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 -> Jul -> Here

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 08:56:17 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 11:40:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy Once Again

>Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 17:33:33 +1000
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dave Everett <deverett@vir.idx.com.au>

>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Alien Autopsy Once Again

[text deleted]

>I do not require your respect, nor do you require mine. But I would also
>like to know the answer to that question as I'm sure others on this list
>would also.

>Regarding the 'Santilli Alien autopsy film', have you examined actual film
>frames that include the alleged alien image?

>Dave Everett

Why is this question being raised, unless it is simply to make a point?  Of
course, if that is the case, I would suggest that the point has been made
many times before and is relatively boring at this point.

It is well known among those who have followed this particular issue that
Ray/Volker have never allowed any of the "film with image" to be examined
or tested.  Period.

Several sections of film, without image (or date code, I believe) have been
sent by Ray for testing, but even if they are proven to be from 1947 film
stock, that doesn't mean that the "film with image" is of the same stock.
This includes the segment sent to Robert Kiviat, a segment sent to Bob
Shell, and a segment given to Philip Mantle that was later forwarded to
Italy for chemical testing.

Given the lack of hard evidence, and the annecdotal nature of what evidence
we have, it is understandable why most people are skeptical of the "film".
But there has been no new development regarding the "film" in more than a
year, and this constant review of existing information usually becomes a
form of personality bashing because some of those involved have been at it
for so long.

If you have just joined the genre, and haven't gotten the background, there
are many good WEB sites on both sides of this issue that can fill in the
gap.  On the other hand, if you find (or develop) new information regarding
the "film", please post it for all to see.

But from my perspective, the ball is clearly in Ray's court.  As long as
the debate continues, he is able to market the images that have already
been released.  Ray has recently been quoted as saying that he hopes the
"cameraman" will agree to come forward and be interviewed and questioned
before the end of this year.  But since the questions he had been asked
were all the same ones that he had been asked before, the answers were also
all the same, with the exception of that one small statement.

Just a few thoughts from the peanut gallery.