UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: Neil Morris <Neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 21:26:06 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 18:10:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswell 'Alien Autopsy' Film Junk
>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 23:09:17 +0000
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Roswell Alien Autopsy Film Junk
>Hey, all.
>After reviewing a variety of articles and websites, the story I
>get about the Santilli Roswell film is as follows: The film was
>shot by an Army cameraman in a hurried state using a standard
>issue Bell and Howell wind-type 16mm camera under normal and low
>lighting. Some of the film was processed right away and is
>currently under "top security" lock and key by the government.
>The balance of the film (approximately 25 reels) required
>special "push" processing due to the low lighting and was kept
>separate by the cameraman. Changes in command as the Airforce
>took over ufo investigations allowed the cameraman to "slip
>through the cracks" and keep the processed reels. Later, he sold
>the films to Santilli where they then ended up on national
>television amid much debate, yadda, yadda, yadda...
>Amazingly, there still seems to be those that believe the film
>is real. I can guarantee that it isn't. Here's why:
>If the cameraman is to be believed, the autopsy footage was shot
>under low light resulting in the need to have the film "push"
>processed. For those unfamiliar, this means that the film was
>underexposed during the shooting and then processed longer than
>normal to help bring out the latent image. This is supposed to
>account for the tell-tale grainy look of the film. If this is
>true, then why is most of the film OVER exposed? I've been a
>professional cinematographer for 20 years and I can assure you
>that push processed film will appear properly exposed, at best,
>with occasional patches of underexposure but never overexposed.
>But why should the film be underexposed in the first place?
>Light bulbs are THE cheapest thing that the military would need
>to provide for such an important event. Did they really draw the
>line for such an acquisition? I picture a high level meeting
>where the line items are approved:
<snip>
Rodger,
Santilli maintains he had the "copies" "light-blasted" to obtain
the results he released, if you see the whole "raw"footage" tape
you can see distinct variations in density as I would expect if
the sections of the film had been push processed by hand.
Neil.
--
* * * * * * * *
Neil Morris. /101101101 Virtual Bumper Stickers Inc 10110101010\
Dept of Physics. 1 1
Univ of Manchester 0 0
Schuster Labs. 1 Computer Programmers DO IT with BITS of BYTES 1
Brunswick St. 0 0
Manchester. 1 1
UK. \0101010110010110110010110101101011011110101011010/
G8KOQ
E-mail: neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk
Roswell and Alien Autopsy Archive-> http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/
Dave Willetts Home Page-> http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/dave_willetts/
Mike Sterling Home Page-> http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/mike-s/
Tim Morgan Home Page -> http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/tim-m/
* * * * * * * *
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