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 Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Dec -> Re: Alien Autopsy

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:48:35 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 15:13:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy


 >Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 20:01:37 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Rebecca Keith <xiannekei@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy
 >To: updates@globalserve.net

<snip>

 >Ed, I really don't want to get into a lengthy discussion here,
 >but, IMO, the most important evidence against the film, is the
 >lack of evidence supporting its reality. First you have to find
 >some of Ray's 50+-year-old film with a picture of the "alien" on
 >it then you need to test the damn film and prove it is 50+ years
 >old and I might be interested in it again. Until that happens,
 >count me out.

Rebecca,

Yes one of the difficult problems in working with the footage is
that Ray seems to hesitate when it comes to providing enough
film ( with the image of the Alien) to prove that the footage is
what he and the cammeraman say it is. I can't explain this. But
this doesn't mean the footage is a hoax.  If you wish to prove
that, you have to find problems with the film itself as Teresa
did. (I don't believe that Teresa has made a case for hoaxing
but her work is important.  The problem is that there were 200
rolls of film shot by the cammeraman and he sold Ray 22.  The
film itself wasn't marked so one or two rolls may be out of
order and that would invalidate Teresa's efforts, but not the
eligance of the experiment.) It's that type of work that will
eventually pay off.  Also have you seen Dennis Murphy's work on
the debris.  I think it's brilliant and is another example of
what can be found through effort and research:

http://www.uforeport.com/debris.htm

<snip>

 >seriously I don't follow your logic. Maybe it's me. I
 >haven't been all that well and perhaps I have forgotten a few
 >things, but if you claim, as I believe you do, that the tent
 >footage is a hoax, then what is the importance of the markings
 >on something which has been hoaxed? How does that validate the
 >autopsy video?

Yes the tent footage is a hoax.  That is admitted by all; but
the security codes are another matter.  The hoaxers used
information from somewhere for the codes.  I believe that they
copied the labels from the film cans.  This is important
information because it could not have been guessed.
"Restricted" should have been the designated marking for the
film and should have been found on the film cans.  If the
hoaxers copied this information from the cans, then we have
proof that the film cans, at least, were legitimate.  This code
was unknown to most folks and continues to be.  You still refuse
to even look for yourself.

<snip>

 >Well, having read your reply to James Easton, I don't see how
 >your proof is "rock solid" but that's just my opinion vs your
 >opinion. However, I feel confident there are any number of folks
 >on this list who can shoot your opinion down. Maybe they will
 >care enough to do that.

It's not a matter of opinion and this is "deja vu all over
again" because it's exactly the way you reacted at the time,
three years ago when I first told you about the restricted
codes.  If you were interested in the "truth", you would have
simply looked at the letters I told you about to see for
yourself that this is not a matter of opinion but as I said
"rock solid".  If there are those who can refute this, have at
it.

Also, as then, I was looking for cooperation, not confrontation.
You have many connections that I and others don't.  Why can't we
all work together on this.