a reply to: sled735
Interesting. Why are people mentioning the Ray Santilli film associated with this one? as for the Santilli film, found this from
where they did a film analysis:
"It's important to first establish just what Kodak's position is concerning the footage. The following is taken from a press release that Kodak's
Marketing Planning Manager P.G. Milson (not some flunky) sent to the outside world. This is the only official public Kodak release of information so
far on this subject.
"We have been asked to confirm the age of a piece of film know as the Roswell film...We have seen sections of either the film or its projection
leader in three Kodak locations: UK, Hollywood and Denmark...Conclusions...
1)In our process we put a code on the edge of the film which repeats every 20 years.
2)The symbols we have seen on the Roswell film samples suggest that the film was manufactured in either 1927,1947 or 1967. ( This memo substantiates
that the film could have been shot in 1947 so at least that one fact is secure and we now know that they saw more than just a leader but the real
footage. Kodak isn't going out on a limb for this crazy happening but they can't dispute their findings, either)
3) We are therefore, unable to categorically confirm when the film was manufactured (This is a hedge if I ever heard one)
4) It should be remembered that even if the age of the film manufacture is confirmed, this does not necessarily indicate that the film was shot and
processed in the same year...(the rest is disclaimer and of no consequence)" "
And then this quote:
"PHOTO SHOPPER: Cutting directly to the chase - you've seen a lot of the original film and analyzed it, so what do you think? Is it authentic?
BOB SHELL: Well, the film is certainly authentic in the sense that the film stock is 1947-vintage Kodak 16mm Super XX Pan chromatic high speed safety
film. Which is correct film for the time scale that we're talking about. It was used by the military for a number of different types of photography,
so there's really no anachronism involved in the type of film, or the date of manufacture of the film itself.
PS: How did you determine the date of manufacture?
SHELL: Well, Kodak uses an edge code of geometric symbols on their 16mm films to indicate a date of manufacture. Until the sixties they repeated those
edge codes every 20 years. The edge code on this particular film is a square followed by a triangle. Which would indicate 1927, '47, or '67. Because
of contextual things within the film, no one has seriously suggested it could have been made in 1927. A wall clock, a telephone, and other things are
visible in the film that were not available in '27. Besides, Super XX film wasn't available then, either. So we really didn't consider 1927 worth
being concerned with. So we then looked at the possibility of the film being made in 1967. That was equally unlikely. In 1957 Kodak made a major
change in their 16mm films. They adopted a new, high temperature, more caustic chemical process. When they did this, they discontinued all of their
films and issued either revised versions of those films or new films to replace them. Super XX was discontinued during that change-over. If Super XX
was not made after 1957, this stock could not have been made in '67.
PS: What if some insider counterfeited the edge-code on some other film made after 1957?
SHELL: They would have to match the type of film base material, as well. After the '50s, Kodak used triacetate, basically the same stuff they use
today. But in 1947 they were using an earlier form of acetate called acetatepropionate. This decomposes with age. It shrinks in physical dimensions,
and after it's aged for a while it has a very characteristic, acidic odor. Based on the odor and the shrinkage characteristics, we've said that this
film is the older form of acetate. Therefore it would be 1947 film.
PS: What prevented someone from having acquired a bunch of 1947 film and shooting it in 1985 or '90 or '95?
SHELL: Nothing prevents anyone from doing that. But the finished film would have noticeable levels of fog caused by background atmospheric radiation
and cosmic rays. It was a high speed film, meaning that it would fog fairly rapidly. And this film shows no measurable levels of fog whatsoever. This
would indicate to me that it was exposed and processed while it was still quite fresh. So I would say that probably the film was exposed and processed
within a couple years of its manufacture in 1947.
PS: I've heard that this particular film had a really short shelf-life as well.
SHELL: A two year shelf-life was what Kodak put on the packaging. That is,the "use by" date was two years from the date of manufacturing.
PS: All right, so it seems that if this were a fraudulent undertaking, it was undertaken in 1947.
SHELL: Yes, if it's a fraud it was done in 1947. Which creates very large questions of its own, as to why someone would have faked such a film in
1947 and who would have done it, and who would have had the budget to do something like this? "
So I am confused - which film was analyzed by Kodak - this one or the Ray Santilli film?