UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 9

Re: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 11:24:44 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 16:11:10 -0500
Subject: Re: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction


>From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
>Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 12:59:58 -0500 (EST)
>Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 00:52:04 -0500
>Subject: Re: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction

>>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>>Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 17:34:50 +0000
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: FOX Hoax Special - Reaction

Previously, I had offered:

>>Finding the old film stock is not impossible. I, personally,
>>have stumbled onto old rolls of B&W film dating back to 1958. I
>>shot them and they processed up just fine, though a little
>>grainy. Therefore, film and processing is practically free, as
>>is the old Bell and Howell it was probably shot with. I wouldn't
>>be surprised if the camera and film were found together in
>>someone's attic! From the look of it, I doubt very seriously
>>that a trained camera man shot one single frame, so you know his
>>cost was doodly-squat.

Bob's response:

>Finding old film stock from 1947, and an ultra fast film at
>that, is a different matter, Roger.  If you did find some, it
>would be hopelessly fogged by now by background radiation, no
>matter how it was stored.

This is a bit much, don't you think? After all, if the vintage
1958 film I found was okay, then what's another 10 or 11 years?
Obviously, what you claim is true, but not all of the time.

>Processing would also be problematic, since you can't run this
>old film through today's chemicals.  The emulsion would just
>come right off.

So don't run them through today's chemicals. Sheesh. I can't
play CD's on my mother's old 8-track either!

More to the point, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say
in an earlier post that you've never seen the original film? My
understanding is you've only seen a print. I don't believe we
have any proof that the actual film used to produce the AA
footage was really produced in 1947, do we?

Continuing, I offered:

>>The actor's faces were conveniently covered, so their "fees"
>>would be minimal, probably no more than $200 per person, if even
>>that. Santilli could easily afford to "sweeten" the deal by
>>doubling or tripling their fees to keep them quiet, though it
>>really wouldn't be necessary.

Bob's reply:

>Huh????  Now why wouldn't it be necessary to pay them "hush
>money"?  Let's say they had been paid, oh $ 5,000 each for the
>sake of argument.  You don't think Bob Kiviat could scrape up a
>LOT more than that to offer them if they came forward?
>
>Nope, your argument here just doesn't make sense.

Of course it does, Bob.

Legally, if Bob Kaviat paid someone to come on national
television and make claims that they couldn't prove, then
Kaviat, himself, would be over a barrel in court if Santilli
lost money as a result of unsubstantiated claims. Why? Because
lawyers always go for the deepest pockets in a chain of
defendents. It happens all the time. Kaviat would know better
than to risk it just for the increase in ratings, if any. And
don't forget, it's not likely that Fox is going to let Kaviat do
anything to put THEM at risk either. Networks often make
overseas deals on domestic programming. The tendrils for this
show are wide spread, I'm sure.

Tragically, I had written:

>>Gilda continued by offering this:

In an apparently anal retentive mood, Bob replied:

>His name is Gildas, Roger.  He is a man.  I can attest to this
>since I met him in Paris when we both were featured on the TF-1
>network's TV program on the film!!!!! <G>

Boy, drop an "s" and one's whole theory goes right out the
window!<g>

Moving on, I wrote:

>>I've posted earlier why I find the notion of some guy processing
>>several hundred feet of film in a bucket and trying to find a
>>place to hang-dry it really stupid. I know Bob Shell disagrees,
>>and he has his reasons. But it makes no sense to me at all,
>>despite the army manuals of the day claiming that it could be
>>done.

Bob replies:

>Roger, I never said that the film was processed in a bucket,
>just that it could have been if absolutely necessary.

 <snip>

>I think the film was processed in a hand-crank processing tank,
>as were often used by the military in those days.

This is news to me. It's possible that I missed it, but I don't
ever recall you making this statement about the hand cranked
processor during our protracted debate a few months back.
Perhaps I misunderstood your assertion regarding hand processing
when you spoke about the ability to process in a bucket. Where
in the archives of our discussion do you make this exact
distinction?

Finally, I had suggested:

>>Now, a lawyer might want to weigh in on this, but an interesting
>>way to test Santilli's resolve is for others to start copying
>>and selling tapes of his AA footage, sans the opening titles or
>>credits or narrative sections that he or the networks produced.
>>After all, if the AA footage was produced by the military, then
>>it was paid for with US tax dollars and now belongs to the
>>general public, just like early NASA photos. For Santilli to
>>protect his copyright, (and his profits) he'd have to prove that
>>he produced the AA footage from scratch!

Bob replied:

>WRONG!!!!!!  This has been done.  Ask Chuck Harder about it.

I don't know Chuck. Perhaps someone can fill me in on the
details of what happened.

Thanks,

Roger Evans

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com