From: Bob Shell <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 17:31:47 +0000 Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 07:26:21 -0500 Subject: Re: The Truth About The 'Tent Footage' Hoax >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >To: "UFO UpDates Subscribers":; >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: The Truth About The 'Tent Footage' Hoax >Date: Mon, Jan 18, 1999, 5:21 PM >Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:36:30 +0000 >From: Neil Morris <Neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk> >To: firstname.lastname@example.org >Subject: Re: The Truth About The 'Tent Footage' Hoax >>From: Stig Agermose <Stig_Agermose@online.pol.dk> >>Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 22:25:28 +0100 (MET) >>Subject: The Truth About The 'Tent Footage' Hoax >>To: email@example.com >>[List only] >Stig, >Thanks for posting this sorry little article, I had it with me >to OCR in today. I regret it seems to do nothing more than cloud >the issues even further. I agree completely the Tent Footage has >remained extreamly fishy since it was first "leaked". (and in a >number of "versions"!) But this explanation of it's "parentage" >seems to carry more than a wiff of our watery friends with it. Sure does. I was particularly interested in his comments about kicking the tripod now and then to introduce shake. I looked again at the several versions of the tent footage I have and there is nary a shake in the lot of 'em. Also, the still used to illustrate the article is from a different viwepoint than the tent footage and, to me at least, the body looks different. Far from answering questions, this article has just raised a bunch of new ones.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp