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 -> Jan -> Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:02:52 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:34:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?


>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:22:27 +0000
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?

>Bob replied:

>>It has been determined because all of it has the distinctive
>>signature of the Bell & Howell printer used to make the copy
>>prints.  It also has a soundtrack (blank).

>Weren't there field cameras capable of producing both optical
>and magnetic soundtracks on the raw footage? I've got an old
>Auricon that will produce a blank optical sound track on camera
>original stock. What distinctive signature of the Bell & Howell
>printer are you refering to? I'm not arguing, here; just
>curious.

The original was supposedly shot on a Filmo 70 hand crank
camera, so should not have had a sound track.  The Bell & Howell
printer leaves a white area on both sides of the film frame when
making the copies, and this film has that.

This is old news, Roger, and I'm sorry if I don't recall all the
little details of things that happened in 1995.  But we had a
number of motion picture experts verify about the B & H printer
at the time.

>Moving on, Bob stated:

>>... the cameraman claims he made the copies himself on a copying
>>machine in the base lab.

>I'm confused. I thought you previously said that the cameraman
>fooled Santilli into believing the footage was camera original.
>At least that's the impression I got from the following post you
>offered which read:

AFTER we proved to Santilli that it was copy film he asked the
cameraman and he said something like "of course it is copy film,
I made the copies myself on the printer at the base lab."
Whether Ray has tried to get recourse for the deception I do not
know.

>Also, do you know the following info:

>Was the film Santilli bought an "A-wind" or a "B-wind"?
>

Honestly, I don't recall at this point.

>Was it originally (by the cameraman) copied onto actual dupe
>stock or was it simply copied onto camera grade B&W reversal?

Apparently it was copied onto dupe film since the only edge
codes on it are those printed through from the original.

Bob