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 Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Jan -> Here

From: Theresa <70571.1735@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 15 Jan 97 18:41:42 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 00:21:29 -0500
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ufology

>From: XianneKei@aol.com
>Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 02:58:04 -0500 (EST)
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: The Two Faces of Ufology

Dear Rebecca,

> When you want to actually come out and say what you are
>talking about and who you are referring to then I might be better able to
>understand.

    The who I am referring to is you.  You expressed concern over the fact that
someone might read the statement about Four Winds and believe that they were in
some kind of conspiracy.

     But you didn't address the other issue that was mentioned in that message.
Aren't you afraid that someone might hear McGovern say on the TV program that
colour film was highly recommended for medical procedures and believe that?

>What are your credentials in reference to video analysis?

   All of my credentials are in the computer field but I have two eyes. I wasn't
aware that credentials were needed to sit down and go thru a string of images
and write up what I saw.  I didn't need credentials to find that the opening
frames could not have been physically attached to the autopsy sequence in the
Santilli version of the footage. No one complained about that when I posted it.
Or that the samples given out were not on the video nor were they images of the
autopsy table. (Someone did complain about that one.) I didn't need credentials
to see the walls, or to see that there are indeed drain holes in the table or to
find pictures in books from 1947 showing the retractable phone cord.

   Had I medical credentials, they would have come in handy. Getting differences
of opinions from the experts in that field compelled me to ask permission at the
med school to view a couple of human autopsies. I also examined a video of a
human autopsy.

    I don't need extra credentials to know how to enhance images or to compare
algorythms and tone mapping, those are covered under my computer credentials.
And what I don't know, I ask questions about.

    Are you sure you aren't confusing analysis with examination? I don't know
what kind of credentials one would need to examine a video, besides eyes. The
only thing I have done that might be considered analysis rather than examination
is the tone mapping and algorythm comparisons.  And I haven't published that.
And I would not, because Ray Santilli said they did enhancements to parts of the
footage during the transfer, and that would make any findings in that area
inaccurate. That type of analysis would need to be done on the raw unenhanced
footage. And well, as you know, Volker said he isn't willing to give up the reel
film so there isn't much chance of getting that for analysis.

   Regards,

     Theresa

 (P.S. I'm leaving Friday night for Nevada so any messages that come in after
that I probably won't get.)