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: Theresa <70571.1735@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 05 Jan 97 15:48:32 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 07:00:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Shell Responds to Chapman's 'Strange' Article

>Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 16:52:54 -0800
>From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Shell Responds to Chapman's 'Strange' Article


To Ed Stewart,

Ed,

>Folks, there was only ONE, I repeat ONE test at Trinity, not more
>than one. Obviously, whoever "Jack" is, he was not aware that there was
>only ONE test at White Sands.


    So if any other footage of the atomic test other than Brixner's turn's up,
it must be fake footage then?  And if any footage of any other kind of tests at
the site were to turn up, they too would be fake?

    What kind of film did Brixner shoot with?  Was it colour or B&W?  Was it
16mm or 35mm?

   Thanks.

     Theresa