The controversy surrounding Ray Santilli's Alien Autopsy film, which millions have seen thanks to the Fox Network and video available to rent at most video stores, continues to rage. What most of you don't know, however, is that there is a second autopsy film.
This second autopsy allegedly was filmed at the same time by the same cameraman, whose identity continues to remain a closely guarded secret.
In a futile effort to answer the demands of the critics, the supposed cameraman was interviewed and video taped giving that interview. This was so poorly handled, perhaps by design, that it has become a controversy nearly as large as the films themselves..................
.................and the beat goes on and on.
The very few people who have seen this second film report it is very similar to the first. The body is in much better shape. You'll recall the first body had suffered severe wounds supposedly as a result of the crash of it's ship near Roswell.
The clarity of the film is much better than the first. However, it was not the one published because of the graphic nature of the autopsy itself, which included one of the people doing the autopsy inserting his or her arm well up into the body through the genitalia.
Justifiable concerns over public reaction to this dictated selection of which film was published. However, there are strong hints that this second film will be released this coming July to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the Roswell crash itself.
Following is a collection of recent comments and messages on this entire subject from a host of knowledgeable people including Ray Santilli himself, Bob Shell, "Roswell" executive producer Paul Davids, and other well known UFO researchers and authors.
It makes for extremely interesting reading. But what comes through loud and clear is that there is no solid incontrovertible evidence that can prove or disprove the authenticity of these films.
My personal view is that this is the real thing. The whole story surrounding Santilli's acquiring the films, and films themselves are just too elaborate to be a hoax.
Read on, enjoy, and you decide what camp you're in, the Skeptics or Believers. Either way 50% of the populous agree with you.
Bob Shell on the film and Kodak......................................
We've gone back and forth a lot on this with Kodak. Kodak spokespersons have told others that they would test the film if brought to them, but when I have tried to do this they have backed out or changed the rules. Initially they said they only needed a tiny bit from one frame. When I informed them that I had film and would supply a frame, suddenly they needed a 20 inch strip. When it looked like I had gotten Volker convinced to provide this, they suddenly wanted a 16 foot strip. It is my belief that Kodak has never been dealing with us in good faith on this issue. Also, let me go on record to point out that not a single item of many promised by Kodak's Tony Amato has ever been mailed to me. This includes a variety of documentation promised in telephone and e-mail conversations. This is not typical of my dealings with Kodak in my magazine work. Usually anything I request is on my desk the following day. Not so on this issue.
On a recent visit to a film factory of one of Kodak's competitors, I took advantage of the opportunity to discuss this problem with their chief chemical engineer and one of his associates. Both agreed that it would take a piece of film "the size of a pin head" to definitively test the acetate for vintage. They have a vast computer data base on film base materials and production dates. I have asked them to test a piece of the film for me, and they have agreed to do so if their corporate management agrees. This is going through the bureaucratic channels right now.
Meanwhile, Professor Malanga did tests at the University of Pisa and pinned the film base down to one of three acetate types made by Kodak. When I asked Kodak to provide manufacturing dates for these acetate types their response was completely evasive and they did not supply this simple data. I think that tips their hand.
As all should know by now, I am not a full-time investigator into this. My time is limited by the necessity of getting out a major montly magazine every month. I am spending as much time on this as I can afford, and if that produces movement which is slower than you and others like, tough. I said last year that I envisioned this as being a five year project, and nothing has come along to change my mind.
Additional comments from Bob Shell on the second autopsy..............
The "second autopsy" footage released by Santilli is only one of two such films he has. The other, claimed to be the "first autopsy", was shown privately to a few people, but has never been released on video. It's apparently very similar, but features a slightly smaller body, which has no visible injuries.
I have not seen this video, but do have stills from it. My impression is that the body is about the same size. It apparently looks "wrinkled" or "shriveled" unlike the other one. Supposedly this first autopsy was performed on July 1 and the one everyone has seen on July 3. Many of the criticisms of the autopsy which has beens seen lose validity if this chronology is true, since the "appearance that they have done all this before" and are moving too swiftly would make sense if they were simply repeating a procedure done just a few days previously.
When I asked Ray why this other autopsy was not released initially since everyone who has seen it says it is better in quality, his response was that it had not been released initially because it was unsuitable for television. He went on to explain that the bulk of this one is of a "gynecology exam" and that the doctor has his "arm inside almost to the elbow" at one point. Removal of a small white spherical object from the "genitals" is also shown in closeup detail in this film. If Ray's description, which agrees with what Mantle and Andrews tell me they saw, is accurate, then it would make no sense from a financial point of view to attempt to sell TV networks something which they could not broadcast. This also argues against the hoax scenario since it would make no sense to produce an expensive hoax knowing in advance that it could not be shown on TV. I am confident that this material will be released to researchers at some point.
Judging from descriptions, Santilli again seems to have most, if not all, of this film.
The film is in the possession of Volker Spielberg. When I visited Santilli in September he said that all film was with Spielberg aside from a certain portion which had been returned to "Jack" as agreed. Ray said he would be happy to show me the first autopsy, but he did not have a copy of it, having sent all copies of the video to Volker. My impression is that Volker is the one pulling the strings.
Paul Davids, Producer of the movie "Roswell" comments................
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 04:38:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: IUFO: Producer of Roswell Movie Responds to Straight Dope
SearchNet's IUFO Mailing List
The Straight Dope column to which Paul Davids refers below can be found in the "Recent Columns" section.
Dear Mr. Adams:
Regarding your column on the Roswell UFO Incident, May 31, 1996, I was Executive Producer and Co-writer of the movie mentioned in the letter to you, called "Roswell" starring Kyle MacLachlan and Martin Sheen. I have also produced a commercial video ("Reply to the Air Force Report on the Roswell Incident") which contradicts everything you wrote, most of which you collected from Phil Klass, a now well-past-the-age-of-retirement debunker who has never even passed muster as a dispassionate skeptic and who is reviled by everyone I know as a disingenuous and intellectually dishonest writer on UFO's who's followed a slash-and-burn agenda on every UFO case for decades, while enjoying a cozy relationship with the defense establishment during his career as an editor for an aviation magazine. He should have stuck to his promise in OMNI magazine to retire from writing about UFO's five years ago and saved me the hour or so it's taken me to draft this letter.
Your Straight Dope on the Roswell Incident is uninformed malarky, as far as I'm concerned, after nearly ten years of examining this case and after passionately fighting through four years of rejections to finally get the movie "Roswell" made. I fought for one reason -- which had nothing to do with entrepreneurship or fostering a cottage industry. I wanted the truth to get out there, and it has, and here are the known facts which your readers -- and you -- deserve to read:
The Government Accounting Office (the GAO) recently reported that the military documents that could have explained the Roswell Incident (outgoing messages from the commanding officer and others at the Roswell Army Air Field 1947) were destroyed without proper authorization decades ago. The Air Force never fessed up to that in their 1994 report. Instead, they wrote a 22 page report with about 1,000 pages of virtually worthless "supporting materials" that have no provable connection to the Roswell Incident whatsoever. I long ago concluded that the Mogul balloon report is a weak effort to "spin" the issue and contradicts or ignores witness testimony -- and much of that testimony I personally delivered on tape to the GAO, which found no support for the Air Force's and Charles Moore's claim that the incident can be explained by a Project Mogul balloon train. In fact, Charles Moore's attempt to explain the "strange writing" on the Roswell debris as being flower designs on tape that held together a flimsy balsa wood radar reflector is disputed by the only living witness who has testified about the writing he saw on the debris: Dr. Jesse Marcel, Jr. He categorically states that the symbols he saw on the debris were embossed on metal, they were not designs on tape. He is a flight surgeon and practicing physician, and has investigated crashes for the military. His father was Jesse Marcel (upon whom we based the main character in our movie, played by Kyle MacLachlan), a Roswell Intelligence Officer who described the Roswell Debris in about 1978, on videotape, as having been "not made on this earth."
The dates of the Mogul launches and the written records of the then-secret program do not indicate any launch with instrument packages that coincides in time with the Roswell Incident. The soldiers at Roswell were among the best trained and most trusted in the country -- don't forget, it was the only base at that time that had responsibility for the atomic bomb and also had the planes to deploy the bomb. These men, many of whom later claimed in "video depositions" that what crashed was "not made on earth" did not make an error such as mistaking five pounds of conventional debris (balsa wood, conventional foil, etc.) for something extraordinary, and to claim they did is ludicrous. There's reliable testimony that it was the Base Commander (Col. Blanchard) who ordered release of the original announcement that a flying saucer had been captured -- it was not initiated by low ranking soldiers.
Three generals have publicly gone on record (and are on tape -- see my "Reply to the Air Force Report") as supporting key aspects of the fact that there was a major coverup, and that includes (1) Senator (and General) Barry Goldwater, former head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who has written letters stating and has stated on TV that he takes the "crashed spaceship" explanation very seriously, (2) Brig. General Arthur Exon, former Base Commander of Wright Patterson Air Force Base (where the debris and alien bodies were reportedly taken), who confirms on tape it was an extraterrestrial crash with bodies and that "the coverup won't end until all those originally involved with the coverup are deceased," and (3) Brig. General Thomas DuBose, who said the "revised explanation" in 1947 that it was a weather balloon was a cover story concocted on orders that came down from those reporting directly to the Commander in Chief, President Truman, and that false debris that had nothing to do with the Roswell Incident was shown to reporters in Gen. Ramey's office and passed off on the public as the Roswell debris.
At the time I executive produced the film, I felt the weight of the testimony, which I reviewed, from dozens of military men and townspeople, made the extraterrestrial explanation credible, and not one alternative explanation has fit the facts as reported by people involved whom I came to know, or their families, or their testimony which I had to hear on tape because they were deceased when I became involved.
After making the movie, I knew enough about the case to be able to dismiss the Mogul Balloon explanation offered in 1994 by the Air Force as another ruse to obscure the issue, though the New York Times and Associated Press accepted it without investigation or inquiry, to the considerable disservice of the public. Last July, I was invited to make that point as the keynote banquet speaker at the White Sands Missile Range Pioneers 50th anniversary celebration, attended by about 200 members of all branches of service, including reps from the Department of Defense and major defense research labs.
Within the last several months, I have been personally informed by Astronaut Gordon Cooper, in a face to face meeting, that Roswell did involve the recovery of a crashed extraterrestrial spaceship, that our movie (which he saw) was largely accurate, that there has been a half century of official denial and official lies about it continuing to this day, and that he has a very close friend who saw the alien bodies. Gordon Cooper was one of the original Mercury Seven Astronauts. He filmed a flying saucer that even landed at close range while in the service and said the filmed evidence of the inexplicable and technologically advanced craft was "buried" by the Pentagon and ignored by Project Blue Book, which said it could find no credible evidence for the existence of flying saucers.
Astronaut Edgar Mitchell, who walked on the moon, believes the weight of the evidence is that Roswell was an extraterrestrial event and he publicly suggested, recently, that those who knowingly withheld the facts from astronauts who went to the moon are "criminally liable" for essentially using astronauts as guinea pigs while not telling them the truth about what is known about alien life forms visiting earth. Recently, I received correspondence from President Clinton, thanking me for sending him video testimony which confirms the coverup and which thoroughly undermines the Mogul Balloon disinformation that was served up to him by the Air Force. His personal letter, expressing gratitude for my materials that demolished the Air Force report, was overnighted to me coinciding with a much-publicized press conference in Washington D.C. by science writer and former NASA consultant Richard Hoagland, presenting evidence that NASA has buried or ignored mysterious lunar and Martian anomalies that strongly appear to suggest artificial structures. The President's letter to me (which followed mine to him by about three months) also preceded by one or two days an announcement by NASA that finding evidence of ET life will be its highest priority for the future, including the search for evidence of such life (even from the distant past) in our own solar system on Mars and the moon.
I have no information to support the "alien autopsy" film broadcast by FOX and have been very skeptical of it from the outset, when it suddenly "came to light" in the months after our film was broadcast. (By the way, "Roswell" was nominated for a Golden Globe for Best TV Movie of 1994 by the Hollywood Foreign Press.) I do not endorse the FOX autopsy film, though I note that there has been no conclusive "smoking gun" one way or the other yet, and most statements are "going on instinct" or on personal impressions rather than personal experience, personal knowledge or proof. Nevetheless, the special effects people I have worked with dismiss it, and it does seem to obscure the issue and the facts of the Roswell case. The fact that someone unknown released less than convincing film of a purported alien autopsy in no way diminishes or detracts from the evidence and testimony that there was the crash of an ET craft at Roswell. In fact, there is every reason to believe that real exhibits, in the form of artifacts, debris, specimens, photos and motion picture film does exist and is still being withheld.
Former Command Sergeant Major Bob Dean, formerly of SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe) states that as part of his job in the military in Europe he was shown a classified document, "The Assessment," that revealed that the military has evidence and exhibits of numerous extraterrestrial craft conducting a surveillance of the earth, and that this certain knowledge has demoralized those of high rank who are in the know.
Recently, billionaire Laurence Rockefeller released 1000 copies of a report he sponsored to various heads of State and key Senators and Congressmen, as well as key people in the Clinton Administration. The report on UFO's presented in a sober and somber way many cases which offer overwhelming support of the thesis that flying saucers are real and that there may be no alternative to confirming the extraterrestrial hypothesis in the near future. Interestingly, the report avoided the debate on the Roswell Incident and presented powerful evidence on the UFO issue, dated up to the very recent past, without it.
Mr. Adams, may I suggest you change the name of your column to "The Dope," unless you're prepared to show some hubris and admit in print that you leaped before you looked. Your "Straight Dope" on the Roswell Incident is fiction, and not even consistent or well thought out fiction. If you want the version closest to the truth, as Gordon Cooper and so many others have confirmed, advise your readers to rent the movie "Roswell" at any local video store. The Alexandria II Bookstore in Pasadena has my "Reply to the Air Force Report on the Roswell Incident" for rent.
Paul Davids Executive Producer / Co-Writer of "Roswell"
From James Eastman, here is some interesting data on the film...
Although this story was merely of passing interest at the time, in hindsight, there seems a strong case that this was the same interview which later surfaced in a New York hotel bedroom.
"After filming I had several hundred reels. I separated problem reels which required special attention in processing. These I would do later. The first batch was sent through to Washington, and I processed the remainder a few days later. Once the remaining reels had been processed, I contacted Washington to arrange collection of the final batch. Incredibly, they never came to collect or arrange transportation for them. I called many times and then just gave up. The footage has remained with me ever since".
Ray Santilli alleges this to be the cameraman's own story of the monumental foul-up which allowed him to store the reels of "Roswell" film.
But one point which seems quite clear is that these were not the occasional "problem" reels from the autopsy, these reels contain most, if not in fact all, of the film which he shot.
The clues are in the documentation of the reels, as demonstrated in "Roswell: The Footage", the video released by Ray Santilli's own company, Roswell Footage Ltd. This contains the "raw" footage and helpfully, each reel is preceded by a description.
The autopsy footage reportedly consists of the following reels:
Reel No. 53 Body No. 2 10:05
Reel Un-numbered Body/Leg 10:20
Reel No. 56 Body/Leg No. 2 10:40
Reel No. 59 Chest No. 2
Reel No. 61 Chest No. 2
Reel No. 62 Head/Eyes No. 2
Reel No. 63 Head No. 2 11:30
Reel No. 64 Head No. 2
Reel Un-numbered Brain 11:45
The time is taken from the clock visible at certain points.
The last reel isn't numbered, but the content follows on from the previous reel and judging by the time on the clock, it would seem to be "Reel No. 65".
The first reel, which does show the opening sequences, is "Reel No. 53" and the total number of reels would therefore be thirteen. Ray Santilli has at least nine of those reels and as the cameraman's story claims that none of them were never forwarded, then, at best, only four reels of film could ever have been.
And that's assuming Santilli doesn't have them also. He claims, "a good 50% of the footage we had, we were not able to retrieve an image from", although there seem to be anomalies with that claim.
The "second autopsy" footage released by Santilli is only one of two such films he has. The other, claimed to be the "first autopsy", was shown privately to a few people, but has never been released on video. It's apparently very similar, but features a slightly smaller body, which has no visible injuries.
Judging from descriptions, Santilli again seems to have most, if not all, of this film.
It might be conceivable that a few "problem" reels could be overlooked, but the story is actually about two unique and historical films of inestimable scientific and medical value, yet, seemingly of no subsequent interest to anyone.
Despite the certain government and military concerns about the Russians acquiring some knowledge of the incident and, more importantly, the technology which was recovered, the security procedures were so strict and the "cover up" so thorough, that the cameraman could take home over 20 reels of film showing the recovery, debris, both autopsies and even some film confirming the presence of President Truman!
That's exactly what Ray Santilli claims to have acquired - although the recovery and Truman images were unfortunatley "irretrievable".
It may seem a somewhat incredulous scenario, nevertheless, it is the true perspective of the "Roswell" footage story.
Info on the money man behind Santilli, and Santilli tells how he came to possess the films...............................................................
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Volker Spielberg
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 97 03:46:35 -0000
From: Bob Rickard
I may be duplicating an earlier discussion but has anyone investigated Volker Spielberg. I view of his importance to the business of solving the mystery of these 'alien autopsy' tapes, what do we actually know of him?
Apparently a business associate of Ray Santilli's for some years, Spielberg lived in Hamburg before moving to Austria. As well as "Lollipop Records", he was involved with another Hamburg based company called, "VS-Musik Verlag GmbH".
In one of his earliest comments, Santilli mentioned that his own company, "The Merlin Group", had offices in London and Hamburg.
Spielberg is now involved with an Austrian based company which, similar to Santilli's line of business, produces CD's and audio tapes. It's a large company, involved with distribution, imports and exports.
The only known interview with Spielberg was when the French TV channel TF1 traced his whereabouts in Austria and Jacques Pradel spoke with him. The essence of Spielberg's comments were:
"I want to be left alone. I'm a collector, I want to be out, and I want to have no contact with nobody regarding this matter because this is my personal thing....Simply I'm not interested. You see, the whole matter is of no interest to me, I have made up my mind. I have my belief and that's it. And I got what I want. I'm happy and that's it."
"What have I to do with this? As to my knowledge, I'll keep all the cans, yes, as to my knowledge, that's all I can tell you. Well, as to my knowledge I am, uh, possess all the film reels. Whether this is true or not, that's not up to me to judge, but that is my belief, yes."
What are his motives for surpressing access? ... can it really be the equivalent of an antique collector who doesn't really want to know if his priceless 'Matisse' is worthless crap?
I had the opportunity to discuss Spielberg's involvement with Ray Santilli and he provided some background detail which was an interesting insight into the story. Ray also answered some questions on other central issues, but not all of them. In relation to a separate matter, I had extracted this exchange from my files last weekend and passed it on to someone. I think this extract might help you to place the story of Spielberg's involvement and some other key issues in context. I've edited it to remove some unrelated material:
Volker is one of the greatest extraverts you could ever wish to meet, he collects anything of real value, he is wealthy and has been a business associate and friend of mine for many years. That's how I know him. That's why I turned to him when I needed money.
With regard to your other points, I still maintain that the story of the films acquisition is true, certain non-relevant details were only changed to stop people getting to the cameraman. Yes the trip to Cleveland was 1992, Yes during that trip I met Bill Randle but he was one of many people we met. Yes during that trip I met the cameraman and NO the cameramans name is not Jack Barnet, I have always made it clear that the name had been adopted to protect the cameraman's real name..
Volker is one of the greatest extraverts you could ever wish to meet...
Thank you for clarifying this. If I understand correctly, what you are saying is that Volker is not essentially a collector of archive, historic, 16mm film, but a collector per se.
If Volker financed the entire purchase, can you possibly clarify how it was possible to sell him some of the film which he already bought!? Why, for example, was it apparently only the "first autopsy" footage which he bought from you and yet he seems to own most of the other film as well?
It would help to place matters in perspective if you could.
With regard to your other points, I still maintain that the story of the films acquisition is true, certain non-relevant details were only changed to stop people getting to the cameraman....
It was obviously known that the Cleveland visit was 1992 and that any living cameraman could not be the late Jack Barnett!
It was however no longer clear whether the initial offer was still apparently made during that Cleveland visit and I'm sure we all appreciate this further clarification.
The Cleveland visit took place during July 1992 and if the film wasn't actually acquired until November 1994, this would presumably mean there was a 2 year, 4 month interlude.
Initially, it was claimed that the cameraman from whom you acquired the film had worked as a freelance for Universal News and that during 1955 he had filmed some, now musically historic, high-school concerts in the Cleveland area. This claim seems to be based on the life of the late Jack Barnett and the "Pied Piper of Cleveland" footage which he filmed.
Is that an accurate conclusion?
Would this be an indication of your intention to protect the cameraman's identity?
Without obviously now revealing his identity, can you clarify what the actual circumstances were? As you may have seen, last November, Michael Hesemann posted some further insight into the acquisition story. I'm sure Michael won't mind if I briefly quote the relevant details:
"...today I met Ray in London (just came back) and spoke with him for about three hours. He told me the full story. He was in Cleveland End of June/beginning of July 1993 looking for early Elvis /Rock n'Roll material...he advertised in the local paper and got hundreds of replys: People who had posters, autographs and so on.
JBs son lived in Cleveland at that time and JB visited him for the July 4th weekend and boating on a lake near Cleveland. He saw the ad and contacted Ray. Ray got interested and flew with him to his home town, saw the footage, bought it. There the cameraman who liked Ray and his policy offered him the "other footage"...."
Obviously the year is incorrect and it differs from previous versions in that the "Elvis" footage wasn't seen by you in Cleveland (which presumably it couldn't have been if the cameraman was there on holiday and the footage was at his home), but is this essentially a more accurate version of the story?
Again, it simply helps to place the whole picture in perspective.
Some answers :-
1. Anything of REAL value, that's Volker (yes per se)
2. Volker put up most of the money, on the condition he could have some film, and we pay him a percentage from any income we can derive from it.
3. I first saw the film during my Cleveland trip and agreed to buy it. However I didn't have the money.
4. Strangely enough if you look back at my earlier statements you will see I stated that it took me over two years to buy the film (no one picked up the mistake with the date)
5. The cameraman did film Elvis with his backing band live on stage in late 1955, it was a short clip of film (around ten mins) but nevertheless very good and yes we purchased it.. He also freelanced for Universal News as most qualified film cameramen did during that time.
6. I cannot state where I saw the film, as this would cause problems.
At present it's impossible for me to go any further than I have above. Not because I am being difficult, but if I do the land slide would be formidable, and as mentioned in the past neither I, Volker or the people I work with are in control of the situation.
Thank you for the detailed reply, the points which I haven't responded to have been duly noted. There are some points which I would hope you will consider further:
Volker put up most of the money, on the condition he could have some film, and we pay him a percentage from any income we can derive from it.
- Volker financed the entire purchase - He wanted some of the original, 16mm archive film as it was "unique" - You therefore gave him ("sold" him, as you put it) the "first autopsy" footage - He retains a financial interest in the commercial aspects of the film (not really relevant)
Is this now an accurate summary?
The key word in your welcome reply is "some". If he only has some, where is the rest of it!!?
This is one of the most fundamental points. We know that the following film exists:
- tent footage
- debris footage
- first autopsy
- second autopsy
If Volker only has some of the footage, as far as we know the "first autopsy" footage, where is the remainder and why can none of it be made available for authentication?
The cameraman did film Elvis with his backing band live on stage in late 1955, it was a short clip of film (around ten mins) but nevertheless very good and yes we purchased it.. He also freelanced for Universal News as most qualified film cameramen did during that time.
That's a great help.
We therefore seem to have a situation where:
- Whilst in Cleveland you negotiated the rights on the "Pied Piper of Cleveland" footage, shot in High Schools in Cleveland during 1955 and featuring then up and coming stars, including Elvis Presley. The footage was shot by a Universal News cameraman called Jack Barnett.
- Whilst in Cleveland you were offered additional footage, shot in a High School in Cleveland during 1955 and featuring the then up and coming star, Elvis Presley. The footage was shot by a freelance Universal News cameraman whom you subsequently gave the pseudonym of Jack Barnett.
No wonder this has been confusing.
At present it's impossible for me to go any further than I have above...
Presumably this means you will not be providing evidence that any archive film was ever actually processed. That's obviously very disappointing and still offers no explanation why the evidence you _did_ provide to Bob Shell, simply didn't check out. Why did that happen?
Can you give some indication whom you believe the real controllers are?
On a more general topic, has the cameraman ever spoken about the filming which took place at Wright Field when he worked on the recovered debris during those 3 weeks? It would obviously be very interesting to have some insight into what happened there. One would assume that some of the most powerful and influential people in the military and government would have been at Wright Field during that time. Has he mentioned any names, any discoveries made during the examination of the debris, any policy decisions he may have heard of?
A small down-payment was made in 92. I couldn't raise the rest which is why I turned to Volker. So he didn't pay the full amount. In return a certain amount of the footage was his to keep and he retained a financial interest in the exploitation through the media. With regard to your other questions relating to footage I cannot answer them right now apart from saying that the only film that is relevant is both Autopsys, Debris and the material contained within the scrap reel most of which has nothing to do with the event but will be of interest as it gives an insight to the cameraman (for example, on the scrap reel there is approx 5mins of what appears to be a local American football game played in a field).
Whilst in Cleveland I was offered the Elvis footage I mentioned, it was not a high school performance but an open air one.
In time I will be providing evidence, I do not understand the Bob Shell reference
Controllers : the cameraman, especially his family feature here.
James, out of this recent exchange you have gained a great deal more information than most others, I am not at liberty to go any further at present.
I accept that I didn't handle the situation very well at the start, my experience in this field was minimal. What has really interested me in all this is the carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation and debunking. The UFO community are being manipulated from the outside, and it's not by me.
Thank you for the additional clarification to the points discussed, I'm sure it's greatly appreciated by everyone.
If Volker has a certain amount of the original film and doesn't wish to have it authenticated in any way, that's obviously a great disappointment for everyone else who _would_ like to substantiate the truth behind it's origins.
However, it doesn't explain why not even a small sample of the remaining, relevant 16mm film, wherever that may be, couldn't be made available.
Kodak's offer to provide the most expert opinion was a wonderful opportunity.
I'm sure you appreciate that much of the present uncertainty is simply down to the absence of information and you have gone some way to redressing that, which has been a great help.
On which note, the query concerning Bob's comments was outlined in my initial response:
"I had subsequently asked if you could possibly confirm who was responsible for processing the entire footage and transferring it to 16mm film, clearly a delicate and specialised operation.
Although you had not provided any such details, Bob Shell confirmed that he had asked you in person about this and that, "Film to video transfer was done in London by Rank." He further clarified that, "There was then a general conversation in the office as to who had ultimately done the work. Ray said something like "We ended up having it done by Rank, didn't we?" and Chris said something like, "yes, it was Rank. I'm pretty sure it was Rank.
A simple question really; why did Rank in London confirm they had no knowledge of any such work?
Thanks for the message. For the most part I accept your points, The film was transferred here in the UK. I will discuss your request with the facilities House tomorrow and if they are happy for me to disclose their name (which they haven't been) I will pass it on. Now the dust has settled a little they may not mind.
Ray's offer to put me in touch with the Facilities House, i.e., the people who allegedly transferred the 16mm film to video, came to nothing, as he declined to do so at the last moment.
All of the above correspondence with Ray was in public, on the CompuServe MUFON forum.
Does he exist? For all we know he may be an actor, as may the clumsy 'cameraman'. Has he been interviewed?
I hope this helps explain the story.
We know for certain that Ray was in Cleveland during July 1992 and did acquire a significant collection of Elvis Presley memorabilia, but that's all we can say for sure.
It wouldn't surprise me if Volker Spielberg was a wealthy collector, possibly of archive music film, but again, there's nothing to back up the claims of his involvement with the "Roswell" film story.
Bob Shell Responds to a Critic
Date: 23 Jan 97 19:45:21 EST
From: BOB SHELL <76750.2717@CompuServe.COM>
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Bob Shell & Volker Spielberg
I've been a journalist for 12 years and I have never ever been given >true answers by being nice and drop a serious question (as I have discovered >to many times afterwards).
My father was a radio newsman after the war and went into TV as soon as there was TV, and was a TV newsman until he retired. He did some hard hitting investigative stories in his day, and was the man who broke the Francis Gary Powers U-2 spy plane shoot down story, and he was one of the first to seriously investigate the periodical UFO "flaps" in Wytheville, Virginia. My mother was a newspaper woman until she retired. I have been in the magazine business for over 20 years, and my 18th book just rolled off the presses this week. So please don't lecture me on journalism. My father, mother, and I have always followed the old "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" philosophy, and it has served us all well. Nothing at all is accomplished by not being nice to people you are interviewing.
What would suggest that there ever was a crashsite at the location you visited? Wouldn't it be quite "clean-picked" by now?
And how did you come up with a location? From the cameraman?
You really haven't been following this story, have you? This is all old news. But I'll go over it one more time. Last year I went out to Socorro to have a look around and see if I could find any local witnesses to anything happening in the area in 1947. Mike Hesemann was out there as well for part of the same time, and we interviewed one eye witness to a fireball which came down on May 31, 1947 together. I wanted to try and find the crash site, so I called Ray and he called Jack. He had jack on one line and me on another. He relayed detailed instructions to me on where the crash had happened. I tried for two days to locate the place he described, but so many of his landmarks were no longer there that I could not be sure that I had the right road. I think he is describing a place on the southeast edge of the Plains of San Agustin, since he specifically refers to a dry lake bed and the only dry lake beds anyone around the area know of are in this region. I hope to get more detailed directions from Jack face to face at some point and return to the area and try again to find the site. After the military's cleanup I do not expect to find any debris, but would like to pinpoint the crash location as accurately as possible.
If you earn so much money, why expressing your sadness of not being paid enough and in need of publishers money?
I believe in being paid for what I do, and do not plan to put any more money out of my pocket into this research. This is only a peripheral sideline to me, not my life. BTW, if you consider that a lot of money, maybe you are in the wrong line of work.
Wouldn't it seem more "upright/honest" to not take money from the man >(Ray Santili) you're supposed to investigate and give us the truth about in >your upcoming book? - as you seem to be able to afford it.
Maybe you have some aversion to making money. I don't. I took no vow of poverty (nor chastity!!!). Ray asked me to look into the crash site and said he would reimburse some of my expenses if I did. Otherwise I probably would not have made the trip. Ray doesn't know if Jack is telling the truth or not, or if the film is real or not, and he hoped I could find verification of at least one part of Jack's story.
I think all of this pathological interest in who made how much money is silly, and not likely to lead to answers to anything.
James Eastman describes the Second Video
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:11:17 -0500
From: James Easton
Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Autopsy Cameraman photos
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto
But, in all honesty, the other sequence would have been just as expensive to produce as the first, and if this is a mere hoax it would not have been needed.
If the "second autopsy" is SFX work, a "first autopsy" could perhaps have a simple explanation.
As a presumed SFX, we know that considerable planning and attention to detail went into the creation of the film we have all seen. A "dress rehearsal" would enable the creators to consider any obvious indications of the film's true origins, any possible improvements to the script and overall it would be invaluable.
There are indications that's what the "first autopsy" might be and it's perhaps the reason it was shown to only a few people.
Firstly, when Ray appeared on the Art Bell show on 18 July, 1995, it was reported he described both creatures as "unusually muscley".
This suggests the first creature also does a fine impersonation of a body cast moulding.
We then have Philip Mantle's description of the "first autopsy":
"The alien is laid on a slab inside what looks like a morgue or should I say hospital! The walls are all white etc. The alien is humanoid almost human looking with a enlarged abdomen, two arms two legs, but it has six digits on each of its hands and feet. There is no hair visible anywhere, the head is slightly enlarged but it has a nose, mouth, ears (these are lower on the head than a human) and two dark eyes. Female genitals are also visible.
The alien's body is cut open and various organs are removed and placed in various receptacles. A kind of 'crystal' or 'mineral' about the size of a marble is also removed from the chest cavity. The head is cut open and the skull sawn open to gain access to the brain. The people conducting the autopsy are completely covered in protection suits of some kind and unfortunately the faces of these individuals are not visible. This autopsy is conducted by two people who appear at times to be writing down the process as they go along. Behind the head of the alien is a gap then a wall with a window in. Through this window another person can be observed apparently wearing surgical clothing, cap, gown, mask, etc. As I am not qualified to comment on the procedure used in the autopsy nor the instruments used I will refrain from doing so. Nor will I comment on whether certain other objects in the room such as a telephone and a clock were available in 1947".
Would this not pass for a description of the "second autopsy"?
I deliberately left out a small part of the description to illustrate that point. This film begins with the eye coverings being removed, a scene which takes place later in the second film. But even the description of that procedure is much the same; "This is in fact a kind of a dark covering over the eyes itself. Once removed the eyeballs are visible underneath although they are rolled up into the head".
In Philip's own description of the "second autopsy", he notes that the differences as essentially being, "This time the alien had a damaged leg unlike the previous autopsy where the creature was fully intact. The procedure was pretty much the same as before but by no means exactly the same".
In an interview given to Rebecca Schatte, he added:
"The other autopsy is the clearer of the two. The film is different. The creature is fully intact and there is no damaged leg and hand and so on. It looks to be in the same room, the same kind of procedure. When they cut open the chest cavity they removed a piece of material that looks pretty much like a mineral about the size, smaller than a golf ball. We have marbles here - about halfway between a marble and a golf ball, opaque in color. You can see it very, very clearly. In the second autopsy, the one that everyone has seen, you only get a glimpse of it and then it goes out of focus. ...Those are the pretty much the major differences. They are pretty much the same thing".
So, pretty much the same thing and it wouldn't be a surprise if the body in the first film didn't have any "injuries", these could be added to the final model.
One further point; if we were designing an "alien" to be autopsied, it would probably be completely hairless and essentially "sexless". One thing we couldn't do is have an "appendage", if you catch my drift.
There's actually a lot of similarities to Steve Johnson's "Roswell" alien, this is also hairless and "sexless", has some "injuries", and the markings on the body are very alike.
One key feature in the first film is the "gynaecological" examination, although I've heard an informed opinion that it's perhaps not quite so graphic as described.
This is not so much missing from the second film as perhaps more discrete and minus the removal of the anomalous object.
But why didn't they carry out this exact same examination in the second film.... perhaps because it was decided this had to be toned down?
In this scenario, the additional cost would not necessarily be significant, it seems all the same props are used and it really only requires another model, possibly something which had always been envisaged.
We would obviously need to see the other film, and might have to rethink some scenarios if we did, but no reason, so far, why the explanation can't be something along these lines.