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: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:22:27 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:42:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?


>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?

Previously, I had asked:

>>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"?

Bob replied:

>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).

Weren't there field cameras capable of producing both optical
and magnetic soundtracks on the raw footage? I've got an old
Auricon that will produce a blank optical sound track on camera
original stock. What distinctive signature of the Bell & Howell
printer are you refering to? I'm not arguing, here; just
curious.

Moving on, Bob stated:

>... the cameraman claims he made the copies himself on a copying
>machine in the base lab.

I'm confused. I thought you previously said that the cameraman
fooled Santilli into believing the footage was camera original.
At least that's the impression I got from the following post you
offered which read:

>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).

When did the cameraman admit that he lied to Santilli about the
footage? Was it before or after the testing of the footage?
Wouldn't Santilli have recourse in such an event?

Also, do you know the following info:

Was the film Santilli bought an "A-wind" or a "B-wind"?

Was it originally (by the cameraman) copied onto actual dupe
stock or was it simply copied onto camera grade B&W reversal?

Thanks,

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