The emulsions age as time goes by, and no method of storage will change that. So, in effect, the film stock has to be used (exposed), processed, and then becomes a finished 'negative'. That negative will age, but not anything like unused film stock does. The negative is largely devoid (very much so) of catalytic photosensitive chemical emulsions.Posted by KiwiElf (here)
If genuine, it's also possible this may have been from another crash and not necessarily Roswell. There were several "alleged UFO crashes and bodies recovered" around that period, all from the general New Mexico/Aztec area. (remember the debacle the infamous Santilli Alien Autopsy video caused? Although Santilli himself never claimed that particular alien to be from Roswell, many prominent UFOlogists of the time did. The few Santilli still film cels (not the movie footage), were also verified by Kodak as genuine & being from 1947, and clearly not the species of alien described by witnesses pertaining to THE Roswell crash).
Kodak can certainly verify the age of the film stock, but not when the pictures were actually taken.
An expert can tell, to some degree, how old a film stock was, when it was initially exposed and processed. Exposing the film stock (taking a picture) and then not processing it also causes issues, over time. In all seriousness, a film stock needs be used in a certain amount of time, or it will not work properly. I'm thinking the 'stability'/lifespan of unused film stock from 1947, ie, standard 35mm film stock --that it was not designed to have a long shelf life. A similar situation (but not exactly the same) occurs when you find old 'Polaroid' stock in old Polaroid cameras, and try to take images with it. You get mis-colored bad looking junk.





Reply With Quote

Bookmarks