From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 01:57:32 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 09:42:46 -0500
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ufology

> Date: 15 Jan 97 18:41:48 EST
> From: Theresa <70571.1735@CompuServe.COM>
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: The Two Faces of Ufology

> >Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 23:57:19 -0800
> >From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com
> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: The Two Faces of Ufology

>     Then why did you ask me for the record group, box, folder, etc.???

I understand this may be conceptually difficult for you to understand,
but it is called documenting your claim. Let's update what you have said
in the past in presenting your claim:

	"My search of the archives turned up more information. I was
	  curious if you had done the same search."

The implication being that you had actually/physically searched the
archives and the result of that search produced the evidence you purport
to substantiate your claim and that at minimum you had physically seen
the contents of this "evidence" at your search of the archives. As we
shall see below, I for one would be extremely embarrassed if I had done
"the same search" you posture to have done.

>     What alleged photos are you talking about? I have a video of footage  that
> is reported to be from Trinity, first shows the fireball from the ground, the
> same footage that most everyone is familiar with.  Then it shows  aerial
footage
> of the fireball pushing up  thru the cloud cover.

In other words you have some video that is not from the archives, that
you have failed to provide any source documentation as to its genesis
and provenance, that you have failed to provide any linkage to it as
actually being from the Trinity Blast. And --- there is not one iota
reverencing this "evidence" of yours in any of your prior posts. Yet,
you have continued to posture, postulate and imply that your "research"
of the archives has produced this evidence.

> >That you failed to provide in your response. You never address what this
> >alleged evidence in the archives specifically contained. You
> >circumvented all around it.
>
>      In the previous message to you I mentioned that I looked for the
> whereabouts of Luis Alvarez at the time of the blast.  What I found in that
> archive was his eyewitness testimony. He witnessed it from a plane.  You
see, I
> read in Lansing Lamont's book "Day of Trinity" that Alvarez was on a plane at
> the time. But the UFO experts were saying that there were no planes in the
air.
> So I checked to see if I could find where he was, if not on a plane. The
> document says he WAS on a plane in the air and saw the top of the blast cloud.

Let's see. You have Luiz Alvarez on an airplane where he produces
sketches and drawings of the blast. For some reason you decided not to
mention that Luiz Alvarez needed to produce sketches and drawings in
order to document his observation. I wonder why that was done if cameras
were rolling? You have video that you have failed to identify the
source, genesis and provenance of an atomic bomb test that someone that
you have not identified told you was Trinity. Yet, you have so far
failed to provide any documentation to link the two together so that a
compelling chain of evidence can be formed.

> >In other words, you have not seen this alleged footage of the blast
> >cloud. You are basing your claim without any verification that can be
> >attributed to real evidence.

>      But I have a copy of it on video already!  What I wasn't sure was if
it was
> Trinity or not. The Archive Technician said it was from my discription of it.

Mr. Holdcamper no doubt, who you no doubt contacted by calling
(202)501-5400, the name and phone number you posted previously.

> The only way I could do better than that, is to purchase copies from the
> archives.

Let's see. You posted that if I was to call  (202) 501-5400 the archives
would provide me with an archivist to help my questions on research
record group 77. Is that not correct? Really!!! The number you posted is
to the main archives. As it so happens, all film is kept at College Park
in Maryland and not at the main National Archives. An archivist
physically located miles and miles from College Park, Maryland, would
have extreme difficulty in assisting anyone with anything located at
College Park. You also stated that you thought the main record group
archivist was a Mr. Holdcamper. Guess what? Nobody at the main National
archives ever heard of a Mr. Holdcamper. But, then again, the film
records are not there as you implied in your response to my questions to
post in context exactly what you found and where? What is also
interesting is if someone was to call College Park and ask about this
alleged Mr. Holdcamper whose name you provided as the individual that
assisted you and the record group archivist, they would not know who in
the heck he is either. They have never heard of him at either College
Park, Maryland, where the film records for group 77 are, or at the
National Archives in Washington, D.C. whose phone you provided as part
of your response implying that one could find out about both this
alleged film that you have never seen from the archives, or this alleged
archivist that supposedly assisted you in your search that no one at
either location in Washington or College Park, MD. seem to know anything
about.

> They are quite expensive.  However, the statement you made was that
> you weren't aware of planes in the air at the time of the blast.

What I know or don't know is not the issue. The issue is your claim that
you have uncovered evidence that establishes that there was aerial shots
of the Trinity Blast taken at the time of the test with the implication
that that provides substantiation to the "cameraman's story". Even if
there ever turns out to have been previously unknown aerial footage of
the actual test taken (without the linkage tying "Jack" to the airplane
the data would be still totally irrelevant), and that you have searched
and found this evidence in the National Archives of all places.

> >If you have actually checked and seen that this alleged footage is of the
blast
> >cloud, reproduce it and post here for everyone to see. If not, admit
> >that you don't have a clue as to what you have been posturing about and
> >that your accountability and credibility are traits that you need
> >improvement on.
>
>     Does this mean that your offer to verify the information no longer stands?

Believe when I state that your story is being checked out thoroughly
based on the material you have posted to this list, even though you have
already displayed an amazing amount of duplicity in your "facts", and
when that research is completed the results will be posted to this list.
Don't be surprised when you find that there are more than one person
checking into your story and "research".

>     I can't very well post the footage that I have here.  I can post the
> eyewitness account if you would like, but it won't be the same as you
verifying
> it with the archives yourself.

Let's see. You have made a claim that you have verified this evidence by
searching the national archives, when in reality you haven't. You have
no idea at all what the National Archives footage of Trinity comprises
of. You have given this list a phone number where no archivist can
assist the caller since the film footage is not at that facility, but at
College Park Maryland and you have provided a name that has not checked
out with anybody that either works at the National Archives, or the
College Park, Maryland branch. Your alleged "search" of the National
Archives in all probability is an electronic search of the NAIL database
online, but then again the reference numbers for those that you posted
are incorrect and if given to an archivists as reverence, they would not
be able to find out zilch related to anyone's inquiry. So far you are
not doing very good.

Let's see what is it that you really have. You have a video that did not
originate from the National Archives and that you failed to mention as
the basis for your claim even though you falsely lead everyone on this
list implying that your evidence was from the National Archives. You
have the say-so of someone you don't identify, that this video is of
Trinity even though you don't have anything to back it up except your
willingness to believe hearsay. You did correctly identify Luiz Alvarez
being in an airplane circling the test site, making sketches and
drawings of whatever part of the blast he could momentarily glimpse
through dense shifting cloud cover from 20 to 30 miles away in
turbulent weather conditions during one of the worst weather fronts to
hit that area. And now you claim that your "search" of the archives was
a phone call to a number where the Manhattan Project film files do not
even reside and where the archivists at that number have never heard of
the archivist you cite as part of your "evidence".

> But yes, I will admit that my accountability and
> credibility need improvement. Doesn't yours?

See Above.

Further updates will be made as the search for Therera's credibility
continues.

Ed Stewart

ps. please feel free to change or update your research adventures to
this list as the search continues for the alleged National archives film
(OOOPS! non-archive video of undetermined origin), that the National
Archives has (OOOPS! Not at this branch!), secured with the assistance
of Mr. Holdcamper (OOPS! Who? Never heard of him), conclusively showing
aerial footage as the Trinity mushroom breaks through the cloud
cover(OOOPS! Says Who? Hearsay says who), as Luiz Alvarez frantically
was trying to maintain his balance between the pilot and co-pilot trying
to visually record the Trinity blast by producing sketches and drawings.

pps. Where was "Jack" all this time? "Jack", this might be a good time
to come out of the cold. It appears to me that Theresa could use a
little bit of help. Her research claims appear to be running into some
turbulence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Stewart - egs@netcom.com - | So Man, who here seems principal alone,
"There is                     | Perhaps acts second to some sphere
unknown.
 Something Going On!" ,>'?'<, | Touches some wheel, or verges to some
goal,
 -Salvador Freixedo-  ( O O ) | 'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole.
------------------ooOO-(_)-OOoo------- Alexander Pope, Essay on Man------