UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 25

Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 13:42:59 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 17:20:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?

>From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
>Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:41:52 +0000
>Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:50:06 -0500
>Subject: Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?

>>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>>Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:09:27 +0000
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?

Previously, I had offered:

>>If this info is correct, here we see that Santilli dealt with 15
>>cans of undeveloped film. In addition, Santilli uses the terms
>>"processing of the reels" and "development of the film" within
>>the same context.
>>I don't think for a minute he was talking about "transfer" to

Bob adds:

>Ray Santilli did have access to developing for old film.

>There was a Kodak cartridge of old film which Mike Hesemann
>bought from a lady in Roswell which was supposed to contain
>images of the crash site.  It was unprocessed film.

>Unfortunately, Mike gave it to Ray for processing, and later
>got back a short portion of the film.  The part which had
>actually gone through the camera was missing from what Ray
>returned to Mike, and has never been accounted for.

>I submitted the portion which had been processed to Eastman
>Kodak for identification, and they verified that it had been
>correctly developed, and from the edge markings and sprocket
>spacing (which changed at several points) positively
>identified it as 1945 production.

>I still wonder what happened to the beginning of that film.

Hi Bob,

Just wondering, do the number of unprocessed reels that Santilli
told you he received jive with the number Mr. Easton cites in
the following:

>The seller of the film apparently went on to offer Santilli 15
>cans of undeveloped film, filmed by him while in the military,
>of the Roswell crash scene from the ground and air, and of the
>alien autopsies.


>The man dragged out the old cans
>and permitted a small piece of film to be cut from the leader on
>one film to be taken to London for analyses.   According to
>Santilli, Kodac (sic) in London reported that the film was of
>about 1948 vintage.  That was good enough for Santilli who
>purchased all the cans for $100,000 (he has also mentioned

The accuracy of the price not withstanding, is it known if the
"test piece" was taken from a processed or unprocessed reel?

If it was a processed reel, then the leader would have not been
part of the actual film at all, since labs add plastic leader
after processing to facilitate projection. On the other hand, if
it was unprocessed, then the "leader" would be the actual film.

Regarding the "Kodak cartridge" you mentioned above, was the
film regular 8mm? The reason I ask is that, to my knowledge,
16mm film was always used on reels and not cartridged unless it
was to be used as "split 8mm" in home movie cameras. If it had
been processed and not split it would, in fact, still look a lot
like regular 16mm film. The difference, of course, would be the
dual 8mm images side by side but would have unusual "pitch" or
sprocket hole spacings. Might this be a possibility? Or was it,
in fact, 16mm film?

Just curious...


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