Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Bookstore 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 Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 2000 -> Feb -> Here

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 20:42:20 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 22:01:20 -0500
Subject: Re: AA FILM - Another Request From Philip


 >From: Neil Morris
 >Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:19:26 +0000
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 20:34:39 -0500
 >Subject: Re: AA FILM - Another Request From Philip

 >>Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:32:15 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans
 >>Subject: AA FILM - Another Request From Philip
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I wrote:

 >>Why doesn't Ray send
 >>her some actual FILM with the alien on it instead of a video
 >>copy? After all, the issue is whether or not the original image
 >>was created in 1947 and not what grade of video tape it was
 >>copied on in 1999. And let's be clear about this; Ray could use
 >>some positive feedback on this thing. If the film is real, he
 >>has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Neil replied:

 >Not my argument but can I again throw in what Volker Speilberg
 >stated in a French TV show on the AA in Oct 1995, that Ray
 >_dosn't_ have any film to send _anyone_, he(Volker) has it _all_
 >locked away "somewhere" in darkest Europe.

 >In demanding of Ray you're really asking the wrong guy.

Hi, Neil!

The problem here is that the goal post keeps getting moved.
First Ray claims to have camera original. Then when Bob Shell
busts Ray's chops that he only has dupe film, Ray crabs a bit
and says, "Oh, yeah. That's right. Dupe film." Then when Bob and
others make it clear that they'd like to see film of some kind,
any kind (dupe or original) with the alien on it, suddenly what
was originally available to Ray is no longer; Volker supposedly
has it ALL locked away. A pretty convenient dodge for Ray if you
ask me.

Moving on, you joked:

 >And don't tell Sony that BetaCam's got all the technical Oomph
 >of a Xerox copier they might just cross you off their Christmas
 >card list.

Actually, I assume that they'd at least use D-2 or Beta SP but
this is really a moot point (or should that be "mute" since no
one's talking?) It would not matter if they duped it onto IMAX
film. Not seeing the alien on original film means that the
dating of the image simply cannot be done without "guessing", of
which there is far too much going on, even by me.

Continuing, I wrote:

 >>With all due respect to Neil's work,
 >>it is an interpretation at best.

Neil replied:

 >But arn't most things when we have nothing "physical" other than
 >images to go on, we interpret the images contents.

Hold on, Neil. I have no bone to pick with the fine work you are
doing on the Roswell photos. The difference is that we know the
photos are genuine; we know their source. AA is a complete
mystery that is purposely, mind you, purposely being kept a
mystery by those that would benefit the most by having the
mystery solved if AA were to be found genuine. To give too much
credence to an extended interpretation regarding image
authenticity for AA is illogical considering the obvious lack of
proof as to where the imagery in question came from in the first
place. It is, in effect, putting the cart before the horse.

Slogging forward:

 >Go back to the archives at the time Roger, 95/96, it all
 >depended on who you asked and their individual background in
 >medicine, you could trot out as many (qualified in surgery) for,
 >as against the "doctors" authenticity in methods, style and
 >practices.

Well, to be blunt about it, no one will go on record in the
medical community and say that what they see is authentic. Now
why would that be, I wonder? I spent years in the OR and I know
that what I see is fake. I have yet to see a surgeon lend his
name to the authenticity of the AA footage. Oh, sure, there are
the usual arguments that at first they supported it but were
then afraid that doing so would ruin their careers. Nonsense.
California is full of doctors preaching the virtues of the
latest medical fads and catering to the absurd whims of
eccentric patients. They make tons of money and aren't afraid
for a minute of looking like "quacks". So why distance
themselves from something as potentially important as AA?

Continuing, of course, I mentioned:

 >the containment suits,

You replied:


 >Those bloody suits, I still don't see the relevance you place on
 >regs brought in some 14 years _after_ the event. Are you aware
 >that the people working directly on the first CP series of
 >reactors did so _without_ _any_ protective clothing at all, and
 >yes eventually they did get sick.

This is entirely my point, Neil! What point is the existence of
the suits in the first place? It may have been ignorance that
allowed workers to be exposed to radiation in the early reactors
but we're not talking about radiation. We're talking about
biological contamination; something that doctors certainly knew
alot about after years of experience that predated atomic energy
by decades and decades.

And let's be realistic, here. There's a difference between the
government sending ignorant workers into a dangerous area of
risk without telling them and a trained surgeon about to cut
open a dead and decaying alien corpse! These "doctors" would
know better and the suits just don't seem logical. They are NOT
air tight and they actually INCREASE the likelihood of
contamination by raising the risk of accidental nicks and cuts
by the scalpel due to poor visibility.

_That_ is my beef with the bloody suits. I used the example of
how radiation suits were "officially" supposed to be worn to
show that some kind of protocol did exist regarding
contamination and that this protocol did not develop over night.
Doctors have known how to avoid biological contamination for a
long, long time; decades before AA.

Finally, you wrote:

 >Mmmmm We've got original film, but it hasn't stopped people
 >slagging off the work of the RPIT has it??

As I said, I personally have no beef with the work you do ala
RPIT. I think it is important. In fact, you are aware that I
have privately emailed you about the idea of taking two of the
Roswell photos, produced from different angles, and sizing them
to produce a "3-D" stereoscopic view of the debris. I think
there is a lot of important info in the photos and I applaud
your work.

 >Roger you first, have a bash at the AA film, what would _you_
 >need and define as _hard_ _evidence_ the AA film is a genuine
 >historical document?.

 >What would be _your_ level of proof?.

An original frame of film from 1947 with the alien in it would
convince me that if is an important historical document.
Anything short of that would be unfounded speculation.