It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


MUST SEE! Smoking Gun Found In Roswell Video

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 10:43 AM
Interesting Sled, but those breaks highlighted do look like breaks on some kind of dummy, not a biological entity.

I think skinny Bob looks more realistic, just my opinion:

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 12:01 PM

originally posted by: sled735
a reply to: RUSSO

Yes, that looks like the same footage. Thanks.

Yes, I can tell the truth for one day, Greyer! Russo pointed out that this footage came from a t.v. show, and I thanked him and acknowledged that it was the same clip from the movie. If you would have read over the posts you would've seen that!!!

Santilli did say it was a recreation for show. Maybe it really happened, maybe it didn't. People making false documentaries/UFO videos/films only makes it harder to prove they are real.
Maybe someday the real truth will be proven.

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 09:29 PM
I would be interested in seeing the full video/full interview(s) of that clip at the end with Dr. John E. Mack. I read his book Alien Abduction and would recommend it to anyone. Its a collection of the most interesting abduction cases out of the hundreds? he extracted through hypnosis in a very professional manner as an unbiased observer, with no leading questions etc...
edit on 10/4/2014 by 3n19m470 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 12:23 AM

originally posted by: sled735
This 37 second 8mm video shows a strange humanoid (?) being retrieved from the Roswell crash site. It has six fingers, strange-looking feet, and large black eyes, with a big head.

How do you know it's an 8mm video? Where is this indicated? The video doesn't show a "strange humanoid", that's your assumption. How do you know that whatever or whoever the body is of is being retrieved from the Roswell crash site since there was no UFO crash near Roswell? Six fingers, I don't know, the video of a film is so bad that nothing can be taken for certain, including your description. Just because the awful, assuming video voice-over says so without any visible evidence is not reason to take it for granted and post it here as such.

The author of this site says,

I did some detailed analysis of the Roswell video. I found some very interesting frames that nobody has yet discovered. If you didn't believe the Roswell story before, perhaps this has now changed your mind. This was uncovered in Mexico during a archaeology dig. Looks old when compared to other finds in that region. I have searched the internet and can't find much about it.


Detailed analysis? You gotta be kidding. Where is the evidence that it is a "Roswell video" and where is the evidence that the action taking place is in a military installation? He didn't "discover" anything, he is assuming beyond mondo! And it was uncovered in Mexico during an archaeology dig? How confusing this whole thing is.

Awful, just awful.

posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 04:05 AM
a reply to: Uggielicious

Read the whole thread (it's not yet two full pages).

The OP has conceded that the source of the video has been explained and the story in the opening post is bogus.

posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 05:36 PM
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?

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 01:23 AM
a reply to: Xretsim

We mentioned the Santilli film because the film in the OP has come from a comedy film, also called "Alien Autopsy" made in 2006. This is basically the story of how Santilli made his fortune. The clip features at the end of the movie.

I guess it passed you by.

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 01:31 AM
It looks fake to me. It's pretty easy these days to edit a video to look "old". A few of my friends that are into independent films could probably make something that looks similar.

Just my opinion after watching the first few minutes.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in