From: Greg Boone <Evolbaby.nul>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:14:48 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:50:37 -0400
Subject: Re: New Roswell 1947 UFO Crash Footage? - Boone


>From: Nick Balaskas <Nikolaos.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:45:50 -0400 (Eastern Standard >Time)
>Subject: New Roswell 1947 UFO Crash Footage?


>Hi Everyone!

>The video on the web site below was brought to my attention by a
>friend on Saturday after I came to work to watch fellow Canadian
>and York alumnus Steve MacLean blast-off in space in Atlantis
>live on the big screen and, afterwards, to do an interview for a
>student film documentary on UFOs in Canada. This video is >being
>promoted as authentic film footage of the recovered alien bodies
>from the UFO(s) that crashed near Roswell, Arizona in 1947.

>http://tinyurl.com/fepe3

>[Full screen:

>http://tinyurl.com/k6g4p

>--ebk]

>Is this video which depicts what look like naked and sexless
>dummies just another very clever hoax or simply apparently aged
>B&W footage taken from a new or upcoming film documentary or
>movie on the Roswell UFO crash?


Okay, I got the following response from a colleague in the film
industry:

"The simulated bloom looks very bad. Also its introduction
doesn't reveal a lot of thought. That particular type of bloom
is usually the result of multi-generation film duplication.
Here, It resembles every glow filter effect used in After
Effects and other post programs, with a different ramp than
photochemical response. It also appears as if was rendered after
the curiously large simulated grain, because it obscures the
grain pattern rather than appearing "through" it.

The film damage is humorously overdone, including, among other
artifacts, edge fogging from light leaks and "solarizing". The
gate weave/sprocket damage does not have the look of the real
thing. It would be unusual to get a piece of film from any
source that suffered from every known type of damage
simultaneously.

The cadence looked wrong for 16 or 24fps, so I grabbed the AVI
and it's 25fps. That's either a 24fps movie converted to PAL
standard, a GOOGLE conversion result, or a fake originating in a
PAL country. There do not appear to be pulldown artifacts.

The motion blur is more characteristic of video than film. The
latitude does not appear to be consistent with that of 1940s
film stocks. Overall response looks more like blown out video.

Here are a few old films for general comparison, from1906 to
1941:

http://www.archive.org/details/Summersc1941_2

http://www.archive.org/details/SanFranc1934_3

http://www.archive.org/details/OpiumDes1914

http://www.archive.org/details/EdisonNe1906

http://www.archive.org/details/SanFranc1906_2

Notice the flattened contrast."

It didn't take him much time to come to his analysis results.

Another pal in the film industry figured it out as an 'Alien
Autopsy' associated product right off the bat.

Mind you the two pals in question aren't anti-UFO nor are they
skeptics but honest enough to give an impartial analysis.


Best,

Greg