UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 27

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

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:17:17 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:44:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?


>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
>Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 23:08:01 -0500
>Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:25:09 -0500
>Subject: Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?

>>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>>Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:20:40 +0000
>>Subject: Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?

Hi James,

Great info!

However, previously I had written:

>>If the info about Santilli processing the film is true, then it
>>should be fairly easy to find the lab that did the work.

Your response was:

>We already know who it's claimed carried out the work. As Bob
>Shell will no doubt recall, he confirmed having been informed,
>"Film to video transfer was done in London by Rank".

My statement above wasn't related to the transfer of the film to
video. It was related to the processing of the undeveloped film.
If Santilli had 15 undeveloped cans of this stuff (as previously
suggested), then it would have needed special handling due to
its unique processing requirements; i.e. different chemicals,
tests, lower temperatures, etc. This should be easy to find
since the number of labs that process B&W are fewer, anyway.
This would have been a big deal to any one of them.

Moving on, you offered:

>Following a discrete enquiry, Rank clarified that any such
>specialist work would be carried out by Rank Video Services in
>London and suggested speaking to Roy Liddiard, the senior
>manager there.

>Familiar with the 'alien autopsy' film, Roy categorically and
>formally refuted any suggestion his laboratory had been involved
>and noted that even if another specialist laboratory had
>processed the 'alien autopsy' film, he would have expected to
>have heard something 'on the
>grapevine'.

Are Rank Laboratories the only place in London that a Rank
transfer could be achieved? I ask this for a very specific
reason:

The statement "The film was transfered in London by Rank"
doesn't necessarily mean that the actual "Rank Laboratory" had
to be the one that did it. Virtually all modern transfer
facilities, either in England or in the States, uses a Rank
Cintel transfer device or the equivalant. It is common in the
industry to say that "film was transferred by Rank", even in a
city where Rank Laboratories do not exist and even in a facility
where a Philips equivalant was being used instead of an actual
Rank Cintel! "Transfer by Rank" generally refers to the process
and not the Lab, itself.

Of course, if Santilli says that the "Rank Laboratories" did the
transfer, then that is totally different as he is designating an
actual place of business and not just a process.

Continuing, you offered this info from Bob Shell:

>"When I asked Ray who had done the copying of the original film
>to a 16 mm dupe, he said that he wasn't sure.

Again, some clarification is in order, here. Bob is clearly
talking about who made the 16mm dupe of the original film and
not who transferred the original film to video. While I'm
certain that any lab could do both, they are two totally
different processes.

More importantly, this info is in apparent conflict with Bob's
earlier statement that the "testing" of the film was useless
since it was from copy film and not camera original, even though
the "vintage' was identified as either 1947 or 1967. If Bob
already knew that the 16mm dupe was done by Santilli via Rank,
or any other lab, then the issue of having it tested for
"vintage" makes no sense at all. Furthermore, how could the
"vintage' be even as old as 1967 if the dupe had just been made?
Certinly the lab wasn't using 30 year old dupe stock!

Steven had written:

>>I believe that Santilli also said the "film" was very fragile and
>>had to be transfered to video a frame at a time, which may be the
>>"processing" that he has referred to in some statements.

However, Santilli claimed:

>"After hearing the story I was taken to the cameraman's house
>and viewed the footage. The cameraman had one reel of film that
>he was able to show on an old projector. He moved the projector
>over to a wall and projected the image on the wall itself".

Bob Shell had previously offered:

>"The film Ray/Volker have is, according to them, extremely
>brittle. If the pieces I have indeed come from this film, it is
>far too brittle to be projected.  That is why I assume a later
>copy is what was projected".

There seems to be another conflict of info here. In an October
post on the subject, I asked Bob Shell if he had inspected the
framelines of the camera original. Bob replied:

>No, he does not have the camera, and it would not matter much
>if he did since Santilli has never released any camera original
>film. The short pieces I have are all from copy prints.

Here Bob indicates he has no camera original; only copy print
material. But in the above, Bob offers:

>If the pieces I have indeed come from this (the original) film, it
>is far too brittle to be projected.

Perhaps Bob can explain. Do you have camera original or not?

For the record, any film that can be printed can be transfered
on a Rank Cintel. Both processes use 'roller transport' for
moving the film. In fact, the Rank is more gentle than a film
printer since the Rank needs no "teeth" to align the film. There
would be no need to transfer "one frame at a time" under any
circumstance.

Thanks for the info, James. Considering the research you've
done, perhaps you could put together a simplified time line
contrasting what Santilli says happened against what you think
really happened.

Take care,

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