UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: Vince_Johnson_at_TENSOR__HSTN@ccmailsmtp.hstn.expl.pgs.com Date: Fri, 18 Jul 97 15:02:27 cst Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:02:12 -0400 Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy Once Again >Date: 18 Jul 97 10:00:23 EDT >From: BOB SHELL <76750.2717@CompuServe.COM> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Alien Autopsy Once Again >>From: Vince_Johnson_at_TENSOR__HSTN@ccmailsmtp.hstn.expl.pgs.com >>Date: Thu, 17 Jul 97 14:05:30 cst >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Alien Autopsy Once Again >>[You could lie, of course, and say that you had indeed examined the >>film -- but that would eliminate the possibility of your weaseling-out >>when the facts about this scam become known. Shucks, Bob, why bother? >>Your reputation is already ruined. You'll never be taken seriously in >>the field of ufology except among overcredulous rubes and nutbars.] >Thanks, Vince. Now everyone who takes me seriously knows that they >are either overly credulous rubes or nutbars. I'm sure they didn't know >this. Yep, and that's the problem. You're shamelessly exploiting the poor boobs. >>With responses like this, you apparently don't care what your fellow >>UpDates subscribers think either. >No, Vince. I have singled you out for not caring. You and your views >are of no concern to me. I treat people as individuals and respond in >kind. Those who treat me with respect get respect back. When you insult my intelligence with your inconsistent and incoherent flackery, you're not treating me (nor the rest of this List) with respect. Remember, it was your credentials and reputation as a "photo expert" that provided the "film" with the confirmation that the footage was manufactured in the 1940s, and therefore, could not be a hoax. You made the Santilli video "real." Later we learned your analysis was based on sniffing an extraneous bit of film (i.e., no "alien" image) with the highly touted edge codes missing. That wasn't analysis -- that was marketing. I should respect this? Requesting a simple answer to a simple question (especially of one who has actively sought the public spotlight as you have) as to how you arrived at your conclusion is not a breach of "respect." It is the most basic requirement to make a rational judgment about the authenticity of the Santilli video. Yet you take stinging offense at the most fundamental question regarding your alleged analysis of this alleged "film" (i.e., have you ever personally examined a single relevant frame?). If a film or video showing evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence could be confirmed as authentic, it would be an event of tremendous cultural and scientific value. I'm not talking about the money that could be gleaned from innumerable videos, lectures, books, etc., but real historic importance. However, you seem to be reacting to my inquiries as just an annoying nuisance to whatever commercial interest you may have in the Santilli AA video. That you don't seem to begin to comprehend the necessarily rigorous burden-of-proof required for authenticating a film/video of a purported alien lifeform, and your refusal to answer the most basic questions regarding the process whereby you proclaimed the Santilli "film" as authentic indicates to me that you're just another small-time hustler out to fleece the gullible. You want respect? Tell the truth. Vince
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com