Roswell Film Page#4Analysis Post May 5th Press Conference
The fast and furious debate on the validity of the purported Roswell Film continues. Thus we move on to Page #4 of this ongoing saga. It will be interesting to see if any media related company actually buys the right of the film and if this film will be shown at the Bufora Conference in England as planned in August or as a special report on any national TV stations in any country in the world. Stay tuned .....
Roswell Film Page 4 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.
- Steve Kaeser About Phone Cord in Film
- Neil Morris - 3 Parts to the Film
- Tim Shell - Film from Aztec or Larado
- Neil Doyle - Bufora Motivation with Film?
- Steve Gamble - Santilli had the Film 18 Months Ago
- John Powell - Perspective Buyers of the Film
- Paul Vigay - Cameraman of Film?
- Sue King - Bob Kiviat/Encounters Opinion
- Analysis of Type of Film in 1947
- George Wingfield, IRI Report 5/15/95
- May 20th - Italian UFO Conf - Edoardo Russo
- Summary of Italian Report - Maurizio Verga
- Philip Mantle Speaks about Film, 5/25/95
- Kent Jeffries of IRI, Film Perspective 5/26/95
- Information From Santilli on Film - J. Easton
| Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 |
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Steven Kaeser)
Subject: Re: Roswell Film Shown in London
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 13:13:05 GMT
email@example.com (Karl Kluge) writes:
>From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Karl Kluge)
>Subject: Re: Roswell Film Shown in London
>Date: 17 May 1995 01:38:31 GMT
>In article "Garrison L. Hilliard"
>> You are a self-deluding "wanna-believer"... you talk about a >> "real" scenario, wishing it were so. The coiled phone cord >> (there were no such things in existence in 1947) proves the >> film is a hoax. Yet you demand reasons to keep believing... no >> wonder this group is in the shape it's in. >Hey, maybe the coiled phone cord was the first piece of high >technology that we extracted from the remains of the crashed >saucer!And, to repeat it again. Coiled phone cords were available in 1939 as a special order item. No, it was not widely used and probably cost a great deal in 1939 dollars to purchase. But in environments where space is a premium and keeping things orderly is imperative (such as a hospital operating room) such items might have been purchased to aid in that effort.
Does this mean the alleged film is real. NO! It means that snap judgements by those intent on trying to pick it apart will probably get you into trouble. This film should be analyzed in a proper manner, from an analysis of the film stock on up. The fact that it is in the hands of a "P.T. Barnum" style showman is unfortunately, but true. While that should give us pause to consider the circumstances, it should not taint our evaluation of the film and its contents.
Until May 5th, the film was (for most of us) an urban legend. Now some 125 people have seen a segment of the alledged film, and they have come away with mixed feelings.
I can only judge from what I have seen posted on the "net", but those who have criticized the film have given little substance to their allegations. The "Brazilian film" connection has not been verified, and yet several seem to swear that the footage is from some sort of documentary. It would seem that could be checked on. Indeed, I can't imagine any documentary for television including a 15 minute recreation of an autopsy that is highly graphic in nature. But perhaps I've led a sheltered life. I believe that it was Kent Jeffries that felt the film was fake because of the coiled phone cord, which started this discussion. Kevin Randle later posted his research on that point, and said that coiled cords were indeed available at that time, but not widely used.
I find it interesting that there are apparently two very different scenes that have been shown. One described by Phillip Mantle, Reg Presley, Colin Andrews and others, and the second described by those who attended the May 5th showing. How do these fit together? The first film had a time/date stamp at the bottom of the image, did the second? If so, how did they relate? Did the bio-hazard suits worn by those in the film match the time period. If a phone was visable in the film, was it a model that fit the time period?
I would suggest that we substitute rational analysis for snap judgement, and if we have to wait a while for that to occur, so be it.
, email@example.com (Steven Kaeser) writes:
>In articlePlease correct me if i'm wrong, but if anyone out there has a copy of Berlitz and Moore's "The Roswell Incident" please check out the picture of Sheriff Wilcox therin. It's a terrible picture (in my copy of the book) but he's holding a phone to his ear with his left hand, if you look closely just below what I think is his watch strap there looks to be something that looks remarkably like a coiled wire attached to the phone. The photo is dated July 8th 1947 and taken from The Roswell Daily Record. I emphisise the picture is extreamly poor quality and makes this type of observation unreliable, but has anyone out there access to a better quality print or the original to check out this point.
>firstname.lastname@example.org (Karl Kluge) writes: >>From: email@example.com (Karl Kluge) >>Subject: Re: Roswell Film Shown in London >>Date: 17 May 1995 01:38:31 GMT > >>In article "Garrison L. Hilliard" >>writes: > >>> You are a self-deluding "wanna-believer"... you talk about a >>> "real" scenario, [snip, message above] > >And, to repeat it again. Coiled phone cords were available in >1939 as a special order item. No, it was not widely used and >probably cost a great deal in 1939 dollars to purchase. But in >environments where space is a premium and keeping things orderly >is imperative (such as a hospital operating room) such items >might have been purchased to aid in that effort. >
>Does this mean the alleged film is real. NO! It means that snap >judgements by those intent on trying to pick it apart will >probably get you into trouble. This film should be analyzed in a >proper manner, from an analysis of the film stock on up. The >fact that it is in the hands of a "P.T. Barnum" style showman is >unfortunately, but true. While that should give us pause to >consider the circumstances, it should not taint our evaluation of >the film and its contents. > [snip .... - see previous message]I agree, I don't think the protracted and graphic nature of the press screening footage would fit in with a documentary program in either content or editorial style, more especially if the alledged documentary had been perported to have been made a "number" of years ago when tastes and conventions were a little more conservative than they are today.
> I believe that it was Kent Jeffries that felt the film was fake >because of the coiled phone cord, which started this discussion. >Kevin Randle later posted his research on that point, and said that >coiled cords were indeed available at that time, but not widely used. > >I find it interesting that there are apparently two very >different scenes that have been shown. One described by Phillip >Mantle, Reg Presley, Colin Andrews and others, and the second >described by those who attended the May 5th showing. How do >these fit together? The first film had a time/date stamp at the >bottom of the image, did the second? If so, how did they relate? >Did the ...Don't know if some people have missed some of the earlier posting re all this but there seems to have been 3 distinct portions of the film discribed in various amounts of detail.
1) - Very early on, Dec94/Jan95
The Truman/Wreckage footage. The only source for these reports seems to have come from people associated with members of the Crop Circle researchers and to Reg Presley. This no dought due to his early involvement and his subsiquent announcements on UK TV in January of this year. Little exact detail given other than Pres Trumans + other identifiable military figures involvement. This footage now seems to have "gone to ground" and nobody has mentioned it being shown of late.
2) - The Field Autopsy.
Shown to Philip Mantle of BUFORA. It is reported that Mr Mantle now holds a video copy of this footage and this is part of the presentation to be shown at the BUFORA Conference in Sheffield in August. Reported to be of somewhat "poor" quality imagewise and with little content that could pin it down by context or reference.
3) - The "Dallas" Autopsy.
(Thought no reference to Dallas seems to be made in this section of film, thats the name it seems to have received so I'll call it so for convention.) This footage shown to the Press and "invited parties" on May 5th, seems to have left many people who saw it scratching their heads as to what to make of it. Again little of the content seems to allow it to be pinned down or placed in historical context other than the current debate here on the Internet regarding the wall-clock, phone/phone-cord and microphone reported to have been seen in shot by one observer at the screening.
>bio-hazard suits worn by those in the film match the time period. >If a phone was visable in the film, was it a model that fit the >time period?Good point, if the image of the phone (I think it's more likely to be an intercom device if there is supposed to be an isolated viewing gallery) is clear enough to make model identification possible, this is a far more productive line of research than chasing a curly cord in circles.
Best Regards to All.
Neil Morris. Virtual Bumper Stickers Inc Dept of Physics. University of Manchester. Schuster Labs. Computer Programmers DO IT with Brunswick St. BITS of BYTES Manchester. UK. --------------- G8KOQ E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com [ftp+gopher site]
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Tim Shell)
Subject: Autopsy Film Aztec or Laredo, Not Roswell
Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 18:33:09 GMT
Oh, I get it! The indication "Dallas autopsy," the strange descriptions of the locations, an alien that doesn't match the Roswell testimonies (six fingers?)...
The film isn't of the Roswell autopsies, it's more likely of the autopsy performed on an alien recovered either from the 1948 "Aztec" flying saucer crash (as told in Frank Scully's 1950 book "Behind the Flying Saucers") or from another lesser-known crash near Laredo, Texas, on December 6, 1950. My guess is the latter. Strange that they wouldn't just do the autopsy at Lackland AFB in San Antonio, though. Is this before or after Project Pounce was initiated?
The "owner" of the film got his story mixed up. He's probably not the original photographer, but rather some opportunistic file clerk who got his hands on some classified footage. He's probably heard about the Roswell crash from all the PR it's gotten lately, and has misidentified it, either on purpose or by accident.
From: email@example.com (Neil Doyle)
Subject: Roswell, BUFORA, Money
Date: 15 May 1995 14:12:41 +0100
I've been thinking about posting this for a while now, but I think it has to be said.
I recently joined BUFORA as a spin off from getting on to the Internet and seeing the amount of UFO-related traffic. I've been interested in the subject since I was a kid, so I decided to join and offer my help in raising awareness of the issue.
The conversations I've had with senior BUFORA people since has horrified me.
I had offered my services in helping with investigation/research work, and I was told that I may be able to help researching a couple of books that are in the pipeline.
He also told me that he got involved with BUFORA becuase: "to be honest, I see it as an earner".
The first thing that was asked of me was to publicise the August conference on the Internet!
More disturbingly, another told me the the authenticity of the alleged Roswell footage was "50/50". He added that the footage has done wonders for bookings for the August conference, AND THAT IF IS PROVED TO BE A FAKE, IT WILL BE KEPT QUIET UNTIL AFTER THE CONFERENCE.
I am a journalist by profession and not a fool. It's seems to me that BUFORA operates to provide material for the benefit of an elite.
All this seems to fit in with other postings I've seen recently. My god, I even offered to write a regular column about UFO stuff on the Internet for UFO Times. They can whistle for that now.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Steve Gamble)
Subject: Re: Roswell, BUFORA, Money
Date: 18 May 1995 10:18:17 GMT
In article email@example.com, Sean Eaton
writes:> >Well, if that is the case it goes some way towards explaining why >Philip Mantle kept quiet for 18 months, and in particular why the >likes of Stanton Friedman were not invited to comment during the >period. > >Sean.Except Phillip Mantle DID tell a number of people about Santilli's claims to have the footage about 18 months ago. Despite a number of requests Santilli did not produce any material for anybody to comment on until a couple of months ago. There was no point in making any public announcements about something nobody had any proof existed.
It is often overlooked that the first public announcement that this material existed was made by Reg Presley on a national TV programme on 13th January 1995, a couple of months prior to Phillip's press interview.
--- (Disclaimer: These are not my employer's opinions, they may not even be mine!) Steve Gamble, Computing Services, Human Genome Mapping Project Resource Centre, Hinxton Hall, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, CB10 1RQ, UK. Phone: +44 1223 494524 INTERNET: firstname.lastname@example.org
From:John.Powell@f4.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Powell) Subject: Press Conference update Date: 9 May 95 13:29:54 GMT * Originally By: Rich Boylan * Originally To: All * Originally Re: Press Conference update * Original Area: UFOs & Metaphysics * Forwarded by : Blue Wave v2.12 OS/2 * Original: FROM: Rich Boylan * Original: TO: Mike Christol * Original: AREA: SPACE_LINK * Forwarded by Mike Christol * Forwarded Using QuickBBS 2.76 Ovr * Forwarded at 09:27 on 07-May-95 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. MC> =>RB That would be the day that Ray Santilli has reserved the MC> =>RB British 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 MC> is something positive to come from this. I can't go on this MC> "blind" 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, British tv producer, held a bidding and press conference (of 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. -!- FMail 0.98a ! Origin: Sacramento's Premier Ham BBS (88:4602/730) -- John Powell - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Powell@f4.n1010.z9.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
Origin: Jeffrey Howard, 74663.377@COMPUSERVE.COM
From: firstname.lastname@example.org ("Paul Vigay")
Subject: CAMERAMAN OF ROSWELL AUTOPSY FILM
Date: Sun, 14 May 1995 09:27:41 GMT
According to one of my contacts, the 80 year old camera man of the Roswell Autopsy film is named Jack Barnett and lives in Cincinnati, Ohio. Can anyone verify or disprove this?
_ |_| |aul (using !NetReader v0.10) .-----------------------------------------------------------. | Director of Operations | | The Independent Research Centre for Unexplained Phenomena | | Equinox BBS: 01705 871531 (24 hr) | | (for the latest crop circle and UFO research) | '-----------------------------------------------------------'
From: email@example.com (Sue King)
Subject: Re: SOMEONE HAS SEEN THE FILM !!!!
Date: 14 May 1995 01:07:24 -0700
Paul Vigay (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
: To quote email@example.com (Steven Kaeser):- : >Which is all well and good for the user who wants to modify a : >static photographic image, or create one as the case may be. : >But to generate motion video takes a great deal of computing : >power to make it reasonable. Graphics workstations are a bit : >more pricey and would be required if you want to get serious : >about it, and create something that won't be quickly : >identified as computer generated. : It can be done relatively easily with an Acorn RISCPC computer. : This is a UK home computer and probably not widely available in : the States. : |aul (using !NetReader v0.10) : .-----------------------------------------------------------.Tonight on UFO's Tonight! (the cable radio network show) They had an update from a guy (Bob Kiviat?) that worked for the Encounters show who went to England to see some of the film. They are negotiating for thr rights to show it and research it, I guess. From the 25 minutes he saw he is still interested in getting the film, since it didn't seem an obvious hoax. He deffinately said they were not interested in a hoax... and the negotiations are ongoing? He said if all goes well, maybe they'd be able to present it in a special show sometime this summer. Gee, I still wanna see it, even if it is a hoax! :)
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Jim N3B)
Subject: Alien Autopsy Film - 22mm
Date: 17 May 1995 07:51:15 -0400
I asked another photography "expert" what he thought of the statement "the military always uses 22mm" their his reply
Standard movie films are 8 mm, Double 8, Super 8, 16 mm, 35 mm, 70 mm.
Never heard of 22 mm, although the actual frame size of 35 mm movies is 18 x 24 mm.
From: email@example.com (Joachim Koch)
Date: 21 May 95 19:09:00
Subject: ALIEN AUTOPSY #2
********************************************************************** *Announcement* *of the* *International Roswell Initiative* ********************************************************************** This is the revised report of George Wingfield, British UFO researcher and chief editor of the main crop circle magazine "THE CEREALOGIST". ______________________________________________________________________
The "Roswell" Film Footage (revised report, May 13)
On May 5th 1995 Ray Santilli organised the showing, in a lecture room at the Museum of London, of part of the film footage he has acquired which is supposed to have been taken at Roswell in July 1947. Among 100 or so people present were press, TV, and radio journalists besides other film makers and several ufologists. Attendees were prohibited from taking cameras into the hall. The showing was subsequently reported in radio bulletins but it was almost entirely ignored by the British press which has been largely sceptical of the UFO subject for years.
Santilli and a German backer claim to have purchased the film footage about a year ago from an unnamed 80-year old, who worked as a cine cameraman for the US army in the 1940s and was specifically flown to Roswell from Washington D.C. in July 1947 to film the retrieval of a crashed flying saucer and its dead or injured occupants. The cameraman (whose name is rumored to be Jack Barnett) supposedly took copies of the cine film on 16 mm film-stock and kept about 14 canisters of it. Apparently he was willing to sell it a year or two ago in order to raise funds to pay for his grand-daughter's wedding. Santilli reportedly paid him $100,000. It has been suggested, but denied by Santilli, that this Jack Barnett lives in Cincinnati, Ohio.(It is curious that Grady L "Barney" Barnett was the name of a witness who said he saw alien bodies at the Roswell/Plains of St Agustin crash site(s) in July 1947. He died in 1969) The film segment shown on May 5th lasted about 25 minutes and was a videotaped copy of a number of the original spools. It was in black and white with no soundtrack, but had a few lines of scrolling text recently appended to the beginning explaining in the briefest manner its claimed origin.
Initially one sees the naked body of the dead alien lying face up on an operating table or similar horizontal surface. This appears to be in an operating theatre where the only other visible fixtures are a clock and a telephone attached to the wall.Additionaly a microphone dangles high up above the body.
A surgeon and his assistant stand beside the corpse clothed in what appear to be white anti-radiation or anti-contamination suits with attached hoods all in one piece. The hoods contain visors in the form of rectangular slits. This is quite unlike what two doctors wore in a different segment of the film (not shown on May 5th) where they worked in a tent or temporary shelter at the crash site. Reportedly these two did not wear masks or gloves while working on the bodies. In the May 5th segment, a further figure is seen through a large plain glass window in a wall at the end of the operating theatre.
The corpse is about 5 ft tall, possibly just a shade less. The head is proportionately large but not unduly so: perhaps 25% larger than one would expect a human head to be. The eyes too are large, but are not that large, or all black as has been described as a distinctive feature of "greys". They are round, slightly oval, and have pupils. They do not appear slanted or almond-shaped. The neck appears normal and not unduly long or thin. Ears are minimal but seem to be positioned lower down on the head. The mouth is in the shape of a small inverted crescent giving the corpse, unsurprisingly, a rather sad look.The mouth seems open and so looks black inside, but it is hard to say whether the lips are thin or absent. The nose is small.
The head and body are completely hairless, though they could possibly have been shaved; there is a slight darkening in the pubic area. The body appears to be female, without external genitalia visible. The chest is flattish with no sign of nipples. The whiteness of the skin is the same shade as Caucasian human skin would be when filmed in monochrome. The body is bulbous and the abdomen appears swollen. The arms and legs are not spindly as one might expect of an alien grey.The thighs in particular are quite thick, tapering towards the knees which are not much in evidence. The musculature of the limbs is certainly human-like and not what one might expect to find in an entirely alien species. However, the feet quite distinctly have six toes but with toenails which look like human ones. It is impossible to be sure whether the hands have a similar number of digits or not, due to the fact that these were alongside the body and cannot be clearly seen. However some of the audience say they counted five fingers plus a thumb on each hand which makes it seem these aliens have six digits on each extremity (useful, maybe, for duodecimal arithmetic!).
Although the camera pans in on various parts of the body as the autopsy proceeds, detail is often obscured due to poor focus and the cameracraft is amateurish to say the least.
The only visible injury is a long gash on the inside of the right leg extending from mid-thigh to almost mid-calf. Where the wound was gouged out the flesh appears black though this might be dark red were it to be shown on colour film. Likewise all incisions opened up by the surgeon merely reveal a black- ness which renders it impossible to identify internal organs.
The surgeon performs the autopsy, decisively cutting into the body with a scalpel along carefully chosen lines and opening up the body cavities. The initial cuts along the centreline of the body result in slight trickles of blood, or at any rate a dark fluid. The stomach and chest areas are opened up and organs in the dark interior are not easily discerned, nor the dark shapeless matter which is taken out. The surgeon removes various internal organs placing them in glass dishes held by his assistant. It is impossible to say what these organs are. At one point there appears to be a solid cylindrical object a few inches across, possibly hexagonal, positioned in the centre of the opened up body. Whether this is something internal revealed by the dissection or something which was placed there by the surgeon before the camera zoomed in, is not clear. At some stage the surgeon uses tweezers to pull dark membranes from each eye which he places in a dish. This apparently leaves behind just the white eyeballs. All this is done swiftly as if it were standard procedure. The clock on the wall moves on from an initial time of 10.20 to nearly 11.00 and then later still. The filming is obviously not continuous and it seems that different short time segments have been pieced together with some stages of the autopsy being omitted. The camera moves about quickly, sometimes jerkily, and it is often difficult to discern what the surgeon is doing.
[From time to time the surgeon's assistant writes on a notepad. Philip Mantle of BUFORA, who has close links with Santilli in view of the fact that both have the same publicity agent, Mr Carl Nagatis (with whom Mantle co-authored a recent book on alien abductions, "Without Consent"), says that close viewing of the film shows the name "DR BRONK" written at the top of this pad. This undoubtedly refers to Dr Detlev Bronk, the only medical expert member of "MJ-12" and an internationally known physiologist and biophysicist. If the US government ever chose someone to dissect an alien after the 1947 Roswell crash it would surely have been Dr Bronk. Therefore, IF this claim by Mantle is true, it either validates the film footage -- OR -- it points to a very elaborate and insidious hoax by people with a detailed knowledge of the Roswell case who are closely associated with the present publicity circus. --GW, May 13]
The final stage of the autopsy is the cutting away of the top part of the skull to give access to the brain. The surgeon saws away for several minutes after first making scalpel cuts across the upper head to mark where he will saw. We do not see the skull opened but next we are shown the removal of dark matter from within the skull. This is placed in a dish or jar. Some of this matter appears black and jelly-like and, perhaps, not as one might expect to find light-coloured human brain matter. (Then, I do not have any medical expertise in this field and so this observation may well be misguided.)
At this stage the film segment ends with the autopsy probably having taken about two hours. My account of the autopsy may contain some inaccuracies since the details are recollected from memory of just the one showing of the film on May 5th. Although the creature in the operating theatre is supposedly an alien, it is not really that dissimilar to a human. One cannot definitely say that this is a completely different species. There is just a possibility that the body is that of a freak or deformed human (or maybe even a hybrid?). Equally it is just conceivable that a human body was "doctored" to make it appear like an alien. These suspicions are only natural in view of the extraordinary emergence of the film at this time without supporting evidence, so far, to back its authenticity.Descriptions of alien bodies at Roswell in 1947 certainly do not tally with what we are shown in this film sequence.
Nevertheless it does appear that this is a real autopsy procedure carried out on a corpse of some kind. It does not seem to be an early sci-fi "B" movie, as has been suggested.So, if this footage is not what it purports to be, what is it really, and what was the intention in making it ? These are questions that critics must answer, and the key to whether it is the genuine article or not must surely lie in finding "Jack Barnett", the cameraman, if such a person exists.
Even if the autopsy is of an alien corpse there is nothing in the segment viewed on May 5th to link it with Roswell and July 1947. There have been suggestions that this autopsy was performed in Dallas which seems possible since the 1947 Roswell crash debris was taken initially to Carswell Army Air Forces Base in Fort Worth, just 40 miles from Dallas, before being taken on to Wright Field (now Wright-Patterson AFB) in Dayton, Ohio. However there's no proof it's Dallas, though such a city might have special medical facilities. In fact there are three possible anachronisms in the film which suggest to me that the footage could have been made anything up to twenty years later.
First, the telephone hand-set in the operating theatre has a black shiny coiled cable, seemingly plastic coated. These were not introduced in Britain until 1960; in the U.S. they may have been used earlier but surely not in 1947?
Secondly, the anti-contamination suits look very much like those worn by atomic power workers in the 1950s and 1960s. These were surely not available as early as 1947, though some kind of radiation suits must have been used at Los Alamos. Thirdly, the large circular electric clock with bold numerals on the operating theatre wall does not look like a 1940s style clock. I may be wrong, but all of these things look much more like the style of the early 1960s than just after World War II.
An interesting detail according to one researcher is that Kodak's date code symbol on at least one of the original film canisters is a square beside a triangle. Kodak's first reaction to a recent inquiry about this was that it signified a date of 1967. They then conceded that the date coding system ran in twenty year cycles and it could have been 1947. Santilli says that Kodak have confirmed the celluloid film is 1940s vintage but he has yet to produce any written report to this effect.
If this footage was made in the 1950s/1960s rather than 1947, does it still show an alien autopsy or has it just been staged to look like one ? One possiblity that might be considered is that this was a secret training film produced by the military for the military. There is no doubt that, following events in the late 1940s and 1950s (including, of course, the Roswell episode), many top military and government people believed most firmly --rightly or wrongly-- that flying saucers were of extra-terrestrial origin. If this was the case, what could be more natural than to make a training film to be shown to special military units instructing them what was to be done in the case of a flying saucer crash retrieval ?But would they have gone to such lengths to simulate a corpse with non-human appearance ?
An alternative explanation could be that the footage was produced as deliberate disinformation to discredit the Roswell story and to confuse and mislead UFO researchers. If this was done in recent years when interest in the Roswell event has mushroomed, the makers have been clever in simulating what appears to be old film although this is certainly possible. But it doesn't fully explain the apparent alien corpse.
Although the present intention of those who own the film seems to be to make as much money as possible from it, it would be surprising if the footage was made with this intention originally. Santilli calls his outfit, set up to handle marketing the film's commercial potential, "International Exploitation Management" (40 Balcombe Street, London NW1 6ND. Tel: +44 (0)171 723 7331 Fax: +44 (0)171 723 0732). "Exploitation" in this context is an unfortunate word, implying that commercial interest outweighs considerations of authenticity. This per- ception of Santilli's operation has lead to the extreme suspicion with which most people have approached evaluation of the footage. Certainly a lot more investigation must be done before Santilli's film footage can be accepted as being genuine.
Joachim Koch Berlin, May 21,1995 Hans-Juergen Kyborg ______________________________________________________________________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:
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!
--- GIGO+ sn 310 at wad vsn 0.99.950303
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Joachim Koch)
Date: 27 May 95 18:55:00
Subject: URGENT! NEWS ABOUT ROSWELL
********************************************************************** *Announcement* *of the* *International Roswell Initiative* *(IRI)* **********************************************************************We received the following report from our Italian colleagues and would like to pass it on to those who have not read it so far. An official statement of the IRI with regards to the Santilli footage is coming up very soon. We are just following some hints which could reveal the true nature of the whole - as a major scam. But as long as not all details are confirmed we reserve judgement. We'll keep you informed. Please watch out for our subject:"URGENT! NEWS ABOUT ROSWELL". Thanx.
ROSWELL AUTOPSY SHOWING IN ITALY
by Edoardo Russo
Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici
This is a report on the showing of the so-called Roswell autopsy at the Third International Symposium on UFOs and Related Phenomena, held by Centro Ufologico Nazionale (CUN) in San Marino (Italy) on May 20th and 21st, 1995, where Philip Mantle was invited to speak about the now famed alien autopsy film.
This report is being posted in the UFO newsgroups and mailing lists via Internet, in order to update colleagues all around the world on what Italian ufologists were able to learn first-hand.
Sources for the report are the following:
1) Direct viewing by CISU members Paolo Fiorino, Matteo Leone, Edoardo Russo and Maurizio Verga of seven slides taken from the same footage shown in the London Museum on May 5th, 1995, with comments by Philip Mantle (BUFORA Director of Investigations) and Chris Cary (associate of footage owner, Ray Santilli);
2) Interviews and discussions by Matteo Leone, Edoardo Russo and Maurizio Verga with Chris Cary, Philip Mantle and some members of CUN who were able to see one of more parts of the video footage,being shown in London and elsewhere;
3) Papers presented by Maurizio Baiata and Philip Mantle at the Symposium.
In several different moments across three days, we could ask the same details to different people involved, in order to cross-check information, were able to discuss among us about the collected answers and to ask more details as needed. We tried to clear some of the rumours spread in the UFO press and through the Internet.
Here follows a resume of what we learned:
1) DESCRIPTION OF PARTS OF THE FOOTAGE BEING SHOWN
Both Philip Mantle and Maurizio Baiata were shown three different footages. Mantle simply confirmed this to us, while we got most details from Baiata, an independent TV producer who has been working with CUN in the last three years and produced ten commercial UFO videotapes in Italy.
Baiata has been following the story since the first mention of the film in a news agency release on March 27th, 1995. He tried and reached Santilli a few days later in Cannes (France) where he was shown the first part of the footage, which we will call:
1.1 - "the Tent footage":
7 minutes of black and white film showing an alleged alien body lying on a table within a tent badly lit by a lamp; the body is partly covered by a sheet, the head is badly visible in the dark, arms and feet are protruding from the cover, two white-dressed but un-masked men are examining the arms and seem to take a large piece of either skin or texture from an arm or the side of the body; the camera is fixed and sometime the back of the assumed operator is seen passing in front of the scene.
This is the same footage Philip Mantle was given a videotaped copy of by Santilli, and shown by either Mantle or Santilli to several different people in the last months. This is the only part of the footage Mantle has got as yet in his possession and he is not allowed to show it publicly.
1.2 - The "Second" Autopsy
On April 25th, Baiata flew from Rome to London in order to be shown a longer footage by Santilli. (Baiata offered to buy the rights for Italy, and arranged for the Italian national TV to take an interest in it.)
When he got there, he was told the laboratory had not yet finished its work, and asked to wait till the following day. He did so and on April 26th he was in Santilli's office where Chris Cary showed him a 12 minutes footage (sum of 4 reels of 3 minutes each) showing an autopsy of a naked alien within an operatory room. The body is very similar to the one in the "first autopsy footage" (see later on), except that it seemingly is more decomposed. Doctors performing this autopsy do not wear protective coveralls as in the earlier one, but do wear surgeon masks.
Philip Mantle confirmed to us that he too was shown this footage.
1.3 - The "First" Autopsy
This is the 18 minutes footage more widely known, since it was shown in the London Museum on May 5th, before more than 100 invited journalists and UFO students. Italians attending were Maurizio Baiata, CUN director and UFO book author Roberto Pinotti, Italian TV Channel 2 (Raidue) director Gianni Minoli, and contactee/visionnaire/stigmatized Giorgio Bongiovanni with five of his followers (he, who usually see the Virgin Mary and talks about ETs as angels of the Lord, was later heard saying the alien was just the same as those seen by him!).
Detailed descriptions of this footage have been posted everywhere, so I won't repeat them here: both Baiata and Pinotti confirmed us all such details.
But here we can add our first-hand testimony: from this footage came the seven slides shown during the Symposium, which we were able to see. Circumstances of the viewing are meaningful:
a) - the slides were not (and are not) in the possession of Philip Mantle;
b) - they were taken in San Marino by Ray Santilli's associate Chris Cary on Saturday 20th and returned London with him on Sunday 21st;
c) - they could not be shown publicly for fear somebody could photograph or videotape them, so two private viewing were arranged.
The first show was on Saturday at lunch time (when the public had left), in the Grand Hotel: only official speakers at the Symposium, CUN directors, the press and local authorities were admitted; the Hotel was cordoned by policemen who checked every single person to verify nobody carried cameras or the like (this 007 scene was filmed by Italian TV and shown in the news on the following day).
The second viewing took place in an underground room at the Symposium, at 7.30 p.m. on the same day, allowing only the press and attending CUN members to enter (and be checked one by one by the policemen against unwanted cameras).
Attending CISU members were also invited to this second viewing by Pinotti and Baiata, probably afraid that we might do some negative PR action. You should know that CUN and CISU are rival organizations and do not keep good relations since 1985, when CISU was formed by former CUN members, CUN representing the 'fundamentalist', ET-believer approach, while CISU maintains a more skeptical-minded attitude. We were asked to keep a respectful approach (do not laugh, nor ridicule the film or the Symposium organizers, either on place or in later comments), which we agreed to.
Among other viewers (we counted 90 to 100 in all) there were Swiss ufologist Bruno Mancusi and Spanish UFO journalist Javier Sierra, whom we later exchanged opinions with.
Here follows a description of:
1.4 - The Seven Slides
1. A humanoid naked body lying on a table in a room; we were told female genitals were visible, but none of us was able to confirm this; the hairless head has two human-like ears in a lower position than us humans, two large Communion-style black eyes wide open, a very small nose, an open mouth. The belly is expanded and pregnant-like. The famed phone with a curled rope is plainly visible on a wall, as well as some surgical instruments in an open box. The right leg is badly wounded (scarnified), and lacks part of it, looking as if void inside. 2. A close-up of the head.
3. The black eye-cover being removed, showing white eye-balls (a small incision between chest and neck is already visible at this stage).
4. The body is being opened up with a L-shaped cutting from above chest to abdomen.
5. The opened body is exposed, with dark inside organs visible but not clearly distinguishable; no chest bones are found. 6. The whole body shown: six fingers are clearly visible on each hand.
7. The head skin is being removed, partly showing the brain. A doctor's gloved hands and part of his white dress are visible.
a) - the black eye-cover is still on its place in slides 4 through 7: was it re-positioned after the removal shown in slide 3? Or is the correct order unrespected? (But then how to explain that in all slides after the fourth the chest is wide open, while it's intact in slide 3?);
b) - though we were told organic liquids are visible as abundantly flowing in the video, nothing at all is visible in the slides; moreover, neither doctors' gloves nor the table are dirty but white clean in all seven slides;
c) - according to Paolo Fiorino, who is a professional nurse with direct autopsy experience, the table wouldn't seem apt (lacking any draining and visible instruments are too few to be sufficient; moreover, contrary to verbal descriptions, he noticeed no sign of rigor mortis in the body.
These notes are based upon viewing only slides, thus they may be overcome by a viewing of the complete video.
2. - RUMOURS, CONFIRMATIONS AND REBUTTALS
We were able to ask a lot of questions and tried to verify several rumours heard or read of (mostly on Internet exchanges). Here's a summary.
2.1 - Phone cable: Mantle told that curled cables in use for telephones as early as the '40s were found in a book.
2.2 - Truman visiting the body: Mantle and Baiata were adamant they never saw nor heard of Truman being visible in any part of the film.
2.3 - Detlev Bronk and MJ-12: Mantle told that two names are plainly visible on a note-book held by someone during the autopsy: Detlev Bronk (the well known physiologist allegedly member of MJ-12) and a Dr. Williams. On the contrary, Baiata was adamant that no name could be visible on any note-book, because of its position; the same as for the rumoured 'MJ-12' writing. But Baiata also told us that he saw a sort of introductory headline on the 12 minutes 'second autopsy' footage he was privately shown on April 26th: 'Autopsy performed by Dr. Detlev Bronk'.
2.4 - Kodak analysis: Mantle denied that any analysis have been performed by Kodak. The company did only confirm that symbols and serial numbers visible on the film were real and recycled every 20 years, in particular in 1947, 1967 or 1987.
2.5 - Brazilian documentary: Mantle denied the story that an 'Unsolved Mysteries' reporter would have recognized the autopsy footage as part of a Brazilian UFO documentary.
2.6 - Vallee's role: Mantle reported (we never heard it before)and denied that the footage was first offered to UFO researcher Jacques Vallee.
2.7 - Nagaitis' role: Cary denied the rumour that Carl Nagaitis (press agent of Philip Mantle and co-author of his 1994 book on UFO abductions, 'Without Consent') was also the press agent of Ray Santilli, though he admitted they knew each other.
2.8 - Cary's role: I asked Chris Cary (variously described as Santilli's lawyer, accountant or partner) what his usual work activity was and what his role is in this affair: he replied he usually is in the film/TV documentary business, that he was acquainted with Santilli, and that Santilli called him to help cope with the growing media interest: he is now responsible for the marketing of the footage.
3. NEW INFORMATION
The following information emerged, that was as yet unkown to us:
3.1 - Exact chronology: Santilly got the footage from Jack Barnett (real name, officially confirmed by Mantle in his speech) in June 1993, but according to Cary Santilli had known about it for at least a year (if true, this contradicts in part the known version). Mantle learned of the footage in 1993, phoned Santilli and asked to view it but got a refuse so he dismissed it as a tall tale and forgot it; the first one to view it would have been pop singer Reg Presley, in late 1993 or January 1994, and wen he told the story in TV Mantle went back to Santilli and finally was able to view it and got Santilli's promise to show it in Sheffield. Mantle confirmed that the world media explosion was casual: he told of the footage to a local journalist friend while promoting the Sheffield congress Mantle is organizing for BUFORA, but the news went on the national wires and soon he began receiving phone calls from over the world.
3.2 - Revising the Roswell time-line: Baiata told us he was told by Santilli that the footage consisted in several different recordings taken between June 5th and July 5th, 1947, in Roswell and Fort Worth: this would put back the Roswell crash about one month earlier than the original story. By the way, Mantle told that cameraman Barnett was allegedly ordered to Roswell from Washington officials.
3.3 - 91 minutes, not all good: Baiata was also told that some other short footages from the film have been viewed, but he was not shown them. Cary told that not all 91 minutes are as good as the three already shown parts.
3.4 - BUFORA attitude: Mantle confirmed to me that the other BUFORA directors are skeptical, and that no one of them has yet been able to view the footage, not even at the London Museum showing (as well as none of the American Roswell researchers, who claimed to be skeptical). He himself was very cautious in his public comments, and also told that he officially asked Santilli for a complete copy, offering BUFORA facilities for analysing it at best.
3.5 - Spielberg's movie and the Roswell footage: Mantle told us that the famed early 1994 UK tabloid story of Spielberg planning a new movie on Roswell and MJ-12 based on real footage was actually originated by Carl Nagaitis, who had learnt of the Santilli's film and hoped to force him to come public with it.
3.6 - Marketing strategy: we asked Cary what Santilli's and his intentions are exactly as of showing/selling the footage. Cary explained the plan is to have public interest raised by gradual revelations (still pictures from the footage will be released in June) up to the climax with the footage showing at the 8th International UFO Congress in Sheffield, next August: at that moment they will sell the rights for each nation, so to gain a maximum price.
3.7 - Highest price offer yet: Santilli allegedly received and rejected an offer from the Israel TV for world exclusive rights on the footage: 7 million dollars.
3.8 - Santilli on WWW: Cary told us that Merlin (Santilly's company) is planning a World-Wide Web server to be on the Internet with their own homepage soon.
4. - CONCLUDING REMARKS
I don't want to comment this affair now, since most of the above reported information is second-hand or anecdotal, though I hope it may be of interest.
As of the slide showing, I was not impressed by the scenes as I was expecting from an autopsy. It did not give me the sensation of a (dead) living being, but you know, I had no previous experience of such kind.
This report, with its spelling and orthography mistakes and errors, was completed by Edoardo Russo on May 24th, 1995, based upon personal memory and a comparison with memories and notes by Matteo Leone, who also helped to revise the present text.
You may reach us by mail, phone, fax or e-mail as follows:
CISU, Corso Vittorio Emanuele 108, I-10121 Torino, Italy; phone (24 hours): +39-11-3290279; fax (24 hours): +39-11-5617124; e-mail: email@example.com --- GIGO+ sn 310 at wad vsn 0.99.950303 Joachim Koch Berlin, 14.4.95 Hans-Juergen Kyborg
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 11:24:10 +0100
From: Edoardo Russo
Subject: ROSWELL FOOTAGE AGAIN ! (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Maurizio Verga
ROSWELL AUTOPSY: MORE ABOUT THE ITALIAN SHOWING
by Maurizio Verga,
Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici (CISU)
Following excellent Edoardo Russo's report about the show of seven stills portraing an alleged alien creature under autopsy (stills claimed to come from the Roswell original military footage), I am going to add a few more information and personal remarks:
1)I had a quite long talk with Mr. Chris Cary (associate of Mr. Ray Santilli) about their plans in exploiting the footage. It seems they are launching a real marketing campaign, which first goal is just the education of people on the Roswell affair. The story of the saucer crash and its recovery (including dead aliens) is still mainly a knowledge restricted to few UFO buffs. It must become a popular argument and possibly enter the imagery of the common guy. So, starting in early June, the still will be released to the press: they'll start to cover massively the subject worldwide and great TV coverage is expected. Due to the exciting idea behind the story (ETs have been actually visiting Earth and the US government hide everything to the pubblic), people will be expecting the release of the footage to see by their own eyes what described by press and TV.
The climax is scheduled for the August UFO Congress in Sheffield: the media will be shown with one of the footage reels (likely one of the two autopsies). In the meanwhile, Santilli will have already find an agreement for selling at best the distribution rights of the complete footage (country by country), much more convenient than selling one international exclusivity right. For the time being, Cary suggested Santilli to wait and see: they have been receiving so many offers from all over the world (three from Australia alone !), that it is necessary to screen them carefully. I believe such attitude a good way to rise the price as well ! This promotional campaign will create a real market of video buyers at both levels (distributors and consumers) just wisely exploiting the mass-media impact.
2) Mr. Mantle confirmed that the rumour according to which Vallee was offered the same footage during his visit to Brasil (a few years ago) is false. He contacted directly Jacques Vallee in San Francisco.
3) Mr. Mantle claims having no control over the whole affair. He plays the role of the expert presenting the document to the UFO community. He also claims to be cautious about the footage. Very politely, he told me "... don't ask me too much about the case, ask directly to Mr. Santilli at the August Sheffield UFO congress (where both I and Santilli will have a lecture)".
4) One of the stills offers a complete front view of the alleged alien corpse. The left leg is heavily injured and some parts of its flesh seems to have been removed by the incident. Anyway, the visible inside of the leg looks "empty": I felt being in front of something far from a real severely damaged leg.
5) At least two stills portraied the belly completely opened and the "skin" folded away so that the inner surface of it was visible. It looked to have a rhombus-like patterned aspect with seemingly "metallic" reflections: the rombhus pattern was lighter than the background. I got the feeling it was very stiff, like cartoon or tarred paper. By sure it was not flexible at all. In another slide a piece of such a "skin" is shown just above the creature head, covering most of its skull and forehead (I didn't get the impression - as reported by Edoardo - that the head skin had been removed and the brain exposed).
6) Mr. Mantle reported to have met Mr. Santilli occasionally during the press conference held in London in May/June 1993 to promote the "Fire in the Sky" movie. He heard from him about the footage, yet the refusal of showing it let him consider the meeting not worth of a follow-up. Early this year (January, if I emember well), Mr. Mantle met again Mr. Santilli at a BUFORA lecture: that was the starting point of the new story, which originated from an interview of Mantle himself to a local newspaper.
7) Phone cable: Mr. Mantle also reported that a request for information to the British TELECOM museum confirmed that such a kind of curly cable was in use with phones since the mid '40s.
8) KODAK analysis: one of the general managers of KODAK UK offered a complete analysis on the film in one full day. His availability came as a consequence of contacts with Mr. Mantle. Seemingly Mr. Santilli didn't reply to such an offer.
9) According to Mr. Chris Cary not all the whole set of canisters has been viewed (!). Many reels are in poor conditions and after 50 years the film is very sensitive to light and handling, so they take a lot of care with it.
The above notes have been written on the ground of personal memories of different talks with Mr. Philip Mantle (including his own lecture) and Chris Cary at the UFO Congress held in San Marino in May 20-21, 1995.
For any enquiry, you may leave an email message:
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Bjoern Olsen)
Subject: Roswell film footage.
Date: 26 May 1995 17:50:06 +0200
This document is in response to the position of Quest International publishers of UFO Magazine in England, concerning the alleged Roswell archive film. It is from Philip Mantle, Director of Investigations for the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA). This information is in response to previous E-MAIL detailing information' by the editor of UFO Magazine Graham Birdsall. I have been requested to respond to Birdsall by colleagues from around the world and I have reluctantly agreed to do so.
Subject: Roswell film footage.
From: Philip Mantle. BUFORA Director of Investigations. 25 May 1995.
To begin with I did not announce through the Press Association anything concerning the film in question as stated by Birdsall. The fact is that I was contacted by a friend and collegue by the name of David Clarke, a journalist on the Sheffield Star newspaper in Sheffield. David was writing an UFO article and requested a few quotes on the conference which would be a prelude to a larger item on the conference nearer the time of the conference taking place. David contacted me just a few days after I had confirmed Ray Santilli, owner of the Roswell film footage, as a speaker at the already planned conference on August 19 & 20. David's item was run a few days later in the Sheffield Star. The following Sunday I was contacted by Whites Press Agency in Sheffield who asked me if the details in the Sheffield Star were correct. I replied that they were. Theis press agency asked me a few more questions about the Roswell film and then thanked me for my time. That same evening I began receiving calls from around the world and then realised that it was this press agency who were initially responsible for sending the story all over the place. At no time did I release anything via Press Association as incorrectly stated by Birdsall.
Birdsall is correct when he states that I have known of the possible existence of the film for quite some time. However, as usual he is incorrect in his statement that I did not contact international UFO researchers until the Press Association ran the story. For example I informed my colleagues at BUFORA of the story told to me by Ray Santilli which included Jenny Randles, John Spencer, Mike Wootten, Steve Gamble and others. This was told to them in 1993. I also took the opportunity to inform Walter H. Andrus, International Director of the Mutual UFO Network (the worlds largest UFO group) at BUFORA's 1993 conference in Bristol. Added to this I also informed trusted colleagues in other parts of the world. For example UFO- NORWAY's Odd-Gunnar Roed. As for the Roswell researchers I contacted many of them including Kevin Randle. Kevin's reaction was similar to most if not all US researchers. In his letter to me dated March 4. 1994 (please note the date which is long before the story hit the press) I quote: "I'm sorry but I don't believe the story that someone in England has footage taken on the Roswell crash site. No, that doesn't mean that I doubt Ray Santilli. He's prbably telling the truth about the approach made to him." At a conference in Vienna in November of 1994 I also informed US researcher Don Ecker and editor of the US UFO publication UFO Vicki Cooper. This quite clearly demonstrates yet again that Birdsall's statements are incorrect.
I can not comment on the whether or not the original cameraman's military background can be checked as I have not spoken to him nor can I comment on the movements of Presdent Truman.
It is true to say that the press made various errors in their reporting of the incident. I can confirm that KODAK have not analysed the film but instead have agreed to do so. I can not comment of the statement by Stanton Friedman as he is entitled to his own opinions. However regarding analysis of the film BUFORA have put a two page proposal to Ray Santilli regarding this matter and we are hopeful that he will allow such analysis to take place at the earliest opportunity.
With regards to money in connection with this film I can not confirm the amounts being rumored nor am I that interested. I am only interested in getting to the bottom of the matter and having the film analysed. Birdsall is partially correct as BUFORA's conference is almost out of tickets and one wonders if there is not a hint of envy here as Birdsall's conference follows shortly after BUFORA's.
Withe reference to the code on the original film once again Birdsall as got it wrong, the code is KODA with a black solid square and a black solid triangle (not a circle as Birdsall states). Kent Jeffrey in the USA checked this for me and conformed that it is a code for 1947 film stock, however, some such codes are recycled every 20 years therefore it remains inconclusive. It is correct that Kodak can establish the age of the film stock quite quickly and again I hope to be able to do this in the not too distant future.
Reguarding the Press Screening of one of the autopsy scenes in London on May 5., 1995. Birdsall was not there and therefore in no real position to comment on what the film depicted. I was and I can inform you that the camera, to the best of my recollection did not zoom in on a clipboard to reveal the letters MJ-12. Despite what Birdsall states states, a number of those in attendance were impressed by the film including a BBC TV cameraman, UFO researchers from the UK and Europe. Others like myself remained unconvinced one way or the other, whilst others were of the opinion that it was a hoax, I stress the word opinion.
Anomalies raised such as the wall clock should be left for qualified historians to comment on and not editors of a small circulation UFO magazine. Similarly camera techniques and film from the era should be left in the hands of the appropriate authorities.
Birdsall is wrong again in stating that Ray Santilli's company has gone into receivership. A copy of his accounts reveal quite the opposite. As for Chris Carey I know little about him and I can not therefore comment. As for press coverage after the showing in London it did not surprise me that nothing appeared as every newspaper was concentrating on the VE Day anniversary. Again I can not comment on what the TV industry may or may not say about Ray Santilli or with which TV companies he may or may not be negotiating with. That is his business.
I know of no prominent English ufologists who have been promoting this film as genuine. The BUFORA conference will give people opportunity to see the film for themselves and perhaps allow them to make up their own mind. When this happens BUFORA will have achieved part of its aim in getting this film out into the public domain so that it can be studied and scrutinised by all. If BUFORA had not done this we would not be discussing these issues now. In none of BUFORA's conference material do we promote the film as genuine, instead we have pointed out that we can not confirm the film to be either genuine or fake which is a FACT and not a rumor. I would like to point out here that unlike Birdsall's conference no one is forbidden to attend, himself included.
Birdsall is in no position to know what questions I have asked Ray Santilli and what proposals I have put to him in the 18 months or so since Santilli first told me about the film and what answers I have received in reply. If Birdsall wanted to know what lines of inquiry I was attempting to follow he could simply ask me. He has never done so. One must wonder why?
Birdsall concluded that his information is a true and accurate account of their investigations. I have pointed out quite a number of gross errors in Birdsall's truth which I will remind you of:
1. I never released anything to the press Association.
2. UFO researchers from around the world were informed of this film.
3. Birdsall quotes the wrong code on the film.
4. No zoom lens seen during the autopsy sequence on May 5.
5. Ray Santilli's company is not in receivership.
6. BUFORA has not at any time promoted the film as genuine.
So you can see that ufologi as Birdsall states, has not been kept in the dark and I am willing to coorporate with anyone over this matter so long as they can get their facts right which Birdsall clearly is either unable or does not want to do so. It would seem to me that Birdsall is green with envy over this whole matter which is a shame but he is not the only one. One must also ask how Birdsall can label anything as a hoax without first seeing the film if nothing else?
I have put together a brief 5 page statement which highlights my involvement in this affair, copies of which have been sent to numerous Roswell researchers. I would challenge Birdsall to allow me to publish this in his magazine. Anyone wishing a copy of this can obtain one by sending a large SAE to:
1 Woodhall Drive,
Batley, West Yorkshire,
England WF17 7SW
Alternatively it should appear on the Internet and various UFO publications around the world.
P.S. The 5 page statement is also available in Norwegian, please contact
From: email@example.com (Joachim Koch)
Date: 31 May 95 23:26:00
Subject: #1 INTERNATIONAL ROSWELL INITIATIVE (IRI) Bulletin#2
********************************************************************** *Announcement* *of the* *International Roswell Initiative* *(IRI)* **********************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL ROSWELL INITIATIVE
A Quest for the Truth
May 26, 1995
SUBJECT: THE PURPORTED 1947 ROSWELL FILM
By Kent Jeffrey
The last 18 months have been quite eventful with respect to Roswell. In January of last year, Congressman Steven Schiff of Albuquerque, New Mexico, announced to the press that he was requesting the General Accounting Office (GAO) to look into the Roswell case. Nine months later, the Air Force, possibly in an attempt to upstage the GAO, and in what "Newsweek" magazine called a "preemptive strike," released its own report on the Roswell incident. The Air Force report was the first official word on the Roswell matter in 47 years and basically supported (although without offering any proof) the original 1947 "cover story" that the officers of the 509th Atomic Bomb Group were fooled by the remains of a downed balloon and ML-307 radar reflector.
Now, a new factor has entered the picture. A film has surfaced in England that is supposedly top-secret documentary footage taken at Roswell in 1947 by a U.S. military photographer. The existence of the film was first announced last January; however, the film was allegedly purchased in the United States almost two years ago. Needless to say, the film has generated much interest and controversy, along with a variety of opinions from UFO researchers and members of the media as to its authenticity.
As author of the Roswell Declaration and coordinator of the International Roswell Initiative, I have attempted when possible to maintain neutrality on controversial issues within the UFO research community and to avoid the infighting that, unfortunately, has so often characterized this field. I have felt that maintaining a neutral stance was important and appropriate, especially in view of the fact that the Roswell Declaration and the grassroots effort behind it has had the unified support of the three largest and most respected UFO organizations in the United States, the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS), and the Fund for UFO Research (FUFOR). Furthermore, over 17,000 people, from varying backgrounds, including hundreds of scientists and engineers, have signed and submitted copies of the Roswell Declaration.
While I have primarily concentrated my efforts on achieving the objective of the Roswell Declaration -- an Executive Order to declassify any existing U.S. government-held information concerning UFOs or extraterrestrial intelligence -- I have also become involved with researching the Roswell case. In the past two years, I have made five trips to Roswell, visited the debris site at the Foster (Brazel) ranch, and interviewed many of the surviving Roswell witnesses. I believe such experience gives me a definite advantage in evaluating any alleged Roswell film footage.
The film in question is presently in the possession of a company in London, Merlin Productions, owned by a Mr. Ray Santilli. On Friday, May 5, 1995, there was a special showing at the Museum of London. There were approximately one hundred people present: members of the media (including the BBC), potential buyers of the film, and UFO researchers from the United Kingdom and other countries. Despite the fact that the film is totally unauthenticated, it has received extensive publicity in Europe. For example, the film has been featured in full-length feature articles in London's "Sunday People" and Berlin's "Morgen Post."
Because of the dubious nature of the film and the questionable way in which it is being handled by those in possession of it, there is a tremendous potential for damage to the entire Roswell effort. Because I was the only Roswell researcher at the May 5th showing, I feel a responsibility to put neutrality aside and speak out.
Before going into specific details about the viewing, I would like to state up front and unequivocally that there is no (zero!!!) doubt in my mind that this film is a fraud. I might add, however, that if, against all odds, what I consider the impossible did occur, and this film actually turned out to be genuine, I would be one of the first to celebrate, as researchers would finally have in their possession the Holy Grail of evidence necessary to break the Roswell case wide open.
The actual showing of the film took place just after 1:00 p.m. in a small auditorium that is part of the Museum of London complex. A handout was distributed at the sign-in table consisting of a copy of the alleged MJ-12 briefing papers and a yellow cover sheet referencing the 1947 Roswell crash and the 509th Bomb Group (at Roswell Army Air Field). Merlin Productions was apparently very concerned about pictures being taken because everyone was physically searched (frisked) for cameras upon entering the auditorium. There was no speaker or announcement to formally welcome those present or to introduce the film. This seemed somewhat bizarre and discourteous, as people had come from all over the world for this showing. Also conspicuously absent was a person on stage afterward to publicly answer questions pertaining to the film. After having viewed what was presented, however, it was not hard to understand why this was the case.
Prior to the showing, anticipation was high. In the previous three months, Ray Santilli had put out the word through those in close contact with him that the film consisted of 15 10-minute reels (in their original canisters) of 16-millimeter black-and-white film, for a total of 150 minutes. He reported that it was dated as 1947 vintage film stock and that it had been acquired from a former army photographer, Jack Barnett, who claims to have shot the footage and then, incredibly, to have stolen 15 canisters of film, without the theft having been detected. Word was also put out that there was 45 minutes of footage taken at the actual recovery site showing a number of soldiers in uniform and a large crane lifting the crashed craft onto a truck. Additionally, Santilli claimed that one of the scenes showed President Truman behind a glass partition with such clarity that someone capable of lip reading would be able to determine his words when he spoke. At the showing, we would see none of this -- no debris site, no soldiers, no crane, no crashed saucer, no President Truman. Instead, we saw just 20 to 25 minutes of one single scene -- an autopsy of a supposed alien body in a small white room.
At about 1:05 p.m., the lights dimmed and the film started rolling. Before the actual picture began, a few short statements scrolled by on the screen with reference to the film having been "acquired from the cameraman who originally shot the footage" and to the copyright being "exclusively owned by Merlin Communications." Interestingly, one would think that if the film were genuine, the copyright would be "exclusively owned" by the United States government.
Also, contrary to what had been said previously about "10-minute reels," there was now a statement on the screen that the film was recorded on "three-minute" reels. I recently learned from a good friend in the film industry that 1947 vintage 16-millimeter film came on reels of 100 feet, which at 16 frames per second would be about three minutes each. Perhaps this information was also "recently learned" by Merlin Productions and that is why we are now seeing references to "three-minute" reels instead of the originally reported "10-minute" reels.
The film opened abruptly with its single scene of a small operating or autopsy room with plain white walls and a table in the middle containing an unclad body lying face up. Two individuals in white anti-contamination suits, complete with hoods and narrow, rectangular glass faceplates, were the only figures visible in the room. A third person, dressed in white hospital-type garb, was visible through a large glass partition, or window. Although he was outside the sealed room standing behind solid glass, he was wearing a surgical mask that covered his entire face. Perhaps there was concern that he might later be recognized?
The features of the body lying on the autopsy table in this film do not even come close to what was described by the 1947 Roswell witnesses. What was visible on the screen was apparently a slightly doctored human corpse. While in theory it could have been an elaborate dummy, the chances of that are remote. I, along with others with whom I've spoken who were also at the viewing, have little doubt that the body was a doctored human corpse. If such is the case, it would make this one of the most despicable and deplorable hoaxes ever perpetrated. It would mean that those who put this atrocity together butchered the body of a once-living human being (a woman in this case) solely out of greed. If this is determined to be the case, a criminal investigation might well be in order, as using a human body for such unscrupulous purposes is not only highly unethical, but also illegal in most places.
Although the exact height of the body was difficult to determine, it was definitely shorter than normal, probably somewhere around four and a half to five feet. The head was somewhat large relative to the torso, but not extraordinarily so. The body was also barrel chested and apparently bowlegged, and had an overall stocky appearance.
Other anomalous features included no visible body hair, small and somewhat odd-shaped ears, a small (slightly abnormal-shaped) nose, slightly large eyes covered by black membranes (which were later removed), a distended or bloated abdomen (ascites), six digits on the feet (polydactylism), apparently six digits on the hands, and legs so badly swollen that the definition of the knee was hardly recognizable. According to medical people with whom I spoke, none of these features would have been too difficult to produce artificially. The black membranes covering the eyes, for example, could have been placed over the eyeballs with the same apparent ease with which they were removed during the alleged autopsy. The sixth digit could have been added using the techniques of plastic surgery, although polydactylism itself is not that uncommon a condition. It was also pointed out that some of the abnormalities of the body could have been attributable to a genetic defect or even a physical ailment prior to death. For example, congestive heart failure could explain the swelling (edema) of the legs and the bloated appearance of the abdomen (ascites).
Despite the above-noted anomalies, the body essentially had the appearance of a human being. It had what was basically a human head, a human torso, human skin, human legs, human arms, human shoulders, human hands, and human feet -- all in basically the right proportions. The ratio of the length of the upper arms to the lower arms, as well as the ratio of the upper legs to the lower legs, was exactly what would be expected for a human being. The musculature of the arms and legs appeared the same as the musculature of human arms and legs. The relative positions of the forehead, eyes, nose, ears, mouth, and chin were very close to what would be expected on a human head. Although the eyeballs appeared larger than normal, the size of the eye sockets did not appear that abnormal.
Other distinctly human features included the mouth, lips, teeth (the front-lower teeth were momentarily visible in one shot), jowls, noticeable protrusions of underlying bones in just the right places, including the jaw, shin, and clavicle, a brief glimpse of what appeared to resemble a flattened nipple area (although no protrusion of the breast), female genitalia, fingers, a thumb, toes, and even a brief glimpse of a toenail (a human vestigial remain!).
During the supposed autopsy procedure, the body cavity was cut open lengthwise from the throat to the groin and various internal organs were removed and placed in metal pans. The focus, or resolution, was so poor, however, that whatever was removed appeared simply as dark blobs, with detail being almost impossible to discern. There did appear at times to be a small amount of dark fluid oozing from the body cavity.
Basically, the body shown in this film appeared to be that of a short, adult, human, Caucasian female, with the age being difficult to determine. The swollen legs and other minor "modifications," such as an extra digit on the hands and feet, and the "doctoring up" of the eyes and ears, resulted in an overall slightly freakish appearance.
Professor Jared Diamond of the UCLA Medical School, in his book "The Third Chimpanzee," states that there is a "98.4 percent" similarity in the genes of humans and chimpanzees (our closest primate relative). The resemblance between a chimpanzee and a human being is slight compared with the resemblance between the body in this film and a normal human being. The body in the film was extremely human, albeit somewhat abnormal in appearance. It does not take a scientific mind or much imagination to realize that it would require a genetic similarity far greater than the 98.4 percent between man and chimp to produce a being as close in appearance to a normal human as was the body on the autopsy table in this film.
It is common knowledge that the human organism, like all other life forms on earth, is the product of approximately three billion years of evolution, involving untold numbers of mutations and trillions of chance combinations of genes. Exobiologists tell us that the chances of billions of years of evolution on another planet resulting in "the fine structural details" of a human being are all but zero. While differences would be vast, there would, however, likely be some basic similarities between us and any other species that became technologically advanced. Such features as two legs (bipedal), two arms, a high level of dexterity, two eyes (binocular vision for depth perception), and a large brain would almost surely be required for any species to evolve as a tool user and maker.
I recently discussed this matter with an acquaintance who is a science professor at a Midwestern university and who has a background in biochemistry, human biology, human genetics, and exobiology. He agreed that parallel evolutionary development in another world over billions of years leading to an advanced organism so nearly identical to a human being would never happen. The laws of probability rule it out. It can therefore be stated definitively that the body in this film is not of extraterrestrial origin. The film is a fraud.
In addition to the "fatal flaw" of anthropomorphism -- probably the result of scientific illiteracy as well as sheer ignorance on the part of its producers -- the film has other problems, most of which are of a more circumstantial nature. For example, the photography did not seem consistent with what one would expect for the documentation of an historic medical event. There was excessive panning and poor focus with the majority of closeups. Also, most of the closeup shots were too fleeting, allowing no time for serious study or observation. The gestures of the two "physicians" seemed exaggerated and even staged at times. Although it is purely speculative, one would think that for such a monumental event, there would have been a large team of specialists directly participating, along with a number of additional specialists observing from behind the glass partition.
Establishing this film as a hoax is much easier than determining the source of the hoax. It is possible that Ray Santilli and Merlin Productions are themselves victims of a scam. However, it must be said that their actions in the last few months do not seem consistent with those of an organization confident that it is in possession of the "genuine article." Among other things, Mr. Santilli has mentioned a secret viewing for church officials, a private viewing for the counter-intelligence wing of the FBI, verification of the film by Kodak as 1947 vintage, and, most recently, an offer from an undisclosed client represented by a Washington, DC, law firm for $1.8 million to purchase the film "as is." None of these claims has been verified. Furthermore, no one has seen any of the alleged footage of the debris site or that showing President Truman.
Even more significantly, no one has been able to verify the existence of the photographer, Jack Barnett. If this film were genuine and such a photographer actually existed, the government would undoubtedly know his identity. Since he reportedly stole and subsequently sold 15 canisters of top-secret U.S. government film, he would be in serious trouble. His best protection would be to go public immediately. The government would then be in a catch-22 situation because if they so much as raised a finger against him, they would be instantly validating the entire Roswell event.
On January 19, 1995, I wrote a letter that was passed on to Mr. Santilli in which I mentioned the prestigious Washington, DC, law firm I retained two years ago for the purpose of providing legal counsel for Roswell witnesses. I pointed out the importance of the photographer in validating the film and offered the services of the law firm to represent the photographer. That offer was never accepted. After having viewed the May 5, 1995, showing of the film, I now know why. Either the supposed photographer is one of those behind this hoax, or else he does not exist.
Over the last years, the three major nonprofit UFO research organizations in the United States, along with a number of private individuals operating on their own time and at their own expense, have put a lot of resources and effort into the admirable cause of getting to the truth of what could well be the "story of the millennium." Although it is still very much an uphill struggle, much progress has been made in bringing to the Roswell case serious and credible attention on the part of the media, the public, and a number of politicians. It is unfortunate that there are now those who would unscrupulously exploit the Roswell Event for their own financial gain.
It is important that the UFO community make every effort to get to the bottom of this matter as soon as possible, including calling for a criminal investigation if it is determined appropriate. Standing by and doing nothing could be a serious mistake. Unfortunately, although they may be in the minority, there are journalists and television producers out there who are far more interested in the possible sensationalistic appeal of this kind of film, than in bringing people the truth. As the hype and publicity surrounding this film continue, there is a real danger that people will start to connect the reality of the Roswell event with the authenticity of this film. Then, once the film is publicly exposed as a hoax, which it inevitably will be, there is a real danger that people will tend to assume that the whole Roswell event is a hoax.
Fortunately, however, as experts obtain more information about the true nature of this purported Roswell footage, the entire matter of this film should be nipped at the bud and put to rest. Attention and resources can again be concentrated on the actual Roswell event, the best documented case in the history of the UFO phenomenon.
The investigation of the Roswell case is still very much an ongoing affair. Despite the passage of nearly 48 years, new witnesses are still being sought by researchers, as many of those involved were young enough at the time to still be alive today. Reportedly the GAO report on Roswell will be out in July. It is also reported that the Air Force will be coming out with a follow up to their September 8, 1994, report on Roswell which, according to the report itself, was supposed to be their "final word" on the subject. ("The lady doth protest too much." -- Shakespeare, "Hamlet")
The International Roswell Initiative is also an ongoing concern. With the count of Roswell Declarations well over 17,000 so far, signed Declarations are still being received. A special Web page for the International Roswell Initiative is now being set up on the Internet. With this new feature, it will be possible to fill out and "sign" a Roswell Declaration "electronically." This could increase the numbers significantly.
It will also be possible to download from the Web page all future bulletins of the International Roswell Initiative. (Previous bulletins will also be made available.) Bulletins will be issued periodically and will cover events concerning the progress of the Roswell investigation as well as the Roswell Initiative. The 1994 Air Force report (another "piece of deceit," albeit of a different sort) will also be addressed in a future bulletin.
The temporary address of the Roswell Web page is:
The permanent address, available in late June, will be:
Your help in distributing International Roswell Initiative bulletins and the Roswell Declaration is greatly appreciated. For further information on the International Roswell Initiative, contact:
International Roswell Initiative
3105 Gables Drive
Atlanta, Georgia 30319 USA
(404) 240-0655 Phone/Fax
The Mutual UFO Network
103 Oldtowne Road
Seguin, Texas 78155 USA
The Center for UFO Studies
2457 West Peterson Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60659 USA
---------------------------------------------------------------------- forwarded from: Joachim Koch Berlin, May 31st, 1995 Hans-Juergen Kyborg ______________________________________________________________________The *International Roswell Initiative (IRI)* 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:
this links to the index of all the Roswell Declaration articles. Notice the capital 'IUFOG'. The actual petition page is at:
Please sign the Declaration -NOW! Thank you!
I started in a correspondence via Internet with James Easton, who lives in Scotland and has been following the Santilli film quite closely. He sent the following information to share with the readers of our Web which was posted on a.p. ufo (I assume a site in England). At the end of this material, I print some short fragments from our e-mail, as James is open to answer questions if he can.
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 1995 17:16:58 +0100
From: James Easton
Subject: Santilli's Statement
>Date: Sun, 4 Jun 1995 13:13:39 +1000 >From: John StepkowskiSure has:
>Subject: Statement From Ray Santilli >Hi All. >At last, the man at the centre of the alleged "Roswell Film" >controversy, Ray Santilli, speaks out on CI$. >Comments? Hi John, Thanks for cross-posting this. >Subj: MESSAGE FROM RAY SANTILLI Section: COMMUNION (UFO) > To: new age B+ 03 June 1995 19:12:19 >From: Ray Santilli, ######## #22840 >A great deal of nonsense has been written since news of our footage >first came to light.
"Concerning an item on "The Afternoon Shift", a BBC Radio 4 programme broadcast at 3.00 pm BST on 11 April 1995:
The third interview was with Ray Antilles (Santilli) who is the present "owner" of the film.
According to Mr Antilles:-
The film stock has been tested and the opinion is that it is authentic.
The film is currently being examined by a Home Office Pathologist."
"I just heard a UK radio programme where Ray Santilli said his Roswell film will be shown at the end of this month.
He also said it (or a video, it wasn't clear) was being examined by a Home Office pathologist."
>In fact I am amazed and disappointed that so-called UFO >investigators, researchers and "scholars" can trade so openly in >misinformation, gossip and rumour.You should spend some time here mate.
> THE QESTION OF AUTHENTICITY:- >We had sight of, not only the cameramans many old photo albums which >clearly proved his story (life story) but his enrolment and discharge >documents, his diary and a wealth of other material all of which was >easy to check.What we require are details of how this documentation was so "easily" verified and with whom exactly.
All we have here are expanded claims, again with no supporting evidence.
>In addition the footage itself contained film stock code which we >were able to confirm as 1947. (solid square next to a solid triangle >on selected frames).We already know that the Kodak coding system runs in 20 year cycles. Santilli is therefore incorrect in claiming this confirms the date as 1947. But surely he knows this by now and we can but surmise why he makes such a fundamentally misleading claim.
>Although a risk, especially as it was a fundamental condition of the >transaction that we gave an absolute guarantee the identity of the >cameraman would remain confidential we were happy to proceed.Which is at odds with Phillip Mantle's statement in his letter to "The Independent", dated March 29, 1995:
"Now we have this detailed film and the cameraman, who went on to a distinguished career in the private sector, is prepared to go on the record in public to explain what he saw."
And even more so with his apparent revelation at the recent San Marino symposium:
"Santilly got the footage from Jack Barnett (real name, officially confirmed by Mantle in his speech)..."
How do we equate this with Santilli's statement that, "we gave an absolute guarantee the identity of the cameraman would remain confidential"?
>WHY WON'T WE SPILL THE BEANS AND GIVE THE WORLD CHAPTER AND VERSE ON >THE CAMERAMAN???????? >From the cameramans point of view there were, and still are, a number >of major considerations :- > 1. The welfare of his family (especially grandchildren)If, as Santilli claims, it was "easy to check" the authenticity of the cameraman's service background, it would presumably be infinitely easier for the U.S. government to also do so and anonymity would be theoretically detrimental to his own and his family's safety from any speculative government reprisals.
So who does he fear?
An enraged CSICOP, led by a crazed Philip Klass?
> 3. The ownership of the materialWhich, in the case of genuine footage, would presumably be the U.S. government.
> 4. The IRS.Does Santilli mean that the "cameraman" would rather not disclose the payment received, as he wishes to evade paying tax on it?
> 2. His sworn oath to his countryAs in, "I love and respect my country so much that I will deviously sell their property which I have stolen from them and I promise not to disclose the proceeds to the IRS."?
> WE MUST BE IN IT FOR THE MONEY!!!!!! >Once we had acquired the footage our plan was very simple, we would >shoot a documentary and eventually release the footage in a >controlled manner. >There was never any question of us wanting to sell the footage on, >and indeed we have still even now not approached any third party >whatsoever in an attempt to sell the footage. >Make no mistake we could have sold this film 50 times over from the >incredible offers we have received. There isn't a week that passes >without an offer coming in. (even Stanton made an offer of $100,000 >on behalf of an associate of his). >Of course we want to earn money out of it, we are a commercial >company but we will do it in our own way. It is not a case of take >the money and run..An interesting contrast with comments attributed to Chris Cary, brought in by Santilli to market the film, at the recent San Marino conference:
"Marketing strategy: we asked Cary what Santilli's and his intentions are exactly as of showing/selling the footage. Cary explained the plan is to have public interest raised by gradual revelations (still pictures from the footage will be released in June) up to the climax with the footage showing at the 8th International UFO Congress in Sheffield, next August: at that moment they will sell the rights for each nation, so to gain a maximum price."
Whatever happened to the documentary?
Incidentally, Stanton Friedman was in London this past weekend to deliver a lecture and took the opportunity to speak to Santilli and Chris Cary for approximately 2 hours. He advised them that he had been authorised by a third party to purchase some footage _IF_ he was himself completely satisfied that it was authentic.
At no time during the meeting was he given access to any footage and no such offer was therefore made.
> THE PRESS >Unfortunately a leak occurred, and without a single photograph or >statement from me the press ran riot.It does seem that Santilli did not welcome the resulting press coverage.
A curious reaction.
>In order to alleviate the pressure we came up with what we felt would >be a good idea. A screening NOT A PRESS CONFERENCE OR AUCTION just a >screening. >We timed it May 5th to coincide with the V.E. DAY celebrations, this >along with the fact we still refused to release any materials to the >press, meant that the story would die a natural death until we were >ready. As far as press was concerned the plan worked.This is an extraordinary claim.
Colin Andrews noted that amongst others invited to attend the screening were the following:
Carlton TV - UK
BBC radio 1 - UK
Daily Express UK
John Holman - UK
Bob Kiviat (Fox/Paramount Films)
Michael Hesemann (Germany)
Researcher from Italy and Germany
Kent Jeffries - USA
NBC - USA
Many other media...
Total Approx. 100
This is hardly a scenario for defusing interest in the film, no matter what the competing stories, however, Santilli didn't seem to appreciate the initial press coverage and we can but note his contention here.
It could of course be that, bearing in mind who was invited, it _was_ planned to extract considerable media coverage from this screening but that simply didn't materialise due to the timing of the event and the nature of it.
>WHY WON'T WE WORK WITH THE WORLD OF UFOLOGY??????? >I learnt very quickly that the world of UFOLOGY is akin to a major >international corporation with the same infighting and internal >politics that go along with it. Rightly or wrongly I will not throw >the very valuable footage we have into that arena. I prefer to work >with independent advisors and experts in their own field. People and >organisations that are neutral have no declared interest in UFO'S.Who was the first person to see and announce the existence of the footage - Reg Presley, a well known crop circle and UFO enthusiast.
Is Reg someone who has "no declared interest in UFO'S"?
Who has been instrumental in promoting the film and arranging a screening at their forthcoming conference - BUFORA.
Do BUFORA come under the heading of "organisations that are neutral (and) have no declared interest in UFO'S."?
Shortly after the Museum of London screening, where was Chris Cary to be found - at the Third International Symposium on UFOs and Related Phenomena, held by Centro Ufologico Nazionale (CUN) in San Marino.
Do CUN also come under the heading of "organisations that are neutral (and) have no declared interest in UFO'S."?
Santilli's comments here indicate his dilemma. He doesn't want to relinquish control of the alleged original footage or copies thereof to "UFOLOGY", but he is quite prepared to take advantage of the UFO "community" if this is in his own interest.
> THE PHONE, THE CLOCK AND THE CREATURES ????? >There has been a great deal written about this however for the record >: >THE CLOCK.................around from 1938 approxHow exactly was this verified and by whom?
>THE CREATURES........all femail(Presumably he means female).
How exactly was this verified and by whom?
>Fact is stranger than fiction....Without any corroboration of the claims Santilli is making concerning the origin of the film so far shown, we have no resulting facts.
His statement is notable only by the absence of such facts.
We still have no evidence whatsoever that:
1. Jack Barnett exists.
2. The original 16mm film exists.
3. Any footage of the crash site exists.
The first two are central to his claims and we must bear in mind that it would be a relatively simple matter to have the date of the original 16mm film publicly authenticated and this seemingly continues to pose a problem for Mr Santilli.
If he wishes to deal in facts, we should not loose sight of the _fact_ that the footage shown so far contains nothing to identify it with the Roswell case.
The claim that the name of "Dr Bronk" is visible on enlargement has only been made by Santilli and Phillip Mantle and I have yet to see Mantle confirm he saw this himself.
Given Santilli's initial false claims that the film stock had been tested and authenticated and that the film was being examined by a Home Office pathologist, we can hardly take anything else he says at face value.
On an aside, I note the wholesale absence of any direct reference to Phillip Mantle, a major player in the game so far, or the forthcoming BUFORA conference, which seems to be central to the marketing of the footage.
As Phillip's involvement in this affair has not been without some controversy, perhaps he will welcome Santilli's attempt to clarify events and also appreciate the respite.
Purely by chance, no doubt, I understand the timing of Santilli's statement coincided with a BUFORA council meeting.
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 1995 17:15:47 +0100
From: James Easton
Subject: Alleged Roswell Archive Film
>First I wish to acknowledge you for your excellent reporting of this >Film.I'm not so sure about that!
>What is your personal opinion?It's certainly an intriguing story, but the wholesale lack of supporting evidence re Jack Barnett and the _original_ 16mm film, coupled with the fact that the footage so far shown bears no resemblance to the Roswell testimonies, must raise suspicions.
If Santilli had the original film and had it publicly authenticated as 1947 footage, it would lend instant credibility to his claims and deflect much of the criticism.
The fact that he continues to refuse this simple option suggests that either the original 16mm film doesn't exist, or he knows it would not be verified as dating from 1947.
> Also, we have a number of your posts and evaluation shared on our >Web site (http://www.protree.com/vjentpr/) since you are in England >closer to the action than we are here in the U.S. >I was wondering if possibly we could do some type of interview with >you related to the film and UFOs in general and post that to our Web >Site. You might want to check out the site first to see our >orientation.I had been searching for any material on the WWW relating to this story and found a reference to your site. I had only just finished downloading some of the contents when I received your correspondence!
I actually live in Scotland but it's still close enough to England. Too close, some would say. ;)
I'm not sure what I could add in terms of an interview, but if there are any questions you would like to ask, then please go ahead.
One of the potential key clues to the source of the alleged Roswell archive film is the link with Steven Spielberg's supposed "Project X".
I recently posted some information on this (a copy of what appears to be the original article, dated 22 December 1993) and if you haven't seen this, please let me know.
Well done with the site, it reflects a lot of work and I found some useful information there.
Internet: firstname.lastname@example.org * email@example.com