From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
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 <updates@globalserve.net>
>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: updates@globalserve.net
>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: updates@globalserve.net

>>[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.