From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:53:20 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:51:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?


>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:14:17 +0000
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?

>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"?

It has been determined because all of it has the distinctive
signature of the Bell & Howell printer used to make the copy
prints.  It also has a soundtrack (blank).

>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
>him.


No, the cameraman claims he made the copies himself on a copying
machine in the base lab.

>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?

Yes, I follow you, but it doesn't matter in this case.

Bob