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: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 12:14:13 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 22:07:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy


 >Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 02:34:33 +0000
 >From: James Easton <voyager@ukonline.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

James,

You wrote:

 >Researcher John Stepkowski had written to historian Steven
 >Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, asking for
 >an informed opinion on the use of a 'Restricted Access'
 >classification in general.

 >Aftergood's opinion was that, 'The term Restricted Access has
 >sometimes been used interchangeably with Special Access, which
 >refers to special dissemination controls above and beyond the
 >classification level and the clearance level of the recipient'.

 >'Classification markings from that era were not standardized or
 >consistent. Every organization could use more or less whatever
 >markings it wanted'." [End]

This is what Steven thought was true, but he didn't really know;
it was just his "informed opinion".

When Rebecca gave me advance information on what Kent would
write in his article, I noticed that "the Restricted Codes" were
to be given quite a bit of play and I remembered seeing
something written about "restricted codes" somewhere so I
checked through my collection of UFO material.

This took some time but finally I came across what I knew I had
previously read.  It was from Paris Flammonde's *UFO Exist!* pgs
386-387 and clearly proves that the "restricted Codes" used in
the Santilli tent footage were/could be legitimate.

I informed Rebecca;  she informed Kent and, I guess, you too.

This evidence is "rock solid" as I told Rebecca but you all
ignored it.

Why you did that, and continue to do so is beyond me?.

I'd like a simple answer:  Is "restricted" a legitimate security
marking from that period for UFO related material, or not?

Are you, too, going to refuse to look at the evidence which can
be found on pgs 894-896 of the Condon report.

I don't see how we can keep this discussion going until you
admit that you may have been mistaken about the "restricted"
markings.

Once that's cleared up, then we can go on to something else and
eventually we may be able to come to some conclusions about the
nature of the Santilli footage.

Right now we have only a hodge-podge of observations,
conflicting opinions, research( some of which is very good &
some not so strong), and anomalous facts.

I believe that the preponderance of evidence indicates that the
footage is indeed what Ray and the cammeraman say it is, but I'm
open to being proven wrong.

I've read your opinions on the subject and find little that is
convincing in your arguments.

Would you mind listing what you consider to be your best
evidence for the footage being a hoax? (Not the tent footage
which we all agree is hoaxed)

Keep it simple and direct and I'll try to do the same in
answering.

Ed