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 -> 1998 -> Jan -> Here

From: William White <bwhite@frognet.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:07:05 -0500 (EST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 20:24:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Santilli Debunks the debunkers


> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:16:52 -0500
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Santilli Debunks the debunkers

> Speculation . . . speculation . . . speculation.

Well *obviously* ... it's speculation to say "it was a hoax",
and equally speculation to say "it was real".  All we know for
sure is that the piece exists.

> The "experts" put the cost and expertise shown in this production
> beyond the reach of the student hoaxer, but who knows if that was
> just their own egos talking or a valid statement.

A question -- do we know for sure that this was shot on film and
not video?  If not, this makes a *big* difference in budget.

> Nearly all SFX experts have stated that they could do a better
> job, but none of the attempts to re-create the video have come
> close (IMHO).  I'm not arguing that the Santilli "film" is real,
> but rather that the attempts to recreate it all showed flaws that
> would have quickly been pounced upon by both skeptics and
> researchers.

Yes, but there were plenty of skeptics (not to mention medical
examiners) who pounced on flaws in the Santilli film as well.  So
again it comes down to opinion.

> I believe there are more important issues to discuss, and until
> some real "proof" comes along we don't need to beat this "dead
> horse" any more.

Quite right.  If I had the resources to spend on this WOMBAT I'd
throw some at the local film school here and see what comes out
of it, but I don't.  So until then I think we can agree that
there's much better evidence out there to rely on.

I am, however, worried that in 20 years we'll be totally unable
to rely upon video, just as we are now unable to rely upon still
photos.

-- Bill