UFO Watchdog investigates and exposes the Reed Hoax

The Dead Alien, The Doctor, and the Deception

JUNE 2001

This is a classic UFO Watchdog article (c) by Royce Myers, III

Part IV

ABOVE Nothing like a good UFO hoax for keynote speaker at the IUFOC.


CLAIM: Dan Iaria states on his website, "In October of 2000, I took a trip to visit with this person and to show him the actual negatives that I wanted him to authenticate. This individual was Bob Shell, editor of Shutterbug Magazine. He has an extensive background in photography and is well respected by the technical staff at Kodak for his knowledge in this field."

FACT: Iaria did indeed have Bob Shell examine the negatives to see if they were actual negatives. But Iaria's claim of Shell's analysis is not only over inflated, but there are major problems with Reed's negatives.

Bob Shell, editor of Shutterbug magazine and author of over a dozen books on photography, is a recognized photographic consultant who has testified as an expert witness in federal court. Reed supporter Dan Iaria met with Shell in October 2000 and presented Reed’s negatives for analysis. Shell’s evaluation, however, was limited to determining if the negatives were normally exposed photographic negatives and did not consist of an analysis of the actual images represented on the negatives. Shell stated the negatives were authentic and Iaria posted the results to his site as proof positive of Reed’s encounter.

During his Coast-To-Coast AM appearance in March, Iaria was asked if he believed Reed’s story. Iaria stated, “I am absolutely 100% convinced that it’s real. I have no doubt at all.” Does this mean Reed is telling the truth? Hardly. Remember when Peter Davenport stated that Reed chose the wrong month for his ruse? He wasn’t kidding…


I contacted Bob Shell after learning of the analysis. Shell stated he did examine the photographic negatives presented to him by Iaria and concluded they were normal negatives. Shell was asked if he did any type of in-depth analysis of the images on the negatives and he stated he did not. However, Shell did expressed concern with regard to the production date of the negatives and suggested that I contact Kodak. I contacted Kodak’s Product Information Department and spoke with a film specialist.

Every roll of Kodak 35mm film is encoded with film identifier numbers. For example, a roll of Kodak Max 400 film will have a number such as 400-4 that appears on the negatives. This would signify the film was ‘400’ speed and was generation ‘4’. Kodak maintains extensive records of film production and the dates each generation of film is produced and distributed.

The two single frame negatives that Reed possesses, which he has unequivocally stated are the original 35mm negatives taken of an alien and a UFO, have the identifiers 400-6 on one and 800-2 on another.

LEFT: Reed's "alien" negative, Kodak 800-2 35mm film. RIGHT: Reed's negative of a UFO, Kodak 400-6 35mm film.

When asked for production dates of the film, the Kodak representative stated 400 speed 6th generation Kodak film (400-6) went into production November 1996 and was introduced to market February 1997. As for the 800 speed 2nd generation film (800-2), the specialist stated this film went into production November 1996 and was introduced to market January 1997.

I re-contacted Bob Shell and asked for his professional opinion regarding the possibility of the negatives being copies. Shell stated that he had contacted Iaria about the film production dates. Iaria was reported to have said that the negatives Shell examined were copies of slide film taken in 1996. About the possibility of the negatives being copies, Shell stated, "I looked at two of these negs, the same ones on the web site, and saw nothing that would lead me to believe they are copies from slides. I don't buy it."

After initially contacting Kodak, I decided to verify the information again. Tony Edwards, a specialist in Kodak’s Product Information Department was asked about the production and marketing dates for both types of film. Edwards stated that Kodak’s 35mm 400-6 film was produced in November 1996 and introduced to market February 1997, and Kodak’s 35mm 800-2 film was produced in November 1996 and introduced to market in January 1997. Reed claims his encounter occurred October 1996, 2 to 3 months before the film was even available. It would be, of course, impossible for Reed to have taken pictures with this film since didn't exist at the time of his alleged encounter. Case closed...


UFO Watchdog Home | The Hall of Shame | The Hall of Fame | About Us | | The Paracast | The Paracast Community Forums