From: Neil Morris <neil.nul> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 17:27:20 +0100 Archived: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:44:42 -0400 Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy And Philip Mantle >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 16:59:18 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy And Philip Mantle >>From: Edward Gehrman <egehrman.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 09:10:44 -0700 >>Subject: Re: Alien Autopsy And Philip Mantle >>>Source: Kevin Randle's A Different Perspective >>>Alien Autopsy And Philip Mantle >>>Philip Mantle, Roswell Alien Autopsy published by >>>RoswellBooks.com, Edinburg, Texas, 293 pages with an index. >>Kevin, EBK, List, >>Philip and I are friends, but he's mistaken about the AA. >>The UFO community has missed a great chance to understand the >>UFO phenomenon by studying the AA and discussing the >>implications of the footage. >>Only a few researchers have viewed the uncut footage or tried to >>figure out the significance of the Socorro crash site. >>Everyone refuses to listen to Dr Leir and his insistence that >>the footage is of a real creature. >>How and why did John Humphrey, a left hander, play the part of a >>right handed surgeon and why did he and Spyros show the brain >>being removed from the rear when it was obviously removed from >>the front? >>These types of mistakes are ingored or overlooked in Philip's >>research and by the vast majority of other UFO researchers. >>And how did Ray Santilli describe and give directions to >>a dry lake with burned vegetation and rocks, covered with a >>strange blue melted material, eventually identified as >>cristobalite? He has never been to Socorro. >>These are only a few of the unanswered questions. >>I think it's time for folks to take another look at the uncut >>footage and the evidence that it is hoaxed. There are many dead >>ends in Ufology, but the AA isn't one of them. >Ed, List, All >Let's see, Ray Santilli said that the "tent" autopsy footage >was either faked by his friends as a joke or an attempted >recreation of the footage because the original was too muddy, >dirty, or dark to be aired. Which version do you believe and >don't both of them lead to the single conclusion that it is >faked? >If there was original tent footage, as suggested by Santilli, >that film, although useless for broadcast would have forensic >value but none of it has ever been submitted for testing which >leads to a single conclusion of fake. <snip> >Instead, we are asked to accept this as real because Santilli >described a real place near Socorro, John Humphreys is left- >handed and Roger Leir thinks the body is real. >At what point do you realize the problem isn't that we all >reject the autopsy (because of all the admissions of fakery >involved), but your continued drumbeat that it is real... >despite the deplorable lack of evidence on your side. >Kevin List, You may find some of this evidence in this article I wrote earlier this year. http://es3.ph.man.ac.uk/~neil/Alien-Autopsy-Revisited.pdf Here you will find examples of intercut footage, "I" beams with and without glyphs and more than one body on the table, it's worth the 2.5mbt download if I do say so myself. Neil Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp