UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 31

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

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:40:35 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:01:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?


>From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
>Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:02:52 +0000
>Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:34:08 -0500
>Subject: Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?

>>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>>Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:22:27 +0000
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?

Earlier, I had asked:

>>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:

Bob replied:

>AFTER we proved to Santilli that it was copy film he asked the
>cameraman and he said something like "of course it is copy film,
>I made the copies myself on the printer at the base lab."

Also, I had inquired:

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

Bob replied:

>Honestly, I don't recall at this point.

<snip>

>Apparently it was copied onto dupe film since the only edge
>codes on it are those printed through from the original.

Hi Bob,

I know the issue of an "A-wind" or "B-wind" seems trivial, but
there is a logic to my question. There is nothing to prevent
anyone from making a contact print off of another contact print;
I've seen coaches do that from old football film prints many
times in the past. The results are fine only the emmulsion comes
out on the same side as camera original as a result.

Since we know that "Santilli's original" is a print, then the
question remaining is if the Cameraman (assuming there is one)
is telling the truth about how he came into possession of it,
right?

If Santilli's film print has the emmulsion on the same side as a
camera original, then that means it was made off of another dupe
and not camera original. In such a case, it would clearly
indicate either of the following:

A) That the cameraman did not have access to the camera original
and would, therefore, be lying as to his involvement in the
shooting of it. By extension, all the events and episodes that
he claims to have happened would be in serious doubt. He would
simply be a lab technician that stumbled onto some unusual film
that he made a copy of for himself.

or

B) That Santilli is simply lying about the existence of the
Cameraman to try and validate some unusal film, the origins of
which he hasn't a clue.

Later,

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