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 -> Jan -> Re: Shell Responds to Chapman's 'Strange' Article

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: James Easton <100626.2242@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 20:01:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 04:35:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Shell Responds to Chapman's 'Strange' Article

Regarding...

>Date: 03 Jan 97 09:23:25 EST
>From: BOB SHELL <76750.2717@CompuServe.COM>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Shell Responds to Chapman's 'Strange' Article

Bob Shell wrote in response to Ed Stewart's comments:

>I suggest that Mr. Stewart read "Jack's" statement over again.
>He does not say that he filmed the Trinity test.  He only says
>"the tests at White Sands".

>In other communications he says he filmed from the air.  Aerial
>photos of Trinity do exist, but the photographer(s) are not
>identified. He may have filmed the Trinity test from the air, or
>he may have filmed the site prior to or after the test.


Bob,

During August/September last year, I had some correspondence with Ray
Santilli on this aspect and it seems that Ray is in no doubt what his
claimed cameraman is supposed to have filmed.

I wrote to Ray:

"One of the reasons for choosing Jornada del Muerto as a test site, was
that it enjoyed relatively good weather. The test was originally scheduled
for 4 a.m., on Monday July 16, 1945, but due to a quirk of fate, there was
a severe thunderstorm in the area and as this would have increased the
amount of radioactive fallout and interfered with the test results, the
test was postponed to 5:30.

The rain finally stopped and at 5:29:45 a.m., the Trinity test finally took
place.

However, as a result of the bad weather and delay, the planned aerial
observation of the test had to be abandoned.

Research and statements I have obtained from experts on the Trinity test
clearly indicate there is no known aerial film for this reason. If there
had been aerial footage, it would have been invaluable to those within
the Manhattan Project and they were the people who lamented its absence.
This is well documented.

So, what does the cameraman claim to have filmed? There was only one
Manhattan Project, one Trinity test.

There were some aerial photographs of the test site taken some time after
the event and these were the photographs I alluded to, but it's now known
their origin is also well documented.

Could you possibly ask the cameraman what exactly he claims to have filmed
and when?"


Ray replied (he does sometimes!):

"I will go back to him with your information HOWEVER he has always
maintained that he did film this test from the air. If you remember an
issue of this was made last year during which he was very clear".


Unfortunately, there was no further response from Ray.

Still, for reasons which are not mentioned here, it is conceivable that
some aerial filming did take place, even though the existence of that film
doesn't seem to have been known to the project scientists and isn't
documented by historians.

This would perhaps be most unlikely, but as I subsequently mentioned to
Ray, "If the cameraman's claims are true, it's possible that an explanation
would contain some facts which would be very difficult for someone who
wasn't actually there to know about".

And that should be the case.


A note for Ed Stewart and others; watch out for any bracketed comments in
the "cameraman's statement", e.g., "During my time I filmed a great deal,
including the tests at White Sands (Manhattan project/Trinity)". These have
been added for information, are not part of the original and I dare say are
not necessarily accurate interpretations.


James.
Internet; pulsar@compuserve.com