at present
is some very anomalous film footage and an equally anomalous story about it from
an unknown person who claims to have filmed it.

Bob