Originally posted by XterrAZ:
No doubt in your mind.
Having the originals in my possesion says I know differently. We can argue points back and forth forever on the subject. Again, Villa was a fraud, nothing more.
You're taking the stand of something you read on the internet without true knowledge. Could I be wrong on the date my sister took the pictures? Possibly, it was a long time ago, 68 is what stuck in my head and I still believe that to be true.
My sister has been MIA for the last several years but she has popped up in the Sacramento area and I am working on contacting her. I will revisit the circumstances surrounding this event and will also ask if she still has the Project Blue Book report that was sent along with the return of the prints.
I don't fault you for believing what you have read about Villa, he fooled a lot of people for a long time, that's what frauds and fakes do.
I'll give you the link to the images in Project Blue Book.
http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=NARA-PBB94-458 The exact same photos you claim were taken by your sister are in Project Blue Book dated 1963.
The Blue Book images in the archives are crude photocopies of the images.... but there is no doubt that they are the same images you attribute to your sister. They include the exact same shots and even include the image with the car in the foreground.
There is no doubt that the Paul Villa images are frauds. However, doesn't seem to be any doubt that the pictures were not originated by Paul Villa.
Are you claiming Villa stole your sister's pictures and took credit?
How could Villa have taken credit and obtained copies of the images in order to claim that credit if the feds had the pictures as you have stated?
I'm not arguing with you... I'm just saying some things are not adding up.
Was your sister in New Mexico in 1963? She would have been about 21 back then.