UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 29

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

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:14:17 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 07:58:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?

>From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
>Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 07:58:48 +0000
>Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:28:25 -0500
>Subject: Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?

Previously, I had asked:

>>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

Bob replied:

>For the record, I do not now have, have never had, nor ever seen
>any camera original film in this incident.

>The film delivered by the cameraman to Santilli is old copy
>film, in very bad shape.  This was copied onto another 16 mm
>film to assemble the broken strips.  Some of the film had both
>edges rotted off so had to be copied frame by frame, I was told.

>The video was made from this new 16mm dupe.

In a related Post to Nick Balaskas Bob offered:

>Ray doesn't want to acknowledge that he does not have, and
>has never had, any camera original film, just the copy
>print material foisted off on him by the cameraman (who
>apparently told him it was camera original material).
>This accounts for the biggest discrepancy in the cameraman's
>tale, how he could make off with all this film without
>anyone noticing.  I speculated several years ago that he
>had, in fact, made an unauthorized copy prior to shipping
>the original film off to Washington.  This is what he
>sold to Ray, and Ray was duped into thinking he had the
>original material.

>This could also account for Capt. McAndrew's comment to me
>that he had seen the same film in Air Force archives.

Hi Bob,

Mucho thanks.

This info certainly fills in a lot of blanks (for me, anyway)
regarding the issues about "camera original" and Santilli's
claims of having the film "transferred one frame" at at time. I
must admit, if the above info is true, it would certainly go a
long way toward validating Santilli's claims about how he got
the stuff.

Still, I'm a bit suspicious about his statements regarding
"development of the film" and "processing of the reels". After
all, if he bought 15 cans of undeveloped film, as suggested in
Mr. Easton's post, then there's a piece missing to this puzzle.
What you say about him (the cameraman) making a secret dupe
print makes the most sense, if Santilli's claims are true.

Just for the record, has it been determined that the film
Santilli bought is a dupe because the film stock is recognized
as such? Or was this determined by the "wind" of the film; i.e.
which side the emmulsion is on? Did you check the pieces you
have to see if it's an "A-wind" or a "B-wind"?

If the cameraman did quickly make a secret copy for himself, it
probably was a contact print and not an optical print.
Therefore, the emmulsion on the print that Santilli bought (and
gave you pieces of) would be on the opposite side than if it
were original film from either a field camera or optical
printer. This is assuming, of course, that Santilli is truthful
that what he gave you is directly from what the cameraman sold

Likewise, if Santilli then had an optical made of this dupe
film, then the resulting dupe original would the same wind as
camera original (assuming they did not shoot through the base),
but not subsequent contact prints, of course. If Santilli's
final prints from his "new dupe original" have the emmulsion on
the same side as camera original, then either a generation is
missing or Santilli started from camera original.

I know this sounds confusing. But give it some consideration. Do
you follow what I'm getting at?


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