UFO World
Alien Autopsy
Bob Shell Part 1
Bob Shell, in His Own Words --- Part 2
10/95 - "I am confident that we will get the Kodak tests
done at some point, but I am no longer in much of a
hurry myself."
Another month passes, no film from Ray, Bob doesn't care. Why doesn't
Bob care? Perhaps he has decided to have one of his own film strips
tested!?
Let's be warmed by this wisdom from Bob:
6/26/95 - "I think we all need to take a deep breath, step
back, and try to look at this objectively."
We're ready!
10/95 - "I have explained that those frames I have and know
of can not be CONCLUSIVELY linked to the rest of the
footage, so I see little point in having them
tested."
That's VERY odd. The point, of course, is that if Bob's film strip
should happen to FAIL a Kodak test then it doesn't much matter what
image is on the film strip since it would then be a fraudulent film
strip provided by Ray Santilli.
Kodak is and has been willing to chemically test Bob's film strips any
time Bob decides to make them available for testing. Kodak only needs
ONE SINGLE FRAME to do a complete proof-positive chemical test. But Bob
won't make even one frame available. So why is Bob still saying:
11/17/95 - "That's why it is so important to eventually get the
Kodak testing done."
11/7/95 = "Tell the truth????? My, what a novel idea. Might
actually start a whole new trend in UFO research!"
So, another month passed, no film from Ray, Bob doesn't care, Bob won't
test his film strips. What gives with Ray and his film, he must have
tons of it lying around?
10/95 - "To my knowledge, the film never was in Ray
Santilli's possession."
What!? Ray NEVER had any film? Why would Bob say such a thing!? But
Ray said [10/95], "No he [Volker Spielberg] only has some, there are
three of us with footage, myself, the cameraman and the collector
[Volker Spielberg]." So Ray does have some film.
10/95 - "It is my understanding that parts of the film were
returned to the cameraman after transfer to video,
parts are in Ray's possession and parts are in
Volker Spielberg's possession."
So, again, Ray DOES have some film. But months have passed and still no
film sent to Kodak for testing, why is that? We don't know why that is
but we do know that this is getting too complicated.
What about the Tent Footage that Ray Santilli claims to have?
10/95 - "This morning I asked about the absence of the tent
footage from the video. I am told this was just
loose in the box and that the cameraman now says he
can't recall what this is or when and where he shot
it."
Odd, the cameraman is in a tent filming an autopsy of an alien creature
yet he now can't remember anything about it. No matter, let's test it
anyway, okay?
10/95 - "But the cameraman says he simply can't remember
what this is or when he filmed it, so, again, no
point at this time in chemical tests. Maybe after
some computer enhancement, which I will have done,
it will make sense to do this."
That's VERY strange. There is alleged to be a film of the autopsy of an
alien creature, perfectly available and perfectly suitable for testing
by Kodak, yet because the alleged cameraman of the alleged film can't
remember filming the alleged film Bob doesn't want to have it tested.
Yes, this is certainly confusing.
Let's try to start at the beginning, maybe that will yield something
useful. We assume there was a film once upon a time because the
videotape had to start somewhere, right?
10/95 - "Film to video transfer was done in London by Rank."
10/95 - "I asked Ray last week who did the work, and he told
me Rank did it. That seems reasonable."
We don't know about reasonable (we're too confused) but we do know that
Rank said they didn't do it and that has been verified and documented.
So much for trying to start at the beginning.
Recapping: There are edge codes, there aren't edge codes, there are
edges with no edge codes, there is film, there isn't film, there really
is film, but Kodak has no film to test and Ray Santilli doesn't know who
transferred the film to videotape. Bob sniffed the film. The cameraman
doesn't remember filming a particular film of a particular alien autopsy
so therefore it can't be tested. Is all of this clear?
Kodak is (always has been) willing to test Bob's film strips, which Bob
says positively came from Santilli and positively show the door/walls of
the alleged autopsy room, but Bob won't provide those film strips. Is
that also clear?
Bob merely sniffed the film and gave it a "95% scientific probability"
rating, is THAT clear?
10/95 - "I prefer to quote W.C. Fields who said, 'Now it's
time to take the bull by the tail, and look the
problem straight in the eye.'
We were hoping for a scientific investigation but we may have to settle
for something substantially less.
9/3/95 - "I am working with no one at JPL or NASA. To the
best of my knowledge, Bob Nathan of JPL looked at the
film for FOX in a totally unofficial capacity, said
he could do nothing with it, and returned it to FOX."
10/11/95 - "The strips I have and the one Bob Kiviat [FOX] has
have no edge markings, so we must at the moment take
Ray's word for the markings."
10/11/95 - "Yes, the strip Bob Kiviat has is also minus one
edge. I'm told that much of the film is in this
condition. However, that may argue more for it
being genuine than the other way round. The missing
edge is not the side on which the geometric code
would appear."
That's odd, the edge codes should be present on the side of the film
strip that isn't missing yet they aren't there. This is especially odd
since those "geometric codes appear throughout the rolls of film, as
they do on any Kodak film..." Perhaps this will be explained at a later
date???
Nope, no hope (at the moment) for the edge markings. There aren't any
edge markings and for all we know there never were any edge markings.
Apparently, then, the "95% scientific probability" determination
requires no science whatsoever, no verifiable or repeatable scientific
methodology whatsoever, and in fact involves nothing more than merely
sniffing the film.
What a bummer. Can Kodak help in any way?
8/4/95 - "Yesterday, Kodak agreed to do the tests if Ray will
provide a section the film for them to test."
9/95 - "The people I am working with at Kodak will do the
tests as soon as I get a section of film which
meets their specifications, and they have agreed to
do so at no charge."
Great! Okay, Ray, how about some film? (No film from Ray...)
8/31/95 - "In reality, the timetable is not up to me, but to
Kodak who is doing things at their own corporate
speed."
Almost a month passes, no film from Ray, why is Bob blaming Kodak? We
can only wonder and heed:
6/26/95 - "It is dangerous for people to say that Kodak has
done this, or that, without proof from Kodak, and
Kodak will indeed take a very dim view of someone
represents that they have done something they have
not done."
Yes indeed, a dim view...
10/95 - "I am confident that we will get the Kodak tests
done at some point, but I am no longer in much of a
hurry myself."
Another month passes, no film from Ray, Bob doesn't care. Why doesn't
Bob care? Perhaps he has decided to have one of his own film strips
tested!?
Let's be warmed by this wisdom from Bob:
6/26/95 - "I think we all need to take a deep breath, step
back, and try to look at this objectively."
We're ready!
10/95 - "I have explained that those frames I have and know
of can not be CONCLUSIVELY linked to the rest of the
footage, so I see little point in having them
tested."
That's VERY odd. The point, of course, is that if Bob's film strip
should happen to FAIL a Kodak test then it doesn't much matter what
image is on the film strip since it would then be a fraudulent film
strip provided by Ray Santilli.
Kodak is and has been willing to chemically test Bob's film strips any
time Bob decides to make them available for testing. Kodak only needs
ONE SINGLE FRAME to do a complete proof-positive chemical test. But Bob
won't make even one frame available. So why is Bob still saying:
11/17/95 - "That's why it is so important to eventually get the
Kodak testing done."
11/7/95 = "Tell the truth????? My, what a novel idea. Might
actually start a whole new trend in UFO research!"
So, another month passed, no film from Ray, Bob doesn't care, Bob won't
test his film strips. What gives with Ray and his film, he must have
tons of it lying around?
10/95 - "To my knowledge, the film never was in Ray
Santilli's possession."
What!? Ray NEVER had any film? Why would Bob say such a thing!? But
Ray said [10/95], "No he [Volker Spielberg] only has some, there are
three of us with footage, myself, the cameraman and the collector
[Volker Spielberg]." So Ray does have some film.
10/95 - "It is my understanding that parts of the film were
returned to the cameraman after transfer to video,
parts are in Ray's possession and parts are in
Volker Spielberg's possession."
So, again, Ray DOES have some film. But months have passed and still no
film sent to Kodak for testing, why is that? We don't know why that is
but we do know that this is getting too complicated.
What about the Tent Footage that Ray Santilli claims to have?
10/95 - "This morning I asked about the absence of the tent
footage from the video. I am told this was just
loose in the box and that the cameraman now says he
can't recall what this is or when and where he shot
it."
Odd, the cameraman is in a tent filming an autopsy of an alien creature
yet he now can't remember anything about it. No matter, let's test it
anyway, okay?
10/95 - "But the cameraman says he simply can't remember
what this is or when he filmed it, so, again, no
point at this time in chemical tests. Maybe after
some computer enhancement, which I will have done,
it will make sense to do this."
That's VERY strange. There is alleged to be a film of the autopsy of an
alien creature, perfectly available and perfectly suitable for testing
by Kodak, yet because the alleged cameraman of the alleged film can't
remember filming the alleged film Bob doesn't want to have it tested.
Yes, this is certainly confusing.
Let's try to start at the beginning, maybe that will yield something
useful. We assume there was a film once upon a time because the
videotape had to start somewhere, right?
10/95 - "Film to video transfer was done in London by Rank."
10/95 - "I asked Ray last week who did the work, and he told
me Rank did it. That seems reasonable."
We don't know about reasonable (we're too confused) but we do know that
Rank said they didn't do it and that has been verified and documented.
So much for trying to start at the beginning.
Recapping: There are edge codes, there aren't edge codes, there are
edges with no edge codes, there is film, there isn't film, there really
is film, but Kodak has no film to test and Ray Santilli doesn't know who
transferred the film to videotape. Bob sniffed the film. The cameraman
doesn't remember filming a particular film of a particular alien autopsy
so therefore it can't be tested. Is all of this clear?
Kodak is (always has been) willing to test Bob's film strips, which Bob
says positively came from Santilli and positively show the door/walls of
the alleged autopsy room, but Bob won't provide those film strips. Is
that also clear?
Bob merely sniffed the film and gave it a "95% scientific probability"
rating, is THAT clear?
10/95 - "I prefer to quote W.C. Fields who said, 'Now it's
time to take the bull by the tail, and look the
problem straight in the eye.'
We were hoping for a scientific investigation but we may have to settle
for something substantially less.
11/10/95 - "Take it from a reformed scientist, science most
definitely is a cult. And brain programming is the
least of its offences. But like all cults, you
can't see it clearly as long as you are on the
inside. It takes an outsider's perspective to see
it. Perhaps we need reprogramming groups to help
get scientists out of their cults and bring them
back to reality.
8/95 - "I've just been in touch with Ray, and he says that
each tape will be accompanied by a money back
guarantee in the package."
10/95 - "I do not expect to have film for Kodak to test
before second quarter of next year at the very
earliest."
10/3/95 - "Progress is slow. But it looks like first round
of Kodak tests will be done this week or next."
So, maybe in a couple of days, or maybe in a couple of weeks, or maybe
in a couple of months - or maybe not...
Having evaluated our investigative progress thus far we've decided that
it is time to move on to another topic. The cameraman, what's that all
about?
8/95 - "I've talked to people who have spoken with the
cameraman, and I am convinced that he is real. I
hope to talk to him myself in the process of
verifying the film."
Convinced!? Excellent, let's hear more!
8/31/95 - "I know who the cameraman is, I know where he is."
9/2/95 - "Well, the cameraman, I don't think is that hard to
find. If I wanted to find him I could do it very
quickly."
9/95 - "I have had a confidential communication from the
cameraman clarifying things."
9/13/95 - "I have located the cameraman through my own
search."
09/26/95 - "My communications with the cameraman have always
been via Santilli."
10/95 - "I don't know whether the Jack Barrett who died was
the cameraman... Whether he was or was not the
cameraman is something I simply do not know."
Oops! But we thought Bob knew who the cameraman was and where he was
and wouldn't that then rather clearly suggest knowing who the cameraman
was not? Apparently we need to dig deeper.
10/95 - "Whether there is or is not a cameraman is not
verifiable at this time."
But Bob said he knew the cameraman and knew where he was? If Bob had
personally located this elusive cameraman through his own efforts in
mid-September then how come in October Bob knows nothing about anything
regarding the alleged cameraman?
10/95 - "If I could contact the cameraman myself, I surely
would. At this point everything is filtered through
Ray, so I don't see much point."
But Bob said BOB knew where the cameraman was and received a
"confidential communication?"
10/95 - "I thought I knew the cameraman's name. But as
evidence emerges I am increasingly convinced that I
was given a false name."
But Bob said he knew him, knew where to find him, and had indeed
actually found him?
10/95 - "Several people are looking for any verification of
Barrett's death. So far, zilch. Only the report to
the union that he had died. No obit. No death
certificate. Nothing! The union, apparently, will
list anyone as dead if someone calls them and tells
them, but why would someone call in back in August
(before the name was outed) and report Barrett's
death? Disinformation is my best guess."
But why would Bob let people hunt down the wrong guy? Bob said he knew
the cameraman and knew where to find him? Bob said he actually located
the cameraman? Uh-oh, we're starting to get confused again especially
since in mid-September Bob said, "I have located the cameraman through
my own search."
On 9/2/95 Don Ecker asked Bob, "Have you met the cameraman?" Bob
replied:
9/2/95 - "I have not met him face to face yet. I'm supposed
to do so in a matter of a week or so."
That was over two months ago. We'll be watching to see how this
develops. Now, what about the cameraman's official statement, what
happened there?
9/2/95 - "The cameraman made a taped statement. The tape was
mailed to Santilli. Santilli had one of his
secretaries to transcribe it. The secretary is
British. So quite a bit of British got into the
transcription. I have gone over and retranscribed
it..."
Continued Part 3