Roswell Film Page#5

June, 1995, It Only Gets More Interesting

As we move into June of 1995, the debate continues. At least, I can see from personal experience that Mr. Santilli is being very open and willing to communicate with people interested. Thus we have added a new section, which includes direct quotes from him. Also, I participated in a live on-line conference with Mr. Santilli on Compuserve in the MUFON section of the Encounters Forum and from here, was able to begin to speak to him via emails on Compuserve. We are in negotiation now to be another site that will share his still images from the film as well as some documentation he has. You will also be able to order here, the video that his company Merlin Productions will put out sometime this year. Look for details in the next two weeks as we prepare. Hopefully as we get to see more of the film, especially including the part that shows U.S. President Harry Truman and film that shows part of the disk that crashes, we will have a better idea of what this is all about. For now, after my communications with Mr. Santilli, I am convinced he believe the film is absolutely authentic. I guess, when it becomes available in video format, we can each judge for ourselves. As I have said all along, regardless of the final verdict on the film, Roswell absolutely did happen and we need to prepare for an official announcement that UFOs truly are here!!!


Roswell Film Page 5 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.

| Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 |

Fox (U.S.) Securing Film Rights

From: (Steven Kaeser)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Roswell Film Update
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 22:46:14
Organization: Kaeser Konsulting

Television Producer Bob Kiviat says negotiations are underway to secure the television broadcast rights to the alledged "Roswell Autopsy Film", currently under the control of Ray Santilli. In an exclusive interview with UFO Magazine, Kiviat indicates that Ray Santilli is soon to travel to Los Angeles to discuss the film and its possible airing on a special Fox Network program on the Roswell incident.

Kaviat was coordinating producer for the FOX Network's recently suspended program "Encounters", and also co-produced seeveral UFO related segments for NBC's "Unsolved Mysteries". Kiviat admits that the film has not been analyzed for authenticity and indicates that such testing will be completed prior to the development of the program.

UFO Magazine, meanwhile, is not providing a forum for information on the alledged film. All statements regarding the film and its contents are attributed to Kiviat, giving the impression that the information was in the form of a press release, rather than a question and answer interview.

It was stated that no one has yet signed an agreement with Santilli for the rights to broadcast the "film", and the first known public showing of the film is still slated for the 8th Annual International UFO Congress, sponsored by BUFORA in England on August 19th and 20th.

Page Index

International Roswell Intiative Updates

From: (Joachim Koch)
Date: 06 Jun 95 22:02:00

Subject: Roswell

                                 *of the*
                    *International Roswell Initiative*
We received another Santilli update by George Wingfield, British UFO researcher and chief editor of the main crop circle magazine THE CEREALOGIST. We try to keep you informed. Please watch out for our subject headline:"*URGENT! IRI NEWS ABOUT ROSWELL*". Thank you.


New screening of "Roswell" film promised        June 2, 1995
----------------------------------------        ------------
Ray Santilli assured me today that he would soon give a further screening of part of the alleged Roswell footage which has not yet been seen. This would take place in London at a date yet to be fixed but roughly between June 8 and June 14. This time we would see the "debris field" (presumably on the Brazel ranch) and the camera would show alien symbols which are visible on some parts of the wreckage. He said that interested parties would be able to have a look at and note the shape of the symbols and possibly provide help in translating them.This might be of great interest to people. (One could also compare them with those Roswell I-beam symbols on a modern replica of the I-beam which is pictured in the March 1995 MUFON Journal!)

When asked whether he had the exact date of the autopsy scene (shown in London on May 5th), which supposedly took place in a military hospital in Dallas or Fort Worth, he replied "I do".He did not give me the date but promised to discuss this when we meet. In a sequence not yet shown, which apparently forms part of the autopsy sequence, President Truman is seen behind a glass window on one side of the operating theatre. Stanton Friedman (who met with Santilli at length on June 1) has said that the Truman Library has no record of the president being in Texas between July 1 and September 30, 1947.

He said the reason that the autopsy sequence was the first to be shown was that this footage always had good light contrast.Other segments of film needed to be "light-blasted" and cleaned. The Truman footage was being cleaned currently and would hopefully be available by August for its public showing (i.e. at the BUFORA conference).

Santilli clarified various points and denied some rumours concerning his company which have been put out on the Internet.Firstly he says his company, Merlin, was not the company which provided publicity and sponsorship for Doug & Dave's circle- faking claims in September 1991. Merlin, he tells me, came into existence in 1992 and has had nothing to do with ufology or with crop circles. He "had never heard of Doug & Dave" until recently. Secondly Merlin Productions/Merlin Communications is not in receivership as has been claimed.

What role, if any, has been played by Mr Carl Nagatis is still unclear. I will at some stage try to establish whether Nagatis is Santilli's publicity agent or not. Carl Nagatis is the person who co-authored a book on alien abduction with Philip Mantle: "Without Consent".

Obviously one needs to evaluate this film with some skepticism (with a small "s") and defer drawing any firm conclusions until at least we have had a chance of examining and dating the actual footage. Until then we need to be scrupulously accurate in reporting all the circumstances. This has not always been the case as regards certain material put out on the Internet about Santilli or the film. I will continue to report what Santilli says and, if ever that can be proved to be untrue, we should not hesitate to say so. However, unsubstantiated reports about him, his company, and his associates do not do ufology (in the name of which this material is promulgated) any great credit.

George Wingfield


forwarded  from:

Joachim Koch         Berlin, May 6th, 1995        Hans-Juergen Kyborg


From: (Joachim Koch)
Date: 14 Jun 95 12:25:00
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo

Subject: Roswell

                                 *of the*
                    *International Roswell Initiative*
We received another statement from *George Wingfield*, well known British UFO researcher and chief editor of the main crop circle magazine "*THE CEREALOGIST*".


SANTILLI FILM : GW Bulletin #3                   June 12, 1995
------------------------------                   -------------
There are still many inconsistencies in the story of the Roswell film and we need to check very carefully where these originate from. Much that does not check is from the Internet rumour mill and can't be directly attributed to Ray Santilli. Nevertheless I have the impression there are some inconsistencies in what has been told to various people who have seen segments of the film, or at any rate what they have subsequently reported. As regards President Truman I know there has been word, from sev- eral people who spoke with Santilli, of Truman's presence. Reg Presley implied to me that Truman was filmed at the debris site, but he (Reg) had not seen that footage. Someone else (maybe on Internet) maintained that Truman was seen through the glass window in the room adjoining the autopsy and "if one could lip- read you could tell what he was saying". It was implied that Santilli had said this. Certainly Santilli never told me this and I'm not too sure where this came from.

When I spoke to Santilli on the phone on June 2 he said that he would shortly show the "debris" sequence: "the symbols are quite clear, very visible. Lots of debris." I then asked "Now, how about the Truman footage ? Any chance of that ? The Truman ...?" He replied: "We've got a whole load of it that's being cleaned at the moment, so as soon as all of it comes through, hopefully by the August showing, we'll have everything through by then. Certainly as every day passes by, we get more material that comes forward, so that's very good." (He then changed the subject).

To me this appeared to confirm that there WAS Truman footage which I had assumed from what I'd heard previously. It was only when I talked to him in London on June 5, that he said he didn't know if there was any Truman footage, implying that he'd never seen any. I did ask to tape this session for the sake of accuracy but he said that he'd prefer I didn't. However I made notes, and what he said was that "he didn't know if Truman appeared or not". "There was a great deal of panic at the time and officialdom from everywhere flew into Dallas. All the officials were in there --the room off the operating theatre."That was what he'd been told by the cameraman.

He had also been told that the crash happened in June [i.e. at least 3 weeks, apparently, before the accepted date--GW] just outside an Apache Indian reservation. General MacMullen [of SAC] sent them all [i.e. military personnel from Washington D.C.] down to the crash site to clean up the area. When that was finished it was found a small area had been missed [presumably the Brazel ranch] and the military had to go back in and clear up all over again.

Now the only Apache reservation which fits the bill is the Mescalero Apache Indian Reservation which is about 60 miles WSW of Roswell, just south of Ruidoso. The Brazel ranch is near Corona, 75 miles NW of Roswell, and 70 miles due north of Ruidoso. So cameraman "Jack Barnett" not only set the date back quite considerably but also moved the goalposts!

As for the quantity of film which Santilli purchased: Reg Presley had definitely said 14 canisters of unspecified length.A recent Net item (forwarded to me by Joachim Koch) from Craig Meekins, whose father was in the military and used this sort of camera with 16 mm film in the 1940s, says the length of film was about 5 minutes per canister.

On June 5 when I spoke to him in London, Santilli told me the following: he had 30 minutes of good quality film and about 60 minutes of very poor to poor quality footage. There were 21 canisters of 3 minutes each plus one canister which contained 8 or 9 minutes of film. Also "lots of scraps" and some "film with empty frames". I suppose this could all add up to 90 or 91 minutes which is the figure usually given for the total, so I didn't argue any further on that one. He did say that he would show the footage in its entirety at the Sheffield (BUFORA) conference in August.

George Wingfield

forwarded from:

Joachim Koch         Berlin, June 14, 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!

Page Index

Roswell Film Coincidence - Neil Morris

Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Santilli-Roswell Film Coincidence?
Date: 16 Jun 1995 11:23:52 GMT
Organization: Dept of Physics : Univ of Manchester : UK

After reading George Wingfield's latest report something rang a bell;

----extract from a posting of an article written by Thomas Carey-----
On February 15, 1990, Kevin Randle received an unsolicited telephone call at his Cedar Rapids home from a gentleman professing to be one of the archaeologists in the party that witnessed the crashed UFO and dead alien bodies in New Mexico in 1947. (What is interesting here is that the individual telephoned Randle, who has an unlisted number known only to a few friends and associates; callers to the Unsolved Mysteries TV show who offer information pertaining to one of the featured stories are not given numbers to call or places to write, but their names and numbers are passed on to the show's participants.) The anonymous caller said that he had gotten Randle's number from a woman in Albuquerque who had also called the show earlier to offer her assistance in trying to find the archaeologists.

For his part, Randle, who usually tape records (the annoying buzz notwithstanding) his interviews, did not record this one - much to my chagrin, as I could have tried to match the voice of the anonymous caller against the sixty or so archaeologists that I have talked to in the course of the investigation. In fact, I may have already interviewed the anonymous archaeologist without knowing it. Randle did, however, immediately commit to paper his recollection of the interview. To date, I have read and reread the transcript of that conversation at least a hundred times. The following is taken from Randle's transcript of his conversation with the anonymous archaeologist...

.. According to the caller, he and some colleagues had been driving on back roads and across open country looking for signs of pre-Contact Indian occupation.

****(nm)... At this point Randle tried to trip up the caller by asking him about the Plains of San Agustin, but the caller said that, no, they had been in the area near the Capitan Mountains, in Lincoln County in east-central New Mexico.

When they came up over a rise, they saw about half a mile away in the arroyo below, something that looked like a fat aircraft fuselage without wings. He said that he saw no sign of a dome, portholes, hatch, or markings on it. He said that they then drove down toward it and stopped. There was another man already there (Barney Barnett? Cactus Jack? or another eyewitness that Randle and Schmitt have recently identified?) who was standing close to something lying on the ground.

His attention at first was drawn to the craft because it was fatter and more rounded than an airplane, perhaps disc-shaped. He couldn't be certain, however, because it was so badly damaged. He stated that he saw three bodies, and he went on to describe the one closest to the man. It was small, but had a big head for its size and big eyes. Its head was turned to one side so that it was hard to see its facial features. He did say that there was a mouth but could not recall a nose. The creature was wearing a silvery-colored flight suit and had one of its arms bent at an odd angle as if it had been broken in the crash.

Reminiscent of the Barney Barnett story, the caller then related that they had not been there very long when the military arrived, ordered the civilians away and to stand facing away from the craft and told them not to tell anyone what they had seen - that it was a matter of national security. An officer took down their names and where they were going to school and then threatened them with a loss of government-sponsored grants or funds if they talked. They were then escorted from the site and taken to a nearby road by armed soldiers and told to drive in an easterly direction.

That was all that the caller knew or cared to divulge to Randle at the time. He said that he was a professional man and feared that he would be laughed at if he mentioned this story to his colleagues, but he wanted to share it with someone who would listen. He then said that he had told Randle all that he wanted to and hung up.

------end of extract


-------extract of post by George Wingfield 12th June 1995

He had also been told that the crash happened in June [i.e. at least 3 weeks, apparently, before the accepted date--GW] just outside an Apache Indian reservation. General MacMullen [of SAC] sent them all [i.e. military personnel from Washington D.C.] down to the crash site to clean up the area. When that was finished it was found a small area had been missed [presumably the Brazel ranch] and the military had to go back in and clear up all over again.

Now the only Apache reservation which fits the bill is the Mescalero Apache Indian Reservation which is about 60 miles WSW of Roswell, just south of Ruidoso. The Brazel ranch is near Corona, 75 miles NW of Roswell, and 70 miles due north of Ruidoso. So cameraman "Jack Barnett" not only set the date back quite considerably but also moved the goalposts!

--------end of extract

The coincidence being that the Mescalero Reservation is 15 miles (aprox) south of Capitan, and less than 50 miles from Holloman AF base and only some 30 miles from the edge of Whites Sands.

Odd isn't it?

? Would any clean up operation for this site be detailed from Roswell AAF over 70+ miles to the west. Nope

? Would anyone inform them about it. Nope

? Why did Blanchard's Press release get retracted and the "balloon go up" after Ramey alerted Washington.

Mmm maybe even Ramey wasn't aware of events, why should he, he was further out of it than Blanchard. But he did get a visit by Ass Chief of Staff (SAC) Col Irvine on the 10th July 1947

"General MacMullen [ofSAC] sent them all [i.e. military personnel from Washington D.C.] down to the crash site to clean up the area. "

Best Regards to All

Neil Morris.
Dept of Physics.
University of Manchester.
Schuster Labs.
Brunswick St.

G8KOQ    E-mail:  
         or [ftp+gopher site]

Page Index

GAO Report Released on Roswell Soon

From: (John Kirby)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject:GAO report release date announced
Date: 14 Jun 1995 23:00:28 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation

The GAO will be releasing their report to Congressman Schiff regarding Roswell the end of this month (June) or very soon thereafter.

The main document will be about 12 pages long plus, perhaps, some attached comments from various agencies.

I will be getting a copy Fedexed to me the day of release, and I will try to have it scanned and posted on the net (this newsgroup) very soon thereafter.

Page Index

Information Shared by Philip Mantle
( Director of Investigations for Bufora )

Interview with Philip Mantle

Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 14:08:56 +1000
From: John Stepkowski

After attending the May 5th London Museum screening of the alleged "Roswell Film", researchers Robert Irving, John Lundberg and Rod Dickinson obtained an interview with Philip Mantle, the Director of Investigations for BUFORA, and prominent commentator on the Ray Santilli film.


An Interview with Philip Mantle
(post-Roswell alien autopsy screening)
London, 5th May 1995
Copyright Robert Irving, 1995

Rob Irving (turning on tape recorder) : You're a media man aren't you?

Philip Mantle: Yeah. There are lots of rumours circulated about this ... so-called piece of film. One is that it was all a publicity stunt created by me to help promote the Roswell movie starring Kyle MacLachlan and Martin Sheen, because BUFORA were trying to help promote it, that's not true; good idea, I wish I'd thought about that, but I didn't.

Another rumour was that Ray Santilli had made the film for whatever reason, again I can't find any substance to that rumour. Another rumour is that it's some kind of Brazilian or South American B-movie or docu-drama type thing, that was (a) offered to Jacques Vallee when he was down in South America ...

Rob Irving: It's a snuff movie!

Philip Mantle: Yeah ... and he said no thank you. Or (b) that it was offered to an American TV company and they said no thank you, they identified it for what it was, and sort of every other rumour in between that you can think of, none of which can be, at this moment in time, proved, or ... whatever...

John Lundberg: Have you made any moves to try and get it authenticated?

Philip Mantle: Yeah, on behalf of BUFORA we put a two page proposal to Ray, part of which is to have it analyzed at Kodak. Kodak have NOT analysed it, they've agreed to do so, and also a private film company in London that has a lot of access to special effects and this kind of thing ...

John Lundberg: What's the name of that company?

Philip Mantle: I forget. I have it in a file at home, I can't remember what it is.

Rob Irving: But, haven't you known Ray Santilli for a couple of years?

Philip Mantle: I'll just finish off ... we also said if he would just give us a copy of the film, on video will do, we'll then get it checked out by a historian and a doctor or somebody who was in the medical profession.

Rod Dickinson: Someone familiar with the surgical procedures of the time?

Philip Mantle: Yeah. We haven't got anybody lined up to do that, I'm not going to line somebody up to do it until I have a copy in my hands. And I've said if you want me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, I'd gladly do that in the meantime, I mean that's not a problem. But yes, we knew of the story almost two years ago now. Ray contacted me and told me about it and I basically said, Yeah, a nice story, but that's all it remains, its a story; I mean this was just on the end of a telephone and I just said ... 'show me', it's a simple enough thing to ask. Again I said if you want me to sign something I won't reveal it, I won't speak about it, that's no problem. So, various appointments were made to view the film, they were always cancelled by Ray, so in the end I just said 'Oh look, forget it', and I put it in writing as well, its just another fancy story, there've been hundreds of the damn things.

So then earlier this year I was reviewing the "Roswell" movie and I thought, I wonder if that chap still claims to have this film, so I phoned him up out of the blue, he says 'yeah, but you don't believe me Philip', well I can't believe it until I see it with my own eyes. So we arranged to make an appointment to see him, which we did, saw a piece of film, wouldn't convince you of anything, but it was interesting. So, I asked him there and then if he would speak at our conference in August which was already organised ...

John Lundberg: How much footage did you actually see?

Philip Mantle: I saw about seven minutes to start with.

Rod Dickinson: And are we right in thinking that its not what we saw [today, at the Museum of London "screening"]?

Philip Mantle: Not what you've seen today, no.

Rod Dickinson: How does it differ?

Philip Mantle: I'll tell you about that in a minute ... and I said speak at our conference, show the film, the conference was already planned and organised, so to my surprise he said 'yes'!

So, a colleague of mine by the name of David Clarke phoned me a couple of days later, out of the blue. I haven't spoken to David for perhaps six months and he's a journalist on the "Sheffield Star" - he was writing some article and he said 'give us a few quotes about your conference, I'll do a little snippet now and I'll do you a bigger piece later on'. So I told him about all the speakers and I said 'oh, by the way ...', Santilli, the film, etc. So he ran that in the "Sheffield Star", then the Whites press agency from Sheffield rang me a couple of days later and they said 'is this correct?' ... 'yeah', they asked me a few more questions. I told them basically what I knew and what I'd seen and they sent the story around the world and then we started getting phone calls quite literally from around the world.

John Lundberg: When was this Phil?

Philip Mantle: Oh, I don't know ... about six weeks ago.

John Lundberg: Right, but before that Reg [Presley] had been on TV and he broke it really, didn't he?

Philip Mantle: Yep, he broke it. So, the story went quite accidentally around the world.

Rob Irving: What's Reg's appraisal?

Philip Mantle: I don't know, you would have to ask him. So the story went quite accidentally around the world.

John Lundberg: So the whole spate of publicity in March came out of the David Clarke 'Sheffield' piece?

Philip Mantle: Yes, that's it, from a couple of column inches it went around the world. And then we had some more conversations with Ray, we saw another autopsy last week, similar to today, but not the same it was different and then of course you've seen what we have today.

John Lundberg: Have you seen the crash site at all?

Philip Mantle: No.

John Lundberg: And what about the rumour that [President] Truman was meant to be there then?

Philip Mantle: That's a rumour, I haven't seen that.

Rob Irving: What do you think about the film now?

Philip Mantle: I don't think any more now than I did originally, it's interesting, it's ambiguous, I neither believe it or disbelieve it, you know, I mean, I think when you are dealing with something like this whatever beliefs you may have one way or the other you put them in your back pocket and lock them up. We've put a very sound proposal to him to have the film analysed, he will either accept it or he won't. If he doesn't it will obviously cast doubt on the authenticity of it, but the crux of the matter is not whether we have it tested at Kodak or anywhere else, it's the camera-man ...

Rob Irving: Do you know the name of the camera-man?

Philip Mantle: I've been told a name, whether it's genuine or not I don't know.

Rob Irving: It's a similar name to one of the original witnesses.

Philip Mantle: Yeah. Let's say that Kodak say 'yeah, its fifty years old' and all this lot, I don't think that for a minute they would say that the image on the film is what people claim it is, they'll only test the age of the film. The crux of the whole matter is the camera-man.

Rob Irving: What do they test it for?

Philip Mantle: They can check the nitrates of the film, they can check if its fifty years old. The film company in London can test if it's, say, a montage like they did in Forest Gump, when he meets Nixon [sic] and what have you, they have told me in writing that if that is the case they can prove that, so I'll leave that in their hands, I'm not a film technician. Whatever, they'll run it through the computer and so on. But I know as well as you gentlemen that if you put enough money and enough time and effort into faking a piece of film that it can be done, it can pass the tests, that's why you must have access to the camera-man, did he have the knowledge, the technology ...

John Lundberg: A tripod!

Philip Mantle: [laughter] Yeah, did he have two hands to try and focus it! All that kind of thing and also did he have the motive as well, there has obviously got to be some kind of motive, so until that time, until that day happens it's all up in the air.

Rod Dickinson: But don't you think its odd to hold a press conference without any questions?

Philip Mantle: Ridiculous! I offered to open the proceedings for him, and just again highlight what I've said to you gentlemen and point out what we've offered to do in the ways of analysis, he should have taken questions, but again if he did take questions he would only be quoting the camera-man. Its difficult because a lot of people are asking me questions and I can only quote what Ray Santilli has told me, I can't say 'that's the truth', I can only quote him. So he's in a very awkward situation, trying to defend it.

Rob Irving: Have you had any cause to actually believe that one of us had something to do with the film?

Philip Mantle: No.

Rob Irving: Well, where did that come from?

John Lundberg: _UFO Magazine_ basically implied it.

Philip Mantle: There are a lot of people who have not had access to the film, not seen it, they're extremely peeved. I don't want to mention any names but there are well known researchers in this country and overseas who are pissing their pants because they haven't seen it, but they believe they've got some kind of divine right, I only got involved in it quite by accident you know, they should have come today.

Rob Irving: Has anyone from Quest seen it?

Philip Mantle: No.

Rob Irving: Because Tony [Dodd] is claiming to have seen it. Well I understand that somebody said that Tony had seen it ... Roy Lake [London UFO Studies] ...

Philip Mantle: As far as I'm aware, no one from Quest has seen it. I wouldn't show them it anyway, but that's purely personal [laughter]. But there's all kinds of silly rumours, none of which amount to anything. And I dare say that after today there will be even more rumours flying around.

[break in tape recording]

Philip Mantle: The idea that it was a B-movie, that's a rumour worth following up.

Rod Dickinson: Yeah, but that's actually based on a total misunderstanding of alleged snuff movies. South America is where snuff rumours allegedly came from, and actually it was shown that they didn't come from there at all, that they were actually [B-movies] produced initially by an American producer and then when they were put in the hands of a distributor the distributor changed the end of the movie and added on the end of it this [fake] footage of someone being killed, and then distributed it as genuine footage that had come from South America. It's the same myth.

Philip Mantle: It's mythology, or folklore, whatever you like to say, but it's something we have to check out. One of the rumours was that it was offered to Jacques Vallee, so I've written to Jacques just to say 'is it true or is it not', obviously he will say 'yeah or nay', hopefully. The other one was that I think it was the "Unsolved Mysteries" program on American television, that they'd seen it and said it's a Brazilian B-movie. I've got their address, I'll write to them and ask.

John Lundberg: I was surprised by your piece in _The Independent_ [newspaper] ...

Philip Mantle: How pro it was ...

John Lundberg: Yeah! I was a bit taken aback actually ...

Philip Mantle: Well there's more than one way to skin a cat John, you know that [laughter].

John Lundberg: Yeah, but that was a very positive way of skinning a cat though, wasn't it?

Philip Mantle: Well yes, but if you've seen other things that I wrote ...

John Lundberg: And you should have said 'Holy Grail' not 'Turin Shroud'.

Rob Irving: Yes.

Philip Mantle: Erm, ... I'll say that next time! [laughter]

Rob Irving: You don't want to get into trouble with Lynn Picknet do you.

Philip Mantle: No, no, no. But it's true. If you look at the Shroud of Turin they've been analysing it up hill and down dale for donkeys years and they're still arguing about it.

John Lundberg: Right, that's true ...

Philip Mantle: ... and I would hazard a guess here now, that the same will happen with this piece of film because the will to believe in some quarters is so strong it doesn't matter what you do. They carbon dated the Shroud and said, 'oh, it's a mediaeval forgery', but now they're saying 'ah, but the Shroud was on fire at one time and it cocks up the carbon dating', that's because the will to believe in it is so strong. It's the same with this piece of film now, I've spoken to a few people here, taken their opinions and some are you know, 'YEAH' and some are saying 'well I'm not so sure' and others are saying 'well, nah' - the will to believe in some people is so strong.

[break in tape recording]

Rob Irving: Do you think its an exercise in tantalisation?

Philip Mantle: Well yes, it is. I mean Ray's a business man, there are a lot of television companies who are represented here today, you can almost hear the cheque books rustling in their back pockets.

John Lundberg: Has he sold the rights to Fox in America?

Philip Mantle: I don't think so. But there's nothing wrong with that, he's a business man and if somebody is prepared to buy the rights without any analysis, I mean good luck to them, I don't have a problem with that.

[break in tape recording]

Rob Irving: Could you repeat what you just said about the camera-man?

Philip Mantle: Well the crux of the whole matter is *** *** [the camera-man's name] - he claims that the crash took place three or four weeks prior to the dates that are in all the books and that the autopsies were conducted in Dallas, Texas not in Roswell. I've even offered to go to America and interview him in person. Until somebody does, or he comes to Sheffield to the conference and stands on the stage, it remains even more ambiguous than it is, we have to have access to the camera-man.

Rob Irving: I heard from somebody recently that the news from America was that they had checked up on his credentials in the military and there weren't any.

Philip Mantle: Well they don't know who he is. The other story I've heard is quite the opposite, that there are 250 [camera-man's name] s that were employed by the US military! [laughter] So you believe what you want to believe, again I don't know.


Copyright Robert Irving 1995.

                    |.. ..|


Article on Roswell Film Footage by Philip Mantle

From: (Ole-Jonny Brenne)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet..ufo
Subject: Philip Mantle on alleged 'Roswell' Autopsy Footage.
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 22:39:10 GMT
Organization: UFO-Norge

I have been asked to forward the following message to you. Read it carefully!

- Forwarded message begin -


By Philip Mantle:
Director Of Investigations,
British UFO Research Association.

Much has already been written about the UFO crash at Roswell in July of 1947, so I won't go over old ground. More recently a great deal has also been written about the Roswell film footage currently in possession of Mr. Ray Santilli, Managing Director of The Merlin Group in London. To verify my involvement with Ray Santilli and the film in question I would like to take this opportunity to put the facts straight.

I was first contacted by Ray Santilli almost two years ago when he discussed with me the possibility of putting together a UFO documentary video. For those who don't know, the Merlin Group has put together a number of video's on a whole host of different subjects or issued overseas video's under license here in the U.K. They have never made a UFO documentary. They have also issued music tapes and commissioned books. For a variety of reasons the planned documentary with Merlin never came off but it was during this time that Ray Santilli told me the story of the Roswell film footage and how he obtained it.

Santilli claimed that at some point previously (I do not know the date) he had flown to the USA to research a documentary on the late Elvis Presley. In order to do this he had traced a veteran cameraman who was one if not the first person ever to film Elvis live on stage. Santilli purchased some archive film of Elvis from the man in question and returned to his hotel happy with the film he had obtained. Before flying back to England he was telephoned at his hotel by the cameraman in question who asked him to go and see him before he left as he had something even more interesting to show him. Santilli agreed but this time it was not film of Elvis but of the UFO crash at Roswell in 1947. Santilli eventually agreed to purchase the film for cash, the exact amount on money involved I do not know. Having purchased the film he returned with it to England.

After being told this story both on the telephone by Ray Santilli and in London in person when I first met him, I simply asked him to show it to me. Unless he did it would remain nothing more than another fanciful story. I told Santilli's version of the story about this film to one or two of my trusted colleagues in the UK, one of whom is John Spencer, now BUFORA's Chairman. I also took the opportunity to brief Walter Andrus, International Director of MUFON when he was a speaker at BUFORA's conference in bristol in 1993. Both John and Walter asked me to keep them informed. I also contacted various Roswell researchers whose response was luke warm to say the least.

Santilli on several occasions made appointments for me to view the film in London none of which ever materialised. Reasons for this were given many of which sounded quite reasonable but I was left with no choice but to assume that Santilli's story was nothing more than just that, a story.

Over the next year or so I had infrequent contact with Santilli either on the phone or fax machine none of which resulted in me seeing any of the film. In early 1994 I was about to set to work on writing a review of the Roswell movie with stars Kyle MachLachlan and Martin Sheen. In the process of doing this I picked up the phone and called Santilli completely out of the blue. I asked him once again if he still claimed to have this film from Roswell to which he replied "Yes, but you don't believe me Philip". Once again I repeated my request to see the film and again we discussed the possibility of a screening of it at Santilli's office in London. After a variety of more phone calls and fax messages my wife Sue and I eventually went to Ray Santilli's office in London on Friday March 17th, 1995.

At this meeting with Santilli he once again told us the story of how he obtained the film footage but he did not show us any film in his office. Instead I was given a copy of a segment of film which Santilli called the "on-site examination footage" to take away and view at my leisure. I have viewed this section of film over and over again and although it is quite poor quality a number of things can be seen. The sequence is filmed inside a fixed position in a 'corner' of the room. At the far side of the room are two men in white coats in front of which is a 'table' of some kind on which lies a figure (presumably one of the dead aliens). This figure is partially covered by a light colored sheet of some kind although its head, arms and legs are visible. In the foreground is a person dressed in dark clothing with his back to the camera. The inside of this place is illuminated by what look like gas or oil lamps, but certainly not electric light.

The two men in white coats appear to be taking 'tissue samples' of some kind whilst the person in dark clothing simply seems to walk about doing nothing in particular. The figure or alien on the table does not appear to be short nor particular tall either. Not much detail can be made out because of the poor quality of the film but its large dark eyes can be seen without too much difficulty. The film is black and white and there is no sound recording to accompany it.

Intriguing though this segment was it really did not serve to do anything other than arouse my interest even more. Whilst in Ray Santilli's office I asked him if he would speak at BUFORA's conference in Sheffield on August 19 & 20 and show the film and to my surprise he agreed to do so. Just a few days after his confirmation as a speaker at a conference that was already organised I was telephoned by a friend of mine by the name of David Clarke. David is a former BUFORA Council Member and is now a journalist with the Sheffield Star newspaper. David was writing a small article on a young man in Sheffield who was just starting his involvement with the UFO investigations and he asked me for a few quotes about the conference so that he could give it a plug for me. I told David all about the speakers and the Ray Santilli Roswell film which he ran in the Sheffield Star. A few days later I was contacted by the Whites Press Agency in Sheffield who asked me if the article in the Sheffield Star concerning the conference was correct. I confirmed that it was and they asked me a few more questions before thanking me for my time. The next thing I knew I was receiving telephone calls from TV, radio and newspapers from around the world all wanting to know about the Roswell film, Ray Santilli and of course the conference. I told them what I could but by and large I passed them onto Mr. santilli himself. This exposure was somewhat premature but at least it brought international attention on the film in question.

Eager to see more of the film another appointment was made with Ray Santilli for April 28th. Again my wife Sue and I visited Ray at him office in London to view another segment of film. This time we were shown one of the autopsies. Unlike the previous film this was very clear. Again it was in black and white with no sound track. The alien is laid on a slab inside what looks like a morgue or should I say hospital. The walls are all white etc. The alien is humanoid almost human looking with a enlarged abdomen, two arms two legs, but it has six didgits on each of its hands and feet. There is no hair visible anywhere, the head is slightly emlarged but it has a nose, mouth, ears and two dark eyes. Female genitalia is also visible.

The autopsy begins with the 'dark eyes' being removed. This is in fact a kind of dark covering over the eyes itself. Once removed the eyeballs are visible underneath although they are rolled up into the head. The alien's body is cut open and various organs are removed and placed in various receptacles. A kind of 'crystal' or 'mineral' about the size of a marble is also removed from the chest cavity. The head is cut open and the skull sawn open to gain access to the brain.

The people conducting the autopsy are completely covered in protection suits of some kind and unfortunately the faces of these individuals are not visible. This autopsy is conducted by two people who appear at times to be also writing down the process as they go along. Behind the head of the alien is a gap then a wall with a window in. Through this window another person can be observed apparently wearing surgical clothing, cap, gown, mask etc. Unlike the first piece of film apart from a white coat the people were not wearing a surgical mask. As I am not qualified to comment on the procedure used in the autopsy nor the instruments used I will refrain from doing so. Nor will I comment on whether certain other objects in the room such as a telephone and clock were available in 1947.

On May 5th, 1995, my wife Sue and I along with over 200 others were invited to attend another screening of more of the film at the Museum of London. We did attend as did Kent Jeffrey from the USA, Roberto Pinotti from Italy, Michael Hesemann from Germany, along with Reg Presley and Colin Andrews to name a few. Also in attendance from around the world the world.

After a short reception we were shown into the viewing theatre in which another of the autopsies was shown. This time the alien had a damaged leg unlike the previous autopsy where the creature was fully intact. The procedure was pretty much the same as before but by no means exactly the same. Again I will not comment on the medical procedures used nor artifacts in the autopsy room as I am not qualified to do so.

Afterwards opinion seemed to be mixed but many people including myself were a little disappointed that more of the film was not shown. However, I had now in total viewed something like 40 minutes worth of film, which was becoming more interesting each time I saw more of it.

In between times on behalf of BUFORA on April 20, 1995, I personally put a two page proposal to Ray Santilli to outline how we would like to conduct the analysis of the film in question. Copies of this document were also sent to John Spencer and Walter Andrus along with Ray Santilli of course. Basically it outlined that we would like a copy of all of the film in question, a copy of any and all documentation connected to it, the serial numbers from all canisters of film, plus one whole canister of the actual film itself. Two companies in England has agreed to undertake the analysis of the film. Kodak is one, the other is Hasan Shah Films. I also requested access to the original cameraman who had taken the film. Ray Santilli has agreed to in principle to our proposals but they have yet to be put in practice.

A great many rumours have circulated and are still circulating about this film. Some of these I can not verify or deny but others I can. The first concerns Reg Presley. Reg is the lead singer with the sixties pop group The Troggs and he is well known in the UK for his interest in UFO's and crop circles. One of the rumors is that Reg is a financial backer of Ray Santilli and that his only involvement in this matter is for publicity purposes. I have spoken with Reg about these rumors ands he denies them all stating that he has no financial stake in the film and he certainly does not require any publicity. His motives are purely out of interest in the UFO subject. Another rumor is that the film in question was offered to UFO researcher Jacques Vallee in Brazil some years ago. I wrote to Jacques to question this rumor and in a letter to me dated 1 May 1995 he states: "The rumor you heard about me, Brazil and the alleged Roswell film is just that, a rumor. i have never made any such statement. I have been told that the rumor was being spread by someone named Dan Smith, but I don't know whether he invented it, or was simply repeating it."

Another version of this same rumor is that the film was offered to the American TV show "Unsolved Mysteries" who automatically confirmed it was a South American "B" movie of some kind. Just today (9 May 1995) I spoke with the Unsolved Mysteries show in the USA who have once again denied this rumor. Other rumors that I personally am involved with the hoaxing of the film in order to gain publicity for BUFORA's conference and/or the Roswell movie are just as ridiculous as any of the others I have heard. I dare say that there are many more rumors circulating that have not yet come to my attention.

In my opinion BUFORA and myself have approached this whole issue in an unbiased manner and have treated all parties concerned correctly and professionally. We have put to Ray Santilli a sound and reasonable plan to undertake the analysis of the film and if he agrees to cooperate then we may well begin to get to the bottom of the matter. We have attempted to follow up any rumors that could at least be feasible but to date (9.5.95) none of them have yet stood up to scrutiny. We will of course continue to do this and offer our full cooperation to Ray Santilli and any serious professionals or researchers who can offer sensible ideas on how to further analyse the Roswell film footage.

Philip Mantle.
BUFORA 9.5.95.

- End of forwarded message -

Page Index

Review of Mantle's Statement by J. Easton

Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 19:50:42 +0100
From: James Easton
Subject: Mantle's Statement


>Date:    Thu, 22 Jun 1995 09:15:27 GMT
>From:    Ole-Jonny Brenne 
>Subject: Philip Mantle on alleged 'Roswell' Autopsy Footage.

>I have been asked to forward the following message to you. Read it
Thank you, we will.

>I was first contacted by Ray Santilli almost two years ago when he
>discussed with me the possibility of putting together a UFO 
>documentary video.
Intriguing. I thought Santilli had no interest in the subject:

"The fact that we stumble across it, have no real interest in UFO's ...I accept is hard to swallow."

Ray Santilli, 3 June 1995

>For a variety of reasons the planned documentary with Merlin never 
>came off but it was during this time that Ray Santilli told me the 
>story of the Roswell film footage and how he obtained it.
According to Mr Mantle, this confirms that some 2 years ago, Ray Santilli told him how he had _acquired_ the footage.

>Santilli claimed that at some point previously (I do not know the 
>date) he had flown to the USA to research a documentary on the late 
>Elvis Presley. In order to do this he had traced a veteran cameraman 
>who was one if not the first person ever to film Elvis live on stage. 
>Santilli purchased some archive film of Elvis from the man in 
>question and returned to his hotel happy with the film he had 
>obtained. Before flying back to England he was
>telephoned at his hotel by the cameraman in question who asked him to 
>go and see him before he left as he had something even more 
>interesting to show him. Santilli agreed but this time it was not 
>film of Elvis but of the UFO crash at Roswell in 1947.

>Santilli eventually agreed to purchase the film for cash, the exact 
>amount on money involved I do not know. Having purchased the film he 
>returned with it to England.
In other words, Santilli had the alleged original 16mm film in his possession some 2 years ago.

This seemingly poses a *major* problem with the most recent chronology, according to Mr Santilli's version of events.

George Wingfield met with Ray Santilli and Chris Carey at their office, on Monday 5 June, 1995.

George recalls that, "actual purchase of the film by Santilli and his German backer, Volker Spielberg, had taken place only six months ago, although they had first met the cameraman and been shown some of the footage in 1993."

Additionally, on "The Big Breakfast", broadcast on Thursday 8th June 1995, the following conversation took place:

Mark Little: Later this year, now is this a bit X-File'y, has the government been stopping you from showing this film?

Ray Santilli: No, not at all.

Mark Little: Why haven't we seen it Ray?, why is it taking so long to see this great thing?

Ray Santilli: Well it's not a question of taking so long to see it, I mean we didn't acquire it ourselves until quite recently so it's just a question of us formatting a program, when the program is finished the program will be released. But we're not rushing, we're not working to anyone else's agenda but our own.

We now seem to have a completely different version of events; the film was only required some six months ago, or "quite recently".

>Santilli on several occasions made appointments for me to view the 
>film in London, none of which ever materialised.
Could this perhaps be because Santilli didn't have the film...

>Reasons for this were given, many of which sounded quite 
Reasonable perhaps, but truthful?

>Over the next year or so I had infrequent contact with Santilli 
>either on the phone or fax machine none of which resulted in me 
>seeing any of the film. In early 1994 I was about to set to work on 
>writing a review of the Roswell movie with stars Kyle MachLachlan and 
>Martin Sheen.
This should be 1995, not 1994.

>In the process of doing this I picked up the phone and called 
>Santilli completely out of the blue. I asked him once again if he 
>still claimed to have this film from Roswell to which he replied 
>"Yes, but you don't believe me Philip". Once again I repeated my 
>request to see the film and again we discussed the possibility of a 
>screening of it at Santilli's office in London. After a variety of 
>more phone calls and fax messages my wife Sue and I eventually went 
>to Ray Santilli's office in London on Friday March 17th, 1995.

>At this meeting with Santilli he once again told us the story of how 
>he obtained the film footage but he did not show us any film in his 
>office. Instead I was given a copy of a segment of film which 
>Santilli called the "on-site examination footage" to take away and 
>view at my leisure.
I'm afraid this is a significant admission by Philip Mantle.

The following article appeared in "The People", a U.K. national Sunday newspaper, on Sunday 5 March 1995, and therefore some 2 weeks before Mr. Mantle had seen any of the alleged "Roswell" footage:



An amazing film showing the first real-life pictures of aliens is about to be released - and here's what they look like.

These drawings (included within the article) are based on statements from witnesses who saw their mutilated bodies.

American military personnel filmed post-mortem examinations carried out on the creatures from outer space, whose UFO is said to have crashed in the United States. They also filmed debris from the wrecked flying saucer.

Now the astonishing footage - never seen publicly before - has been bought for 100,000 (pounds) by London-based film producer Ray Santilli.

He is making a video of the footage with Reg Presley, singer with Sixties pop band The Troggs, who is a UFO enthusiast.

[Deletion of Roswell case history]

Philip Mantle, director of investigations for the British UFO Research Association, said: "The footage shows the whole event - the crash scene and between three and five aliens, some of them mutilated.

The wreckage was not discovered until about a week after the crash, so some of the bodies had decomposed and were partly eaten by predators.

The aliens have flesh and blood and are like humans. They had overly large heads and no hair. Their noses, lips and ears were small and they had dark, sunken eyes. They are very human-looking.

The footage is unique. It is the only known instance of aliens on film.

An air force officer from Washington was brought in to take the film.

He kept some film rolls secretly for years, then sold them to Ray Santilli because he needed the money."

...Harry Maguire, who works for Santilli's film company Merlin Productions, confirmed that a video was being made from the Roswell footage.

He said: "There are a few loose ends to be tied up yet. But we do have the footage."


I understand that Carl Nagaitis, a close acquaintance of Philip Mantle and often referred to as his "press agent", had "tipped off" the press about this story and that these quotes had subsequently been directly obtained from Philip Mantle.

For someone who had not apparently seen the film, Mr Mantle seems to know an astonishing amount of detail about its contents and background.

>In my opinion BUFORA and myself have approached this whole issue in 
>an unbiased manner and have treated all parties concerned correctly 
>and professionally.
Truth be told, BUFORA were as much in the dark as anyone as to what was going on.

It was not until Saturday June 3rd, that the BUFORA council saw some of the footage for the first time.

As for Philip Mantle having acted in an unbiased and professional manner on behalf of the BUFORA members, and many others whose interests he represented, you can reach your own conclusions.

As regards the exact chronology of the film's acquisition, the alleged existence of the film was certainly known of some 2 years ago. It would therefore appear that either Mr Santilli has had the film for some 18 months longer than he now seems to imply, or that he has only "quite recently" acquired the film and that Philip Mantle was being grossly misled that Santilli had purchased it some 2 years ago.

If we are to take at face value the comments reported by George Wingfield and Santilli's own remarks, then certainly the latter seems to apply.

It also seems unlikely that Philip Mantle would fabricate the story allegedly told to him by Santilli when the film was first discussed.

In which case, Santilli must have been untruthful and we should bear this very much in mind.

Perhaps Ole-Jonny would ask Mr Mantle if he would now care to release a further statement, commenting on these points.




Page Index

ORTK Britian: Report on Roswell Film

( Partial reprint from ORTK Britian Newseltter as related to the Roswell Film ..... Illinois )

From: ekomarek@Libris.Public.Lib.GA.US (Ed Komarek)
Subject: ORTK Britain Forum 1/1

NOTE: Many thanks to Laurent for scanning in the ORTK Britain Forum. This is a separate newsletter put out by our sister organization in Britian. It includes a very detailed discription by John of the alledged Roswell archivial footage. The best, Ed

Operation Right to Know

SPONSOR FOR: International Roslwell Initiative



On Friday May 5th 1995 I attended the London showing of the alleged 1947 film of an autopsy on one of the entities from the Roswell UFO crash. The issue of this film is presently generating much debate, speculation and general rumour mongering. Inevitably stories about the film, the individuals in possession of the film, and the people who have seen the autopsy (l) are being retold and retold, adding to the ever deepening confusion over the principal concern - does the film show an authentic autopsy of a non-human entity ?

The following are my personal recollections on the film, bearing in mind these are written from memory after one viewing. The sequence of the autopsy set out may well be incorrect, but I believe my general description of the room, procedures and the entity, are reasonably accurate. I suggest that you compare my account with others, to give an overall balance. The bracketed numbers refer to the notes at the end of this article. It should also be remembered that because of the general confusion surrounding the film, establishing even the simplest of truths is becoming an impossibility.

On the morning of May 5th I met with Kent Jeffrey (International Roswell Initiative) at his hotel. Kent had flown into London specifically for the showing. At approximately 12.15AM we met with other researchers in the lobby of the lecture theatre, Museum of London, London Wall, London, the venue for the film showing. Many well known UFO personalities were present. We were each given an eight page document, consisting of a top sheet (2) with the heading "Roswell" and seven pages of MJ12 material. Ray Santilli (Merlin Publishing) was present and word spread that he was not prepared to take any questions before or after the film showing. We were also told to deposit all our bags, cases, etc. at the Museum reception. Specifically no cameras were to be allowed into the lecture theatre, although personal tape recorders were to be allowed (I did not take one !)

At just after l.OOPM we entered the lecture theatre. I was frisked at the door ! There was no verbal introduction to the film, which began with written credits in a modern block lettering. The credits briefly explained the nature of the film and also stated that the film was made up of segments each approximately 3 minutes duration (3). The film, presumably a video copy, did fade out and back in roughly every 3 minutes. The film was black and white and without a sound track. The total duration of the showing was approximately 25 minutes.

The opening shot shows a full length figure face up on a table or bench in a pale walled room. I have an impression that the room is not very large. The wall behind the head of the entity has a glass window of a size roughly 4 feet in length and 3 feet in height, and behind this window stands a figure in a pale outfit, complete with hood and visor (4). To the left of the window there is a wall mounted telephone, or intercom, with a coiled cable hanging beneath it (5). On the other wall, running parallel to the length of the table and entity, there is a round wall clock, roughly 12 inches diameter and with large bold numerals. The clock is indicating 10.20. This wall is perpendicular to the window wall, the corner approximately 2 feet beyond the wall telephone. The table has an extension at the head of the entity, the extension making the table L shaped, the L pointing to the long wall with the clock. The space between the table and the window appears quite small, perhaps 4 to 5 feet. On the extension is a shallow metal tray, perhaps 18 inches square, containing rows of surgical type instruments. A cube shaped microphone, roughly 2 to 3 inch sided, hangs over the table. The clock wall also contains a bench or table along at least some of its length.

The initial full length view of the entity is quite brief, but damage can be seen to the right leg, and the general appearance is 'dwarfish' with well built limbs and swollen abdominal region (6). The entity is naked and the skin tone is pale and I have an impression of darker blotches to certain areas. The initial full figure view is followed by a close up pan up the figure from feet to head. The feet are broad at the toes, and six toes (7) can be counted on the left foot. The lower legs are quite broad presenting a somewhat muscular appearance. The upper legs are similar in proportion, with large middle sections, giving an impression of quite heavy or well developed musculature (8). The right leg is disfigured by an open gash, or burn, some 10 to 14 inches in length and with a darkened interior. The leg damage is the only visible external injury. The gash runs from above the knee position down to roughly the mid part of the lower leg, and is positioned to the front of the leg.

The abdomen is swollen relative to the rest of the torso. The chest area is flat in profile and rounded in section. Darkened spots to the chest front/sides may be nipples, although I can not confirm this. Similarly I can not confirm the presence, or not, of a navel. The neck appears humanly proportioned, although the head seems a little larger (9). The chin is rounded, as is the general head shape. The mouth is opened, presenting a darkened interior, blackened rather than just in shadow. There is an impression of lips, thin and dark, and the overall size of the mouth is quite small (10). The nose is squat in appearance and quite small. Ears are also quite small, but otherwise human in appearance, although perhaps positioned further back on the head. The eyes present a dark exterior and are approximately 50% larger than average human eyes. The shape of the eyes is oval and they are positioned as human eyes (11). No eye brows are visible, although ridges above and below the eyes give an impression of eye lids. The forehead is perhaps 20% to 30% larger than an average human proportion.

The figure appears devoid of all body hair. A quick pan down the figure shows the shoulders and arms to be also muscular in form, perhaps less so than the legs. Arm length appears humanly proportioned, but like the feet, the hands are broad, giving a suggestion of six fingers, although I can not confirm this. Rapidity of camera movement makes it difficult to see the hands clearly for any length of time.

A change of camera angle to one looking up the figure from the feet seems to show a vertical groove or slit in the pubic area, suggesting that the figure is female, although no pronounced genitals are visible, so I advise caution over this point.

Two doctors enter the field of view of the camera. They are wearing identical white suits (12). The suits are complete with hoods and visors, and both doctors are wearing surgical type gloves. With somewhat stiff unnatural movements (13) one doctor begins to check the body over, using his hands to move the head slightly. The camera moves about excessively from one position to another, including lots of zooming in (14) making viewing hard work. During the course of this external check of the body the legs are separated slightly in a rather false appearing check on the pubic area. This procedure does not enable sex identification.

Using tweezers one of the doctors (15) removes a dark membrane ? from one of the eyes (contact sunglasses !) and I get the impression that he has prior knowledge of this procedure, as little or no preliminary eye examination is carried out (16). The eye interior, behind the membrane is white or very pale and the eye ball is not clearly seen. I believe the eye ball to have rotated upwards under the upper eye lid, although I can not be certain. The membrane or dark eye covering is transferred to a glass jar containing a clear liquid, into which it submerges. The membrane is oval in shape and appears to be quite stiff, not curling or flapping as the transference is made.

A long cut by surgical scapel, beginning neck left hand side, down the left hand side of the torso and across the lower abdomen is carried out. A dark fluid trickles from the cut line immediately behind the scalpel presenting a realistic appearance (17). This cut of the chest and abdomen is rapidly followed by the opening of the chest and abdominal areas (16). A rib cage is not evident, the chest region appearing somewhat hollow and devoid of internal organs (18) and both the chest and abdomen interiors are dark, almost black, in colour tone. At least two separate organs are removed with the aid of surgical scissors, both organs approximately fist sized, and placed in separate metal bowls. I can not identify the organs, either those removed, or those remaining in the body. Roughly mid way in the opened area is a patch of lighter coloured material of no recognizable shape. Some of this material is cut free and removed from the body.

The camera moves to briefly focus on a preprinted form, roughly A4 in size, and positioned on the table resting-along the clock wall. A doctor writes something on the bottom part of this form (19) after one of the organs is removed. His gloved hand appears quite clean.

A cut with scalpel beginning head right hand side and ending at the left ear is made. Little or no fluid escapes from the incision. A saw is used to open the head (20) and a large organ, roughly 3 to 4 fists in size, is removed from the opened head. Attached to this organ is a quantity of softer material, and the two organs are placed in a metal bowl. Both pieces of material appear soft, although the first piece removed is denser than the second, which displays no particular integrity of shape. The denser organ or brain ? does not display the folds of a human brain, although it does retain a rounded and coherent shape after removal from the head.

Immediately after the removal of the head material, the film abruptly ends and we all leave the lecture theatre. There was no organized discussion following the showing.

(1) I had not intended to devote this much space to this film showing, but since my name has occurred several times in other literature concerning the showing, I felt it necessary to present my own account of recollections and thoughts. It is all to easy to get misquoted !

(2) Top sheet wording, under heading "ROSWELL"
"Following mans first use of atomic weaponry UFO sightings around US military establishments became a common occurrence. This cumulated in the summer of 1947 with the crash of an object in the New Mexico desert less than a few miles from the 509th bomb group stationed at Roswell, the home of the Atomic bomb.

Enclosed you will find a document recovered from the US National Archive. It is alleged to be the briefing document prepared for President Elect, Dwight D-Eisenhower by president Truman.

The true events surrounding Roswell may never be known however with the passage of time new evidence continues to surface.

For further information regarding the remarkable footage you are about to see please contact us at:


40 Balcombe Street                    Phone: 0171 723 7331
London NW1 6ND                        Fax: 0171 723 0732
(3) This might be at variance with the original description of the celluloid film - 15 canisters of film, each 10 minutes long. (the credits confirmed that the film was 16mm)

(4) According to some, the suits are radiation suits.

(5) One of the most discussed points of the film. Were coiled type cables available in 1947 ? I checked with archives at the British Telecom Museum, and was told coiled cables came into use in Britain on the series 700 phone, circa 1960 and originally with straight cable. Therefore definitely post 1960. I was told the USA might have been a couple of years ahead, but not much more. However - Philip Mantle (BUFORA) phoned me with details of a phone/phones available in the 1940s with coiled cable. I asked him to fax me the information - from a book "Bakelite An illustrated guide to collectable Bakelite objects" and a phone (suspiciously modern looking) is shown from the 1940s with a shiny appearing coiled cable. Shiny flexible plastic in the 1940s ? The text under the photograph of the phone, referring to a brief history of the Bell Telephone Company's use of Bakelite, does not refer specifically to the phone illustrated. I understand Philip Mantle obtained this information from Ray Santilli. It has been established that coiled cable was available special order in the USA from as early as 1939, so it is conceivable that the coiled cable shown in the film is authentic. Such cable must have been rubber with cloth covering, not plastic ? If the cable in the film is reflective (some say it was - I can not remember) this must cast further doubt on a date of 1947 for the film.

(6) The general appearance of the figure is at odds with Roswell testimony such as that from Glenn Dennis who spoke with a nurse present at an autopsy on the Roswell entities. (I estimate the figure is roughly 5ft. tall)

(7) Roswell testimony indicates 4 digits to the hands, and most probably the feet also.

(8) This is also at odds with Roswell testimony, which describes spindly under developed musculature.

(9) The head did appear to be deeper front to back than a normal human head and perhaps 20% to 30% larger in proportion than human.

(10) The mouth could have been human.

(11) The eyes were not noticeably slanted and once the dark covering had been removed could have been human, although their size was large by average human size.

(12) and (15) Only one doctor performs the surgery. The other holds the various bowls and takes away the organs. But both are wearing the same suits and both wear gloves. I am not certain as to which doctor writes up the notes on the printed form.

(13) The actions of the doctor performing the physical examination appeared staged. Perhaps this is a subjective comment, but others present at the showing share this opinion. Conversely though, if authentic, the autopsy was highly unusual.

(14) I have checked with others and they confirm my opinion that the camera used incorporated a zoom lens. Some maintain these were not available in 1947.

(15) I am not certain as to when this was undertaken - it was either before or after the chest/abdominal work.

(16) There is a general sense that the 3 minute film segments were not shown in order, or that they were edited segments, resulting in procedural - gaps.

(17) I am of the opinion that the figure was not a latex rubber dummy or similar. However I am not an expert in special effects ! The figure looked like an authentic corpse, rather than something stuffed with animal innards. If not a genuine non-human entity, I would favour a human freak or worse, an altered human corpse.

(18) Again a procedural-gap may account for this. A film segment not shown.

(19) Philip Mantle has confirmed that a freeze frame of the form indicates the name of Dr. Detlev Bronk. Dr Bronk is one of the named MJ12 members. If true, like the MJ12 papers themselves, this indicates either authenticity or an elaborate hoax. And George Wingfield tells me that even Bronk's name "Detlev" has two different spellings in the UFO literature. If Dr Bronk's name is on the form, it will be interesting to note the spelling of his Christian name (if present).

(20) The sawing of the head is made difficult to observe because of the camera position, which places the doctor's hands in the line of view. And once again there seems to be a procedural-gap in the film sequencing because I do not recall seeing the head actually being opened up.

Summary: To recap, this account is written from memory after one viewing so please allow for some errors when the film is finally made public. I have checked with the BBC and was told that contrary to statements in the press, the BBC have no plans in the immediate future to show the film (it was referred to by the BBC as a documentary).

As far as I am aware Kodak has not at the time of writing authenticated the date of the celluloid film. Kent Jeffrey checked with Kodak in the USA the date coding on the film. According to Mr Santilli the film is coded with a triangle and square, and Kodak first confirmed this dated the film to 1967. However when specifically asked about 1947, Kodak stated that the date code went in a 20 year cycle ! So conceivably it might date to 1947. Presumably careful analysis of the celluloid by Kodak could confirm the date of manufacture.

Apparently at a near future date Mr Santilli is organizing a second showing involving more of the footage, perhaps the debris field, which he says he has.

As a final note, the film is most certainly the talking point at the moment, especially amongst the UFO community. I generally prefer not to dismiss UFO related information unless I have solid evidence for doing so. This approach is in my opinion the only sensible way of dealing with this film.

My gut feeling: The film is not an authentic autopsy of an entity from the Roswell crash. But in many ways I hope I am wrong.

As a final, final note. At a UFO conference weekend May 20/21 in Sanmarino, Italy, Philip Mantle accompanied by Chris Corey (Merlin Publishing) showed 5 slides made from the film. This received attention in the Italian press.

"The truth is out there" somewhere !

OPERATION RIGHT TO KNOW - Britain now has an Internet capacity via ORTK member Paul Vigay. Email:

ORTK Britain coordinator and Forum editor:
John Holman 20 Newton Gardens, RIPON, N.Yorkshire HG4 1QF
Phone & Fax 01765 602898 better to let me know if you want to fax
Subscription to ORTK Britain Forum: 6.00 - 4 editions, including post Please get in touch for more information and/or joining ORTK Britain.

Send a message with only HELP (uppercase) in the message body to: ortk

Page Index

Paragon Web Site Shares Images of Film

(Note: V J Enterprises is also in negotiation with Mr. Santilli to share whatever photographs he is offering and documentation related to the film in exchange for space to advertise the video he will be selling. Check our site the week of July 3rd to see if we have been able to receive the materials to share .... Illinois )

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 17:52:17 +0100
From: James Easton
Subject: "Roswell" Video: Update

As Kevin Coates from Paragon Publishing has announced, the WWW page dedicated to the alleged "Roswell" archive film will be located at:

I spoke to Kevin last night (Kevin is the source of the advance updates and there now seems no problem in making this information known) and he confirmed that as from 1 July 1995 and initially exclusively via this WWW site, The Merlin Group will make available a "60 minute" video of the entire "archive" footage. This is apparently to retail for around 33 pounds sterling.

But there's a catch.

Whilst The Merlin Group will accept orders as from 1 July, no videos will be despatched prior to August 24th, after the footage has been shown at the BUFORA conference on August 19-20th.

Should you have placed your order prior to the conference and should the footage shown there turn out to be less than convincing, I don't think the video is being sold with a money back guarantee.

Kevin also confirmed that on August 26th, Channel 4 Television (UK) intend to broadcast a documentary on the archive film story. It would come as no surprise to find similar documentaries appearing in other countries once the film is made available.

I believe that the WWW site will contain 5 photographs, showing various scenes from the video footage and that these include the first "evidence" of the crash site and the "I-beam" hieroglyphics from the alleged wreckage.

President Truman is, alas, conspicuous only by his absence.

The web site documentation will apparently include details of analysis confirming the dating of the original 16mm film. I hear it will be claimed this was undertaken by Kodak, but I'll believe that when I see it. The "authentication" may be no more than the previous claims that the coding symbols are consistent with 1947 film stock.

I understand the documentation also includes a statement from Professor M. A. Green, Department of Pathology, University of Sheffield.

The site documentation will further include a number of legal disclaimers.

The Merlin Group are now actively marketing the footage and slides are being freely offered to such as UFO Magazine (UK) in return for publicity, particularly concerning the sale of the video.

Kevin had agreed to let me have advance copies of the material, but he did not manage to pick this up yesterday as planned. No matter, it should be available to us all tomorrow.

I have released a "watered down" version of this to a.p.ufo.




Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 13:10:13 +0100
From: James Easton
Subject: * "Roswell Film" - WWW Site *

Hi All!


The Roswell WWW page is at:

It is not officially operational until Wednesday 21 June, but I hope to have access to much of the material this evening (Monday 19th). This apparently includes scanned images of slides showing autopsy sequences and the hieroglyphics on the "I-beam". Possibly also slides from alleged crash site footage.

I understand it also includes a statement from Professor M. A. Green, Department of Pathology, University of Sheffield.

An unconfirmed story, which should also be clarified definitively this evening, suggests that as from 1 July 1995 and exclusively via this WWW site, Merlin Productions will make available a video of the entire "Roswell" footage. This is apparently to retail for between 40 to 50 pounds and initially 5000 copies have been produced for sale.

* I cannot confirm this as yet. *

I will of course let you all know what I hear later today.

Needless to say, this information is not for public dissemination as yet - someone may lose their job if this goes public at the moment.




Date: Mon, 19 Jun 95 09:08:53 0000
From: Kevin Coates
Organization: Paragon Publishing Ltd.
Subject: new roswell site

check out from wednesday pictures from the roswell film will be shown exclusivly on this site

(Note: Below, is an example of one of the reports that Mr. Santilli has had done on the film which appear on the paragon site done by a Forensic specialist in England ..... Illinois)

The University of Sheffield
Department of Forensic Pathology

(2nd June 1995)

At the request of the Merlin Group, I have reviewed a film which was claimed to show a post-mortem examination being carried out on an extraterrestrial being. The film was allegedly taken on a U.S. military base in 1947.

The film is in Black and white. A full record of the autopsy was not present, as apparently only some reels of the film record were available. No sound was present.

The autopsy room was small and the examination was being conducted by people wearing full protective clothing. Beside the autopsy table was a tray of standard autopsy instruments.

The Body was human in appearance and appeared to be female but without secondary sexual characteristics - no breast development or pubic hair was visible. The head was disproportionately large. No head hair was present.

The abdomen was distended. There was no evidence of decomposition. The overall external appearance was of a white adolescent female, estimated height 5 feet, tending towards a heavy built but not abnormally thin or fat. There were six digits to each hand and foot. The eyes appeared larger than normal and the globes were covered with a black material which was shown being removed.

There was an extensive and deep injury to the right thigh. this was not shown in very close up detail, but appeared to be burnt and chard down to deep tissues. No similar injury was present, although there was possible bruising down the left hand side of the body. Overall there was a general absence of injuries.

The body was opened with a Y shaped incision but the skin of the neck was not fully reflected. A close of the knife being drawn against the skin was not shown, with blood coming from the skin. This appeared to be an unusual amount of blood. The neck appeared to contain two cylinder structures either side anterioly. These could have been muscles (sternomastroid muscles) but were odd in appearance, though they were not shown in close up.

The skin of the chest was shown reflected, and the central rib cage and sternum block removed. The chest was shown reflected, and central rib cage individually. There appeared to be a heart and two lungs, but when close up shots of the organs were shown they were always out of focus. The abdominal organs were not clearly seen, though it did not appear that the being was pregnant, an explanation that had been proposed for the distended abdomen.

The scalp was shown being reflected anteriorly, having been cut in a standard autopsy manner. The skull was then shown being sawn with a hand saw across the front of the scull, though the backward cuts and removal of the scull cap were not shown. What appeared to be the membranes covering the brain (dura) were shown being cut and removed. Although a close up of shot of the brains was shown it was again out of focus. however the appearances were not those of a human brain.

Overall the appearances were those of a white adolescent female with a humanoid body. There were six digits to each hand and foot and the body shape was dysmorphic. No accurate determination could be made of organ structure because every close up shot was out of focus. The injuries present to the body were less than those expected in an aviation accident. No injuries to account for the death were shown. Whilst the examination had features of a medically conducted examination, aspects suggested it was not conducted by an experienced autopsy pathologist, but rather by a surgeon..

Dr C.M.Milroy, MBChB,MD,MRCPath, DMJ
Senior Lecturer in Forensic Pathology

From: (Steven Kaeser)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: That Autopsy film,
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 17:59:52 GMT
Organization: Kaeser Konsulting

In article <1995JUN21.165504.18318@ZIPPY.DCT.AC.UK> Andy Cobley  writes:
>Subject: That Autopsy film,

>A new web site seems to have been formed that whilst under 
>construction claims it will have stills of this film.  It can be 
>reached at 


>Andy C
There is very little on this site as yet, but it should be interesting when the new "stills" are added. One post has indicated that the site will offer five (5) images from the film, and include at least one of the crash site and the "I-beam" hieroglyphics from the wreckage. But, if you log in today, you will only see brief mention that you should keep checking back.

Page Index