Roswell Film Page#6
July-August, 1995, Countdown to Media Release
You can not believe how many people have been accessing our site to get a peek at the Roswell Still Image pictures. By sharing all the information about this particular case, we have found ourselves in the middle, trying to keep people updated on what is going on. Recently, on the Larry King Show on TNT (shown in the U.S., Friday, August 4th) which focused about Abductions, the last three quest, Congressmen Steven Schiff, authors Whitley Strieber and C.D.B. Bryan, also mentioned the release of the Roswell Film coming up.
On this page we share with our readers some of the letters we have received, additional news reports of the film from England, part of the Roswell Reports shared by Kevin Randle & Don Schmidt and more. I wonder if this case ever ends? The answer is, probably not but it is sure showing how much interest there is in UFOs, isn't it?
Roswell Film Page 6 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.
- The Sunday Times Article, London, July 29th
- Ray Santilli's Response to the Times Article
- Jakes Louw - The Film Breaks in South Africa
- Roswell Report - Jim Ragsdale, Witness at Roswell
- Art Bell Discusses the Film on "Dreamland"
- Announcements of Film Shown on TV in Europe & US
- On Roswell: George Knapp, KLAV Las Vegas
- Message on Compuserve from Bob Shell & Michael Hessemann
- Wreckage in the Film - Report from Brazil
- We Hear Again from James Easton, in the UK!
- Stanton Friedman Speaks About the Film
- Hans V. Kampen Meets Santilli and Sees Film
- Don Ecker Sees the Film, His Insights
| Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 |
30 July 1995, London
Film that 'Proves' Aliens
Visited the Earth Is a Hoax
by Maurice Chittenden
RELAX. The little green men have not landed. A much-hyped film purporting to prove that aliens had arrived on earth is a hoax.
An investigation by The Sunday Times has established glaring dis- crepancies in the claims made by those marketing the firm footage. Simultaneously, experts called in by Channel 4, which is due to screen the film as part of a documentary on August 28, have declared it bogus.
A source close to the documentary said: 'We have had special effects guys look at it and they say it's a fake."
The black-and-white footage supposedly comes from cans of 16mm film shot by a US military cameraman, now 82, after a "flying saucer" crashed near Roswell in the New Mexico desert in July, 1947.
Among the flaws found by The Sunday Times are:
* "Security coding" on one film disappeared when its accuracy was challenged. * A "letter of authentication" from Kodak was signed by a sales- man. * President Truman, supposedly visible on film, was not in New Mexico at the time. * Symbols seen on particles of wreckage are totally different to those remembered by an eyewitness. * "Doctors" -- performing a supposedly unique autopsy on an alien -- remove black lenses from his eyes in a matter of seconds and as if they knew what to expect.Page 2
Little green men are a jolly green giant hoax
Experts have told Channel 4 the film may be a recent production. The source said: "They say it's a good fake, That means, in their opinion, it can't be before the '1950s or possibly the 1960s, but it could be in the past few years."
The so-called Roswell incident is a cause celebre! among UFO- spotters. There was certainly a cover-up by the military authorities who at first claimed the crash wreckage was that of a weather balloon, later it was admitted that it belonged to a high-altitude balloon being used to monitor Soviet nuclear tests. Ever since, conspiracy theorists have claimed it was really an alien spaceship.
So there was an eager ready-made audience waiting when Ray Santil- li, a London video distributor, announced earlier this year that he had obtained film of autopsies carried out on two aliens, as well as footage of the wreck.
Santilli, whose previous closest encounter was handling the British rights to the video of Tin Tin's Explorers on the Moon, claims he met the cameraman while researching a film on Elvis Presley's days in the army. He said he paid $100,000 for the footage.
Scientists. journalists, and UFO experts have since been invited to view video versions of the film. However, Santilli has refused to identify the cameraman, to produce a receipt for his purchase, or to say where the 16mm film was transferred on to video. The original film is said to be in a Swiss bank vault.
Suspicions were first aroused because injuries visible on the bodies of ET-lookalikes shown undergoing dissection were not consistent with an aircrash.
Santilli had claimed Truman was clearly visible attending one of the autopsies. However, the Harry S. Truman Library in Missouri has checked his schedule for June to October, 1947, and found he was not in New Mexico during that period.
When footage of one autopsy was shown at a private screening in America, it was codemarked with the words "Restricted access, AOI classification." However, "restricted access" is not a recognized US military code and AOI classification has been dismisses as "pure Hollywood."
Later, when film of the same autopsy was shown to John Purdie of Union Pictures, which Is making, the documentary for Channel 4 as part of its Secret History series, the coding had disappeared.
Last week Santilli's office handed The Sunday Times an updated "letter of authentication" from Kodak, supposedly proving that the film used for the Roswell footage was manufactured in 1927,1947, or 1967.
However, the letter was only obtained on June 21 when Gary Shoe- field, a British associate of Santilli, and Don Lounck in American film producer, walked into a Kodak office in Hollywood and spoke to Laurence Cate, a sales representative. He typed a letter for them containing the three dates.
Cate said last week: "I didn't think we were looking at a scientific inquiry. There is no way I could authenticate this. I saw an image on the print. Sure, it could be old film, but it doesn't mean it is what the aliens were filmed on."
Channel 4 and others are now demanding tests on film which is seen to be cut from a 16mm reel containing Roswell footage.
There may not be little green men out there, but millions of big green dollars are resting on the outcome. Santilli is already selling stills from the footage on the Internet and has struck worldwide exclusive deals with magazines and television companies, as well as planning to sell the film himself on video.
However, there was confusion in the answers given to questions last week. Shoefield said no footage had ever been released marked "restricted access." Santilli, however, claimed he had found the markings on one can and decided to run them on the film "as one would a timecode."
Santilli is now under attack from scientists and also the UFO com- munity. Paul O'Higgins, a medical anatomist at University College London said the six-fingered, six-toed alien shown on the autopsy table was basically humanoid. "The chances of life evolving to be that similar, even on two identical planets, is the same as the odds of buying a lottery ticket every week for a year and winning the jackpot every Saturday night," he said.
The UFO community is equally skeptical, but for different reasons. A nurse who supposedly saw the alien crash victims in 1947 said they had only four digits on each hand. Some UFO experts claim the footage may even have been "leaked" by the American government as an act of dis-information to stop growing speculation about what happened at Roswell.
Santilli, who his pictures of Sergeant Bilko and the Starship Enter- prise on his office walls, remains confident in his product. He said: "I have been offered a blank cheque for the footage. It is genuine.'
Caption under pictures on page 2:
Close encounters of the financial kind: businessman Ray Santilli, who handled the British rights to the video of Tin Tin's Explorers on the Moon, and a still from the 'alien' footage.
Ray Santilli's Response to Times Article
The following is Ray Santilli's full response to the article published in the London Sunday Times on 30 July 1995. Posted with his permission and at his request. (This post was in a library of the Encounters Forum on Compuserve -- Illinois).
1. The Sunday Times claim that Channel 4 have called in experts who have declared the film bogus. They have apparently also had special effect guys look at the film and declare it a fake John Purdie of Union Pictures who is in charge of the production of the Channel 4 programme has confirmed to me that the investigation is still continuing and no conclusion has been reached. 2. The Sunday Times claim that the security coding on one film disappeared when its accuracy was challenged. Ray Santilli's response is: The sequence of film referred to by The Sunday Times as containing a security code is not part of the autopsy footage and the code they refer to is irrelevant as it was applied in the same manner as one would a time code or copyright notice, it was reference information. The Times even made reference to this in their article. 3. The Sunday Times claim that a letter of authentication from Kodak was signed by a salesman. Ray Santilli's response is: Upon contacting Kodak's head office in Hollywood we asked for the film verification department. They took our representatives to the relevant place, and the person working within that departments Laurence Cate, conducted the verification examination. This was part of his function at Kodak. If he is also a salesman, then this is purely Kodak's affair. 4. The Sunday Times claim that President Truman supposedly visible on film was not in New Mexico at the time. Ray Santilli's response is: The fact that the President Truman Library does not confirm that Truman was in New Mexico has no bearing as there would not be an official record of the trip due to the subject matter. 5. The Sunday Times claim that symbols seen on particles of wreckage are totally different to those remembered by an eyewitness. Ray Santilli's response is: No-one has ever claimed that the debris filmed by the cameraman is the same debris as seen by the eyewitness. It should be noted that the supposed eyewitness has not seen any debris for nearly 50 years. 6. The Sunday Times claim that doctors performing a supposedly unique autopsy on an an alien removed black lenses from his eyes in a matter of seconds as if they knew what to expect. Ray Santilli's response is: The reporters from the Sunday Times were told quite clearly that Ray had autopsy footage of another alien identical in appearance so they knew that the autopsy they saw was not unique as their article suggests. Had the doctors already performed other autopsies, then they would have known what to expect. 7. The Sunday Times claim that experts have told Channel 4 that the film is a good fake produced after the 1960's, sometime in the past few years. Once again, John Purdie at Union Pictures has confirmed that no conclusion has been reached and that the investigation continues. 8. The Sunday Times claim that Ray Santilli has refused to identify the cameraman or the place where the 16mm film was transferred onto video. Ray Santilli's response is: Due to the nature of this footage, this information was and will remain confidential as explained to the Sunday Times reporters. 9. The Sunday Times claim that suspicions were aroused because injuries visible on the bodies of the E.T look-a-likes shown undergoing dissection were not consistent with an air crash. Ray Santilli's response is: Firstly, the alleged alien featured in the footage looks nothing like E.T. from the movie. Secondly, I'm not aware of anyone no matter what their credentials who has the experience to know how an alien body would react in a crash. Of course, if the person who made the comments has seen other aliens who have been involved in a similar incident and can therefore make the necessary comparisons, I will be happy to reconsider this. 10. The Sunday Times claim that Mr Cate of Kodak said that although the film could be old, it doesn't mean it is what the aliens were filmed on. Ray Santilli's response is: By the same token it is just as reasonable to assume that it is the film that the alien was shot on. 11. The Sunday Times claim that Ray Santilli is already selling stills from the footage on the Internet. Ray Santilli's response is: This is completely untrue. 12. The Sunday Times claim that Ray Santilli is now under attack from scientists and also the UFO community. Ray Santilli's response is: Even though this is a controversial subjects I am not now, nor have I ever been "under attack" from scientists. There have been those however from the UFO community who have always supposed the theory that the footage is not genuine. Interestingly enough nearly all of those people have yet to actually see it. 13. The Sunday Times claim that Paul O'Higgins, a medical anatomist at the University College London states among other things that the alien shown was basically humanoid, he goes on to say that "...the chances of life evolving to be that similar, even on two identical planets is the same as the odds of buying a lottery ticket every week for a year and winning the jackpot every Saturday night. . . " Ray Santilli's response is: At best, this is an opinion and not fact. Again I'm fairly confident Mr O'Higgins does not know the secrets of the universe and what is out there anymore than anyone else. 14. The Sunday Times claim that a nurse who supposedly saw the alien crash victims in 1947 said they had only four digits on each hands as opposed to six as featured in the footage. Ray Santilli's response is: Even the Sunday Times themselves state that she only supposedly saw the crash. What does make her account any more or less credible than any other account? 15. The Sunday Times have pointed out that Mr Santilli has pictures of Sergeant Bilko and the Starship Enterprise on his office walls. Ray Santilli's response is: So what!
Breaking News in South Africa
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 95 14:17:08 0200
From: Jakes Louw
Subject: Roswell film
The bomb burst yesterday in our local press regarding alleged authentication by Kodak of the "original" film spools. Also, the date 28 August was mentioned as the world-wide release of the film footage!
Portion of Roswell Reporter, Vol 1 #2
( Parts of Interview with Jim Ragsdale )
From: email@example.com (Steven Vincent Johnson)
Subject: ROSWELL REPORTER NEWSLETTER, Vol 1 #2 (2 of 5)
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 12:34:07
Organization: University of Wisconsin
(The Roswell Reporter is a newsletter done by researchers Kevin Randle & Don Schmidt related to the Roswell Incident. Here we see an interview with Jim Ragsdale, who was a witness at Roswell and claimed to see the alien bodies. We share this in regards to a comparison of the alien bodies shown in the film ......... ILLINOIS)
* Pages 3 - 7 *
Jim Ragsdale Revisited
A persistent problem which clearly is intensifying in the UFO field has us confused. When we began investigating the Roswell case, people wanted to know the truth. Almost no one was talking about Roswell. Majestic-Twelve, abductions, and animal mutilations had taken the limelight. As we delved into the case, it began to move to the forefront because the number of witnesses, the documentation, and the level of corroboration.
That situation has changed. There are some in the field who want nothing more than to see this case collapse. There are those outside who believe that it was nothing more than a mistaken balloon, now associated with the top-secret Project Mogul. And there are those who will stop at nothing to see the case stripped of its importance and destroyed.
The motivations of some are clear. The Air Force is attempting to maintain the cover and any confusion that can be added is a benefit for them. The debunkers, because they know that flying saucers are not real, will stop at nothing to see that case destroyed. It is not, then they must reevaluate their beliefs and they are not about to do that.
The motivations of others are not so clear. They are operating with their own agendas. The articles they write and the criticisms they raise are not the product of research, but of their desire to reach a specific conclusion. They care nothing for the truth unless it is their truth.
This last can be best demonstrated in the case of Jim Ragsdale, a witness discovered by Don Schmitt in late 1992. At first it was only a rumor that he had seen, in 1947, some of the material from the craft. We already had spoken to a number of people who had seen or handled the strange metallic debris. Another eyewitness to the strangeness of the material was important because it added weight to the conclusion that something extraordinary had been found.
Our first attempt to interview Ragsdale in November 1992 failed. The previous spring, Ragsdale had been in a bad traffic accident and neither he nor his wife wanted to be bothered. We decided to put off the interview until they were in better health.
On January 26, 1993, Jim's health was enough improved to set up an interview with the Ragsdale. Struggling with discomfort and breathing with the aid of a respirator, Jim gave us what may have been his last statement on Roswell. It became imperative to record the interview so that everything Ragsdale said during that interview is on tape. Since we had been to the impact site a few days earlier, we had photographs of the area which would become important later.
Ragsdale stated there had been "a whale of a storm" that night. He said, "Well, it lit up the sky when it came down...We thought at first it was a falling star or something. Ad electric lightning...man it was something"
* "I'm Sure it was bodies..." *
In a later interview, conducted by Kevin on April 24, 1993 he said that the wind was blowing at thirty or forty miles an hour. There was thunder and lightning that was striking the ground.
Ragsdale also said that the light looked like that from a welders torch, between a bright white and a light, bright blue. It flashed over him, slamming into the ground about a mile away. With his female companion, he drove to a fence and stopped. That night, having been drinking, with a flashlight with batteries that were weak, and because he could see nothing interesting in the dark, he didn't try to get any closer. He decided to wait until morning before checking it out.
The next morning Ragsdale saw a craft that had hit the ground. He said, "One part was kind of buried in the ground and part of it was sticking out of the ground about like this." He described an angle of about thirty degrees.
He went on, saying, "I'm sure that [there] was bodies...either bodies or dummies."
Don Schmitt asked, "Why do you say dummies?"
"The federal government could have been doing something because they didn't want anyone to know what this was. They was using dummies in those damned things. They could use remote control"
Earlier he had said, "...but it was either dummies or bodies or something laying there. They looked like bodies. They weren't very long... [not] over four or five foot long at the most. We didn't see their faces or nothing like that but we had just got to the site and heard the Army, the sirens and all coming and we got into a damned jeep to take off."
Ragsdale made it clear that he didn't had a chance to get very close. During the night, with the storm and the situation, he had only seen the object stuck in the ground. The next morning, before they could approach, the Army arrived on the scene. He had just pulled up to a fence and stopped when the Army caravan appeared.
The woman with Ragsdale was frightened. Although they had gathered some strange metallic debris as they approached the site, she was sure that it was a government experiment. She wanted to get out of there. When the Army appeared, she was sure they would be arrested. As they raced from the field, she began to throw the debris they had collected from the jeep. She wanted nothing incriminating left if they were discovered by military authorities.
But Ragsdale had examined the material carefully. He said, "I've never seen anything like it. Looked like something between a plastic [and] carbon paper...One piece you could take it and put it in any form you wanted and it would stay there. You could bend it in any form and it would stay."
They got off the site before the military set up the cordon. The MPs scattered over the field and up along the ridge line. Before anyone knew they had been there, they were gone.
In the course of these two interviews, Ragsdale provided enough detail that we could begin the task of corroborating the testimony. Family members, for example, mentioned that they had heard the story since the late 1940's. They hadn't spoken of it to outsiders, but many family members were aware of the details. Dr. Mark Rodeghier, scientific director of the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO studies in the company of Schmitt, spoke to one of Ragsdale's sons. In the course of the conversation it was not only clear that Ragsdale had shared the information with the family over the years, but his son also confirmed the location of the crash.
What made the Ragsdale testimony interesting was the facts surrounding its discovery. Schmitt approached Ragsdale, having learned from other family members that he might have something interesting to say. Ragsdale's story, though not consistent with the conventional wisdom of the case, did follow the details as we had been developing them for the last few years. Although Ragsdale would have no way of knowing what we were learning, his story matched those details more closely than those that had been reported by others in the past. The location, about 30 or 40 miles from Roswell, shape of the craft, time of the event, and the arrival of the military, all suggested that Ragsdale was telling us of events that he had witnessed rather than details he had invented.
Further communication with Ragsdale, and corroboration from other sources, underscored the validity of what he said. Critics had pointed out that Ragsdale had said he was working on a natural gas pipeline and was, therefore, familiar with the area. What the critics failed to understand was that Ragsdale was using the pipeline as a landmark today, helping us to understand the location. He did not say, in any of the interviews we conducted, that he had been working on it in 1947.
Art Bell Discusses the Film!!!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 09:03:46 -0700
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Eric Barnes)
Subject: Re: Roswell Film on TV
> > At 6:26 AM on 7/19/95, Bill Teague wrote: > > > > > > Art Bell does it again .... SCOOP .... last night he > > >called Ray Santilli in England and had him on the air > > >for 30 minutes. Among the things discussed were two new > > >items. The film has been physically examined by Kodak > > >and they (Kodak) will shortly make a press release, or > > >have already done so, saying that they have verified > > >that the film stock was definately *produced* in *either* > > >1927, 1947, or 1967. They say that they repeat their > > >numbering sequence every 20 years. Why it couldn't have > > >been made in '87 was not discussed and the question was > > >not raised by Art nor any caller. > > > > Excellent question, but Kodak is the expert. Perhaps they > > changed the coding scheme before 1987 came around. > > > > I was very happy to hear that Kodak has another, though > > destructive, test (i.e. they'll have to sacrifice one frame of > > the film) to determine the age of the film. I'm guessing it > > will tell them the date of manufacture, but the dates of exposure > > and developing would be very handy to know, too. Doesn't unexposed > > film have a very short lifespan (in the order of a few years)? > *Actually, I have on more than one occasion shot with Kodak film > which was more than 20 years old. Though it had to be sent back to > Kodak for processing (different process than used today), I could not > tell the quality of the finished product from recently created film. > That Kodak stuff is terrific! > > Eric > > > > Also interesting was Santilli's explanation as to why he purposely > > didn't take the film straight to the UFO folks, but instead sought > > out experts himself (Kodak, Home Office senior forensic pathologist > > Dr. Milroy, etc.). Why? He said it was because of the constant > > "in-fighting" that goes on. From what I've seen in the past, I > > have to say I think he did the right thing. > > > > >oh and the still pics that are *SUPPOSEDLY* on the Internet (I > > >can't seem to get anything from the protree site that has been > > >suggested > > > > Try this one. It's a copy of my web page on a more robust server: > > > > http://jaguar.facsmf.utexas.edu/chrisco/clarity/ufo.html > > > > I got them off the newsgroups a week or so ago. Santilli said > > the photos on the internet were "unauthorized" and were > > photographed off a TV in France. He also says that there were > > only 5 official still photos released. My site has only 4. The > > picture of the close-up of the hand, as well as one on a magazine > > cover, can be found at http://www.protree.com/vjenptr/ as posted > > earlier. > > > > --chris > > > > -- > > Name: Chris Cooley Internet: email@example.com > > ICBM: 30.35N 97.67W 600'UP URL: http://lovecraft.cc.utexas.edu/Eric Barnes - TheRogue@dnai.com
Corporate Spokesman, Specialist in "Attack Public
Relations", Unique Marketing Solutions.
From: Chris.Terraneau@f201.n330.z1.fidonet.org (Chris Terraneau)
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 1995 23:08:00
Subject: Re: Roswell
-> SearchNet's i_ufo-l Mailing List
FOR Mike Pell
-=> Quoting Mike Pell to Matt Miller <=-
MP> Have you been following the purported Roswell/Santilli film footage MP> articles? Chris Terraneau has been cross-posting several CNI ufo MP> newsletters with up to date info. MP> MP> It should be interesting when this film (or segments of it) become MP> available to the public via programs such as Encounters or Sightings. MP> MP> Though not proven legit, the film(s) so far have stood up against MP> skeptics claims of it be hoaxed. Once the final determination on this MP> film is made, UFOlogy will either have the lid blown off, or great harm MP> done in the credibility game. Time will tell.Hi Mike,
Just tonight on Art Bell's Dreamland radio program, Linda Howe and Stanton Friedman spoke on the Roswell film, and on the impending release of the final GAO report on Roswell.
Howe and Friedman were suggesting the idea that it might be possible that although this film may turn out to be a hoax, it might be being released at this time as a method to "test the waters". To check out the public's reaction as the film is first shown publicly in England on television and during the BUFORA convention there in August. There are also rumors circulating that Encounters is in negotiation with Santilli, and that plans are already being made to show it in the US. The theory is that much of the public will get to see it before there's much of a chance presented to debunk it publicly. How the public reacts to it could trigger REAL information release in the near future (if the reaction is positive).
Friedman said that recently either Japan or Korea was offered and received some Roswell autopsy film footage in an exchange with the CIA of some high- quality craft-sighting videotape.
Friedman also mentioned that the GAO report was supposed to be released yesterday, 7-1, but now says an August release is likely. There was a post on the Internet recently about 10 senators who'd be viewing the film, but that was apparently proven to be false information. However, it is curious that the GAO report has been postponed to that magical month, August.
Just the latest, FWIW...
... Catch the Blue Wave!
-> This message was posted to the i_ufo-l Mailing List
-> Send "subscribe i_ufo-l " to firstname.lastname@example.org
Announcements of Film on TV!!
From: email@example.com (Matthew Jones)
Subject: Re: QUESTION: Roswell on TV, where & when
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 1995 18:10:48 +0100
Organization: a Digital Internet AlphaServer Site
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com (Hans Meijer) wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> Does anybody know when (date, time, duration) the documentary on
> the Roswell-incident including the Santilli film footage will be
> shown on TV and on what station(s). Because of a planned vacation
> I want to programm my VCR in time!
> Hans Meijer, Holland.
I know it is being shown in Britain on August 28th as part of Channel 4's sci-fi weekend. From what I heard on Talk Radio UK this will be the first TV showing in the world but it will be shown in the US and Japan soon after. I dont know the exact time and if anyone does I'd like to know as well as I will be on holiday then also.
Thanks in advance.
-- /-------------------------+------------+--------------\ | Matthew Jones | Dex on | The truth is | | firstname.lastname@example.org | IRC | out there | \-------------------------+------------+--------------/
From: email@example.com (NSimar)
Subject: Re: Encounters - 8/2/95 - Santilli?
Date: 8 Aug 1995 18:08:43 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
According to posts I have seen in this group and others, FOX is airing a one-hour program called "Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction" 8-9 pm (EST) on the 28th.
I don't know if I would characterize Encounters as "highly respectable and informative"; it's priorities are entertainment, then information, IMO.
George Knapp on Roswell
( KLAV TV in Las Vegas, 3 Part Series )
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 09:44:51 -0500
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Mark Hines)
Subject: Re: George Knapp's Roswell reporting
Here is a little taste of award-winning investigative TV journalist George Knapp's continuing UFO-related investigations. Yesterday, he did a small three-part piece on Roswell. Below is the actual script taken from Las Vegas TV station KLAV's news scripts of the pieces. Pardon the caps, as news anchors and reporters often find it easier to read scripts in caps.
----- snip -----
For more than a year, the investigative arm of congress, the gao, has delved into the roswell incident at the request of new mexico congressman Steve Schiff, who called for an investigation after his own questions resulted in the classic pentagon runaround. Schiff wanted to know if there had been a military coverup, and the answer appears to be yes. Originally, the Roswell Army Air Base announced that it had recovered a flying saucer from a ranch outside roswell. The story made headlines around the world, but hours later, higher ups said no, it was a weather balloon. Pieces of the balloon were shown to reporters. Years later, the officer who first visited the crash site, Major Jesse Marcel, confided that the balloon story was a coverup. What was shown to reporters wasn't what he found. He said the material was not of this earth and had strange markings on it. Since marcel's admission, scores of other witnesses have also surfaced.
(Stan Friedman/Nuclear Physicist: "It's not just one witness. it's not ten. it's over a hundred.")
Late last year, in an effort to preempt the GAO, the pentagon issued its own Roswell report in which it admitted that it had, in fact, lied about the weather balloon. What really crashed, it said this time, was a balloon launched surveillance device, code named project mogul. The new gao report found no evidence to contradict the pentagon's latest story. What it did find is that many of the records have been destroyed. All administrative records and outgoing communication from the Roswell base from 1946-1949 were destroyed by unknown persons under unknown authority, contrary to military regulations. One document which did surface is this FBI memo, dated July 8 1947, the day after the alleged crash. The memo refers to a recovered disc as well as to a balloon, and states that wreckage was flown to Wright Patterson air base in Ohio. The base has no records of any wreckage. Congressman Shiff's office told Channel 8 news today that the gao probe at least forced the military to admit it's been lying all along about Roswell.
Congressman Schiff says although his office is finished looking into the Roswell case, he's had requests for information from 19 other members of congress, and that one or more of those members may pick up the ball and run with it. Tonight at 6:00, we'll look at a film that's surfaced which allegedly shows autopsies conducted on aliens.
Question; so does that mean Schiff buys the pentagon's latest explanation?
The summer of 1947 is generally considered the beginning of the modern ufo era. The country was swamped with ufo sightings, so the July '47 report from Roswell Army Air Base that a flying saucer had been recovered from a crash-site made worldwide news. The military said for 45 years that it wasn't a saucer, but rather a weather balloon, a claim it now admits was a ruse. But its latest version--what crashed was a secret surveillance device--still doesn't jibe with reports from dozens of witnesses, reports suggesting that alien bodies were pulled from the wreckage. One such report came from general George Marshall, who confided in an aide.
(Timothy Good/Author of "Above Top Secret": Marshall admitted there had been contact, at least three crashes, and that bodies were recovered.)
Robert Shirkey was an officer at Roswell field. He not only saw the strange wreckage but was told by his friend, the town mortician, that bodies had been recovered.
(Robert Shirkey/retired officer: "He told me they asked for all the youth-sized caskets we had.")
Now, new evidence has surfaced, but it is far from conclusive. These stills are from films supposedly taken in 1947, showing an autopsy conducted on an alien body. The body has a misshapen head, large eyes, hands with six fingers. Only a few people have seen the footage, which is in the possession of a London film company. While some ufo researchers say they're keeping an open mind about the film, many are clearly disappointed. Bill Mcdonald, for instance, a private investigator who has worked with some of the best known Roswell researchers, thinks the film shows a misshapen human female, or a body modified with prosthetic devices.
(Bill McDonald/Investigator: "The general configuration is too massive, based on what witnesses have told us.")
Although the owners of the film aren't releasing much information, stills are now available on the internet. Most who've seen them aren't impressed.
(Bill Mcdonald/Investigator: "All of us feel, we assume it's a very expensive hoax until proven otherwise.")
The owners say there are 15 reels of the film showing not only the autopsy but also the UFO crash site. The film stock has supposedly been confirmed by Kodak as being 1947 vintage, so if this is a hoax, it's a complicated one, and makes us wonder who could have done it.
Question--if it is a hoax, does it discredit the overall Roswell story?
To some, it will, but there are other avenues of investigation which are ongoing. Tonight at 6:30 we'll look at the work of a forensic sketch artist who has developed drawings of what the beings and the craft supposedly resembled.
For 48 years, the US Military has denied reports about an alleged ufo crash near Roswell New Mexico, but nearly 200 witnesses claim to have seen the craft and even alien bodies. Today, we spoke with private investigator and forensic sketch artist Bill Mcdonald, who has worked with the witnesses, including a retired colonel: anyone who is interested in contacting Bill Mcdonald about his investigations or his artwork can call our 800 line for further information.
__________________________________________________________ For help and a list of files, send the following message: To: email@example.com
Film Update with John Ratcliff
John Ratcliff is a frequent visitor to the Encounters Forum and in this post to the newsgroup was able to have some communications with Bob Shell, a professional photographer who was interested in helping to prove the authenticity of the Roswell Film and also a message from Michael Hessemann, a German UFO Researcher who has organized a number of UFO Conference in his country, Michael had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Santilli in person. Thanks John ........ ILLINOIS
From: John W. Ratcliff <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Film Update
Date: 10 Aug 1995 04:07:22 GMT
Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736)
This message contains information about the Ray Santilli alleged Roswell film. I have been given permission to cross post it, and due to the large number of e-mail messages I have received it is clear that many people are interested in hearing about the lastest goings on.
Note that *none* of these messages are from ME. I am merely forwarding this bit of flotsam and jetsom for those who are interested in evolving myth in the collective consciousness of humanity. Nothing more, nothing less.
I apologize for this in advance, and all who read these messages should consider themselves forewarned!!!
Thanks for your support.
Message: #109392, S/15 Mutual UFO Network
Date: Sat, Aug 5, 1995 6:37:01 PM
Subject: #109308-The TRUTH of Roswell
From: BOB SHELL 76750,2717
To: John W. Ratcliff 70253,3237
Sorry, so much of what I have put into the forum has been in private messages that I have forgotten who knows what.
Simply put, the critter under the blanket in the tent scene has been estimated by most of the people who have seen the full version of this scene at "well over six feet", or in the case of metric viewers "around two meters". Either this guy (or gal, can't tell for the bloody blanket!) is really tall, or everyone in the tent is really short!
The body you have seen in stills is estimated at about five foot four to five foot six, and the other one in the first autopsy has been said to be slightly bigger. Little fellers these aren't.
Admittedly, I have not read extensively about Roswell in the past, and am a rank amateur in that respect, but nothing that I have read has mentioned aliens of human size or larger.
I already said that my working hypothesis is that the Roswell crash happened in June, just as the cameraman says, and that a secret military unit was on the spot right away, cleaned everything up and departed. They were on site in a matter of hours because they knew of the crash right away, either from extensive radar surveillance, or more probably because they had it shot down. What Brazel found the following month was a small part of the craft which was blown off in the explosion and was somehow missed by the first crew, who may not have known that they were missing part of the craft.
Roswell AACB knew nothing of the actual crash, and released their press story following Brazel's find. The guys in the secret military group saw it in the papers and said "Holy s---! Some fool has spilled the beans." and then came in fast and hard to put in the cover story, and, just to be sure, came back a couple of years later and got rid of all the records they could lay hands on.
Anyway, it could be this way. The cameraman, according to Ray, is absolutely positive that this is the one and only Roswell crash. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, is on that roll of film Michael Hessemann recently bought!
Sorry if I threw you a curve, but this is only one hypothesis among many which could fit the facts. Maybe there has only ever been one crash, maybe there have been more.
Date: Sun, Aug 6, 1995 10:40:21 AM
From: BOB SHELL 76750,2717
To: Niels Jensen 73510,1371
I'll try to make some sense of this or you.
Ray first saw part of the film about two years ago and determined it was worth going after. Raising the money (no, I don't know how much) to buy it was a big problem, and wasn't done until late last year. As I understand it, Ray did not come into physical possession of the film until early this year. As to why Ray didn't get the testing done, Ray doesn't know the people at Kodak in Rochester, and they don't know him. That's why I volunteered to act as an informal liaison for Ray and Fox TV to make the connections at Kodak and get this all set up. However, just to make this perfectly clear, I am taking no money from Ray or Fox for doing this, other than actual travel expenses for going to Rochester to be present during the testing.
The window of time in which this film could have been exposed and yielded an image of high quality, which it definitely is, is probably rather narrow. I don't know precisely, but will get answers on that from Kodak when they test the film. My original guess, based on past experience, is about four years. Maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less. Once exposed, the image deteriorates rather rapidly, so film must not be kept too long after exposure before processing.
Cryogenic storage would slow chemical deterioration to a bare minimum, but has just the opposite effect on sensitivity to radiation. Astronomers super cool film to make it more sensitive when photographing distant stars and such. Cold storage of 1947 film is not the answer, since background radiation would have created very high fog levels, which are not evident in the film. If we date the film positively to 1947, that will mean that any hoax also dates from around 1947.
The cameraman's name, according to my sources, is Jack Barnett. Whether that is his real name or simply a _nom de guerre_, I have no idea. I doubt it is his real name. Interestingly enough, there was a fellow in 1947 who used to make money as a Harry Truman look alike, and his name was Barnett!!!!!!!
I have not decided that the film is real, nor have I decided it is a hoax. I'm waiting for the dating first, and then the film itself, before I make my decision. I have some pretty sophisticated electronic imaging systems at my disposal, and I am interested in doing some frame enhancement to see what I can find.
Message: #112369, S/15 Mutual UFO Network
Date: Wed, Aug 9, 1995 6:24:18 PM
Subject: Meeting Ray Santilli
From: :Michael Hesemann/SL 100660,3672
I spent the last two weeks in England, investigating the crop circles (about 100 appeared, mostly man-made) and the Roswell footage. I interviewed Colin Andrews, reg Presley and, of course, Ray Santilli. On Friday July 28 and today I spent three hours each with Ray, getting some of the latest information.
1. Ray is very busy in the moment. He lives about two hours from London, near Cambridge, and comes home very late and very tired. That's the reason why he did not have the time lately to surf on Compuserve. But he gives all of you his best greetings and feels bad that he might let you down. But, to quote him, "the day only has 24 hours, even if you would need more..."
2. Channel 4 spoke with the cameraman but did not interview him yet. His family name is NOT "Barnett". Ray now produced a summary of the cameramans statement and will release it as soon as he has is lawyers approval, because of some names involved. The most shocking detail of the report (which I read) is that the "freaks" (as he calls the aliens) were still alive, screaming all the night. and that the retrieval team had to use force to get a metallic "box" out of their hands with they held closely. "They were protective of their boxes but we managed to get one lose with a firm strike at the head of a Freak with the butt of a rifle". One was already dead, three were alive!!
3. Ray showed me the stickers of the film reels. Reel # 52 indeed says "Trumans ,,," (destroyed further), Reeol # 64 was "July 1947, Autopsy # 2". Indeed the film in the "Trumans..." reel is stuck together and in the moment they try to find a way to save and restore it.
4. It is true that Ray sold -to get the money to buy the film- footage to a collector (but NOT a Japanese) but he will try to convince him to let him use the material for the video edition. He regrets it all now, but he is not a ufologist nor a scientist and he had to get the money to get everything started.
5. Recently papers all over the world (Observer, Guardian, Saturday Times, Sunday Times, Sun, FOCUS (Germany), DER SPIEGEL, People plus more reported. The telephone is constantly ringing in Rays office. Bob Shell reportedly did a good research in the authenticity of the footage. The Japanese gov't official, Johsen Takano, was flown with two others to the CIA HQ in Langley to view 5 hours of material including the same autopsies. Prof. Ch.a.H. from Taiwan (Rep. China) said his gov't received 80 pictures of this being from the US gov't after an official request. He has access to them and we will certainly try to get copies.
THE SAD NEWS: On the 16 mm US gov't film I brought over from Roswell (from a widow of a Lt.Col.) is nothing anymore - the chemistry did not survive the 48 years (it was predicted by two laboratories I consulted in Berlin).
Wreckage Shown in Film
( Report from Brazil )
From: email@example.com (Mario Jorge Dourado)
Subject: Re: Roswell alien: a new hypothesis
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 1995 22:50:46 -0200
Organization: Empresa Brasileira de Telecomunicacoes
firstname.lastname@example.org (Space7) wrote:
>I would certainly agree with you excpet for the fact of what I read in Bob >Schell's summary of the footage. In part of it he states: > >""The last sequence, about seven minutes in length, shows pieces of >wreckage on a couple of tables. A man, apparently in uniform, whose >face is not seen picks up pieces of material and turns to various angles >for the camera. Among the material is sections of (...) >described as looking like ancient Greek writing. The letters appear to >be part of the metal, and are raised. They are not recessed or painted >on. >(...)I thought Santilli's film showed only authopsy scenes. But if there's a man showing pieces of wreckage and strange material, it is clear that the film is intended to show an alien's authopsy, not a poor earth creature victim of some kind of radioactive or genethic experiment.
This way, the film can't be a mistake. It has only one of two hipothesis: the most important revelation of our century, or a farse...
According to a magazine, Globo TV Network was intended to show Santilli's film here in Brazil next August 28th. Let me wait, so.
We Hear Again from James Easton, in the UK!
( Roswell Film Update, August 8th )
From: email@example.com (James Easton)
Subject: "Roswell" Film: Update
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 00:21:00 GMT
Organization: Stairway to Heaven BBS - +44-181-769-1740
- Host of UFONet
Regarding the recent misunderstandings concerning Kodak's dating of the alleged Roswell film, with the permission of Quest International and Mr Peter Milson of Kodak, I have transcribed some of the relevant conversations which took place. I think you will find this helpful:
Peter Milson: Just to let you know what happened yesterday...basically my colleagues in Los Angeles, Hollywood, basically said the same as we did. My colleague in Denmark, who's not perhaps as much experienced and it isn't such a big market place, had looked at the film, looked at the first bit of the chart and said "1947".
Now, what I've done this morning is , I've talked to my Danish colleague and I said, "the edge code you looked at", he said, "yeah", I said, "what did you say?". (He said) "Well, it's '47". I said, "yeah, but it also could be '27 and '67".
"Ah...", he said, "didn't realise that", 'cause he's fairly inexperienced.
So I said to him, "OK, go back to the distributor and say you've got more information and it could be '27, '47 and '67."
Then we have a consistent line and we're all saying the same thing. I mean, you know, if it is '47 and it's genuine...hey...you know, whatever... I'm looking forward to seeing aliens (laughs).
Tony Dodd: So are we! (laughs)
Peter Milson: ...and what he's done, obviously I can't blame him for this, is given me a bit of the leader, or given us a bit of the leader and said this is the same as the neg, this is from the same bit of film.
Now, the print film is probably all one piece, we assume, but again, we don't know until we see the film.
Tony Dodd: Has he given you any reason why he hasn't let you see the original?
Peter Milson: No, and I'm still waiting for them to do that, you know, we've said to them a number of times, delighted to look at it, but nothing has come back.
...all I'm saying to anybody is, what I would like to do is to say to somebody, we've said to them, you know, please send us it, we'll have a look at it...we can't be more definite. I said to Santilli yesterday, our problem is, the identification is such that it's '27, '47 or '67, assuming that the neg...the bit of print could have been printed in '47, you know, if we get a chance to have a good look at it, you know...a: when was the negative shot? b: when was it printed, how was it printed, is the edge coding we're getting...is that a print through from the negative or is that off the original print...we don't know. It's all those sort of things, so that's why we're being somewhat circumspect, as they say.
Tony Dodd: Well, absolutely. We've got thousands of readers all over the world and of course what we are doing, we are quoting you, because the only way we will accept authenticity is if you tell us so.
Peter Milson: Well, yes, that's what we're trying to do.
Bob Shell, a CompuServe subscriber who is also an eminent U.S. photographer and photographic consultant, has established a good working relationship with Ray and has also now persuaded Kodak to date the film conclusively by undertaking a destruct test on one of the original 16mm film frames. Ray has agreed to this on the basis that none of the images which show the alleged ET are destroyed.
This is scheduled to take place shortly and will hopefully definitively determine what we are dealing with. Either the alleged 16mm film will not be forthcoming, or the film stock will be dated beyond dispute.
There are many anomalies with the story of the film's origins, acquisition and processing and these are now documented. It has become clear that much of what was purported to be on the original 16mm film, simply isn't going to appear on the footage which will be sold. Ray has now admitted that he was rather optimistic about what would be recoverable, although it's by no means as simple as that.
Some of the film has also been sold, apparently to a Japanese party. The footage which has been sold is the "autopsy" footage which features a more decomposed body. This footage has not been seen by many people, but is apparently of superior quality to the "autopsy" footage shown at the Museum of London on May 5th and which is better known.
Ray apparently sold this some time ago, but now regrets doing so.
It is unclear whether any of this footage will still appear on the "raw footage" video, currently being sold from the WWW site.
The Japanese buyer is supposedly a "private collector" and has exclusive rights to the footage.
It seems that what remains is the "tent" footage, which appears to show an injured humanoid receiving medical attention, the "autopsy" footage shown at the Museum of London and elsewhere and some "debris" footage, which shows various types of debris on a table.
It would therefore appear that there is no footage of President Truman, no vehicle recovery, no footage of the debris being recovered and at no point can anyone be identified.
Added to the known anomalies and other matters, it is of course all consistent with a hoax; the footage which would be hard evidence of a connection with the Roswell incident and which would be extremely difficult to fake, is very conspicuous by its absence.
One other important point which Ray has just disclosed is that the alleged 16mm reels contain written notes relating to the dates of filming and processing and other "nonsense". Bearing in mind that Ray is very much "a fish out of water" in this whole affair, what he perceives as "nonsense" could of course be particulary significant and I have asked him to detail this.
Indications of a hoax are countered by the fact that the key figure in this story, the cameraman, does appear to exist and John Purdie of Union Pictures, the company who are producing the major Channel 4 documentary to be shown later this month, has apparently now met him.
This is not confirmed, but indications are that the cameraman is willing to go public if he is guaranteed immunity from any prosecution.
The other factor which would tend to support the view that the film may be authentic, is that it simply isn't consistent with what we would expect if it was an attempt to recreate the Roswell story. Neither the creatures shown in the film, nor the date of the alleged crash are consistent with the documented evidence.
And if it is a hoax, it's a damn good one.
Much has become clear during recent weeks and the dating of the film by Kodak should be a further significant, factor. If the film doesn't check out, then it will obviously be a conclusive factor.
16mm film stock has a short life span, and if the film stock does prove to be of 1947 origin, it would apparently be extremely unlikely that the images were not also from that era.
Is it the Holy Grail?
We should all know the answer to that shortly.
Stanton Friedman Speaks About the Film
This information comes from a page on Stanton Friedman's Web Site. In many posts we have shared on our site, we have mentioned Mr. Friedman and we thought it might be a good idea to quote him directly. I have met Mr. Friedman on a few occassions at various New Age conferences and respect his insights and willingness to share UFO related information as a scientist and from a scientific perspective. I applaud his efforts to help us unrevel this very complicated situation around the UFOs and hope that his efforts will inspire other scientist to take their heads out of the clouds and really dig deep to see all the evidence that exists around the UFO phenomena.
A Monthly Report: August 4
ALIEN AUTOPSY FILM: FACT OR FICTION?
Background: Ray Santili, a British promoter has come into possession of what he claims is an authentic copy of a film showing the autopsies of several alien corpses recovered from a crashed flying saucer near Roswell, New Mexico in 1947. A WWW page contains more info and some pictures.
As the nuclear physicist who began the serious investigation of the New Mexico recovery of crashed flying saucers in 1978, I have tried to follow the action on the supposed alien autopsy film footage since first hearing of it on January 14th of this year. Twice I have met with Ray Santilli in London. Finally on July 31 and August 1, I was able to review it in Washington, DC.
I am trying to separate Mr. Santilli's many and often changed claims about President Truman being in the footage, the background of the cameraman, etc, from the question of film legitimacy. The symbols (old Greek) and debris on a table very much look to be of Earthling origin and are very different from the ones drawn by Dr. Jesse Marcel based on the alien I-beams he handled in 1947. The female body bears no resemblance to any aliens I have heard described or sketched in my 37 years of serious UFO investigation. I have collected a good deal of information which strongly suggests that she is a victim of Turner's Syndrome, a fairly common female birth defect. In addition, the supposed on site "military" witness, Frank J. Kaufmann, provided nothing to back up his many claims during my recent 2 hour visit with him. He claimed to Ch. 4, that the stills are of the bodies he supposedly saw, but the drawings in The Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell bear little resemblance to the body. They also show 4 fingers and a thumb, not 5 and a thumb, as in the footage, and not the 4 fingers (no thumb) that other witnesses have noted.
Having worked under security in the nuclear business in the US for 14 years, I have great trouble with the notion of so much highly classified material being smuggled out.
However, I am certain after all my research, that two saucers crashed in New Mexico in July, 1947, as described in Crash at Corona and that alien bodies were recovered and would have been autopsied. Loads of film would have been shot, presumably by some of the many cameramen who had high security clearances for such projects as the explosion of two A Bombs during Operation Crossroads in 1946 in the Pacific. It was Major Jesse Marcel and others of the 509th who recovered the Roswell wreckage. The film is still in my "gray" basket, though I am leaning towards fraud...though not made, only exploited, by Santilli. His order blank for the $50.00 video has 4 disclaimers!
A former USAF OSI man told me he saw the footage in 1981 and it was then shown to be fraudulent. There is insufficient evidence as yet to support this notion.
Tune in next month.
Stanton T. Friedman, August 4, 1995
To visit Mr. Friedman's Home Page:
Hans V. Kampen has Seen the Film
Hans V. Kampen is a Dutch UFO researcher who has been following the Roswell Film very closely. I met Hans on Compuserve and we have been sharing notes. Please go to our Roswell Hoax Page and review Mr. Kampen's theory that the Film aliens are drowned humans. So here is what Hans discovered in his visit with Ray Santilli and a chance to see the actual film .............
FROM: Hans v. Kampen, 100544,1761
TO: Joshua Shapiro, 74217,1412
DATE: 8/19/95 2:38 PM
Re: I have seen Ray and the Roswell movies
On Friday 18 August 1995 I was flown from Munich to London to meet a team selected and sponsored by the leading Dutch newspaper >De Telegraaf
Vrije Universiteit Roswell Next to this we had a profound discussion with Ray Santilli, a young, energetic and cooperative music-videomaker/retailer. We were presented many documents confirming the authenticity of the reels and provocative (sometimes new) details about why the cameraman JB shot the films, as well as how he got them. There is for us no shadow of doubt as to the fact that these films are no hoax! They are real and well documented (!). There is a logical reason why JB kept these reels: they caused cameraproblems and were removed but not returned to the Army, who send this cameraman to a site 'just southwest of Socorro, June 2nd, 1947' (literal quote from JB). He kept these few 'faulty' but still intriguing films in his personal archive, the rest was returned to the Army Airforce for which JB worked from 1942 until 1948 and then for the USAF until 1952. Santilli got the films (everyone now knows how) and had them electronically reprocessed (that is where Maccabee states: "1) The black and white film is quite clean, i.e., no obvious scratches such as one gets from running the film through a projector many times. I conclude that the film has been run very few times.")
Maccabee can't have seen the original films, because they aren't in the UK, but somewhere in Switzerland in a safe! Santilli and his team tried to 're-sequence' the 3 minutes reels on video and enhance their poor quality (no scratches, better contrast etc.). Santilli explained us, that he can't guarantee all sequences are correct however! Which we believe, seeing jumps in the segment that was hown to us. From 90 minutes 'roughs' he could restore but 21 minutes of good quality. From these 21 minutes several broadcaster may show about 10 minutes in their documentaries on August 26th.
What did we see? One single autopsy, slowly performed by a surgeon helped by a female assistant in usual protective clothing (according to our pathologist). On what sort of creature did he perform the autopsy - well exactly this:
The so-called Roswell "alien" most closely resembles a human suffering from a form of Patau's syndrome (chromosome 13 trisomy). In common with the "alien", a Patau victim typically has low-set, abnormally shaped ears, underdeveloped nose, absence of eyebrows, triangular forhead, partially fused brain hemispheres, polydactyl hands and feet, narrow finger tips, prominent heels and arched feet, abnormal genitalia and many visceral organ defects. There are also some similarities to Edward's syndrome victims (trisomy 18) who, in addition to having low-set, abnormal ears and many visceral defects, also have protruding posterior (occipital) heads with small jaws and mouths and narrow hips, similar to the "alien".
The main difference between a typical Patau or Edwards case and the "alien" are the abnormally large eyes, iris/pupil, palpebral fissure (eye-opening), and semi-prominent brow of the so-called alien.
This was precisely what our pathologist came up with, after seeing the film. Patau's syndrome in full glory. BUT with some extra remarks:
The eyes are covered with a gummi- or couchouc like folie which is decisively removed by the surgeon (no pathologist (!) as for his technique) with a pincher, showing normal human eyes with the pupil turned fully upwards as is usual in dead people. We saw absolutely traces of small whimpers, eyehairs! Our pathologist explained that covering the eyes is not unusual as a protection to prevent the eyes from drying out when the corpse had to be stored for a longer period of time in a freezer. The fluid shown at the cuts of the lancet seems not to have been blood, but formaline, also to protect the corpse (balsaming it). The same is seen after cutting the aorta and consecutive removal of parts of the bowels, that became quite messy by it. For our pathologist a 'daily phenomenon'. He decided to have seen a slow, but fairly usual autopsy on a 'Patau' patient - a real human being, although slightly deformed. The patient we saw was a woman, with tiny nipples and for sure traces of a belly button. The top light above the table makes identification of the belly button difficult, also due to overexposure and high contrast of the film... He believes the patient to have been almost 14 or 15 years of age, by comparing the skullsize with the bodies. The skull makes out some 15% of the bodysize, indicating a still immature person. Size corrected for slight hydrocephalus. The kneejoint in the wounded leg appear to work normally, although the legtissue is heavily damaged. It is possible that the patient is shot at several times, causing these and possible other wounds. The 'strange' marks and bloodstains on the corpse were identified by him as 'Leichenflecken', 'marks of death' appearing on corpses that have been preserved for some time. Their existence rules out the possibility, that 'blood' comes from cuts - it confirms the idea of balseming.
Our filmexpert acknowledged the originality of the reel labels that were shown to us, on one of which was a name: Trumann xxxx, where the xxxx of the name was torn off unfortunately. He decided to have seen an enhanced video of authentic old Kodak BW film material about an autopsy on a somewhat deformed human. The film just have been shot with a fixed focus 16 mm camera at about 18-24 f/s, slightly overexposed.
Our pathologist noticed the removal of a bright bloodclot from the aorta or heart, which was presented by Santilli as 'a crystal'. The pathologist explained this common phenomenon and had to laugh out loud about the crystal, but could imagine the misinterpretation by laymen. He also amended the claim, that in a shot a strange organ was seen lying above the bowels. He explained that Patua patients (a rare disorder) can have a 'sunken' liver, that peaks out of the rib-cage more than seen with common corpses on opening. The liver seems to have been exposed more than usual for filmreasons - the liver is enlarged. The brain that is removed, is a typical Patua brain although it is taken out with complete dura. A slight hydrocephalus seems present, causing the eyeballs to protrude a bit. This is no unusual combination of syndroms.
I concluded, that we apparently have some shots of the recovery of debris (!!) - not shown to us - a field with debris near Socorro (not Roswell), with small flags marking the pieces. And we have shots about possibly 4 autopsies, of which the last took place in July 1949!!! One of these autopsies was shown to us.
From documents and answers on question to Santilli I concluded, that a general McMullan had ordered cameraman JB to go from Edwards to a site near the southwest of Socorro on June 2nd 1947 to film 'the crash of an experimental Russian spy-plane' (lit. from a document). A few weeks later JB got orders to film some autopsies for the Army and got a last order to do so in July 1949 (forty nine) in behalf of the USAF. The first autopsies may have taken place either near or in Socorro, the last one almost certainly in Dallas. This I base on verbal accounts.
A document is to be released soon, claiming JB to have seen '4 circus freaks' near the crashsite in the Socorro area, where 1 'freak' was already dead. JB writes in this document about the maltreatment by US Army personel of one such 'freak', hitting it with his rifle. I find this document utterly doubtful - although not impossible - it is a JB's recollection. JB recognized the 'freaks' while filming the autopsies with his Bell & Howell 16 mm fixed focus camera...!
My temporary conclusion at this moment is, that the films have nothing to do with the genuine 'Friedmanian'_Roswell case, which developed originally after 4 July 1947. It is NOT Roswell. There is no filmed evidence, that the crashed vehicle near Socorro (identified as an 'experimental Russian spyplane' by general Mc Mullan) carried the 'freaks' shown on the later registered autopsies. Neither exists firm evidence, that the craft was a circular vehicle (a flying saucer), nor that it was recovered in toto and transported to a base near Dallas, as is claimed by JB (thru Santilli). What the US Army had to do with the autopsy on Patau patients is a riddle, if this part of the story is true. However it might be, that these patients were used in secret military experiments. We have to find out more about this aspect of the case.
The Roswell label is a smart marketing tool, however - to our opinion. All of the Dutch team concluded, that the film doesn't show 'aliens' or extra-terrestrials. No indication to hold that opinion could be presented or was discovered. We believe that a short-lived myth has been born, that will go as it has come, quickly, but with one complication: many people will start to believe things they will see, without asking further questions. The case about 'Rossie' will damage the reputation of ufology for a long time to come. We had neither a methodology to quickly identify the nature of the material, nor its source(s), and the status to prevent a major media-hype of sorts, that may/will damage the trustworthyness of future, serious ufo-research in the eyes of the public. It now depends largerly on the media what the public will believe (not know) for the time to come.
Hans van Kampen
Message received August 21st:
If you want to contact 'De Telegraaf' for further information, call Patrick van Weerenburg, Redaktion Telegraaf Amsterdam, 0031 20 585 2407. He will write the findings in the Saturday issue, July 26th.
I am a 49 years young Dutch psychologist and sciencewriter, studied the Ufo phenomenon in The Benelux from a critical (open-minded skeptical) perspective since 1967, have written 5 books about my findings in Holland, many UK and US books quote me, have made regular radio en TV appearances in Holland on Ufo's and the paranormal, and I am married to a lovely Bavarian woman. I live in Herrsching am Ammersee.
Don Ecker Comments on Santilli Film
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Density 4)
Subject: Ecker on Santilli film
Date: 19 Aug 1995 20:51:50 -0400
(9595) Wed 9 Aug 95 11:59a
By: Don Ecker
Re: Autopsy Research
I first heard about the alleged "Roswell Autopsy" film while speaking at the 1st International UFO conference in Vienna, Austria in November 1993. British UFO researcher Philip Mantle brought it to my attention during a chat there. I gave no credence to it, as there was nothing to support it except the story Mantle relayed to me.
In 1994, a number of newspapers and magazines reported a rather bizarre story claiming that inside information found out that American film maker Steven Speilberg had original footage from Roswell and was going to use it in a UFO movie he was working on. Checking with Speilbergs offices, they totally denied the claims. There it rested until the first of this year, 1995. (I later found out the Speilberg story had been planted by a PR firm hired by Santilli to up the interest factor!)
Around the first of the year, I received a call from Paul Davids, the producer of the "Roswell" movie, and Davids told me that he had just heard that FOX Television had acquired the rights to actual footage from the Roswell crash. Having worked on a number of television programs for the old "Sightings" program, and the more recent "Encounters" I called Bob Kiviat to check if there was any truth to the rumors. Kiviat had heard about the film, but had no information on FOX getting rights to it. He said he would check and call me back.
I spoke with Kiviat later and he told me there was no truth to the rumor, but he was going to follow up on it. For any of you that do not know Kiviat, he is a former producer for "Unsolved Mysteries" and worked with the Geraldo Rivera program "Now It Can Be Told." He came on board with "Encounters" after the program began to run, and I worked with Kiviat on several shows, including the military laser pack, cattle mutilations, and the Mars show. I have found Kiviat to be very journalistic in his approach to the UFO subject.
I informed Kiviat that I was very skeptical about this alleged autopsy film, and it was my thoughts that a tremendous amount of work and research would have to be preformed before anyone could state or determine that it was genuine. Kiviat agreed and said he was going to research to find out if FOX was interested in a special not connected with any other "paranormal" programming, ie not with Sightings or Encounters. Kiviat had expressed displeasure with the direction Encounters had taken prior to its cancellation.
Time progressed and Kiviat informed me that he was going to travel to the United Kingdom for a special screening of this film, which took place in May, 1995. Upon his return he informed me that he was impressed with the film, and FOX was interested in negotiating for the rights to the film. At that point I told Kiviat that if the stories about the alleged cameraman were true, he was in his 80's and in poor health, it was vital that he go on the record, or at least go on the record behind the scenes to validate this from his standpoint. His military service, where he was stationed, his commanding officers, etc. Kiviat agreed, and also told me that Ray Santilli of Merlin Group, the people that had the film were being difficult to deal with. They would not release the name of the cameraman, were not truthful with certain details, and Santilli made promises that he could not or would not keep.
Kiviat then told me that when the deal was set with FOX he wanted me to come on board and research the cameraman. I thought I could find him if he were real and I told Kiviat I needed time to do the background research on him. It then became a series of weeks passing by with promises of "next week" to the tune of about six weeks with no word. A number of telephone calls to Kiviat were not returned.
I spoke to Kevin Randle, author of two Roswell books several weeks later, and Randle told me he was scheduled to travel to Roswell with the FOX production. I began to research the background on the film and people for UFO Magazine. I also spoke to several executives with the Kodak Film company to inquire about the type of film that the alleged cameraman used during the autopsy sequence. According to the people in the UK including Santilli, the autopsy and other sequences were shot with 16MM film. I spoke to the Los Angeles Kodak representative, Lawrence Cate, and he informed me that in the Kodak letter now sent all over the world, he had neglected to state that he also saw on the side of the print, KODAK SAFETY FILM. What caused me to sit up was that he also said that he did not think that this type of film came into use until after 1950 because this type of film was not available in 1947. If this was true, it might mean that the film with the bodies on it could not have been printed in 47. I called the Rochester, NY offices of KODAK and spoke to several people there. We found out that this film was not manufactured until 1951. I called England and asked to speak to Santilli.
My thinking went like this.... if the type of film that the autopsy sequence was on was not made until 1951 (through 1987) and the codes from 1947 were on it (from the negative) then the cameraman either had to have the negative, where tests could be preformed, or Santilli had the negative, or if no one had it, then we have a gap of at least 4 years. Santilli told me he did not have a negative, (later proven to be a lie) and the cameraman did not have one. I then asked him who did? He said "the government I guess." I then told him if this was true, then the film must be a hoax unless the cameraman had an earlier positive print. Santilli denied it. We went back to research, and were put in touch with a KODAK executive that was visiting Los Angeles. We found out that the film they referred to from 1951 however, was m. 16MM was available in safety film in 1947. So it seemed we were back at square one. The KODAK exec, Tony Aimed, however informed us that a Robert Shell, located in Virginia was going to preform a chemical analysis on a piece of negative, by the way for the FOX special. At 11:00 PM that night I received a call from Kiviat.
Early in the game Bob Kiviat had told me that the moment he received the autopsy film here in Los Angeles, he would call me so I could view it and give him my feelings on it. Now I knew from Kevin Randle that FOX had had the film for at least a couple of weeks, and I had had no word. Telling Kiviat I was angry about that, he told me that the next night, Saturday August 5th, he would call me as soon as I completed my weekly radio program UFOs Tonite! and set up a screening Sunday morning. I spoke to him around 11:30 PM on Saturday and made arrangements to meet him at 11:00 AM with my wife.
Sunday....the big day. Arriving at Kiviats offices at 11:00 AM I could hardly wait to see the thing that had made so much havoc in the UFO field. With no further ado, Kiviat popped the video in the VCR and turned it on. Not quite sure what to expect, I remembered all the hoop-la about telephone cords, excessive bleeding and so on. Having 10 years in the law enforcement field, I attended my share of autopsies. The film opens up with views of the body, just like the computer gifs all over the computer world. Then two people enter the field of view, covered from top to bottom with what must be radiation suits, circa 1940's. My wife noticed ( and she was the first ) that one of the two people in the room appeared to have breasts. A nurse? At any rate the autopsy began with cuts around the neck and ears. A bit of seepage of blood? The film is black and white. No gross amount however. When they went into the chest cavity, the closeup shots were out of focus. Kiviat informed me that Dr. Bob Nathan at JPL could perhaps clear some of this up. Peering closely at the fingers and toes did show six digits. I did not see anything that would suggest they were added onto the body.
Later I viewed what might have been an tent with wreckage in it. I beams with odd figures or glpyhs on them, and two "panels" with inset areas for a right and left six digit hand with what looked like studs or something inlet where the finger and palm would rest.
Another sequence included was a tent scene with two or three people in it with yet another body. It was a terrible copy, nothing could be discerned, it was so poor. Kiviat was upset at this because he knew Santilli had a better copy, but did not send it. Yet FOX paid a large sum for the copy. How do I know? Kiviat informed me that now was the time for me to start to work, right then and there. "Just pick out a desk Don. We have two weeks for you to do the background research. However I am sorry to say I can only cover your expenses, no consulting fees, we spent all our budget on the film." And I might add, on there host. You see Bob wanted to get Connie Chung or another well known journalist to host the show, but FOX did not want to appear to endorse the film. So he went to his B list of celebrities, first wanting Captain Picard, Patrick Stewart, but settling on Commander Riker, Jonathan Frakes to host this program. Is this all? Nope, read on.
Santilli has never been shy about stating that he is not in this for the research, UFOs or anything else. He wants to make money. However his greed has screwed him out of who knows how much more.I am aware of another bit of this film that allegedly shows an autopsy in a tent. This has not been available however because depending on when one speaks to Santilli, either a German or a Japanese businessman bought the segment in question. This however is another lie. Santilli had hoped to turn this into a separate video for sell, so in order to make it appear more authentic, he destroyed it by trying to imprint "1947" on it which destroyed it for research or possible historical value.
Having spoken to a number of people who know Santilli, almost to a person they all said that no one could have been a worse choice to receive this film if it is real. If it is real, Ray Santilli doesn't have a clue on what should have been done. If the film is a hoax or disinformation, he still does not have a clue. By taking the mercenary road he has effectively destroyed it in a great many minds by only worrying about the financial aspects. If it is real, and the only way to prove it is by interviewing the cameraman and checking on his story, and by a chemical analysis of the original negative, Ray Santilli has done a disservice to the entire human race. If it is a hoax, then by Santilli's game playing, he may have obstructed the road to find out who perpetrated the hoax. We may never know. And that brings us to FOX.
As in almost all television geared toward UFO stories, the bottom line IS THE BOTTOM LINE. In ratings sweeps, and when a TV network wants to up its ratings, they gravitate to the UFO subject. Much like that long ago October 1988 program, "UFO Coverup Live!" much anticipation waits on FOX's Autopsy Special. I am fearful that many people will be disappointed. Is it real? What did I feel while viewing it? 1st, I don't know, and 2nd, nothing..... The key still lies with the 80 plus year old cameraman, IF HE EXISTS, and with an impartial analysis of the actual negative. And as long as TV just worries about ratings, and people like Santilli worries about profits, we the people end up getting the short, brown and sticky end of the stick.
PS I think the cameraman can still be found and interviewed, time will tell. However like all things a screwy as the above story, we researchers that care about the real truth must remain VERY SKEPTICAL.---
* Origin: Ask UFO Magazine with Don Ecker (1:102/828.0)
(12358) Tue 15 Aug 95 11:30a
By: Don Ecker
Section: UFO Magazine
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 1995 7:08:46 AM
From: Don Ecker/UFO Mag., 73227,2635 #116370
As I have stated to the forum when I uploaded my text file on the Autopsy film controversy, I saw the autopsy film on August 6th. I have now had a bit of time to digest what I observed and thought I would relay the information here.
As I mentioned before, I have attended a number of autopsies while in law enforcement. So I was prepared to look for "normal" procedures. While observing the goings on, I noticed that above the table a microphone hung down, so we must assume that there are audio recordings "somewhere". It appeared that the doctor or whoever was doing the procedure was making comments during the event.
One big question that most everyone seems to be asking is "Where are the nipples or belly button?" If you have viewed the computer gifs, there does not appear to be any. Well, I did observe what appeared to be nipples, but they were very faint. This was during the film sequence. I had the chance to stop the tape and rerun it several times. My wife and Bob Kiviat both concurred. However no belly button.
There has also been much debate over items viewed in the room. Television producer Russ Estes has pointed out that there appears to be a lit bunson burner in the frame. If so, this would appear to be very dangerous as there could be explosive gases present if this is an operating room. Of course no one yet seems to know if this were a morgue or operating room. Also in the tray of instruments, there is a reflex hammer, the type that we are all familar with. The one that your doctor uses to tap you on your knee's with. What would that be doing in an autopsy room? Estes feels that if this were a "movie set" however someone might place such an item there to give it a more medical feel. However what I noticed was missing was most telling to me. Where was the scale?
During the entire film sequence with the autopsy, there was no scale visable. This is the item that hangs above the autopsy table to weigh the organs. It is present in every autopsy. It is used to measure organs against what is normal. If this were such an extraordinary event, and we (US Military) captured a flying saucer and occupants, it would only make the utmost sense to capture each and every detail. This of course would mean each iota of data on this "alien". However no scale was present. This made no sense to me. I suppose the argument about no normal being known for an alien -- could be used. However, we would have to invent a normal in such a case.
At anyrate these are a series of observations for your information. In another week or so the special will air and you can make your own conclusions.
* Origin: ParaNet BETA(sm) Home to UFO Magazine & UFOs Tonite!
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422