Roswell Film Page#3Comments on Press Conference 5/5/95
In this page we share comments from various people about the Press Conference held by Santilli in England where some of the film was shown. It remains controversial and as more is known about Mr. Santilli and the film, it seems that unless Mr. Santilli freely permits trained researchers and technicians to work with the film, it is being considered a hoax.
Roswell Film Page 3 Index
This section will link you to various portions of information on this page. At the end of each section is a link to send you back to this Index.
- Early Feedback on Roswell Film Conference
- Colin Andrews Comments on the Film & Conference
- Researchers Kevin Randle Comments on the Film
- Report & Analysis by Matthew Williams
- Santilli Circus - Int'l. Roswell Iniative
- Roswell Film Update - James Easton
- Roswell Film on TV?
- Press Conf. Update by Rich Boylan
- Bid on Film by Wash. DC Group
- Kent Jeffries on Art Bell's Dreamland
- Bill Combs S/L from CIS Encounters Forum
- Radio Interview on Film in Australia
- Roswell Film - A Good Con
| Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 |
Roswell Film Press Conference
May 5th, 1995, England
I received these posts from the SNET mailing list run by Glenda Stocks. It is two reports that include a summary of what happened at the Press Conference held in England on Friday, May 5th, to show the purported Roswell Film to the media. At the end of this section, I will share a few personal comments.
Date: Fri, 05 May 95 20:24:46 EST From: Glenda StocksBBC Radio have, literally, just broadcast an article on today's press conference. The article featured a radio journalist who was at the conference and this is a brief summary of his report:
To: email@example.com Subject: Press Conference (fwd) ----Forwarded---- Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 16:32:19 +0100 From: James Easton Subject: Press Conference
It was a strange event...people were frisked before entering. There was no introduction whatsoever, the lights dimmed and flickery scenes appeared on screen.
The film showed 2 men wearing white surgical clothing and "hoods", resembling a beekeeper's covering, with a third man looking through a window. You could see a clock and a telephone and a sign which said "Danger".
On a black slab you could see an "alien" with a large head. It was extremely skinny and looked absurd. One of it's legs was charred. It looked like something out of a 50's B-movie. The film was blurred and looked amateurish. I found it exceedingly boring to be honest.
There were supposed to be shots of a crash site but we didn't get to see those.
The "surgeons" faces were not visible and neither were any surgical instruments.
A brief interview then followed with a reporter from the Sunday People newspaper and he said, "I don't really believe it, but I'll be saying, "here it is, make your own mind up".
A reporter from NBC also commented that "the footage is certainly compelling", but he also will leave it to others to judge.
Other comments from people present at the press conference:
"The footage is almost perfect, almost too legitimate."
"It looked like they could be actors, it looked like it was a double bluff."
"Even the person who owns the film says he is not sure it is genuine, so how can I be."
"There is clearly a strong financial motive behind it."
"I can't believe anyone could take it seriously."
"It will no doubt receive a mention in the press, along with a few jokes..."
There was no mention of BUFORA's involvement.
This is simply a brief update and you will no doubt shortly have access to a full media report of exactly what transpired today.
------------------------------------------------------------ Internet: TEXJE@BONALY.HW.AC.UK * JAMES.EASTON@STAIRWAY.CO.UK ------------------------------------------------------------ --
Date: Fri, 05 May 95 20:26:22 EST From: Glenda StocksDear James,
To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Roswell film showing report (fwd) ----Forwarded---- Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 16:26:23 BST From: A R Dickinson Subject: Roswell film showing report
. . . just received a resume from some of the journalists in attendance at the alleged Roswell autopsy shown today. According to NBC crew a 20 minute excerpt was shown which only depicted a poor quality image of the supposed autopsy itself in a poorly lit space. A clock, telephone and "Danger" sign was visible in the background. The greyish slab upon which the "alien" was placed, displayed a human-type body with almond-shaped eyes and a "charred" leg. The feet and hands were reported to be human-like with phalanges. "Surgeons appeared like hazy Klu Klux Clan-likeimages and no doctor's faces were visible. Close ups were mainly "bloody".
NBC conclude that the viewing was "compelling", the 16 mm nature appearing "legitimate" although resembling a 50's movie. The Sunday Express hack claimed that for him it was like watching a "Madamme Tussaud's model surrounded by actors, shot with an amateur camera".
Chris Allen and Jerome Clerk speaking on BBC Radio were dissapointed not to see anything other than what appeared to them to be part of "old European B-movie cuts compiled". They likewise commented on the lack of human faces. No New Mexican desert scenes were shown, nor was Truman made visible.
British Press will run stills tomorrow, Sat 6th May. END British Press will run stills tomorrow, Sat 6th May. Update as appropriate,
-- * * SearchNet HeadQuarters BBS 617-961-4865 or 508-586-6977 * Subscribe to our mailing list by sending a message to * email@example.com, "subscribe snet-l" The l is * a lowercase L. Voicemail - 617-341-6114. Replies to * firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com *
COMMENTS FROM ILLINOIS: -- Well based on the comments we are hearing here, in these message, people didn't seem to be too impressed and the authenticity of the film is still being questioned. I suppose, based on the number of close calls where absolute proof for the existence of UFOs was to be presented before, and it was shown to not be true, that people in general expect this to happen again. Regardless whether this film is real or not, we must not lose sight of the tremendous amount of information that has come forth recently related to the Roswell Incident as well as many witnesses. From all accounts I have read, I can not believe that Jessie Marcel and his son, are the type of people to just tell stories. If you have not seen the movie done by Showtime called "Roswell", I think that here we really get to see a good picture of what really happened. And then again, who knows, the prophecy purported given by Pope John XXIII, that:
MAY 19, 1962. From the heavens will appear the saviors. They will arrive on June 5, 1995 and begin their task of assisting the clearing and repair of the environment in the crippled countries. Many will fear these odd looking beings, but they come in peace and will, with God's guidance, transform earth from a charred spinning rock to a lush oasis in space. The survivors will flourish in a world without war, disease or hatred. My heart is finally at peace with the knowledge that there is hope for humanity.
Only tell will tell where things are heading, but it is only a matter of time before the official acknowledgment of the existence of the UFOs will be made. I am sure of this!!!!
Comments from Colin Andrews
At the Press Conference, May 6th
Date: Mon, 08 May 95 02:35:02 EST
From: Glenda Stocks
Subject: Roswell Film Shown in London (fwd)
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (chrisw)
Subject: Roswell Film Shown in London
Date: 7 May 1995 14:01:16 -0700
Transcribed fax message from researcher Colin Andrews:
(The so-called ROSWELL MOVIE material)
Meeting at the Museum of London
London, UK - Friday 5th May 1995
Mr. Ray Santilli invited media and researchers to a showing of the Roswell film at the Museum of London, on 5th May 1995. Colin Andrews flew to London from his Connecticut home to attend, having been invited to an earlier private viewing of some of the material in January this year.
Colin has just returned to his UK office from London and sent this report: The meeting started at 1.00 PM, in the lecture theatre. We arrived at 12.30 PM. Many familiar faces were there, some as follows:
Bob Kiviat (Fox/Paramount Films)
Phillip Mantel (BUFORA)
Michael Hesemann (Germany)
Nick Pope (MOD - Ministry of Defence - UK Government)
Carlton TV - UK
BBC radio 1 - UK
Daily Express UK
NBC - USA
Many other media
Reg Presley (Troggs pop group and friend of Colin)
Ray Santilli (Film owner)
Harry.... (Santilli's accountant)
His office staff
Researcher from Italy and Germany
John Holman - UK
Kent Jeofries - USA
total approx. 100
Everybody was frisked and NO cameras or recorders, etc. were allowed inside the theatre.
The showing started at 5 mins. past one with no introduction; the lights were simply turned off. The film started by saying:
"The film you are about to see is taken from 16 mm original films on 3 minute-long canisters and was purchased from the person who filmed it. All copyright is with Merlin Communications Ltd."
[Description of film:]
At a table in a well-equipped [operating] theatre, two people in white outfits and hoods and visors over eyes (all-in-one suits) were inspecting the being. A third person was observing from behind a glass screen in the wall of the theatre; he/she was also wearing an outfit with a larger glass visor.
One of the surgeons looked closely at the body and was gesturing where he/she would be cutting and pulling the legs apart inspecting the vagina. The female being had no breasts. It had five fingers and a thumb [6 digits] on each hand and RP says he counted six toes also (I could only see 5.) The ears were smaller than ours and located lower on the head than ours, level with the mouth. The head was larger (especially behind) and the eyes were larger, at least as big as golf balls. It had a small nose and small mouth, which was open. The body was very muscle-bound with very short, stocky legs and larger human-looking feet. The belly was very large and looked 8 month's pregnant, which it was not. The ears had the same major spiral trough as ours but was smooth and featureless above, more simple and basic than ours.
The surgeon cut from below the neck/chin down to the vagina and I believe a tee-line outwards across the lower stomach. The chest and stomach were exposed and the heart removed and placed into a tray with other substances from around that immediate area. The lungs were removed from behind into another tray. The camera was handheld, and would on occasion move in close, losing focus in so doing. The flesh and attachments to the organs being removed were moving and responding to those actions in a very convincing manner -- as if real. There were small amounts of fluids running down the side of the body when the body was opened and organs removed. The colour of the liquid was dark and bloodlike.
After the organs were cut out with a scalpel the surgeon cut a continuous line around the middle of the head and I think over the top, and peeled back the skin from rear to front over the eyes, revealing the scalp. He took a saw and cut across the head and removed the brain with other material and placed it into another tray. Before the brain procedure started the surgeon removed a black lens layer from each eye, revealing white eyes just like ours under it. The eyes had pupils like ours which were looking up into the head (as a deceased human would.) The single black layer of material was slightly disc-shaped to fit over the eye pupil. It was as if a filter lens/contact lens had been fitted into the eye.
The right leg had a serious open wound, exposing the major bones from the lower part of the upper leg to middle calf area. The surgeon moved the leg, inspecting the joint.
A large clock was on the wall to the side of the table and time I believe began at 10.30 and was seen again around 11.25. A wall-mounted telephone was visible, as were glass bottles and medical instruments.
The body and procedures looked very authentic and in my opinion would have been hard to fake, but perhaps not impossible with current techniques. At the end of the film, the lights came on and with no comment people were expected to leave. I was talking with Nick Pope (MOD) when a large group gathered at the rear of the theatre around Ray Santilli and minders who were already saying he will not answer questions and [that] the photographer is 80 odd [years old] and does not want the questions and exposure. No other questions were answered and he was whisked out with the media and myself staying with him. I shook his hand earlier and he acknowledged me. I asked him as we all crowded around him, "Will you be seeing us in your office?" He said, "Yes, later." A TV interviewer said, "How am I supposed to interview you without being given access to any other material?" When I was interviewed by BBC radio 1 outside, they told me that BBC TV had purchased a small amount of film and would be showing it next month. It is believed that a major U.S. media company has made a bid. A fax bid was received on 3rd May from a group of Attornies in Washington representing an unnamed client (possibly U.S. Government) offering 1.8 million dollars for all materials to be returned to the USA. Mr. Takano (CA contact in Japan) faxed me in USA thanking me for my help putting them in touch with Santilli and said Santilli was going to fly to Hong Kong on ... May to show them the film. Update to follow later.
6th May 1995
- Colin Andrews UK.
-- * * SearchNet HeadQuarters BBS 617-961-4865 or 508-586-6977 * Subscribe to our mailing list by sending a message to * email@example.com, "subscribe snet-l" The l is * a lowercase L. Voicemail - 617-341-6114. Replies to * firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com *
Kevin Randle's Comments
on the Roswell Film
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Val Bankston)
Subject: Roswell Film by KD Randle
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 20:33:02 -0700
Subject: Roswell Film by KD Randle
Date: 10 May 1995 11:10:05 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Kent Jeffery, the man behind the Roswell Declaration, was at the showing of the film on Friday. He wanted it to be authentic because of what it would do for the work we all have done. He came away from the showing convinced that the film is 100% fiction. He has told me of many problems with it, including the phone cord that was noticed. He said that the body looked to be a "modified" human, that the doctors didn't seem comfortable in their roles, and that no one had an opportunity to ask questions afterward. It sounds like hype rather than an attempt to share (for great personal gain by the current owner), the information. Until researchers...all researchers...have had a chance to review and study the film, we should reserve judgement, but there is very little possibility that this isn't a hoax.
K. D. Randle
From: email@example.com (KD Randle)
Subject: Roswell film by KD Randle #2
Date: 12 May 1995 00:32:52 -0400
We have now learned that curled phone cords were available as early as 1939 as a special order item. That means it is possible, though not likely, that the hospital phone cord could have been curled.
There are many other problems with the film, not the least of which is the length of time between the crash and the alleged date of the autopsy. Before we can make an intelligent decision on the film, we must be able to review the whole thing. However, the circumstances still suggest that it is a hoax and we must remember without all the information, we must remain skeptical. Any other course opens us to the criticisms of the skeptics.
Kevin D. Randle
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Matthew Williams)
Subject: Roswell Update MW
The following is a compilation of messages written on email and alt.aliens news which I have added comments to. Comments from me will then follow. > From: email@example.com (chrisw) > > > Transcribed fax message from researcher Colin Andrews: > > > > > The so-called ROSWELL MOVIE material PUBLIC RELEASE > > Meeting at the Museum of London > London, UK - Friday 5th May 1995 > > > Mr. Ray Santilli invited media and researchers to a showing of the > Roswell film at the Museum of London, on 5th May 1995. Colin Andrews > flew to London from his Connecticut home to attend, having been > invited to an earlier private viewing of some of the material in > January this year. > > Colin has just returned to his UK office from London and sent this > report: > > The meeting started at 1.00 PM, in the lecture theatre. We arrived > at 12.30 PM. Many familiar faces were there, some as follows: > > George Wingfield > Robert Irving > Bob Kiviat (Fox/Paramount Films) > Phillip Mantel (BUFORA) > Michael Hesemann (Germany) > Nick Pope (MOD - Ministry of Defence - UK Government) > Carlton TV - UK > BBC radio 1 - UK > Daily Express UK > NBC - USA > Many other media > Reg Presley (Troggs pop group and friend of Colin) > Pete (Troggs) > Ray Santilli (Film owner) > Harry.... (Santilli's accountant) > His office staff > Researcher from Italy and Germany > John Holman - UK > Kent Jeofries - USA > total approx. 100 > Everybody was frisked and NO cameras or recorders, etc. were allowed > inside the theatre. It wasn't a thorough frisking by any standards and somebody may have managed to sneak a camera in, We shall see! > The showing started at 5 mins. past one with no introduction; the > lights were simply turned off. The film started by saying: The "saying" means text scrolling up the screen. > "The film you are about to see is taken from 16 mm original films on > 3 minute-long canisters and was purchased from the person who filmed > it. All copyright is with Merlin Communications Ltd." > Merlin do not own copyright because the film is allegedly shot by the US Army so they hold the copyright! This is if is genuine... > [Description of film:] > > At a table in a well-equipped [operating] theatre, two people in > white outfits and hoods and visors over eyes (all-in-one suits) were > inspecting the being. A third person was observing from behind a > glass screen in the wall of the theatre; he/she was also wearing an > outfit with a larger glass visor. Oops, the person behind the glass was simply wearing a face veil, tied around the back of the face - standard operating theatre issue. > One of the surgeons looked closely at the body and was gesturing > where he/she would be cutting and pulling the legs apart inspecting > the vagina. The female being had no breasts. It had five fingers and > a thumb [6 digits] on each hand and RP says he counted six toes also > (I could only see 5.) The ears were smaller than ours and located > lower on the head than ours, level with the mouth. The head was > larger (especially behind) and the eyes were larger, at least as big > as golf balls. It had a small nose and small mouth, which was open. > The body was very muscle-bound with very short, stocky legs and > larger human-looking feet. The belly was very large and looked 8 > month's pregnant, which it was not. The ears had the same major > spiral trough as ours but was smooth and featureless above, more > simple and basic than ours. There was also a bruise or cut under the cheek near the neck. > The surgeon cut from below the neck/chin down to the vagina and I > believe a tee-line outwards across the lower stomach. The chest and > stomach were exposed and the heart removed and placed into a tray > with other substances from around that immediate area. The lungs > were removed from behind into another tray. The camera was handheld, > and would on occasion move in close, losing focus in so doing. The > flesh and attachments to the organs being removed were moving and > responding to those actions in a very convincing manner -- as if > real. There were small amounts of fluids running down the side of > the body when the body was opened and organs removed. The colour of > the liquid was dark and bloodlike. Would blood run after a week in the desert? I am not a pathologist so can only leave this one open to question. If you ask a pathologist this question be sure to tell him that the cut was in the neck area and to take in to account the serious leg damage which may have caused blood to leak and pressure to drop. Would blood in a body like this be congealed. (sp?) > After the organs were cut out with a scalpel the surgeon cut a > continuous line around the middle of the head and I think over the > top, Organs were also cut out with a scissors, with little care for organ preservation. There was no making notes, nor taking of photographs. As the camera man was obviously either inexperienced or not making use of focus for the closer framing of shots, this film would not serve to replace photographs! > and peeled back the skin from rear to front over the eyes, revealing > the scalp. He took a saw and cut across the head and removed the > brain with other material and placed it into another tray. Before > the brain procedure started the surgeon removed a black lens layer > from each eye, revealing white eyes just like ours under it. The > eyes had pupils like ours which were looking up into the head (as a > deceased human would.) The single black layer of material was > slightly disc-shaped to fit over the eye pupil. It was as if a > filter lens/contact lens had been fitted into the eye. > > The right leg had a serious open wound, exposing the major bones > from the lower part of the upper leg to middle calf area. The > surgeon moved the leg, inspecting the joint. > > A large clock was on the wall to the side of the table and time I > believe began at 10.30 and was seen again around 11.25. A wall- > mounted telephone was visible, as were glass bottles and medical > instruments. > > The body and procedures looked very authentic and in my opinion > would have been hard to fake, but perhaps not impossible with > current techniques. > > At the end of the film, the lights came on and with no comment > people were expected to leave. I was talking with Nick Pope (MOD) > when a large group gathered at the rear of the theatre around Ray > Santilli and minders who were already saying he will not answer > questions and [that] the photographer is 80 odd [years old] and does > not want the questions and exposure. No other questions were > answered and he was whisked out with the media and myself staying > with him. I shook his hand earlier and he acknowledged me. I asked > him as we all crowded around him, "Will you be seeing us in your > office?" He said, "Yes, later." A TV interviewer said, "How am I > supposed to interview you without being given access to any other > material?" One reporter asked the question, why isn't Merlin registered as a company? This upset Santilli and his publicist and they quickly left. I stopped the reporter who asked the question and he denied having asked it and instead now said, "Oh yes they have got registrations and I checked them out - they are there." When asked why he had asked this question he walked off. Strange, was this a plant question in order for other press to pick up on? > When I was interviewed by BBC radio 1 outside, they told me that BBC > TV had purchased a small amount of film and would be showing it next > month. I think I have it on authority (although I said I wouldn't say who told me this) that the BBC DO NOT HAVE ANY FOOTAGE AND SUBSEQUENTLY WILL NOT BE SHOWING IT NEXT MONTH... This is simply another attempt by the media to say "we got there first!" > It is believed that a major U.S. media company has made a bid. A fax > bid was received on 3rd May from a group of Attornies in Washington > representing an unnamed client (possibly U.S. Government) offering > 1.8 million dollars for all materials to be returned to the USA. Mr. > Takano (CA contact in Japan) faxed me in USA thanking me for my help > putting them in touch with Santilli and said Santilli was going to > fly to Hong Kong on ... May to show them the film. Update to follow > later. 6th May 1995 - Colin Andrews UK. Bob Kivian the producer for Encounters programme in the states was impressed by the footage. He was not too concerned if it was genuine or not but said that it was possible that it could be faked. The question of how would the showing of the film be dealt with if it were to air. He responded that the graphic nature of the scenes would require an after 9 o'clock showing time but a special two hour programme starting at 8pm and finishing at 10pm would be a good way to cover this. Again it is not confirmed that they have payed for the footage. ....read on... ------------- somebody else wrote: > > > Hi!! > > Regarding... > > > What has happened in the UK.. Did the press release happen... If > > so.. what was said... > > Well, there has been no mention on the UK news (on any channel) as > far as I know, and the BBC have not featured anything all weekend... > > The question must therefore be asked.. > > Did MIB visit the Director General and warn them not to cover > it.??? > > > "Reg Presley, where are you know....???? " > > Laters.. No the BBC did not cover it on TV because no cameras were present at the showing and there was no footage to show. However the more obvious choice of radio was made use of and both Radio 5 and Radio 1 were present, with a radio 4 programme maker taking long interviews with Ufologists for the making of a program. > From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield) > Subject: Roswell Film > > An Adelaide, South Australian, colleague of mine is going to the > August BUFORA Conference at which the Rosewell autopsy film is > scheduled to be shown. Tonight she telephoned Philip Mantle, > BUFORA's Director of Investigations, to ask when the much advertised > media conference was to be held. She was advised that the media > event is to be on Friday 5th May 1995. Posted for your information. Can I quote that at the time of writing this Mr Mantle confirmed to me that he does not have the footage that was shown at the media release. Instead he only has the old (and not so impressive) footgae. The new and much clearer footage is closely guarded by Santilli who will be attending the August conference to allow it to be shown. Mantle said that by August the footage will be sold so restrictions may be lifted but for the moment there will be a ban on cmaeras in the BUFORA conference. ------------- > ********************************************************************** > *Announcement* > *of the* > *International Roswell Initiative* > ********************************************************************** > > > *Mr Santilli has postponed his invitation-only meeting of potential > buyers of the (copies of the) footage to May 6th.* It is said that > during this meeting parts or the whole rest of the so far unknown > missing (film/video?)material should be presented. > > It was hoped to provide you with new details here around April 29th > or 30st. This cannot happen now before May 7/8th. So watch out for > mails with the subject: "URGENT! NEWS ABOUT ROSWELL". > > We would like to remind you again *to stay extremely cautious* with > regards to this footage. As long as nothing is proven to be genuine > it might be another attempt by "someone" to establish another "MJ12- > like hoax". Very true. There have been events which have taken place behind the scenes that lead us to believe that there may be grounds to say it is a hoax, but also that government have taken a very active interest in seeing the film too! > > > After the Air Force Report of Fall 1994 was clearly identified as > > another cover-up or to continue the old one "someone" might have > > looked for another strategy. Maybe "someone" has thought what went > > well one time may run the second time as well. > > But this time we have, among many other individual or combined > efforts, The International Roswell Initiative and the Roswell > Declaration. This document is signed by many thousands of people > from all over ther world so far and day by day they become more. > This time people are aware of the danger of a major hoax and this is > because it will fail. > > For those who have missed parts of the material about the Roswell > Declaration we shall post it here again on this bulletin board on > April 30st. > > > Joachim Koch Berlin, April 28th, 1995 Hans-Juergen Kyborg > Founding member of the Roswell Initiative, MR Kent Jeffries was there at the release and was not impressed and was sure that the "phone cord" point would prove the downfall of the footage. > The *International Roswell Initiative* was founded by *Kent Jeffrey* > (USA), *Joachim Koch* and *Hans-Juergen Kyborg* (both Berlin, > Germany) in 1994. It is officially greatly supported (among many > others) by MUFON, CUFOS and FUFOR and became one of the most > successful international grassroots efforts in Ufology. The central > document is the "Roswell Declaration" which was published together > with additional material in this bulletin board. If you have missed > parts of the material or the Declaration itself please contact > Joachim Koch via email. You my also look into the World Wide Web > for: > http://erau.db.erau.edu/~elston/petition.html and sign the > declaration electronically. > > Thanks! > > Joachim Koch ----------------------- > From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Mitchell) wrote: > > -=> Quoting Jeffrey472 to All <=- > > Je> From: email@example.com (Jeffrey472) > Je> :I checked with MUFON, and they said that KODAK did > Je> authenticate the film as: being from the 1940's. Does anybody > Je> know the positive truth on this? > Je> > Je> :Dave > Je> > Je> I don't know the positive truth on the matter, but I'd just > Je> automatically assume that whatever explanation Dean Adams may > Je> offer is wrong. But if he's correct about it being a re- > Je> creation by some Brazilian group, then my apologies to him. > Je> > Je> Jeff You want the positive truth eh. Well here it is, Kodak have not checked the film but they have supplied help in tracing the dates as used on the film stock. It was noticed that symbols which appear on the film have a time recoring purpose and that they were possibly used in 1967 but that they were recycled every twenty years and were in use in 1947, so the film could be 1947, 1967 or 1987. A little point which seems to be helpful. Still, no Kodak lab has checked the film itself to see if the codes were put there or if there is other tampering. Carbon dating would be useless as it's accuracy at very clinical best is 20 years so would not be of use even if film could be carbon dated! This may help clear up some of the talk about KODAK and the authentication of the film. > -=> Quoting Don Allen to All <=- > >>For the movie, the producers shot some grainy black & white > >>16mm, documentary style footage of a Roswell crash type senario > >>where military doctors perform an autopsy on several alien > >>beings. According to the Unsolved researcher, the film stock was > >>on fairly modern 16mm 400 ASA Agfa film stock (not very available > >>to the U.S. military in 1947) > > > I thought Kodak verified the film...
> > Guess what? Just when you thought this soap opera couldn't get any > _more_ strange, it has. :-) > > I've received three phone calls from Dan Smith earlier today. He > says he's spoken with Philip Mantle twice this morning. According to > what Mantle told Smith and Smith told me (hearsay alert), Mantle was > shown two additional film segments of 7 minutes each. It's said that > the film speed appears to be normal, Mr Mantlle confirmed he only had the original footage talken in a tent. Whereas the footage we saw was green, his is colour correct and runs at smooth fps, so it is possible that there are loads of these films going around, and until we get them together to check they are the same we should hold on to judgement. > so it's claimed there's none of the jerkiness of slower fps. The two > segments are purported to be the "Dallas autopsy" of a alleged > Roswell crash alien body, supposedly the 2nd autopsy of the trio. > The two segments show three people in a hospital-like environment. > Two people are in what appears to be radiation suits, with a third > person behind a glass partition looking on. The two dressed in the > radiation suits are working on a humanoid body shown on a table. The > body is human-like in appearance and has a height of between 5 to 6 > feet with a head slightly larger than a human. Large, black eyes. > Female genitalia but no breasts or nipples. 6 digits on hands and > feet. No navel. No hair on the head or the body. Smith's impression > to me was the body was possibly a hybrid, more human than what we > call a "grey". Surgical instruments are shown. One of the two suited > workers is shown taking notes. Mantle says that he can make out the > name "Dr. Bronk" (Detlev Bronk?) on the heading of the notes as > shown i Sounds like bullshit to me. Mantle said nothing of this when we spoke. > film. Incisions are made. One is made one up the middle of the > front, and the heart and some intestines are removed. What appears > to be a crystal is removed Crystal... bullshit no #2. > from the abdomen. Further incisions are shown on the head to remove > skin samples and the skull is opened. A sample of the brain is > extracted. This concludes what I've heard as the content of the two > segments. Smith tells me there's some discontinuity in the two > segments, with some "jumps" being supposedly evident. These jumps are the ends of the film cannisters which last about 3 mins each. > As for the authentication of the film itself, my understanding is > that based on Smith's talk with Mantle, one canister of the film is > to go to Kodak after May 5th, but only for a short period, perhaps a > day. Smith told me that Mantle has verified the serial > numbers/symbols on the film, but other than that, there's been no > analysis carried out yet. Also, it's my understanding that some film > segments will be shown at the British Museum next week with possibly > some French, German and US media present. It was mentioned that > there's plans to send the film to a private company for analysis on > the image integrity. I don't know who as no name was mentioned so I > have no further information on that. > > Based on what Smith told me, Mantle is hoping to get 90 minutes of > film at _no cost_ for research purposes, but it's still up in the > air about the broadcast rights. Supposedly, Santilli is going to > provide this to Mantle after May 5th. If this pans out, my > understanding is that Congressman Schiff might get a copy from > Mantle, Kent Jeffries and possibly others. Smith seems to think that > by next weekend, there may be a short film clip based on the > segments ppearing on the networks. I think optimism is the word that needs to be used as far as getting 90mins for research use. I hope he does but did not inidcate this to me at the media conference. See above comments from me. > Anyways, this is the latest in the saga. Make of it what you will. I > don't have any further information available but I will be cc'ing > this around for comments, so if anyone wishes to follow up on this, > please be my guest. :-) > > Don ---------------------------------- > From: mike sparham <100545.3262@COMPUSERVE.COM> wrote: > > > 06 MAY 1995 > > > > THIS FILE MAY BE FREELY COPIED AND DISTRIBUTED IN ANY FORM. > > > > Many people by now have heard of the film of the Roswell > crash in 1947, which is in the hands of Ray Santilli, who is > allegedly making a documentary on the subject to be screened by the > BBC sometime in August. I was invited by Ray to view this film in a > private viewing on 5th. May '95 at the Museum of London. I was > present among a large number of people, many from USA, Canada, > France, Germany, Italy and UK, including reporters and many (I > believe) experts in this field. I do know that BBC Radio 4 did > broadcast something about this film at around 3pm that afternoon, > but I did not hear that broadcast as I was driving home at the time. > I will call them after the bank holiday. And Radio 1 and Radio 5. > This file details MY IMPRESSIONS of that film. As I am not > medically trained, you will have to excuse any mistakes I make > with naming bodily organs and structures. > > > > I was told that the film was a total of 91 minutes in > duration, and was taken by a military cameraman sent from Washington > to Roswell to record the cleanup of the site, and the autopsy of the > recovered "Aliens". I was also led to believe that the film was of > excellent quality, and professionally done. We were only shown > approx. 20 minutes of the film, taken inside a small room. There > was a large glass window on one side of the room, a telephone was on > the wall next to this window, and a clock was on another wall > adjacent to this wall. > > In the middle of the room was a large table on which was the > body of the "alien". Two people, who I will refer to as > pathologists, were inside the room performing the autopsy, > wearing white whole body suits with round flat topped headgear, > with a clear plastic or perspex type front. Although it is > difficult to judge size from the angle of the camera, I > > estimate the size of the "alien" to be around 4-4.5 feet. It I made it about 5 - 5.5 feet. > had 6 digits on each hand, 5 long fingers and a thumb, and 6 > digits on the feet (see notes). The bone structure of the feet > and ankles seemed to be very much like human feet. The abdomen > was very large, much like you see in malnourished children. The > cranium was larger in proportion to the body than a human > cranium, with small ears, small nose, small mouth and small > chin. It had large deepset black eyes which seemed to slant > upwards toward the outside of the face. There were no external > sexual organs, although it looked to me to have a slit similar > to a female vaginal opening. I saw no evidence of any facial or > bodily hair. The pathologist made an incision down the length of > the body through the skin to expose the internal organs. The > body looked to have a sternum but I saw no evidence of a > ribcage. Various internal organs, unrecognisable to me, I would prefer to say that the alien body was just fat, not looking like the standard grey at all, with fat legs, normal human size arms and almost normal size feet and hands. Toes and fingers were longer. Head much larger than ours in the upwards and backwards direction by about 20-30%. I did not think the eyes slanted upwards, they were just deep set. > were cut and removed from the body cavity and placed in what > looked like porcelain bowls. The pathologist used tweezers or > forceps to remove a thin layer of black "skin" from both eyes, > exposing large white eyeballs. He then made an incision round > the cranium and peeled back the skin to expose the skull, which > he cut open using a Fret-saw (I don't know the american name for > this tool) and removed to expose the brain. The brain itself was > removed Fret saw is a bad description, it was a surgeons Bone Saw, about 20- 40cms in length in stainless steel with a straight blade but curved over end bit. ie:_______________ | () -_ |_() - /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > > in pieces, so it was very difficult to estimate the size of the > whole organ. > > During this operation the cameraman continually moved around > the body, often getting in the way of the pathologist, who at > one stage seemed to be annoyed by the cameraman. The second > pathologist present was seen to be taking various notes > throughout the operation. > > notes: > ------ > > The cameraman taking the film was continually moving during the > operation. He seemed unaware of the need to refocus the camera, > so whenever he moved forward for a closer look the picture was > always out of focus, making it very difficult to see the finer > details of the bodily part he was trying to get a closer look > at. At one stage I thought I saw a sixth toe, like a vestigial > small toe, but another look later was difficult to judge due to > shadow and the lack of focus. This was continued throughout the > whole of the section of film we saw. It would be nice to know > the make and model of the camera used. Simon Fitzpatrick, a > British filmaker present at the viewing, commented on the > amateurishness of the cameraman. Here here! Very bad camerawork no matter what the situation. Didn't they have reflex cameras in those days or people who new depth of field or focus to operate them? > I heard many comments about the clock on the back wall of the > room. Many people thought it did not look like a period clock, I > get the impression they thought it was too modern to be a > forties clock. Unknown, but investigation will show the truth of this. > Some people also thought the telephone was too modern. The main > point of contention was the "curly chord" from the handset to > the main body of the telephone. I also had my doubts about the > phone, and I will contact "Ma-Bell" soon to try to get more info > on phones in use during this period. > > Many comments were passed about why we only saw the film from > this room, what about the film of the recovered vehicle itself. > This other footage might have given more autheticity to the > film, but at the moment we just don't know. > > Before the film started I spoke briefly with Ray Santilli, who > promised to talk more after the film. The last I saw of Ray was > as he climbed some stairs up to the projector area, and after > the film I couldn't find him. I caught one of his secretaries, > but she said she "had to go". I asked various people around me > if they had seen or spoken to Ray, but I got various comments > like "He's done a runner," and "He is holed up with some people > talking money". I am limited in my search capabilities as I am > confined to a wheelchair. I will phone his office The impression I got was he ahd done a runner! > after the bank holiday. Over the next few days I will also try > to speak to more of the people who were present at the film and > try to get some reports from them. > They include Dan Silver of "Value Added Talent", London, who was > there representing Stanton Friedman, a noted Nuclear Physicist > and lecturer, and Matthew Williams of "Truth Seekers Review". As > I get more information I will post them on compuserve. Who he? > I also have two articles by Stanton Friedman called "Challenge > to Ray Santilli" and "The Cosmic Watergate", which I will post > as soon as I have copied them. I am interested in any reports > written about this film, to compare with my own, and any help > that could be given to this end will be greatly appreciated, > along with any comments or questions anybody would care to make. > > > > Mike Sparham, 100545,3262. ................ My own report follows... The footage was very clear and had grain unlike the first "green 10fps" and "non green 24fps (PHILIP MANTLE)" footage. Mr Santilli was available for comment before the film but seemed not to want to give to many details away until the end of the film. Merlin Films were generous in laying on food and drinks for the attending members but as I was too busy talking and taking photos I could any... The organiser - Maria - was not too worried about who was present and it would have appeared that anybody could get in and thee was no point in sending the invitations. As we sat in the theater area I noticed Robert Irving and fellow Circle Makers who had turned up and who sat behind me. I sat next to Encounters producer Bob Kiviat who's clothing who seemed like a nice chap who stated that he "was not going to be the person buting the film, he was just a scout send out to gget the feel of it." He said that the negotiations had to be carried out from a legal basis and by another team. This would not happen after the viewing but later on, so this means that reports of buyers running off with cheque books may be untrue. Instead he said that he and Santilli were going for a meal later to discuss the footage. Mr Kiviat assured me that nobody else has purchased the footage, and from appearances he was the only one who has shown a serious interest so far. When the film started there was not a sound, you couldn't even hear people breathing! After the credits rolled, we clicked straight in to the body in the table and shakey camerawork as it went in towards the cadaver and out and sideways then in and out again. This continued until the whole body had been surveyed. The camera then clicked off and on again and this time there were people present but in the full (biohazard?) dress. It did not appear that the examination was carried out in airtight conditions so the suits could not have been there for much. Lighting in the scene was very even and one point which many have failed to point out which I wrote down was that there was a microphone present above the body. I do not know if tape recording of autopsies was carried out in
Date: Sun, 14 May 95 17:04:21 EST
Subject: THE SANTILLI CIRCUS (fwd)
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Glenda Stocks)
From: email@example.com (Joachim Koch)
Date: 13 May 95 20:48:00
Subject: THE SANTILLI CIRCUS
********************************************************************** *Announcement* *of the* *International Roswell Initiative* **********************************************************************
*THE SANTILLI CIRCUS*
We received a letter from George Wingfield, editor of the main crop circle magazine "THE CEREALOGIST", who gave us his first impressions.
Back at my keyboard now after a week away during which I attended Santilli's press conference and showing of the alleged Roswell film in London. I expect that you have heard all about it from Kent Jeffrey whom I spoke to there. I will shortly write an account of this whole performance and circulate it to you and others on Internet.
The meeting was quite peculiar in that Santilli gave no introduction before showing 28 minutes of the film to the 100 or so people assembled in the lecture theatre. A few brief lines of text were appended at the beginning of this segment, saying that it had been taken from 16 mm film-stock which the cameraman at Roswell (unnamed) had supplied. After the showing ended there were still no explanations from Santilli, who left at once for his office.
Most people there (except for Colin Andrews and Reg Presley) were fairly sceptical about what we'd seen. Certainly very few thought that it was anything to do with Roswell. There were several apparent anachronisms in the film footage which led one to think that this was made quite a few years after 1947 --possibly even in the mid-1960s. However it did seem to show the autopsy of an actual corpse whether it was human or alien.Maybe this was a freak human or else a corpse "doctored" to make it look like an alien. Poor focus when it came to close-ups and a complete absence of any signs or writing in the film segment increased the mystery of its origin. Surely any amateur footage would have some heading attached such as a clapperboard giving place and date information on it. However I do have a suggestion about this which I'll include in my forthcoming write-up.
Despite the scepticism, several attendees, who had flown in from the U.S., Germany, Italy, France, etc., were anxious to obtain stills or sections of the footage from Santilli and followed him back to his office. Although he denied it, it was clear that he was only interested in talking to those who were offering money. His sole purpose seems to be to cash in quickly on this footage. He told someone, I heard, that he had received a faxed offer of $9 million for the footage. Of course this fax may have been sent by him to himself to boost the bidding! It was evident that some ufologists and TV film makers were not especially concerned with the authenticity of the film but only its commercial value in terms of it being sensational. That is evidently what matters.
Philip Mantle has obviously made use of this film to boost ticket sales for his BUFORA conference in Sheffield in August.However he denies this and says he is not prepared to commit to the film's authenticity. This may well be the work of the (shared) publicity agent, Nagatis, but I don't know too much about him. There is also a German associate of Santilli who apparently put up much of the money for buying the film a year ago. I don't know his name. One suggestion is that Steve Spielberg saw the film footage and was going to base his "Project X" movie on this about 18 months ago. When he was advised that it was highly suspect, he dropped the projected movie and backed off. It may have been then that Santilli rushed in and bought the film.
The key to its origin is of course "Jack Barnett". I tried to get Santilli to confirm this name and give me Barnett's address, but he would not say a thing. He said the cameraman, who is aged about 80, specifically requested that his identity should be protected and he would not budge. I believe the name is that which Santilli gave to Mantle a year ago, but I can't confirm this. "Barnett" possibly lives in Cincinnati, Ohio. I will send you my full write-up on what the film segment showed in a few days time. It would indeed be wise for the International Roswell Initiative to distance itself from this film footage at present. I'm sure that Santilli knows he's been sold a dud and is trying desperately to recover his money (and more). His outfit is called "International Exploitation Management" (40 Balcombe Street, London NW1 6ND. Fax No: +44 (0) 171 723 0732) which gives a very unfortunate impression!
Will be in touch soon.
May 10, 1995
______________________________________________________________________ The *International Roswell Initiative* was founded by *Kent Jeffrey* (USA), *Joachim Koch* and *Hans-Juergen Kyborg* (both Berlin, Germany) in 1994. It is officially greatly supported (among many others) by MUFON, CUFOS and FUFOR and became one of the most successful international grassroots efforts in Ufology. The central document is the "Roswell Declaration" which was published together with additional material in this bulletin board. If you have missed parts of the material or the Declaration itself please contact Joachim Koch via email or look into the World Wide Web for: >>http://erau.db.erau/~elston/IUFOG/roswell<< this links to the index of all the Roswell Declaration articles. Notice the capital 'IUFOG'. The actual petition page is at >>http://erau.db.erau/~elston/IUFOG/roswell/roswell-dec.html Please sign the Declaration -NOW! Thank you! ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 May 95 16:46:08 EST
Subject: Alleged Roswell Film: Update (fwd)
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Glenda Stocks)
Date: Sun, 14 May 1995 02:44:15 +0100
From: James Easton
Subject: Alleged Roswell Film: Update
I have received a lengthy document from Graham Birdsall, editor of UFO Magazine (UK), which Graham has asked if I would like to disseminate on the internet.
The document effectively sets out the position of Quest International, publishers of UFO Magazine, concerning the alleged Roswell archive film and contains some important new information.
Graham stated that this new information had not appeared elsewhere as yet and this is therefore a "world exclusive", courtesy of the internet.
The document covers six pages and is unfortunately too lengthy for me to reproduce in full in the available time. However, this is the key information therein:
SUBJECT: The alleged Roswell archive film
PLUS - London Press Briefing
Friday - 5 May 1995
>From the Editor - Graham W. Birdsall - UFO Magazine
Ever since Philip Mantle, Director of Investigations for the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA), announced through the Press Association on 26 March 1995, that an alleged 70 minute archive film of the Roswell UFO crash-site had been unearthed by the English television producer Ray Santilli, there has been much speculation as to its authenticity.
That latter word, authenticity, is the key word to what has become a long-running fiasco in the eyes of many people in this country and overseas.
This alleged piece of archive footage was known about and discussed by Philip Mantle 20 months ago, and yet, no analysis as to its authenticity has ever been conducted to my knowledge. Only when the Press Association ran its story, were international UFO researchers and bonifide UFO organisations contacted by Mantle.
Stanton T. Friedman, the original investigator on the Roswell case was not made privy to the film's existence beforehand, nor indeed, were any of the other recognised scholars on the Roswell incident. That sobering fact alone, where no acknowledge expert on Roswell had been brought into the confidence of Mantle or Santilli, to at the very least offer their much-valued opinion, gave rise to much suspicion amongst researchers as to the authenticity of the film, and the motives behind those responsible for keeping it close to their chests.
Shortly after the Press Association put out Mantle's comments, UFO Magazine strived to obtain as much information about the affair as was physically possible. We had several transatlantic telephone conversations with Stanton, and he made a number of checks on our behalf.
* He confirmed that the 82 year-old gentleman alleged to have taken a copy of the Roswell crash-site scene was unknown to military archivists.
* He confirmed that President Truman, purportedly filmed in Texas during the crash-recovery follow-up exercise, was never in that state during July, August, September and October of 1947 (this was done through checking President Truman's personal diary at the Truman Library).
We have attempted to prise detailed information from Ray Santilli, but he has remained impassive throughout, and distances himself from Mantle's statements contained in the Press association release. It was claimed in the Press Association release that Kodak had examined the archive film and shown it to be genuine, in the sense that its age was at least 50 years. This is completely false. We spoke with Mr Peter Milson (Kodak) of the moving picture department, and he stated that he had never heard of the film. Milson checked with all other departments at Kodak within the United Kingdom, and also the United States. In a reply from Mr Milson, he stated:
"Nobody from Kodak has heard or seen anything about this film".
Let me quote from a statement I received from Stanton Friedman:
"I did meet briefly with Santilli on Tuesday, April 4, just before I left (England). I did NOT see any film. He hustled me out of their tiny office to a coffee shop. I have trouble believing anything he says. He admits he is only in it for the money."
"The INTERNET rumour mill claims falsely that I saw the footage and that I established that Truman was in Dallas at the time of the autopsy! I don't even have a date for the autopsy, but was able to establish according to the Truman Library that Truman was NOT in Texas in July, August, September,October of 1947."
The clear absence of any technical analysis, despite having had an opportunity to conduct authenticity tests in an 18-month period, is totally unprofessional.
The clear unwillingness to involve or seek expert opinion from Roswell researchers during the 18-month period prior to the Press Association release was unprofessional.
The unwillingness to involve or seek expert opinion even after the Press Association release is also unprofessional.
A great deal of money is being talked about in respect of this archive film, and already, its appearance has resulted in numerous enquiries for tickets to events staged by BUFORA (i.e. Sheffield Conference in August later in the year).
[Note: Graham indicated in conversation that the conference is now a sell-out (an apt phrase) and that BUFORA intend to expand the available seating. I can't confirm this.]
Interestingly, another gentleman in the United States, who spoke with Philip Mantle some time ago, claims that Philip told him the edges of the film had the letters KODA running along the length (between the spool cut-outs)followed by a square and circle symbol.
Kodak in the United States have confirmed that these symbols are a code used by them, and in the case of the square and circle, are affixed in a twenty year cycle. Their records indicate the code was used in 1967, and before that, 1947.
One other important revelation made by Kodak that could well prove the solution to resolving the issue, is that the symbols are complimented with a coded series of minute spots (early equivalent of a bar code), which would tell them the precise age of the film. Unfortunately, Santilli has still to approach Kodak to allow them to conduct what would be a brief and simple examination - a point not lost to Ufologists and those within the media who have strived to obtain answers.
The Museum of London, played host to Santilli and Mantle on 5 May 1995...
...Incredibly, the camera then panned around the operating theatre, and focused on a group of people seen staring through some type of observation window. One of these gentlemen had a clipboard in his hand, and the camera zoomed-in to reveal the letters MJ-12 on the back of the clipboard.
Anomalies as to the authenticity of this scene have been raised by many who were present, particularly expert television and film technicians.
* A wall clock seen in the latter scene - manufactured much later than 1947.
* The zoom lens facility used in the latter scene - was not available in 1947.
Perhaps a more convincing argument used by sceptics, is that U.S. military film archivists and cameramen used 22mm film in 1947, and not 16mm.
Santilli has refused to answer telephone messages, and has backtracked on earlier promises to show segments on television, even though offers of payment have been made. Earlier today (12 May, 1995), I managed to unearth further disturbing details about this affair through a television contact who has been in direct contact with Santilli. What I discovered, may yet prove to be decisive in determining if Ufology, the general public, and the media at large, are being led up the garden path.
Santilli had corresponded with us very early in this affair, using letter-headed notepaper of the Merlin group, a London based company. Checks made by us determined that this company was in official receivership. As recently as 4 May 1995, Santilli was using the same Merlin group notepaper to correspond with Stanton T. Friedman.
At the 5 May press gathering, a gentleman named Chris Carey appeared on the scene, and behaved rather "bullishly" according to one T.V. producer. Carey handed out leaflets which briefly outlined the Roswell incident, and told members of the media that he was acting as agent on behalf of Santilli. Any negotiations as to television rights had to be made through him.
Atop the leaflets, was the name of a company Carey claimed he was associated with - International Exploitation Management - a name not heard before by any of the journalists present.
However, unbeknown to the UFO researchers present, some television pundits knew that Chris Carey either worked for or was associated with another company which was known to them - Imaginations.
Imaginations is a company which produces props and scenery, plus latex figures for sci-fi scenes, for the television and film industry.
This revelation resulted in discreet conversations being held in private amongst the journalists and surprise, surprise, there was little or no press coverage given to the archive film during the course of the next few days.
[Note: This explains a lot. Despite purchasing several Saturday and Sunday newspapers, I was astonished to find there was not a mention of the press conference in any of them. There was no U.K. national news coverage of the conference either.]
We made checks to find out more about Imaginations and International Exploitation Management, and initially came up with very little, except for two things:
Imaginations does exist on Company House records, and they have 15 Directors, 13 of whom became Directors in April, 1995!
[Note: It should be possible to identify these directors and this is in hand.]
International Exploitation Management did not exist at company house, so we invited Stanton T. Friedman to enquire if this was a U.S. based company.
However, earlier today, I spoke with a major figure in the British television industry, who was "fed up at being mucked about by Santilli." I was told that figures within the television industry had been making their own checks, and that International Exploitation Management was based at the same address as the Merlin group - in fact, they had the same telephone numbers!
I was told that Santilli was departing for Japan at the end of May to conduct negotiations with television companies over there for first-time rights to the archive.
The numerous flaws thus far detected in this sorry affair should be enough to put everyone on their guard - more so now that we have begun to make steady progress in determining which companies are involved.
Unfortunately, for reasons best known to them, some prominent English Ufologists have been seen to actively promote Santilli and the archive film, without any regard for the consequences of what it will mean for the rest of us, if this film proves to be an elaborate hoax.
On the back of what has been claimed by Santilli, and indirectly supported by those same Ufologists, the general public and UFO enthusiasts alike have purchased tickets for events where segments of the archived film is scheduled to be shown. There is no doubt whatsoever in my own mind, that people who have purchased tickets based entirely on claims that this archive is the genuine article, are in for a great disappointment.
Once we began to enquire, once we began to identify serious flaws, Santilli refused to discuss the matter further. Philip Mantle has had the opportunity as Director of Investigations for BUFORA, and English representative for MUFON, to make the same enquiries, to ask the same questions, but more importantly, had the opportunity to do so some 18 months before any of us. This in itself raises serious questions - a point not lost on numerous correspondents I have dealt with during the course of the last few weeks.
The motives as to why this archive film has been generated and promoted raises further serious questions and pertinent answers and explanations will be demanded by all of Ufology, particularly as it has been kept in the dark, so-to-speak, by people who have been considered to be able UFO researchers in their own right.
This information should be circulated to as wide an audience as possible, with the express aim of informing the UFO community at large that the Roswell archive footage is highly suspect, and that previous claims as to it's authenticity are bogus. The facts presented are true and accurate accounts of our investigations.
Graham W. Birdsall - Editor
--------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: TEXJE@BONALY.HW.AC.UK * JAMES.EASTON@STAIRWAY.CO.UK --------------------------------------------------------------- -- * * SearchNet HeadQuarters BBS 617-961-4865 or 508-586-6977 * Subscribe to our mailing list by sending a message to * email@example.com, "subscribe snet-l" The l is * a lowercase L. Voicemail - 617-341-6114. Replies to * firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com *
Date: Sun, 14 May 1995 11:45:22 -0500
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Steven Kaeser)
Subject: Re: Roswell Film on TV in US or Canada
Organization: Kaeser Konsulting
email@example.com (Walter Yen) writes:
>From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Walter Yen)You are getting ahead of the circus parade here. There has been a lot of talk, but no indication that anyone has actually signed any contracts with Santilli to obtain television rights to the alledged footage. In one recent post there was a mention of the reaction from a representative from the program Encounters, which is owned by Rupert Murdock. With his interested in the topic of UFOs, it is likely that he will bid high for rights to show the film. This is the relevent portion of that post:
>Subject: Roswell Film on TV in US or Canada
>Date: Sun, 14 May 1995 03:49:14 GMT
>HI: >Anyone has any idea regarding to when the Roswell film is going to be >shown on TV in US or Canada? >--
>Bob Kivian the producer for Encounters programme in the states was >impressed by the footage. He was not too concerned if it was genuine >or not but said that it was possible that it could be faked. The >question of how would the showing of the film be dealt with if it >were to air. >He responded that the graphic nature of the scenes would require an >after 9 o'clock showing time but a special two hour programme >starting at 8pm and finishing at 10pm would be a good way to cover >this. >Again it is not confirmed that they have payed for the footage.Keep in mind that they are NOT too concerned about the validity of the film. It is a commodity that will help them to make money, which is the same motivation that apparently drives Santilli.
- Area: Space Link (UFO/Fringe Science) ------------------------------ Msg#: 5537 Date: 05-06-95 23:09 From: Rich Boylan Read: Yes Replied: No To: Mike Christol Mark: Subj: Press Conference update ---------------------------------------------------------------------- MC> =>RB Good. Then you won't be surprised that the press MC> =>RB conference on the Roswell Saucer Crash Retrieval and ET MC> =>RB Autopsies Film may take place Friday, May 5, instead. That MC> =>RB would be the day that Ray Santilli has reserved the British MC> =>RB Museum to show 200 invited guests, including MC> Thanks, Rich. MC> I guess I will give it one more chance. All I really ask for is MC> something positive to come from this. I can't go on this "blind" MC>faith. I must "see."Mike:
Gee. You sound impatient. What's 48 years to a salwart like you? :-)
5/5/95 Update. At 1:00 p.m., London time, Ray Santilli, Britiush tv producer, held a bidding and press conference (of a sort) at the London Museum for prospective buyers of broadcast and movie rights to his 14 reels of extraterrestrial crash site wreckage retrieval and ET corpses autopsies. Elements of the British press were there. (The Times of London had already published the story of Mr. Santilli's treasure trove.)
Mr. Santilli said at the beginning that this was a sample that he was showing, and that it would be all that he was showing at this time. He then showed a twenty-minute clip of an ET autopsy, featuring a humanoid (but not conventional human) female with larger than normal head, head oddly configured, hairless, no rib cage, female genitalia but no head or body hair, no breasts or nipples, and, upon autopsy, the inner head had no skull but a gelatinous (cartiliginous?) inner structure. (Perhaps a hybrid?)
After the film showing, he refused to answer any questions, and brought the meeting to a close. A business associate of Mr. Santilli's in this venture admits that Mr. Santilli's behavior does not exactly conform to normal business/marketing behavior; and when the question was raised as to whether there were other forces at work governing the release of the Santilli-Roswell films, allowed as how intelligence might be involved in this very gradualistic, teasing kind of graduated release of potentially paradigm-shifting video documentation.
I would tend to go along with that latter analysis.
- Rich Boylan
P.S. Mike: Would you cross-post this text to the other customary Echos? I don't have the wherewithall to do that, and I think others will find the update of interest. Thank you. I will keep you posted. Nice to talk with you the other day by land line.
-!- ProBoard v2.01 [Reg] ! Origin: Sacramento's Premier Ham BBS (88:4602/730) ... Catch the Blue Wave! ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
From: email@example.com (Steven Kaeser)
Subject: Re: Roswell Film Shown in London
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 06:54:25
In article <3OJRFQ$PFF@NEWS.CS.TULANE.EDU> firstname.lastname@example.org (Mel Shear) writes: >From: email@example.com (Mel Shear) >Subject: Re: Roswell Film Shown in London >Date: 8 May 1995 01:17:46 GMT >>It is believed that a major U.S. media company has made a bid. A fax >>bid was received on 3rd May from a group of Attornies in Washington >>representing an unnamed client (possibly U.S. Government) offering >>1.8 million dollars >That would be just great. If the film proves to be valid, the US >Gov. buys it back and kills any chance of exposing the truth. What >is it that this governmant of ours is hiding that they are willing to >go through such great lenghts and expenses to keep secret.You seem so surprised! I had postulated that the U.S. Government may make a large bid for the film long ago, IF the film is real and IF the government is involved in an alledged cover-up. On the other hand, the bid lends a certain amount of credibility to the film, so it may be a part of the government's disinformation campaign to foist a fake film on the gullible UFO fanatics of the world and later pull the rug out from under their glee. Okay, Okay, I'm being a tad speculative here.
IMHO, if the film is real and the government wanted it back, they would have gotten it by now. The U.S. and British governments have worked together on these issues in the past, and pressure can be brought on citizens to "play the game". The original post indicated that it was "possibly" the U.S. Government making the bid through a group of attornies, but that could also have been on behalf of a communications group that wanted to remain anonymous. The story is based on a fax from Colin Andrews, who flew to London for the showing over the weekend. Somehow this is NOT the proof of government involvement in the UFO cover-up that I want to go into court with.
I would mention that it is unfortunate that the scenes that have been described have little in them that would help to date the film or lend to its authenticity. However, this is from a single person's recollection of what he had seen, so it may be somewhat limited. One poster indicated that he felt it was a fake alien film, but perhaps a real autopsy. So the speculation was whether or not this was the first "Fake Alien/Snuff Film", which adds another whole level to the discussion. There has been a lot of speculation of what can be done with modern computers in altering an image. One wonders how real one could make an fake autopsy look with video enhancements. My guess is there are limits to the images one can create without some sort of cadaver, or at least a good prop.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Atkins M)
Subject: Re: Roswell Film Shown in London
Date: 8 May 1995 21:53:11 -0400
After hearing what Kent Jeffries had to say on Art Bell's "Dreamland" about this film, it seems apparent that it is a hoax. The wall phone had a coiled flexicord. To the best of my memory, those things did not come out until sometime in the late 1950's, approx 10 years after this film was supposedly shot. The description given of the filming techniques used indicates that it was done by amatuers, not professionals who were filming an historic event. I haven't seen it but from what was described on this board and by two other viewers, this thing is a hoax. A despicable one at that if a human cadaver was used to perpetrate the hoax.
From: Tom_C._Wilcox@magic.ca (Tom C. Wilcox)
Subject: Re(2): URGENT! NEWS ABOUT ROSWELL
Date: Sun, 7 May 95 12:09:05 -0500
* Forwarded from "UFO"
* Originally by Theresa Carlson
* Originally to Don Allen
* Originally dated 27 Apr 1995, 21:25
Hello Don, (and all)
Since there are alot of rumors already circulating about this film I may as well add this one from another online network. Just passing it along for discussion or whatever.
***** Subj: Roswell Film Section: UFO Science From: :Bill Combs/SL 4 73363,533 # 61332, * No Replies * To: :Bill Combs/SL 4 73363,533 Date: 26-Apr-95 16:28 Everyone, This just in from a friend and very reliable source. Draw your own conclusions > > From the " I thought so" department.. > > I talked to a friend who is a producer at "Unsolved Mysteries." > They sent one of their reaserchers to England top check out the so > called "Roswell Alien Autopsy" film. > > From the start it began to look rather bogus. > Memebers of the media who wanted to view the film for possible first > time telvision rights had to put up some cash up front to see a > small snipet of the film. > > When the Unsolved Mysteries dude saw it, he recognized it immediatly > as footage from a Brazilian UFO documentary movie shot some years > ago. > > For the movie, the producers shot some grainy black & white 16mm, > documentary style footage of a Roswell crash type senario where > military doctors perform an autopsy on several alien beings. > According to the Unsolved researcher, the film stock was on fairly > modern 16mm 400 ASA Agfa film stock (not very available to the U.S. > military in 1947) > > However, the people who are in possession of the footage are still > trying to pass it off as the real thing. The closed and sealed > biddingon who gets to air the footage begins Friday morning. > >I guess P.T. Barnum was right- "There's a sucker born every minute." >There is still the question of the amount f footage supposedly possessed. If these guys still want real attention, then they better show the whole thing to some people.
***** * KWQ/2 1.2e * I love my country, it's my government I fear.
-- Don Allen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Don.Allen@p3.f2112.n2430.z1.FIDONET.ORG ====================================================================== Inquiries regarding ParaNet, or mail directed to Michael Corbin, should be sent to: email@example.com. Or you can phone voice at 303-429-2654/ Michael Corbin Director ParaNet Information Services -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Magic Online Services Toronto Inc. (416) 591-6490 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: K.Steinhauer@BoM.GOV.AU (Kevin Steinhauer)
Subject: Roswell Film.
Date: Sun, 7 May 1995 23:12:42 GMT
This morning (Monday May 8th) on Melbourne (Australia) radio station 3AW an interview was held with a journalist who saw about 25 minutes of the alleged "Roswell film" in England last Friday. He said that the film looked "too real" to be a fake and his personal opinion was that it was real. The alien was described as having a very large and oddly shaped head, large saucer like eyes, ears where you don't expect them and six fingers on each hand. He described internal organs being removed including the brain and heart. He also mentionad that one Australian television station may be purchasing at least part of the film - but didn't say which station.
I did not hear this interview myself and the information above was supplied to me by someone who did. Personally, I've now heard so many different stories about this film that I don't know what to believe. Some say the quality of the film is very bad - others say it's quite good. Descriptions of the alien bodies also differ. I'd just like to see the film and decide for myself. Anyway, I just thought I'd post this for those who may be interested.
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 14:57:09 -0400
From: "David L. Thompson"
Subject: Re: Roswell film - "A darn good con": Call the cops -Reply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU Sender:"Gateway to alt.paranet.ufo"This whole thing is looking more and more like a con job by some one in the trail. I am not joking when I say this but perhaps it is time to report the whole affair to the UK police suggesting that someone is not support Block trying to "Obtain money by deception". This will force whoever to prove the film is genuine.
Poster: Andy Cobley Subject: Re: Roswell film - "A darn good con": Call the cops ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Don.Allen@p3.f2112.n2430.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Allen) wrote: >Hi Folks, > >I have received some phone calls from Dan Smith who has been >contacting some people who have seen today's Roswell footage, shown >in the UK, of roughly 20 min worth of the autopsy film in 3 min >segments. One person who is claimed to have seen it is a film >producer associated with WGBH, Public TV in Boston. He noted a subtle >but specific anachronism in not support Block the film segment of >the autopsy: a coiled phone cord shown in what is purportedly a late >40's era film. He says that based on what he saw that it's consistent >with the type of military camera work used during the 60's, in terms >of coverage using hand held cameras as opposed to tripod mounted >camera work during the late 40's. His opinion of the film segment he >saw of the autopsy is that it's a hoax. > >Smith talked with Colin Andrews who says he could make out 6 digits >on the hands and feet. > >I suspect that as we begin to get more reports back from people who >have seen this latest film segment that we're going to hear this film >is a very clever, almost professionaly done, con job. Based on what >I've heard so far on this, I further suspect that Mantle and BUFORA >might be feeling some backlash in the very near future. Aside from >that and Quest International's admonition of "I told you so", I think >we need to pay closer attention to how Santilli managed to get this >film from Barnett. Where did Barnett get it? > >We need to ask some basic questions - Who produced this film and >what are their motives - Was it for Money making or manipulation of >the UFO Community..or both?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Better know as "calling their bluff"....