Comments on Roswell Film
From Various Newsgroups Sources
This section will contain some interesting comments from various
people writing to one of the Newsgroups on Internet
(alt.alien.visitors -or- alt.paranet.ufos) as we all try to decide if
the discovery of this 1940's film is really showing events at Roswell.
The source of all comments will be shown as posted in the newsgroups.
If you find something interesting, give the source a jingle via
email!
Joshua
From: tzethus@bu.edu (Matthew Vest)
Subject: Re: Roswell Film to be released
Date: 6 Apr 1995 22:50:08 GMT
RonSeattle (ronseattle@aol.com) wrote:
: Of course, the question goes begging that even though a total fake
: can be perpertrated on the unsuspecting public, we are talking about
: a fairly expensive operation here. Who would have this kind of
: money to spend, and why?
Conspiracy theory time! (Sorry, I can't resist.)
Just an idea. Suppose the gov't made it surreptitiously (I'm not saying that the Roswell incident never happened, in fact i subscribe to the coverup theory)... They could do a damned good job on it. They release it and allow the pressure to build in the UFO community for a few months. Then they finally show it after it's been authenticated and all and for a coupla weeks all the ufo buffs are running around saying "I told you so" and being generally ecstatic. Then they have someone come out and show how it was faked (without revealing who faked it of course) and prove that it was. The effect on the UFO community would be catastrophic... The sudden change from "victory at long last" to "back to the underground" would be very hard to deal with. It would be very disorienting and would cause major divisions and probably a few cases of "i give up..."
It could be the psychological warfare staff is trying to
finally rid the world of those pesky seekers after truth.
Of course that's just a possibility...
-Matt
From: Peter@pedrof.demon.co.uk (Peter Foster)
Subject: Roswell Film to be released
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 14:49:44 +0000
>On the way to work this morning I heard an article on the radio
>stating that the Roswell film 'of a crashed UFO an autopsy on alien'
>was to be released by the US government. The gist of the commentary
>suggested that it would only be released in the UK [I can't believe
>this is true].
Has this archive film been released for public scrutiny in the US?
Not to my knowledge, and I've been watching out for it.
>
>Towards the end of last year on BBC TV there was a 'wierd night' of
>assorted programmes and films which were.. wierd and ran from about
>7.30pm to 6am the next day. Things like freak shows (people with
>lobster claws for hands and feet, *huge* people, etc) and other stuff
>was shown, I can't really remember much more.
>
>But the one programme which did stick in my mind was 'The Fortean
>Times Review of The Year' which looked at all sorts of strange
>phenomena which had occurred during 1994 like raining fish, UFO's,
>etc. One part of the programme showed a film of a dead 'alien' which
>was being examined by doctors at Roswell.
>
>The narrator stated that this film was taken this year after a UFO
>crashed at Roswell. If my memory serves me correctly the film was in
>colour and it didn't look like 8mm quality. The 'alien' looked
>something like the alien from 'Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind' and
>was lying on a kind of hospital bed in a room which was largely white
>in decoration. The film was very brief at no more than 30 seconds.
>
>I was very interested to see what kind of things might appear in
>newspapers, etc but absolutely nothing appeared. Nobody I knew had
>seen it except my flatmate and I. Since then I have made several
>posts to this group about it and nobody appears to have made any kind
>of response to what appears to be a film of a dead alien from 1994
>and not 1947.
From: rjd@wilj.itl.co.uk (Roger J Dean)
Subject: Re: Alien crash video being shown in
Britian?
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 07:15:39 GMT
In article <3LARI7$N32@GOANNA.CS.RMIT.EDU.AU>
s9406702@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (Paul Francis Gilbert) writes:
>From: s9406702@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (Paul Francis Gilbert)
>Subject: Alien crash video being shown in Britian?
>Date: 29 Mar 1995 05:35:03 GMT
>I read a small article in the Australian newspaper Sun Herald on
>Tuesday (or it might have been Monday), that a copy of a video made
>of the alien crash-site in America that happened 50 years ago (the
>one in which the military moved in and kept everyone out) is going to
>be broadcast in Britan. It said that one of the military filmers at
>the site didn't think it should be hushed up, so made a copy and gave
>it to some guy [forget his name] who was in America from Britan doing
>a special on Elvis.
>Apparently, the tapes include examination of the alien craft's metal,
>as well as a dissection of one of the dead aliens' body. What I'm
>wondering is if anyone has more information about it, and if it might
>be possible to write to somewhere to get a copy made.
>Thanks for any help.
I heard on Virgin (UK radio station) on Monday evening that there is
to be a documentary on British television of the Roswell crash
incident, this is to be broadcast in August 95. They did not give the
channel or the show, but it seems that at last we are to see the the
Roswell tapes.
If anyone knows the day, time and show, perhaps they an help me????
rjd@wilj.itl.co.uk
or
uruk-hai@rohan.demon.co.uk
Someday soon, something truly wonderful is going to happen....
Subject: Roswell Film Article
From: daveb.edwards@canrem.com (Daveb Edwards)
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 95 17:26:00 -0500
Here's a post I received - an article dealing with the Roswell
film footage....
>From: CDE@ECOM.U-NET.COM
>Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 09:13:02 -0000
>Hello Dave
>
>You should know that yesterday the film was shown at a UFO
>spotters conference in Sheffield.
.................................
Note: In a follow-up message, Chris (CDE@ECOM.U-NET.COM)
mentioned that a major UFO flap is under way in South Africa.
Any additional info available from S. Africa netters?
Daveb.Edwards@Canrem.com
=======================================================
S I R I U S C O N N E C T I O N
a service of:
_/ \_ SIRIUS ENTERPRISES P.O. Box 730
\ / Barrie, Ontario Canada L4M 4Y5
/_ _\ Voice: 705-737-0125
| Datalines (V.32 bis to 14.4K baud)
705-737-0728 705-737-3030
invention*entrepreneurship*business
energy*space*astronomy*ufos
From: bm442@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Judith Simons)
Subject: Re: UFO AUTOPSY FILM ANNOUNCED
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 23:32:43 GMT
In a previous posting, Thomas Randall (randall@sunydutchess.edu)
writes:
> Dean Adams (dadams@netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : In article <3L5PCO$DS3@NEWSBF02.NEWS.AOL.COM> sunlight@aol.com
> : (SUNLIGHT) writes:
> : >SUNDAY - MARCH 26th, 1995
> : >CNN announced on Headline news that in August of this year at a
> : >UFO convention to be held in England a 16 mm film of an alien
> : >autopsy filmed by the Air Force ( actually the Army Air Corps at
> : >the time ) from a 1947 UFO crash landing in New Mexico - The film
> : >will also show wreckage of the craft.
>
> : So... what, will it take them another 5 months to finish hoaxing
> : it? Thats about the only reasonable explanation I can imagine for
> : waiting until August.
>
> I agree Dean, why wait to release this? Well with 5 month's to
> do the hoax it ought to be decent looking "autopsy"! Jeez.......
>
> Tom
I must agree also. It is a perfect scenario for hoaxing, show a still
or two or a few short segments - the easier ones - now. It is just
too much of a coincidence that the film appears just after the
technology is available to make it. I don't believe in coincidence.
--
bm442@freenet.carleton.ca
" ... I don't know why but as soon as they touch me, I just go with
them..."
From: Peter@sweets.demon.co.uk (Peter John Fitzgerald Bowe)
Subject: Re: UFO AUTOPSY FILM ANNOUNCED
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 17:06:32 +0000
In article <3LCS45$1PD@NEWSBF02.NEWS.AOL.COM>
jpmjpmjpm@aol.com "Jpmjpmjpm" writes:
> Incidentally who at Kodak 'verified' that the film is 50 years old.
> Was this in Britain or the states? I work in film biz so I work
> with Kodak all the time. I have no idea who would 'verify'
> something like that, or how.
>
> Any ideas?
Well from the BUFORA lecture that I visited on 1/4/95. Kodak didn`t
appear to have seen the original film yet.
Cheers!
Peter John Fitzgerald Bowe
From: wshaw@gate.net (William Shaw)
Subject: Re: UFO AUTOPSY FILM ANNOUNCED
Date: 5 Apr 1995 21:35:12 GMT
David Hall (DMHall@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >why do I have this feeling that this alleged autopsy film will
: >ultimately turn out to be very disapointing ?
: >
: >The reluctant skeptic
: Because (1) this film appears mysteriously at a time when Roswell is
: a hot topic among many ufo- and conspiracy-cultists, (2) almost
: anyone has access to the technology to do some very elaborate film
: hoaxes, and (3)if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
: Anybody think of any more?
4) The buttered popcorn is high in cholesterol and will
probably kill you
5) Your head will explode because We Can't Handle The
Truth
6) If you see this movie then the NSA will have to follow
you home and kill you
7) If you see this movie then you will be compelled to
renounce your God and then He will have to kill you.
From: Philip@cardiff.demon.co.uk (Philip Taylor)
Subject: Re: Roswell Evidence
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 19:42:59 +0000
In article
glgiw@mail.bris.ac.uk "G I Webber" writes:
>
> One thing worries me about the timing of this "find". That is the
> use of technology used to create the scenes in the film "forrest
> Gump".
>
> Can the film images be full authenticated? how about calling in the
> people involved in special effects from the film industry to check.
> Think how EASY it would be for the U.S. to dismiss such a film as a
> hoax.
>
> Gary.
>
I agree. The technology of manipulating images has now gone too far to
permit the images alone to constitute evidence of authenticity.
More will depend on the chemical analysis of the film (that's provided
the images are more convincing than for example those of fake
'healers' drawing out 'diseased organs'. Something like that
*wouldn't* need modern technology to produce.) I hope the experts can
get hold of similar film, ideally from batches produced at the same
time, and since archived. (If we can trust the archivists!)
Mass spectrometer and chromatography evidence might then be found.
In effect, this is 'fingerprinting' of any particular batch of
chemical.
I would be interested to know if old film contains isotopic indicators
as to its time of manufacture. Better still, when the silver salts
are exposed is there any isotope, in the reaction by-products, which
is held in the film, so we can get a rough date of the exposure?
If the film material contains carbon (cellulose?) it would
unfortunately mask any reaction involving atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Anyway the period may be too short for carbon dating. Maybe oxygen is
a better candidate... I suspect that the technology needed exists
already, in another guise.
It would be easier to find such a method for determining the date
of processing of the copy. But there are already those who say that it
lay around unprocessed for a long time. :(
--
Phil
From: neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Roswell film update
Date: 3 Apr 1995 09:35:57 GMT
In , office_31.emrmps2.kkokkino@es2.es.emr.ca
(Kosta Kokkinos) writes:
>In article <9503302046466761@AWAITER.COM>,
>robert.mitchell@awaiter.com says...
>>
>>Well here's a little more fuel for the fire. Enjoy
>>
>>#: 50445 S1/General Discussion
>> 28-Mar-95 17:00:39
>>Sb: Roswell Film News
>>Fm: John W. Ratcliff 70253,3237
>>To: ALL
>>
>>
>>
{snip for bandwidth}
>
>I agree when you say that if the film is a hoax then it will have
>serious ramifications as to the credibility of the whole Roswell
>incident and UFOlogy as a whole. Could this be a deliberate attempt
>by someone to do just that (ie) discredit the whole UFO movement.
>
>Why hasn't the U.S. government tried to stop the showing?
>
>Why are they waiting until August to show the film? So much can
>happen to it by then.
>
>How can the film be so clear after all these years?
I have some original ex-newspaper archive b/w plates of aprox the same
vintage, (ww2)they are in very good condition. Once processed, as long
as they were well stored the images should be ok, the one reservation
to this is if the film stock was nitrate based this can and does
deteriate even if stored in good conditions. This has been found out
to their cost by many "older" film archives.
>
>These are just some of the questions that go through my mind every
>time I read a post about this subject. I want to believe in this new
>evidence so much, and if it can be verified then come August we will
>be entering into a new era with respects to UFO research. No one will
>be able to dispute it anymore. All I know is that thanks to the
>internet evidence like this cannot be covered up. The word can be
>spread throughout the world. No government or agency can stop it.
>
A big "IF" in this case:
If it is correct that the film stock has been checked out (by Kodak)
to be 50 yrs old, plus, if the images on the emulsion are consitant
with the age of the film. Somebody has gone to a hell of a lot of
trouble and organisation should it prove to be a hoax, I'll just have
to continue speculating and await the release of the pictures.
I'm might just nip over to Sheffield and visit the conference if they
are letting outsider's in.
? Is anyone at Sheffield, or involved with the investigating group,
following this newsgroup, if so would there be any plans to release
any material, pics, mpegs or just conference reports onto the
Internet. (any members of BUFORA out there) I could make some disk
space available on a machines if net access is a problem.
Neil Morris. /1010110101101 Virtual Bumper
Stickers Inc 10110101010010\
Dept of Physics. 1
University of Manchester. 0
Schuster Labs. 1 Computer Programmers DO IT with
BITS of BYTES 1
Brunswick St. 0
Manchester. 1
UK.
\010101011000010110110010110101101011011110101011010/
G8KOQ E-mail: neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk or neil@es1.ph.man.ac.uk
[ftp+gopher site]
From: Peter@sweets.demon.co.uk (Peter John Fitzgerald Bowe)
Subject: Re: Roswell film update
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 17:59:15 +0000
In article <3LOFHT$SOB@YAMA.MCC.AC.UK> neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk writes:
>
> ? Is anyone at Sheffield, or involved with the investigating group,
> following this newsgroup, if so would there be any plans to release
> any material, pics, mpegs or just conference reports onto the
> Internet. (any members of BUFORA out there)
I have only recently joined BUFORA, and in any event well before this
whole business started. I suspect that by the time I post this some
other BUFORA members will have posted up to this thread to set the
record straight, but here it goes.
Last Saturday (01/04/95...no significance) I attended a BUFORA lecture
at the University of Westminster given by Miles Johnston of SKYTV.
During the AGM before hand John Spencer informed us that the Press
release was intended only as a means to obtain low-level local
publicity in Sheffield for the August Conference, and as such was
released to a local small-Newspaper Journalist. The Journalist
promptly, smelling a "scoop", placed the piece on the "wire". This
subsequently gave rise to the mess BUFORA are in now. A mess that I
believe has been created through the "naivety" of some members of
BUFORA.
Anybody who has ever dealt with the Press, on no matter how large or
small a scale must realise that Journalists have to make a living. A
living they make from selling NEWS. And the showing of "50 year old
Top Secret film" strikes me as being BIG NEWS. I believe that Bufora
thought that they were acting in the best interests of the Conference
financially by this Press release. However, Philip Mantle has only
seen a video of 7-minutes of the film, as he doesn`t have the film,
nor has he, (or KODAK), even seen the original film itself. And
it is this fact that I believe may bring about major troubles for
BUFORA.
They are now at the whim of an 82-year old man who could sell it to
the highest bidder. or who could wreck UFOlogy for years to come.
Cheers !
--
Peter John Fitzgerald Bowe
From: skaeser@cais.com (Steven Kaeser)
Subject: Re: Roswell Film to be released
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 05:16:54
In article <3MCI9PINNT4M@NEWS.D.UMN.EDU> jfields@ub.d.umn.edu (Jon Fields) writes:
>From: jfields@ub.d.umn.edu (Jon Fields)
>Subject: Re: Roswell Film to be released
>Date: 11 Apr 1995 00:25:29 GMT
[text deleted]
>I agree, Matt. I, too, believe that there is truth in the Roswell
>incident. Yet, I can't help but smell something fishy about his whole
>deal. Why the wait? I wouldn't give a shit about who gets money and
>who has to have their stupid meetings to examine its 'legitimacy'.
>If this film is real, then it is too important to wait for the 'proper
>time' to expose the public to it. I feel like someone is playing
>games with my mind. I smell a rat...
> -Jon
Unfortunately, Santilli apparently doesn't share your desire to seek the
truth. He is, apparently, only in it for the money. In case you missed the post from The International
Roswell Initiative over the weekend, it is alledged by them that Santilli has actually had the film for two
years in England. During that time he has been transferring it to video tape, and preparing it for release.
This delay will do nothing but increase the number of questions regarding the film, which is good. But,
the delay in and of itself, does not prove or disprove its authenticity. The film was apparently impressive
enough to cause Mantle to insert it into the BUFORA conference this summer. It is not on their initial
schedule of events, and has apparently been added at the last minute.
Santilli refuses to respond to inquiries from UFOlogists, and has only shown one small section of the film
to a few individuals. That was enough to get us all worked up, and increase the value of his property in
August. I hate the wait as well, but am resigned to it. One can only hope we don't beat ourselves to death
with theories and speculations before we get a chance to see what we've been talking about. IMHO, if it is
indeed fake, we will be able to detect that fairly quickly. If it is not fake, the U.S. Air Force may have to
come up with a better explanation than the "Mogul" project as the cause.
Peace!
From: lzucaro@aol.com (LZucaro)
Subject: Re: Roswell Film
Date: 29 Apr 1995 00:49:48 -0400
>>
No way the film will take until August to be validated. C'mon, in a
matter of MINUTES it can be proved real or hoaxed. This waiting until
august nonsense tickles me. Their already preping us for a lousy piece
of film. "it's 50 years old", "it's
detereorated", etc. all the easier to fake the film -- I have a
feeling the lighting will be low, you'll barely be
able to see what is on the table. Don't say the lighting is low
because it was shot in a tent, they must of
used lights of some kind to see what they were doing (if anything).
Excuse the sceptic nature of mine but
what do you expect after 50 years of crap photos,film and video. I've
yet to see any tangible proof. The only film I've seen that made me
say "whoa, what's that?" is the 60's film shot by Leland Hansen on
Catalina island.
<<
As somebody who worked in a professional film archive, I can say quite
confidently that the fact that a piece of film is 50 years old IN NO
WAY should lead anybody to believe that the film will not look good.
Film is not like videotape in this way. In fact, there is much film
in said archive, namely, the British Pathe library, which was up to 75
or 80 years old (or thereabouts), which looks like it could've been
shot last week, with respect to its clarity, sharpness and overall
quality.
In response to the question of lighting, motion picture film requires
much more lighting than does still film to get the same effect, due to
the nature of motion pictures. This is, of course, a generalization
which varies greatly with film stocks, equipment used, etc., but the
human eye is definately much more sensitive to light than most motion
picture film stocks are. Even if there was plenty of light to see
what was going on in the tent, that doesn't mean there was anywhere
near enough light to shoot a movie in there.
I'm not saying anything in favor or against this film (especially
since I missed the beginning of this thread :-) ), but I just wanted
to point these things out.
Lou
Comments from Steve Kaeser
(After Film Shown in England)
From: skaeser@cais.com (Steven Kaeser)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: "Roswell Film": Update 1/2
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 06:39:26
Organization: Kaeser Konsulting
In article <3RPDAK$5MV@S-CWIS.UNOMAHA.EDU> stone@cwis.unomaha.edu (Travis Stone) writes:
>From: stone@cwis.unomaha.edu (Travis Stone)
>Subject: Re: "Roswell Film": Update 1/2
>Date: 15 Jun 1995 13:41:40 GMT
>James Easton (texje@BONALY.HW.AC.UK) wrote:
>This is another aspect of this "autopsy film" stuff that really bothers
>me, as far as legitimacy goes: Why is the footage in little itty-bitty
>chunks? Surely the Army Air Force had cameras capable of spooling more
>than three minutes' worth of film at a time? Call me naive, but I just
>don't get it. It almost sounds like sweepings from the editing-room
>floor where they've been trimming up one of those cheesy Sunn
>International UFO documentaries---"Overlords of the UFO", or the like.
>T.R.S.
Travis...James...of whomever:
You might want to actually research this, but there have been several posts by
those who are familiar with the technology of that day, and they indicated
that this was, indeed, the type of photography equipment used by the military
at that time. However, this may just mean that someone has done their
homework in creating a hoax, but so far there is not conclusive proof either
way.
Keep in mind that the military was only making a record of an event when it
was photographed, and not filming a documentary.
====================
From: skaeser@cais.com (Steven Kaeser)
Newsgroups: alt.ufo.reports,alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: Roswell autopsy film.
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 1995 18:09:57
Organization: Kaeser Konsulting
In article <37@X-TNO.WIN-UK.NET> robb@x-tno.win-uk.net (Rob B.) writes:
>From: robb@x-tno.win-uk.net (Rob B.)
>Date: Fri, 09 Jun 1995 20:30:17 GMT
>Subject: Roswell autopsy film.
>If the Roswell film is real then I doubt that the governments would
>allow it to be published as they seem to cover everything else up...
Perhaps true, but if the players remain in the public's eye, it would
difficult to have them suddenly disappear. An effort could be made to
retrieve the film, but they couldn't be sure to get all the copies. My guess
is that their best efforts will be in making sure there is no way to verify
the film (if it is real and I am not making this as an arguement for its
validity), which means the elderly photographer had better hide well.
