Roswell Film Page#7

August, 1995 - BUFORA Conference

Apparently at the BUFORA Conference held in England, more of the film is shown. Heated discussions have begun about the film, is it real or is it a hoax. If it is real, it doesn't seem to depict Roswell as we know it yet, maybe it is something else, maybe another crash. The new evidence presented at the conference and new parts of the film shown, will make you re-think your ideas again. Also please find some new pages with images that we have added to the site to prepare for the public viewing on August 28th. Again, our site is being hit by many people (last count 42 countries have touched us and over 1,000 people a week are are looking at the images).

This should be our last news before the August 28th viewing and we hope to start a new page after people view the real film. The video of the film should be available soon and we would like to hear from people who are able to view this. Please send private emails either to myself if you feel so inspired. So dear reader continue on into this most perplexing case ...........

Please Note: -- Generally we try to place things in chronological order however, most people want to know what happened at the conference and some details about the new film, especially the wreckage film that was shown, so hopefully you don't get too confused. Just look at the dates when this material was posted. Thank you ... time to move on .......


Roswell Film Page 7 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 |

Designed for the exclusive use of VJ Enterprises © 1997

BUFORA Conference

Mick Sparham First Hand Report

BUFORA Conference, England, August 19 & 20

From: John W. Ratcliff <70253.3237@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: BUFORA Report
Date: 20 Aug 1995 16:03:05 GMT
Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736)

Message: #119617, S/15 Mutual UFO Network
Date: Sun, Aug 20, 1995 10:31:04 AM
Subject: BUFORA Conference
From: mick sparham 100545,3262
To: All

Saturday 19th August. BUFORA Conference held at the Pennine Theatre, Hallam University, Sheffield.


I can see the severed hand, the wound in the armpit, unable to see it any clearer than the GIF's, ther was no movement of the limbs that would help to identify it as a real body and not a latex dummy, the right leg looks like it is slightly twisted, perhaps broken below the knee, giving it a twisted look.

The only close-up of the hands is of the palms.

The surgeon is moving the head slowly from side to side, he then manipulated the right leg, bending it very slightly at the knee, but not enough to tell if it moves like a real knee.

He made signs as if saying where he was going to make incisions down the body, his fingers pressing slighly into the skin, it seems to give just like real flesh.

He made some cuts with a scalpel from behind the ear down to the neck/shoulder area, some dark fluid seeps from the incision.

A cut is made all the way down the centre of the body, the flesh reacts just like human flesh would. He peeled the skin back from the chest, and I get the impression that there may be ribs, although I'm still not sure, there seemed to be large organs, difficult with the lack of focus, it was difficult to tell if it was a ribcage or lung(?) tissue. It then jumps to another reel, and it looks like they have already removed the ribcage and sternum, it looks like a large cavity now.

They are now cutting into the various organs of the internal body.

A crystal-like structure was cut out and removed from the area of what would be the heart (in a human body).

The note book was visible briefly, unable to discern the writing, (Ray said afterwards that NASA now have a copy of this section of the film, and they say that using their own enhancement techniques they may be able to work out what is written on the notepad).

A person on the other side of the window is visible, wearing a surgeons cap and mask, not a full headgear like the surgeons. When the knife is applied to the flesh it seems to react just like real skin/flesh would, the head is cut open the flesh peeled back to expose the scalp, the sawing of the skull, removal of some brain tissue.

Total time for this section of autopsy: 17 minutes.



Please see Roswell Home Page for links to all image pages included Image Page 6 for still images of the Wreckage that was shown at this conference. These images were posted on in the Encounters Forum, Mufon session on Compuserve --- ILLINOIS

Next shows a film showing a scene of the two plates with the hand "impressions" on them. I-beams with the symbols on them. a better description would be H-beams, with the glyphs embossed on the inside, the glyphs are very clear and precise, lots of wreckage displayed on a table, both "hand" plates, a third one seems to have been broken in half.

The I beams are broken at exactly the same point as shown in the GIF's, the material looks like polished alloy, (imagine the smooth surface of a large blob of solder splashed onto a smooth surface), the broken end is shown and looks like a brittle broken surface, not a clean cut but a fractured surface but not stretched, the I beam is about 3-4 inches across the top/bottom section, 3-4 inches high, with the middle section about half inch thick. A tag tied on with a bit of string was momentarily visible, I caught the figures "W12-----", not shown long enough to see anymore. The focus on this section of film was very good, even when filmed close up, it clearly showed the fractured end of the I-beam.

Total time of this wreckage footage: 3 minutes.


During the Q&A session afterwards, a question was asked about Truman.

Ray Santilli: "When we found the cannisters of film, we had Truman listed on one of the cannisters, unfortunately we were unable to retrieve an image from that cannister"

Another question was asked about the notepad visible in the film.

Ray Santilli: "NASA are analysing the film and they are refocusing the out of focus shotsof all the reflective surfaces (difficult to make out exactly what he says here as my mike cannot pick him up clearly at this distance) they will probably be able to enhance it to such a degree that they will get the information from that document (the notepad in the film)"

Q. "Why was it that if this guy was such a bad cameraman that the actual pictures of the wreckage tended to be in focus, yet the pictures of the autopsy rarely were?"

Ray Santilli: "It's a technical question and I can't really answer that apart from to say that the camera was fixed focus and I suppose after you move in a certain distance then the camera can't handle that, but then that's why NASA had the film, thats why when they said they are able to refocus the out of focus shots we will be able to analyse (interuption here from someone in the audience)----I don't know why, I'm not able to judge the distance, I don't know, your opinion is probably more valid than mine"

Philip Mantle: "I can partially answer the question, when I spoke to John Purdie, who is making the Channel 4 documentary on Roswell, he's been involved with cameras all his life, he says compared to some of the camera crews he's worked with back in his early days, that wasn't bad."

Ray Santilli: "The cameraman has no interest in the subject of UFO's, he's just a bog-standard middle-American guy and what happened was that he seperated 22 problem reels, reels that had exposure problems or there were technical problems with the film (unclear here), he sent the first batch back to Washington, and he worked on the remainder of the 22 and when they were ready to return he called Washington numerous times to pick them up but they didn't, at that same timethe Army and the Air-Force were splitting, and there was confusion as to who was reporting to who, and it was just red-tape, he tried to get the film to go back and Washington didn't pick it up, and he just kept it for his own archives."

According to Ray, the pathologists who have seen the same footage believe the body was living about 2 hours before the autopsy. After the Q&A session I spoke to Ray and asked him about the section that has been sold to raise funds. Ray confirmed that part of the footage has been sold to another collector, he didn't say who, when I asked him if he was putting that section onto the video that is for sale his answer was "We are still negotiating this now."

Today (Sunday) I have looked through many UK papers to find anything on this showing, the only paper to have anything was "The News of the World" Sunday magazine section ( this is not one of the better papers), it contained pictures of some of the wreckage. I will scan these pictures and upload them in the MUFON section.

Mick Sparham, Notts. 20/08/95..


From: (kevb)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: BUFORA Report
Date: 20 Aug 1995 18:41:08 GMT

John W. Ratcliff <70253.3237@COMPUSERVE.COM> says:

>Message: #119617, S/15  Mutual UFO Network
>Date:    Sun, Aug 20, 1995 10:31:04 AM
>Subject: BUFORA Conference
>From:    mick sparham 100545,3262
>To:      All
>Today (Sunday) I have looked through many UK papers to find anything on
>this showing, the only paper to have anything was "The News of the
>World" Sunday magazine section ( this is not one of the better papers),
Another article appeared in The People..Philip Mantle was quoted as saying "New Data suggets the bodies in that film were definitely human. the channel 4 documentary will reveal some very strange experiments being conducted on behalf of the US military. I understand these were connected with germ warfare and that the bodies were humans who died following experiments."

Page Index

Another Report of the BUFORA Conference

By Neil Morris

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 95 12:36:16
From: Neil Morris
Reply to:
To: FocusUFO-L recipients
Subject: Santilli film showing at BUFORA 95 Sheffield UK

This is a quick write up of the viewing of the Santilli/Roswell film at the 8th BUFORA International Congress held at Hallam University of Sheffield Sheffield UK 19/20th Aug 1995.

Sorry for any spellinck mestiks and grammermetical errors blame me not the speakers..


Hallam University, Sheffield. The university's city centre location seemed to make this an ideal location for the Congress, the university buildings used were very new and provided with the latest audio/visual aids, this was a bit of luck as the late conference interest provided by the Santilli film presented BUFORA with the problem of having to open a second lecture theatre and providing a live video link.

(The Uni Refectory also did a nice line in Place and Chips)

Sat 19th.

The day started with the usual addresses of welcome by the organisers and a opening speech by Walt Andrus of MUFON, guest of honour. So on things progressed, Ray's film was not listed to be shown until late in the afternoon so the mornings proceedings were quite sedate and "normal".

Over lunch the TV and Press were becoming quite evident, I even got grabbed for a VOX-POP, god I hope it's ends up on the cutting room floor, it was awfull!.

The afternoon "tea" break came and went, Dr Leo Sprinkle gave a excellent presentation that earned him a standing ovation from some of the audience then the Security Guards arrived!.

We had been warned earlier that cameras, bags etc would not be allowed in the theatre while the film was being shown but the guards still came as a bit of a suprise.

The lecture theatres were emptied while a search of the auditorium was carried out and cameras/bags etc were left at a check point outside. I must say this was all carried out resonably efficiently and with good humour on both sides. (4 cameras were found being smuggled in)

We all trooped back in and took our seats, the place was packed, some people were sitting in the isles. Enter Philip Mantle, who promptly introduced Ray Santilli who in turn quickly ran over the history of the film as it's known out on the net. A quick nod and the lights dimmed, the video rolled, you could hear a pin drop in the theatre. What we saw first was the now well described second autopsy, I will not go into any detail of this other than to confirm all the points descibed in earlier reviews and to add that firstly the stills do not give a correct impression of the size of the body, once you see the doctors moving round the body and handling it you do see it's a LOT smaller than expected, my other observation is the out of focus shots are not as bad as I expected you can get some detail, in particular the shot showing the extraction of the "something" from the chest of the body you can see some detail, but what IT is? I don't know. The brain extracted, again is fuzzy but it's not human by any stretch of the imagination.

I must add that throughout the showing two fixed sets of titles were on the screen the top one "BUFORA VIEWING" and one accross the bottom of the screen, "Roswell Footage Ltd 1995", they did detract a little from the film but not enough that anyone cared to complain!.

After the screen finally went blank after the last autopsy reel we at first thought that might be it but no. To an audible gasp from the audiance up came the Debris Footage!, Ok we didn't get Truman but there laid out on rough wooden tables were pieces of the wreckage, the "I" beams WITH SYMBOLS and most facinating of all the boxs/control panels with hand prints, totally facinating, I have to admit I found the autopsy's interesting but this footage really had me hooked. The footage was quite short but detailed and for the most part quite sharp you could even see breifly the serial numbers written on some of the lables attached to the larger pieces.

Should this footage pop up on the media, check out how the figure displaying the pieces for the cameraman handles the larger pieces, do you get the impression that they are VERY LIGHT in weight, I did. (Some stills from this footage appeared in the UK Sunday paper The News of the World, the debris stills are VERY clear. 20-08-95 edition) Up came the lights, that was it. The audiance was totally quiet, I think stunned would be a better word.

Ray Santilli then took a number of quesions from the audience, the only new piece of info to come from this was the fact that he said NASA have agreed to process the out of focus shots, that should throw some light on the form of many of the organs removed from the body and the "something" removed from the chest, I guess we will have to wait and see.

The presentation ended to Ray getting a vote of thanks shouted from the back of the auditorium and LOTS of applause all round, you could say it was a bit of a "tour de force".

We all left still stunned with the film, hell I wanted a better look at that debris footage!.

Sunday 20th.

I was expecting a "quiet" day and looking forward to the presentation of the Bentwaters Incident by Peter Robbins, I could go on all day about that one, it too was a stunner, it seems Bentwaters might run Roswell a close second in the coverup stakes.

A late addition to the running order for Sunday was Michael Hesemann he had been given a 45 min slot late in the afternoon, I think he eventually spoke for well over 1'15".(there would have been a riot if he had been stopped!) I knew he had recently returned from a trip to New Mexico so I thought Hmm should be interesting. Interesting was a major understatement, his presentation was mindblowing!.

He opened with a scathing attack of many of the critics of the Santilli/Roswell film and succesfully countered each one in turn, he then said he wanted to present a piece of video which had just been driven up from London by the Merlin Group, the video was several minutes of unedited footage taken at the alledged crash site!, Hesemann, using Santilli as the go between had received "detailed" instructions and descriptions of landmarks from the cameraman on how to find the site (the dry lake bed), the video footage we were watching was at that moment in transit to the cameraman for verification!.

It should be noted that the dry lakebed does not appear on current maps. Hesemann had to turn to old Geo survey maps to identify it. As the footage ran Hesemann related the cameramans story in far more detail than has been related before, some of it is VERY dambing for the US military.

The cameraman as he has said all along was told to prepare for a top secret mission early in June 47, he had a very high security clearance and had filmed such things as the experiments leading up to the production of the A bomb. Note, even his commanding officers didn't know his destination or what he was to film.

He flew, along with other specialist to Fort Worth and then on to Roswell, note this is the only connection this film has with Roswell, from roswell he set off by car on a long haul passing an Indian reservation and the White Sands Range, the ultimate destination turns out to be just SE of Magdalena and SW of Socorro, we should really start calling it the Magdalen incident. At the time he (the cameraman arrived) the some of the 4 occupants of the craft were ALIVE ( he calls them the freaks ) and screaming, whether in fright or in pain we do not know, the military had been unable or unwilling to approach the craft because of the extream heat it was radiating, but finally medical teams went in at which point "the freaks screamed all the louder and clutched onto their 'boxes' even harder", the cameramans words as best I remember them. The crafts crew were each holding a box like structure, it transpires these are the "control panels" seen in the debris footage. The crew seemed terrified at giving these up and as the cameraman relates "one was finally persuaded to part with it with the help of A RIFLE BUTT TO THE HEAD" that crewman died...

He set up his tent and equipement while trucks filled with dry ice arrived to remove the dead, what became of the living he does not know other than the stunning fact that he was called back in 1949 to film the final autopsy!. Did the US have a LIVE ET for 2 years!. As the cleanup proceeded he filmed the removal of the large portions by flat bed transport and the itemising of the smaller debris. He states the tent footage shows the removal of some of the crewmans suits which were close fitting and of extreamly tough material.

He followed the bodies back to Dallas where he shot the autopsies. In all by the time he returned to his base in Washington he had 120-130 reels of film, about 100 or so he processed without problem but 20-30 reels he knew had problems of one sort or another these he held back to work on. He informed the military of this fact and that 100 of the reels were ready and these were duly collected. After working on the remainder problem batch he again relayed the fact that they were ready, but nobody ever came to collect them. When asked why they were never collected he puts it down in retrospect to the fact that at that time the Army and Airforce were in the process of splitting into seperate organisations and to the ensueing confusion this must have caused. So he sat on the films and continued to do so even after his discharge from the military in 52.

What a story!

And he had not finished!, I had noticed when he started his talk Hesemann took a small box out of his pocket and placed it on the edge of the podium, didn't think too much of this many of the speakers had placed watches and small clocks down to time their talks.

But he now picked up the little box, and spoke to the effect that the box had contained a roll of 16mm military film shot by a Roswell base member independantly of Santilli's cameraman and had passed the canister on to his wife just before his death, he had wanted proof that the events he witnessed were real..

The flaw in all this was that the film was never processed and had remained so for the last 40 yrs, Hesesmann has been informed by professional photo labs that there is little chance of getting usable images from the film due to fogging ( see Bob Shells posts on USENET) but he is trying and Bob Shell has said he will try to recover "something" from the film, we shall see..

Whether this will appear in the press I don't know, most of the press left after the Saturday viewing, but I guess the Channel 4 documentary will carry it. I wouldn't like to be in the Pentagon when the US public get wind of it, not by the reaction of many of the audiance in Sheffield. Gen. McMullen would not win their favorite person of the year award!.

Best Regards



Hesemann has done some interesting digging re the symbols, he has a letter dated April 95 from one of the original witnesses to the 47 symbols. The witness (who's name I've forgotten,sorry) wrote out the symbols they could remember on the base of the letter, there were 4 or 5 matches to the symbols seen on the debris footage. I leave the conclusions to you, but the letter was recieved before the the Debris symbols were know.

-> Send "subscribe FocusUFO-L" to
   FAQ for FocusUFO-L is available at:

Page Index

Another First Hand Report of the Conference

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 13:33:27 GMT
From: Jane
Subject: Re: BUFORA Conference, August 19th, Yes!!!

(In reply to your message dated Thursday 17, August 1995)

Firstly, Joshua thank you for your reply .Now I know that even if the truth isn't out there, at least Joshua is.

I also have some advice. I had deliberatley not read any comments from those that had seen the film prior to viewing it myself as I wanted to see it with a clear mind and I urge anybody else to do the same and read the rest of this after you've seen it. Also may I suggest that for the first time you watch the procedure (It's my belief that some of you will have recorded it) try it with the sound and colour turned way down. I say this because the TV programme makers will probably have a running comentary and I have heard that some have made colour enhanced versions. This will take the footage further and further away from the original and comentary might be biased one way or t'other.

As far as your monochrome stills are concerned, don't worry you haven't lost any of the original image quality that's because there is no image quality with the original.

My account of the conference is as follows:-

While outside skulking, smoking and dodging TV crews at about 15:20, I saw Mr Santilli arrive in nice BMW with smooth looking PR(I think) bloke. At 16:30ish, Mr Philip Mantle (MR BUFORA) announced that. "The auditorium has to be emptied and searched for security reasons, in addition to this, no hand baggage will be allowed back in and if you leave the room while the film is being shown you won't be able to get back in". This was followed by hoots of derision and cries of "Outragous" and "Ridiculus". Apparently neither BUFORA nor Mr Santilli were responsible for the firm that turned up to secure the place, so it was probably one of the TV companies.

Anyway, after all this arsing about Mr Santilli took the stage and gave a short, rehearsed speach about nothing much and rolled VT. The lights went down and all was silent. The title read BUFORA SCREENING - ROSWELL FOOTAGE LTD. The cadaver was as it appears on your site with right leg smashed up, eyes and mouth open. 2 persons in the room with what look like white ABC suits on. Observation room at the head of cadaver with 1 and sometimes (i think) 2 people milling around, they start the procedure and appear (judging by their gesticulation) to be discussing how they will go about fetching it apart. Incision from throat to lower abdomen followed by lots of "up to yer elbows" stuff, and removal of what looks like liver and heart type organs ( I don't recall any ribs or sternum being cut through). One of the people performing the autopsy inspects the hands and feet and because it looks so natural it takes you a while to figure that there are 6 digits on each. Next, the eyeball covers and scalp are removed, the eyeball covers are lifted out with tweezers and you get the impression that it's been done before. The "brain" is then extracted and placed in dish.

Through out the film you get the impression that the cameraman has either been at the fire water or has had his pelvis removed, whichever it is, he definately worked on NYPD Blue.

After the showing, Mr Santilli was asked "How come this old bloke was in possesion of such film". His answer was that at the time of the crash the US Military was in turmoil over the splitting up of different departments, red tape, chains of command, birth of the CIA, whom was in charge of what etc., and when "old bloke" phoned Washington and asked them to collect some faulty/damaged cans of film no one turned up for them.

When I put this to an American ex-serviceman who was present at the Rendlesham Wood (UK) incident in 1980 his comment was simply "My Government would NEVER forget about a film like that, it's a fake".

So there you have it, oh and my opinion? I don't have one I'm a Fortean. Of course I'll stay in touch


Page Index

Interview with Ray Santilli

After the BUFORA Conference, August 21st

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 16:01:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: The Gate
Reply to:
Subject: New Santilli interview (fwd)

                 R. Leland Lehrman@The Gate, New Haven, CT.                 
          God, Art, Technology and Ecology Research and Development
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Do you love the Mother?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 95 04:13:13
To: FocusUFO-L recipients
Subject: New Santilli interview

This is a transcript of an interview between Scott Chisholm (host) and Ray Santilli (owner of alleged Roswell footage) on Talk Radio UK yesterday (Monday August 21st). Also present in the studio were Philip Walton (director of BUFORA) and Jeremy Barretts.

The most important piece of information given is that the film has now (allegedly) been verified as 1947 and the images on it as early 1950's at the latest.

S.C. - Scott Chisholm (Host)
R.S. - Ray Santilli
P.W. - Philip Walton (Director of BUFORA)
J.B. - Jeremy Barretts ("The lie detector expert")

S.C.: Ray owns the rights to that film, so lets talk to Ray.
      Ray, can you just tell us briefly how you managed to
      get your hands on the film?

R.S.: Yes, Hi firstly.  I was working in America about 3 years
      ago on a music documentary and, um, I came across a
      cameraman that in the mid-fifties was working  for
      Universal News as a freelance.  And, uh, we bought some
      footage from him for the music documentary, and, er, he
      was just a, he seemed like a regular guy, and he was, er,
      we built up a good relationship and towards the end of
      that he said, "Oh by the way, would you be interested..."
      and started talking about, y'know prior to '52 when he
      was working for the army air force.  And he explained
      that he was a camerman and that, er, in '47 he was sent
      down to what was an aviation crash site.

S.C.: Now I've seen some shocking things written about you,

R.S.: Yeah, yeah I've seen them as well.

S.C.: Ranging from all sorts of things from a spiv to a
      con-man and all the rest.  You don't sound that way to
      me, I have to say.

R.S.: Well, thankyou very much, but, um, you see the problem
      is that, er, it's very very hard to knock the footage
      because the footage is what it is, er, and y'know as
      we talk here today there isn't a shread of evidence to
      say that the film is a hoax, in fact quite the opposite,
      the evidence is building to say the film is real.
      So if you want to knock the footage, the only way you
      can knock the footage is really looking at maybe myself
      and my company.

S.C.: Right.

R.S.: And I, y'know I except that people have to do that.

S.C.: Now what about Ray, what about, I also read that, at one
      stage there was, there were figures burned into the film
      and another version the figures were...

R.S.: No, that's all nonsense.  You're talking about the
      Sunday Times article?

S.C.: Yes.

R.S.: What happened was, before the broadcasters were involved
      in the film, we were at the time going to produce our
      own documentary on the subject and we had logged each of
      the reels ourselves, um, in much the same way as you
      would, um, a time code.  Because what we'd done was,
      there's information on the cannisters which we felt
      maybe was relevant, and, er, we had superimposed that
      over certain sections of the film, but...

S.C.: Right.

R.S.: ...all it is is logging information.

S.C.: And lets just remind...the film shows...what?

R.S.: It's the, the viewable footage is full autopsy and there's
      debris footage as well.  And from there on the quality

 [Break for a phone call to the show (from an astro-physicist)]

S.C.: Back to you Ray.

R.S.: Hi.

S.C.: [our last caller] seems to think that your film might
      indeed be genuine.  There is, I mean here we have an
      astro-physicist who hasn't written it off.

R.S.: Mmmm.  Well, firstly it is a difficult subject, and, er,
      we're waiting until the 28th of this month before we
      know the, er, the determination by the various
      broadcasters but as far as the camerman is concerned he
      can't tell you where the creatures came from, he can't
      tell you where the vehicle came from.  When he was sent
      down there he was told that it was a Russian spy plane
      that had crashed.  Um, when they all got there they
      obviously knew that it wasn't, but er, y'know, what the
      creature is is a mystery to everyone at the moment.

P.W.: Ray, it's Phil here.  I've seen the film when you showed
      it to the directors of BUFORA  and also at the conference.
      I just wanted to say first, in the actual UFO groups
      I don't think anyone's having a go at you at all, you
      come over as a really nice guy, um, the main argument is
      some people believe the Roswell incident, some people
      don't, and it's trying to put the film into context
      with that, that's the main argument.  Um, I must admit
      I'm skeptical on the whole issue of the film being
      genuine because of the inconsistencies with reports
      in the past and I think the first criteria's got to
      be testing the film, obviously, to try and ascertain
      tha age...

R.S.: Yes...

P.W.: Is the test gonna be done definately for the 28th?

R.S.: The tests have already been done, we had a fax this
      weekend actually from the States to say that they've
      given us a 95 percent probability now that the film is
      1947.  They've actually determined that the film stock
      is something called CINE KODAK SUPER X X which was
      discontinued in 1956, and they can determine from the
      attributes of the film itself that, um, that it was
      shot within 2 years of manufacture, and it's, y'know,
      it's obviously a very important piece of news for us,
      and, er, y'know that's unfortunately too late for the
      Channel 4 program, but that's what we got in this

P.W.: Because there were offers from KODAK...

R.S.: Yeah, we did KODAK at the very beginning just in terms
      of the codes, but, um, this new report is from a more
      detailed examination.  We've also given the film to NASA
      who have been re-focussing images, looking at, er,
      reflective surfaces to see what's been going on behind
      the camera, and, um, from everything that I hear the
      footage and the film that goes out in America on the 28th
      is a very very positive look at the event and our footage.

J.B.: Ray, physically how much film is there?  I mean is it
      a huge great cannister of film?

R.S.: Well, we took 22 reels of film, er, from the cameraman,
      but we only had...

J.B.: What was he doing with the film?

R.S.: Well, each reel of film is about 3 minutes in duration,
      and during the event itself he shot hundreds of cannisters
      of film,  what he did was he separated problem cannisters,
      either exposure problems or where the film had jammed,
      or focus problems or whatever.  He sent the first batch
      back to Washington and retained the second batch just to
      work on in development, and, um, it was a coincidence
      really, because at that time, or just after that time,
      the army and the air force split into 2 different
      divisions, the army went one way and the air force
      went in a different direction, and, um, he just simply
      called Washington on a continual basis to say "come
      and pick up this second batch of film, it's part of
      the first job", and he was being passed around from
      pillar to post and in the end he just gave up, he gave
      up hounding them on a weekly basis to pick up the film,
      and he just stuck it in his archive.  That's how he
      kept it.

P.W.: How much of the rest of the say we've got
      so many minutes that we've managed to see at the
      conference and that, the rest of the film isn't of
      good quality.  Is there, some of the rest of the film
      of the autopsies and the materials, quality enough to
      actually see something...

R.S.: The problem that we have is that we get jumped on from
      a very high height if somebody comes to us and says
      we're using film that's not authenticated or is a
      different film stock or whatever, so in order to play
      safe the initial screenings here on the 28th, um,
      we've used only what we know to be, um, completely
      verified and also, um, y'know, good viewable quality,
      um, after that the greyer areas of the film materials
      that we have can then be analysed.

P.W.: Right, so we should be able to see more footage that's
      of the poorer quality later...

R.S.: Yeah, and, er, y'know technology changes on an almost
      weekly basis and there could be the technology that,
      er, available where we can retrieve the image from the
      negative stock and so forth.

S.C.: Ray, you're sitting on probably the most sensational
      images ever taken.

R.S.: Mmmm, I think so.

S.C.: Where's the original Pal?

R.S.: The original?  Well, we have the...

S.C.: I hope it's in a big vault somewhere.

R.S.: Yeah, yeah I was gonna say, um, Switzerland in a
      safe, and that's about it really.  Some went back
      to the cameraman and some's still with us.

S.C.: Listen I believe you Ray.  There's no chance of
      getting a piece of the action is there?

R.S.: [laughter] There isn't any action.
S.C.: We can handle publicity for you Ray, I mean...

 [general laughter and muttering]

S.C.: Ray, it's been a pleasure talking to you...

R.S.: Thanks.

S.C.: Like to talk to you again soon...

-> Send "subscribe FocusUFO-L" to
   FAQ for FocusUFO-L is available at:

Page Index

About the Cameraman - George Wingfield

The following is a bulletin I recieved from George Wingfield. I talked with him at the BUFORA conference in Sheffield, 19/08/95, and he gave me permission to post this in CIS.

Mick Sparham, Notts. 20/08/95

The Santilli Film Footage:
GW Bulletin #8 (14 Aug 1995)

Three months after the May 5th screening the British press has at last begun to notice Ray Santilli's "Roswell" film footage and the fact that this will be shown nationwide in a Channel 4 TV special in just two weeks time. Despite fairly even handed articles in The Guardian and The Times, other newspapers have approached the story in heavy debunk mode starting from the position that, since we know there are no such things as extraterrestrials, the film must obviously be a hoax.

The three principles of debunking, as enunciated by Stanton Friedman, have been put to full use as never before :-

(1) What the public doesn't know, I'm not going to tell them.

(2) Don't bother me with the facts, my mind's made up !

(3) If you can't attack the data, attack the people.

Not only have some newspapers adopted these tactics, but also one UFO group, which has unleashed a series of broadsides against Santilli including the charge that his company was in receivership and that his close colleague, Chris Carey, was director of a company that made plastic dummies for theatrical and movie purposes. Both these things turned out to be untrue but never mind that! The latest charge, which comes from Graham Birdsall, is that Santilli is now being investigated by Britain's Serious Fraud Squad. So, Scotland Yard has been called in !! Santilli tells me this is utter nonsense. We shall just have to wait to see whether this allegation has any more substance than the previous ones.

Having said that, one cannot deny that there is still a high probability that the film footage is not what it purports to be. Even so, a study of the known facts is more to the point than the character assassination and blind prejudice which is coming from so many directions. One recent development is the release of the cameraman's own story which, I myself, find frankly unbelievable. I hope to copy the story verbatim (approx. 600 words) in my next bulletin.

To summarize, the cameraman ("Jack Barnett") is dispatched from Washington DC, on the orders of General McMullen, on a special assignment. He flies out of Andrews Field with 16 other officers and medical personnel to Wright Field (which he calls Wright-Patterson, although this name came later). They collect more men and equipment and then fly on to Roswell in a C54. From Roswell they drive to the cordoned off crash site, which is now specified as being just south-west of Socorro, N.M.

[ The site, which I was previously told was just outside an Apache Indian reservation, is now said to be quite near the "Apache Creek" National Wildlife Refuge. This presumably refers to the Bosque del Apache NWR which is 20 miles south of Socorro and straddles the Rio Grande. There is a world of difference between an Indian reservation and a National Wildlife Refuge, but let that be ... there's worse to come! Nevertheless, the Socorro location is more in keeping with the "Barney" Barnett crashed disk and alien bodies story.]

There, JB and the others see a "large disc 'flying saucer' on its back with heat still radiating from the ground around it". Those there already had done nothing and were awaiting orders.

They wait until the heat has subsided before moving in. "This was made all the worse by the screams of the Freak creatures that were lying by the vehicle. What in God's name they were no one could tell, but one thing's for sure, they were Circus Freaks. Each had hold of a box which they kept hold of in both arms close to their chests. They just lay there crying, holding those boxes."

[If this account is true, the wretched "freaks" must have been lying there bawling at least 24 hours, probably much longer, considering the time it would take to be summoned, briefed, gather the men and equipment, fly from D.C., via Wright Field, to Roswell and then drive for hours across the desert. If the aliens were badly injured, one would hardly expect them to have survived or to still be hollering and howling after all that time ... but there's worse to come!]

"At around 6 am it was deemed safe to move in; again the freaks were still crying and when approached screamed even louder. They were protective of their boxes but we managed to get one loose with a firm strike at the head with the butt of a rifle. The 3 freaks were dragged away and secured by rope and tape; the other one was already dead."

[Was such brutality the norm, even in 1947 ? One supposes this poor intelligent female creature had travelled halfway across the galaxy only to crash on barbaric planet Earth. There, lying injured, she is whacked on the head with a rifle butt, tied up and dragged away. Doesn't that make one proud to be American? Well, I suppose no one had seen the movie ET then, but perhaps this story is only fiction too ....]

The account concludes with the removal of the debris on a flat-top (flat-bed?) truck to Wright-Patterson. There is no mention of how, and when, and where, the three surviving "freaks" died. Maybe they were actually killed by their captors? A month later two of them were autopsied in a military hospital in Fort Worth (or Dallas). The cameraman filmed the autopsies wearing a thick protective anti-contamination suit like the surgeons.

Because of this it was difficult to handle the camera properly or to load and focus it. This, at least, does seem a plausible reason why the close-up shots were never in focus. In May 1949 he was asked to film the third autopsy; the implication is that one of the aliens lived for nearly two years after the June 1947 crash.

There seems no doubt that the cameraman, "JB", does indeed exist. Channel 4 producer John Purdie and his team insisted on making contact with him and recently travelled to the U.S. specially to see him. A meeting is said to have been arranged at which he did not show. A further attempt to persuade him to appear in front of the Channel 4 cameras was equally unsuccessful. He became angry and said that he would only speak on camera if they produced a note from the President granting him exemption from any government sanction.

Naturally enough this was not something to be had. Rumour has it that Steven Greer offered to secure such exemption through CSETI's "high-level contacts with the White House", but so far there is no note signed by Bill.

Meanwhile all sorts of theories are being promoted about the provenance of the "alien" bodies seen in the autopsy sequence. One is that these are humans with a genetic defect known as "Turner's syndrome". Proponents of this theory should produce photographs of similarly afflicted people. The "Brazilian sci-fi movie" (made about 5 years ago) claim is still doing the rounds. Surely someone can come up with a copy of such a movie if it were to exist? A more recent claim is that the "alien" bodies are those of nuclear testing victims or even young Hiroshima/Nagasaki survivors. The idea that nuclear victims can grow extra digits or that their ears shrink and change position is absurd. The next generation may show mutations but these are hardly the sort of changes which happen in the short term to the survivors of atomic bombs or those subjected to massive radiation exposure.

When the Channel 4 documentary is screened on August 28th we shall no doubt see what they have to say about their meeting with cameraman "JB". In the meantime Santilli will present his case, together with "all" of the film footage, at BUFORA's UFO conference in Sheffield, England, on August 19-20th. We will keep you posted.

George Wingfield

Page Index

BUFORA ON CNN, August 18th

From: (Kevin O'Crean)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: BUFORA ON CNN TODAY (Exclusive!)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 18:52:42 GMT
Organization: HASSOP COTTAGE

By Kevin O'Crean
Friday 18th August 1900 hours BST


At 18:40 hours today British Summer Time, Philip Walton, the Director of BUFORA appeared on CNN World News, being interviewed in London and being asked about the Roswell Incident.

This amazing appearance by Walton where he states categorically that he dos NOT believe the Roswell Alien is real and further more does NOT believe any Aliens have landed OR crashed gives fuel to the speculation that BUFORA may now publically withdraw its alleged affinity with Santilli and the belief that the Roswell footage is genuine in an attempt to regain its credibility.

Asked if he believed the Roswell Alien was real, Walton replied "e-e-r NO!" and later when asked if he believed if Aliens had landed or crashed on Earth he replied "E-r-r NO!" Although he did believe that there was possibly life elsewhere. He was asked about abductions where he said "There was no tangible evidence" and when asked about Crop Circles, he smiled and implied they were hoaxes. REMEMBER THIS IS THE DIRECTOR OF BUFORA!

Walton's remarks appear just 18 hours before the first public release of the Footage. This writer predicted 3 months ago, that when 'expert' opinion would begin to refute the film, or the evidence to support it did not appear that the so-calleds upporters and fence sitters would slide off the fence on the winning side, just in time.

BUFORA has at last come off the fence and stated categorically on World TV that they consider it a hoax. This statement must be a big disappointment to Philip Mantle the Pro santilli member of BUFORA.

BUFORA have heard the call and have taken to the lifeboats!

Kevin O'Crean

Page Index

Kevin O'Crean Remarks from BUFORA Conf.

From: (Kevin O'Crean)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ! Part2
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 19:01:09 GMT
Organization: HASSOP COTTAGE

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have just returned from the BUFORA conference having interviewed Santilli personally with the rest of the world press and viewed the film. He *may* or may not have known it was me, but his press officer Chris Clarey was certainly twitched up.

Our overweight German UFO expert and Santilli worshipper Michael Hesseman was also in attendance. I will be reporting in full measure once I have had my tea and stopped laughing!

Why was there so much security? Why were there bouncers and uniformed guards everywhere in the cinema? Why did Phil Mantel warn that if ONE camera as much as popped the film would cease. We couldn't undrestand why, but then after the film started, we was so clear!


Today, we have seen a sample of film that is an affront to the Intellginece of man. We have also seen the wheels of big business in action.... BIG business!

This has *nothing* to do with UFOlogy and nothing to do with serious research. I predicted to PBStudge a week ago, that I suspected an announcement would be made with regard to the age of the footage. I also predicted that the film would then be locked away and would not be avialable for any further investigation.

Today, face to face with Santilli, whose face dropped when I mentioned this fact, confirmed that NO MORE FILM will be available for testing.

Bob Shell can afford to be confident in placing his name on this result, because if he *is* in *error* then NOBODY is going to ber able to prove it!

Santilli also has said he no longer intends to follow up the cameraman's authenticity. (HE is saitisfied)

But, Bob Shell has still to justify why:


Santilli admitted it was an IN-HOUSE test

I am taking bets in front of the whole world that Santilli or should I be more accurate INTERNATIONAL EXPLOITATION MANAGEMENT LTD will not allow the film to be tested by anyone else ever again!

The 'surgeons' were so (xxxx-absolutely) afraid to touch the damn thing in case it fell on the floor.....



Page Index

Ray Santilli's Response to K. O'Crean

From: John W. Ratcliff <70253.3237@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Ray's Response
Date: 19 Aug 1995 14:50:29 GMT
Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736)

#: 118935 S1/General/Welcome!
    19-Aug-95  02:16:46
Fm: Ray Santilli 100612,2261
Kevin must be extremely disappointed this morning as the Sheffield Star ran what was a very well balanced story. By no means did they state that the film was a fake they just posed the question "could it be".

Also please note that Kevin's Poison pen message was wrong in almost every detail. Today nearly four months after millions of dollars worldwide has been spent on the investigation of the film by broadcasters there is not a single shred of evidence to say this film is a hoax. All we have are a few Special effects companies trying to cash in with opinion only. Every medical expert and people that conduct autopsy's all day long confirm that the creature is flesh and blood. Also most of the MAJOR Special Effects companies that are not scratching around for a living are on our side.

Kevin, nice try....not good enough........

Ray Santilli


#: 118943 S15/Mutual UFO Network
    19-Aug-95  02:47:52
Sb: #FAKE OR REAL ?????
Fm: Ray Santilli 100612,2261
Over the next few days I am sure you will witness the last throes of the people that have tried from the beginning to discredit the film. As the Air date nears every attempt will be made to cause as much damage as possible.

After the 28th you will have the opportunity to make your own assessment however the investigation goes on.

Please keep an open mind and only accept hard evidence. This applies for and against the film.

Best regards,


Page Index


From: (Steven Kaeser)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo,alt.aliens.ufo
Subject: BUFORA Conference on Reuters
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 06:23:13

There have been few mentions of the Sheffield event, but it did manage to make the Reuters news wire:


10 REUTERS 08-20-95 10:56 AET ............... 48 LINES BC-BRITAIN-ALIEN 1STLD

      UFO enthusiasts argue over ``alien visitor'' film
     (Corrects 4th graf by deleting extraneous word Rumours)
         Andrew Marshall
         SHEFFIELD, England (Reuter) - Delegates to a weekend UFO
     conference in this northern England city argued Sunday over
     whether a grainy black-and-white film provided final proof that
     an alien spacecraft crashed in New Mexico 48 years ago.
         More than a thousand enthusiasts of UFOs (Unidentified
     Flying Objects) and other delegates watched the first public
     showing of a film showing a humanoid female creature with
     reptilian eyes being dissected by scientists on an operating
         While many delegates believed the film was genuine, some
     anatomists and film experts disagreed.
         British film-maker Ray Santilli says he bought the film from
     an octogenarian former military cameraman who said he took it
     after an alien spacecraft crashed into the desert near Roswell,
     New Mexico, in 1947.
         The film, shown at a British UFO Research Association
     (BUFORA) conference, appeared to show that the creature had a
     huge hairless head, with a face dominated by large lizard-like
     eyes. It had six fingers or toes on each hand or foot.
         Blood oozed from the body as surgeons in bulky radiation
     suits cut open the chest to reveal a bizarre pulpy mass of
     internal organs.
         They removed the lenses from the eyes and peeled away the
     scalp, before sawing through the skull and removing a strange,
     gelatinous brain.
         Santilli insisted the film was no hoax. ``There isn't a
     single shred of evidence that it's a fake,'' he said.
         He said both the U.S. space agency NASA and Kodak, makers of
     camera film, had been commisioned to study the footage and their
     findings would be announced Aug. 28 when the film is scheduled
     to be shown on television in several countries.
         ``It was amazing. It's a historic day -- we've finally got
     proof of aliens,'' said Paul Cottam, an engineer from Newcastle,
     Northern England.
         But British anatomist Dr. Fred Spoors told Reuters the
     creature looked suspiciously human. He said the probability that
     aliens would evolve to look so human was extremely remote.
         Special effects experts at the company Creature Effects were
     also unimpressed. ``None of us were of the opinion that we were
     watching a real alien autopsy,'' they said in a statement. ``We
     all agreed that what we were seeing was a very good fake body.''

A check of the Associated Press news wire failed to show any mention on Sunday.

* SearchNet HeadQuarters BBS 617-961-4865 or 508-586-6977
* Subscribe to our mailing lists.  Send a message to 
*  "subscribe snet-l" 
*                          "subscribe i_ufo-l" *

Reuters Press Release Before the BUFORA Conference

From: John.Powell@f4.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Powell)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Santilli
Date: 18 Aug 95 14:23:54 GMT
Sender: ufgate@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (newsout1.26)

UFO meeting to see 'aliens' film; is it a hoax?
(c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Reuter Information Service

LONDON (Aug 17, 1995 - 11:24 EDT) - A film which may prove that extraterrestrial creatures crash-landed a spacecraft on Earth will be shown in public for the first time on Saturday at a British UFO conference.

One question will float over the gathering like a spectre -- is the footage purportedly showing a female alien with lizard-like eyes genuine or just an ingenious, elaborate hoax?

Its owner claims the film was shot by a military cameraman in the aftermath of a flying saucer crash in New Mexico in 1947.

Rumours of a mysterious crash in the New Mexico desert near Roswell have circulated for decades. UFO investigators have always claimed that an alien spacecraft fell from the sky and this momentous event was covered up by U.S. authorities.

The UFO conference in Sheffield is attracting UFO experts and enthusiasts from all around world.

The announcement that British film-maker Ray Santilli had stumbled upon military footage of the event, showing dead alien creatures, astonished scientists and UFO experts.

Santilli says he bought the film from an octogenarian military cameraman who had shot top-secret footage of alien corpses after the crash. The man kept quiet about the film for years before selling it to finance his granddaughter's wedding.

The footage has been shown privately to scientists, politicians and UFO investigators. It reportedly shows surgeons in white radiation suits examining a female alien.

She is humanoid with a huge hairless head and lizard-like eyes. She has six fingers on each hand, and similar feet.

Surgeons cut through her chest, which appears to bleed, and remove strange-looking internal organs. They saw off the top of her head to expose her brain, and remove her eyeballs.

According to Santilli, experts at Kodak in New York say the film's stock number suggests it was made in 1927, 1947 or 1967. He has claimed that President Harry Truman is visible on one piece of footage, watching the bizarre spectacle.

But experts who have seen the film are extremely sceptical.

"I think this film is completely extraneous to the question of a crashed saucer, government cover-up, extraterrestrial visitors or anything like that," said Stanton Friedman, an American nuclear physicist who has spent decades investigating the Roswell incident.

"There was certainly none of the excitement I as a physicist would expect from doctors having a unique opportunity to autopsy an alien being," he told Reuters Television.

British anatomist Dr Fred Spoors told Reuters the alien looked suspiciously human -- suggesting that the film had shown a human with a genetic abnormality. He said the chances of aliens evolving to look so human were extremely remote.

Special effects experts who investigated the film have also been unconvinced.

"There are certain giveaways in the footage that suggest the alien is just a dummy," said Rod Dickinson, who creates sophisticated props for films. "It's a good hoax, but not astoundingly good."

But Santilli insists the film is genuine. "It would be utter madness to attempt a world-wide "hoax' on this level by attempting such an easily discovered forgery," he said in a letter to a Sunday newspaper. He declined to be interviewed.

And even some of those who doubt the film's authenticity remain certain that something mysterious did happen at Roswell.

"I am absolutely convinced a saucer did crash outside Roswell," Friedman said. "We're dealing with the biggest story of the millenium -- visits to planet earth by aliens, and the successful cover-up of the best data, the bodies and the wreckage for 48 years."

John Powell - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Powell@f4.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
Inquiries regarding ParaNet, or mail directed to Michael Corbin, should
be sent to:  Or you can phone voice at 303-429-2654/
Michael Corbin
ParaNet Information Services

Page Index

Linda M. Howe Discusses Conference on Art Bell

From: (Video Dog)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Linda How on Shefield (Art Bell's "DreamLand")
Date: 21 Aug 1995 02:17:35 -0400

Some observations about Linda Howe's report about the Shefield Conference on Art Bell's "DreamLand":

Now the story is the crash was NOT from Roswell but from an earlier crash some distance away. This information came from the complete(?) story of the cameraman (and his background) that was relayed at the conference. He told of being driven out to the desert to film the crash recovery and local autopsies. When he arrived he observed that five of the six "freaks" were still alive and were shrieking out loud while holding unto "little metal boxes". A couple were persuaded to let go of their box with swift strikes to the head with rifle butts. After the field work, the cameraman said, all the wreckage was flown to Wright-Pat.

Also, Linda reported that the "six fingered control panels" and other debris were shown. The impression I got from the report was that more people now believe Santilli's "hoax" may not be one.

Page Index

Pre-BUFORA News Announcements - Kevin O'Crean

From: (Kevin O'Crean)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 22:22:48 GMT
Organization: HASSOP COTTAGE

As yet another SFX company from Pinewood Studios declares the footage a Hoax......

exclusive by Kevin O'Crean

The Sheffield Star is tomorrow (19th Aug) getting ready to plaster its pages on the Roswell Footage and Santilli announcing the whole matter a complete *SHAM*.

Ray Santilli the Managing Director of Merlin Films (xxxxx) is due to appear at the BUFORA conference on Saturday 19th August.

Many other National Newspapers and News Media are following suit.

Inside information from the Special Effects Company at Pinewood Studios, the same who did casting and moldings for Star Wars Aliens' and other films has revealed that after viewing, it is in their expert opinion that the Alien is a fake, albeit a good one and one obviously done by SFX experts.

Mr Cliff Wallace of CFX Creature Effects at Pinewood Studios explained that they knew just where to look and what to look for and one of the many 'give aways' was a moulding 'seam' on the arms.

Mr Wallace also explained that the cast has been done as if the figure was standing upright.

The news was passed to Santilli who reacted with complete dismay, but later in his usual fashion reacted by saying that he had a number of other experts who had said the opposite, but when asked to divulge names and numbers, did not do so.

A Mr Stan Winston who did the Terminator effects has been quoted as saying, "I would like the guy who did this to work for me!"

Santilli is still bleating that he feels it *may* be genuine, but will still not subject the film for testing until he has placed the videos on sale.

This of course is a complete U-Turn for Ray who asked everyone to judge for themselves, yet as people do so, he is upset and now declaring it is genuine.


The film STILL has not been tested.
The cameraman has not been verified.


Kevin O'Crean

Page Index

George Wingfield on BUFORA Conference

Comments from Paul Fuller, Crop Watcher

From: Paul Fuller <100611.1013@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Wingfield Bulletin Review
Date: 28 Aug 1995 22:13:36 GMT
Organization: The Crop Watcher (magazine about crop circles)

PF> This is my personal review of George Wingfield's latest Bulletin :- (Paul Fuller)

Santilli Alien Film.   GW Bulletin 9,   August 27th 1995 

The long awaited public screening of Ray Santilli's film footage, 
allegedly shot following the crash of a flying saucer near Roswell in 
1947, took place at the BUFORA UFO Conference at Sheffield on August 
19th.  Reaction to the film, as before, was very mixed but a majority 
of those present either withheld judgement or opined that it must be a 

PF> Jenny Randles informed me that the general opinion in the overflow 
PF> auditorium was very negative, with several people angrily 
PF> demanding their money back ! One professional TV man of 20 years 
PF> experience (and who believes in ETs) angrily denounced the film 
PF> whilst being filmed for the BBC by Jenny Randles. He stated that 
PF> the film was clearly a hoax and that he could see how it had been 
PF> done. He believed that "the hoaxers" had left obvious clues to see 
PF> if people would detect their fraud. The reaction of the audience 
PF> to the debris wreckage was particularly negative. Of course, they 
PF> could be wrong ! 

The auditorium was cleared before the screening and a team of private 
security guards scoured the place for concealed cameras and recording 
devices.  Then the audience was re-admitted with the security men 
frisking each person as they entered.

PF> Jenny Randles told me that a lot of people in the overflow 
PF> auditorium were very unhappy with this arrangement, and that 
PF> the reason why Merlin's private security guards had to frisk 
PF> people was because the official security people were warned 
PF> by a police woman that to do so would be considered a breach 
PF> of civil liberties and court action might result !

The footage screened was principally a replay of the autopsy sequence 
first shown in London on May 5th.  Some of those unfamiliar with such 
dissections showed evident revulsion or gasped aloud as the strange 
alien corpse was carved up and opened out by a surgeon clad in white 
protective clothing. The goriness of this sequence was equally 
unappetising the second time around.  Clearly the body was not long 
dead at the time of autopsy since there were no obvious signs of 
decomposition and a slight trickle of blood resulted from each scalpel 
cut. Few supported the thesis that this was a cleverly constructed 
plastic dummy stuffed with offal to simulate internal organs.

PF> That's _not_ what I heard  :-) 

Appended after the autopsy was a brief display of the panels bearing 
supposed alien characters that have been referred to previously.  The 
suggestion by some skeptics that the symbols spell out the words 
"VIDEO O TV" requires a huge leap of the imagination and this surely 
derives from some madder realm of the Internet. (Maybe the words are 
"KEVIN O CREAN" ? --but more of this nonsense later!)

The symbols are not very impressive and some do resemble Greek 
characters or others, possibly from ancient middle eastern script.  
Nor are the "control panels" very convincing, two of which are held up 
for display by a man whose face is not visible.  These thick panels 
each contain two hand impressions for hands with six digits: five 
fingers and a thumb.  In semi- circular grooves below the position of 
the fingertips there appear to be control buttons and there are also 
separate depressions with a button for each thumb.  Further longer 
arc- shaped grooves with additional buttons run parallel to and beyond 
the fingertip grooves.  Other control buttons or sensors are seen 
within the hand impressions below where palm and wrist would fit.

These "control panels" look to be clumsy "low technology" stuff such 
as might have been thought up for a 1950s sci-fi B movie. 
After all, in 1995, we'd expect aliens to fly their craft by direct 
mind signals rather than primitive fly-by-wire panels!

PF> For once I actually agree with you George - a soundly sceptical 
PF> argument. 


Meanwhile the Internet rumour mill has gone into overdrive in the 
attempts by some groups to discredit the Santilli film. 
One example of deliberately false information put out for this purpose 
has been the postings of a certain "Kevin O'Crean" of "Hassop Cottage, 
England".  In his latest bluster (August 18th) this "person" claims 
that BUFORA has officially disavowed the Santilli film and "stated 
categorically on World TV that they consider it a hoax". Here 
"O'Crean" adds "God save the Queen!"

PF> This is a very strong allegation George, I hope you can prove your 
PF> allegation that "Kevin O'Crean" has _deliberately_ disseminated 
PF> false information. He may just be human and made an error. This 
PF> "debate" has generated an awful lot of heat - I think we should 
PF> make some allowances !

An alternative version of this malicious claim, which also appears to 
be circulating on the Internet, is that "the head of BUFORA" stated on 
CNN that the Roswell film was a hoax made in Brazil 6 or 7 years ago 
and that Santilli knows this. 

Further he was alleged to have stated that he didn't believe that 
aliens had ever made contact with earth and that UFO's didn't exist as 
extra-terrestrial vehicles.

Much of this story is completely untrue.  It relates to what was said 
by Philip Walton (who is a BUFORA functionary) and is solely his 
personal opinion.  In no way does it represents BUFORA's official 

PF> BUFORA don't appear to have a consistent "official position" - 
PF> although today Mantle was quoted in the "Daily Telegraph" 
PF> newspaper stating that he holds a position of "neutrality" - 
PF> something the reporter quickly dismissed based on Mantle's 
PF> previous claim that the film shows the "only known instance of 
PF> aliens on film".  This is the basic problem - and my basic quarrel 
PF> with Philip Mantle.  He has not been consistent in his public 
PF> comments about the film and he has not taken steps to clarify 
PF> statements made on his behalf when he appears to have been 
PF> misquoted. How do we expect UFOlogy to be taken seriously under 
PF> these circumstances ? How can we expect the world to take UFOlogy 
PF> seriously when we allow a prominent UFO group to show this much 
PF> hyped film at their conference without bothering to do more than a 
PF> minimum of research into the film ?

Walton is not the head of BUFORA; that is John Spencer.  

PF> Who - so far - has said nothing publicly about the film, failed to 
PF> clarify his Director of Investigations' misleading and highly 
PF> damaging press statements and who is even now having to apologise 
PF> to UFOlogist Jenny Randles on behalf of Mantle for a note sent by 
PF> Mantle to a newspaper reporter commenting on aspects of Randles' 
PF> private life.  In a recent conversation with a senior member of 
PF> BUFORA Council I was told that Jenny Randles' suggestion of 
PF> holding a "debate" between proponents and skeptics was to have 
PF> taken place at the BUFORA Conference. A spare spot arose during 
PF> the proceedings after an Italian speaker was asked to withdraw by 
PF> Mantle due to legal problems in Italy. However, despite having 
PF> this spare "slot" Mantle voted down the opportunity of holding an 
PF> open debate. Why ?

PF> George Wingfield seems to have forgotten that in "Yes" magazine a 
PF> few weeks ago Philip Mantle presented himself as "the president" 

Philip Mantle, who is BUFORA's Director of Investigations, and who 
organised the Sheffield conference, confirmed on August 25th that 
there had been no "official" change of position either by BUFORA or 
himself.  The claim about the Brazilain sci-fi film, he said, was an 
unproven rumour and has no basis in fact, as also the charge that 
Santilli knows that this is the case.

I can reveal that "Kevin O'Crean" himself is a hoax.  There is no such 
person and all of the tendentious and misleading claims from this 
Internet source should be viewed with grave suspicion.  It seems that 
"Kevin O Crean" is almost certainly an irresponsible group of students 
who live at Hassop Cottage, near Bakewell, Derbyshire (which is where 
the tarts come from).

PF> Wrong again George - I can reveal that I have been corresponding 
PF> with the "real" Kevin O'Crean - his name is Mike Jamieson - and he 
PF> certainly_does_ exist ! He was witness to Michael Hesemann's 
PF> unprovoked personal attack on Jenny Randles in front of the 
PF> world's press at the Sheffield Conference which has been reported 
PF> in this newsgroup and elsewhere by Jamieson and which was 
PF> witnessed by David Clarke.

They say that the MUFON Encounters Sysop on Compuserve has now refused 
to post their "Kevin O Crean" articles on the Forum as "the truth is 
beginning to hurt".  The sysop is a sensible guy since "O'Crean's" 
travesty of the truth was becoming insulting !

PF> Sometimes the truth hurts !


Scepticism regarding the film footage is understandable, but much of 
that which we have heard is based solely on speculation and basic 
denial that aliens could possibly exist.  Santilli maintains, 
correctly, that so far no one has been able to prove that the film is 
a fake.  Currently one can choose any of the following speculative 
scenarios to explain away the film :-

(1) This is a Brazilian sci-fi movie made in the 1960s/1970s or 1980s.  
(Let's see a copy of the alleged movie!)

(2)  The alien body is "definitely" the corpse of a human suffering 
from Turner's syndrome.  (Let's see some photos of other humans 
suffering from this condition.)

(3)  The alien body is the corspe of a human suffering from Laurence-
Moon-Beadle syndrome.  (Likewise;  has this one got something to do 
with Jeremy Beadle ???)


(4)  "I have little doubt that the body was a doctored human corpse.  
If such is the case it would make this one of the most despicable and 
deplorable hoaxes ever perpetrated.  It would mean that those who put 
together this atrocity butchered the body of a once-living human being 
(a woman in this case) solely out of greed"  -- Kent Jeffrey of the 
International Roswell Initiative.    

(If this rather extreme position is the case, it should be proved and 
criminal proceedings instituted.  Pathologists who have seen the 
footage have not noticed any external signs that the corpse was 
doctored in order to attach extra digits, enlarge the size of the 
head, the eyes, etc.) 

(5) The body is a cleverly constructed latex dummy and contains offal 
to simulate internal organs.  The technology to produce such a hoax 
did not exist until the mid 1970s and so the film must be a hoax 
produced in the last 20 years, but most likely in the last 5-10 years.

(This is the position of circlefakers John Lundberg and Rod Dickinson 
who are associates of the CFX Creature Effects people at Pinewood 
Studios.  A report by CFX mentions evidence of a "possible" moulding 
seam line down one arm of the alien corpse in one segment of 
Santilli's film.  If this is all the evidence they think they can see, 
it doesn't amount to much.  Naturally, they say that special effects 
are so good these days that one wouldn't be able to see any flaws!  On 
August 26th we heard that three photos had been mailed anonymously to 
the Fortean Times in London showing "the Santilli alien corpse under 
construction by special effects people".  Editor Bob Rickard was said 
to be unimpressed and the dummy did not much resemble the corpse in 
the film.  This hoax, though I've yet to see it, sounds possibly the 
work of circlefakers Lundberg and Dickinson.)

PF> Whilst I haven't seen the photographs in question, they do _not_ 
PF> show a "corpse" under construction by "special effects people" 
PF> prior to filming. You only had to ring Bob Rickard to check this 
PF> George !

PF> Readers please see my separate posting on behalf of Lundberg 
PF> and Dickinson denying George Wingfield's allegations. 

(6) Santilli is a con-man and a fraudster whose company is in 
receivership, etc, etc.  So too is Philip Mantle (who had a big bust-
up with the Quest UFO Group a few years back) and therefore the whole 
thing is a scam which has been used as a trick to pack the punters in 
at BUFORA's annual conference ... Santilli is being investigated by 
the Serious Fraud Squad, etc. (This is the position of the Quest UFO 
Group, which --dare I say it? -- might just have something to do with 
sour grapes.)

PF> I have worked with Quest International over the past few months 
PF> in an attempt to find an explanation for the film. Previously I 
PF> have repeatedly criticised Quest International and their work in 
PF> public. In my opinion Quest International - and James Easton in 
PF> particular - are not motivated by "sour grapes" - neither are they 
PF> "peeved" - as Mantle alleges in todays "Daily Telegraph" article. 
PF> They, like me, have been horrified at BUFORA's public association 
PF> with this film - horrified because BUFORA have done virtually no 
PF> research  into the film, have only now managed to obtain a piece 
PF> of the original film for analysing and who have appeared to allow 
PF> their Director of Investigations to repeatedly promote the film as 
PF> genuine and authenticated in the UK press without reprimand or 
PF> correction. Can this really be how UFOlogy is to progress and 
PF> convince the world of our claims ??

PF> In my opinion this was a golden opportunity for UFOlogists to 
PF> demonstrate that we _are_ capable of investigating UFO claims 
PF> properly - this is how UFOlogy will progress - by encouraging 
PF> scientific institutions to come and actually handle the 
PF> unexplained data UFOlogists deal with. BUFORA chose not to go down 
PF> this route. Instead they believed - rightly or wrongly - that this 
PF> was an opportunity to make money to help fund photographic work. 
PF> This decision has been widely criticised by UFOlogists and by the 
PF> press, who perceive BUFORA as only being interested in the money 
PF> (as evidenced by Edward Fox's article "What a load of rubbish" in 
PF> today's Telegraph). 

PF> The real issue we must all debate is this   -  was BUFORA's 
PF> decision justified given the huge damage inflicted on UFOlogy by 
PF> BUFORA's promotion of this film ?

7) The alien corpse is a victim of secret nuclear testing. 
Alternatively she was an adolescent Japanese atom bomb victim from 
Hiroshima or Nagasaki.  The US military carried out tests on many such 
wretched creatures in New Mexico during the 1940s. 
(Objection:  Nuclear radiation doesn't cause one to grow extra digits 
or enlarge one's head and eyes and lose one's navel. 
Mutations caused by radiation afflict the next generation(s). 
This autopsy is (supposedly) only two years after the first atomic 
weapons tests in New Mexico and the Hiroshima bomb.)

PF> Hmmmm. How about someone who _previously _ suffered 
PF> from a genetic disorder ? How about someone who was an 
PF> embryo during the a-bomb tests and who suffered genetic 
PF> mutation once they were born. If the film was shot in 1955 
PF> using 1947 film is this a possible explanation ? I suggested 
PF> to Ray several months ago that this was a possible source of 
PF> the footage and he agreed to try and follow this up - goodness 
PF> knows how how, he must be far far too busy to do so.

(8) The alien corpse is a victim of secret germ warfare or genetic 
engineering carried out by the US government.  This is rumoured to be 
the conclusion which the Channel 4 documentary on Roswell, including 
sequences from Santilli's film, will put forward when the TV programme 
is screened nationwide on August 28th.  (The same objections apply to 
germ warfare testing as to nuclear testing, above.  Genetic 
engineering was barely even thought about in the 1940s and 1950s;  if 
the "freaks" were genetically engineered, then the film must have been 
made at a much later date, say, the 1980s.  This is highly unlikely.)

PF> I gather that Philip Mantle's quote in The People, 20 Aug :-

PF> "Now Philip Mantle, director of investigations at the British 
PF> UFO Research Association, says : 'New data suggests the 
PF> bodies in that film were definitiely genuine. The Channel 4 
PF> documentary will reveal some very strange experiments being 
PF> conducted on behalf of the US military.'  "

PF> was written by his co-author Carl Nagaitis [info from Rodney 
PF> Howarth, who spoke with Carl Nagaitis at the conference]. This 
PF> development  was not discussed during the conference - presumably 
PF> because there was no public forum for discussion aside from the 
PF> ten minute question-and-answer session with Ray Santilli - yet 
PF> this article was written several days prior to the conference.

PF> Again this would have been an opportunity of demonstrating 
PF> that not all UFOlogists believe that the film is automatically 
PF> genuine just because it supports their preconceived views . 
PF> The astonishing thing about the autopsy film debate is the number 
PF> of prominent UFOlogists and UFO groups who _have_ temporarily 
PF> abandoned their pre-conceived views and adopted the correct 
PF> skeptical attitude. Sadly I fear that their good work will be 
PF> overshadowed by the misquotations being attributed to others. 

(9) The film was made as part of a "Psy Op" by the CIA or other US 
intelligence agencies.  It was deliberately staged during the late 
1940s or 1950s to deceive the Soviets for reasons which are unknown.  
An alternative version of this scenario is that it was produced to 
trade with particular foreign governments (Brazil has been suggested) 
for intelligence material or material relating to genuine UFO events 
in which the US government was interested.  I am told this is the 
thinking in some CIA circles who are familiar which the format of such 
psychological operations, though this is speculation rather than 
anything definite.  (Well, maybe ?)              

My own position remains that expressed in Bulletin #1.  The film is 
either a cleverly prepared deception  --possibly in category (9)-- or 
it is the genuine article.  Alternatives such as some of those above, 
suggesting that it is some other legitimate scenario, unconnected with 
Roswell or aliens, are simply not convincing.  It is obviously too 
soon to reach a definite verdict until a lot further testing of the 
film has been done and the cameraman (who we know exists) has been 
thoroughly questioned.

PF> George, I challenge you to state how you know that the 
PF> camera-man exists. Who has told you that he exists ?
PF> Have you spoken to him, or visited him ? I gather that 
PF> the camera-man will not be appearing on tonight's documentary. 

Michael Hesemann, who spoke about the Santilli film at the Sheffield 
conference, expressed a similar viewpoint.  He said:

"This film may very well be authentic.  I don't say this film is 
definitely the real thing.  I only say that every thing we checked out 
checked out in favour of it.  Indications that it may be a hoax didn't 
check out.  We have more indications that it may be the real thing 
than we have against it."

PF> You must have missed Hesemann's more positive claims 
PF> made in this newsgroup and elsewhere. 

He went on to say that he had never found a more open and co- 
operative guy in any motion picture company than Ray Santilli. 

PF> By all accounts agreed. 

Michael has spent hours talking to Santilli and getting information 
from him about the film and its origins.  He has also recently 
travelled to New Mexico to do research on the spot which has turned up 
a number of new factors.  This and a verbatim account of the 
"Cameraman's Story" will be presented in my next bulletin (rather than 
in this one as previously stated).  Michael's research contrasts 
starkly with the strident speculation by many of those voices on the 
Internet who have never bothered to talk to Ray Santilli, let alone 
travel to New Mexico.

PF> Oh dear dear dear !!! I suppose if I told you the moon was 
PF> made of green cheese and that I'd been there that would 
PF> prove it for you, would it George ?

PF> In point of fact James Easton _has_ been "talking" with Ray 
PF> Santilli for quite some months - and he has made a lot of 
PF> progress in establishing the basic facts surrounding this 
PF> intriguing footage. I think the international UFO community 
PF> owes a lot to Quest for their tenacity and effort. To see others 
PF> allege that Quest are motivated by "sour grapes" and "jealousy" 
PF> is - in my opinion - insulting and an obvious attempt to deflect 
PF> attention away from the real source of the problems we UFOlogists 
PF> face with the promotion of this film by a handful of influential 
PF> UFOlogists. 

At the end of the screening of the Santilli film footage at the

BUFORA conference in Sheffield, an extraordinary thing happened 
despite the tight security surrounding the whole event.
Suddenly there was panic and consternation.  Ray Santilli and Chris 
Carey looked utterly thunderstruck and bewildered. 
BUFORA stewards raced around in alarm searching everywhere.

The vital video recording of the alien footage had vanished ...
[to be continued]

George Wingfield

PF> Isn't it time you owned up to your little piece of autopsy film
PF> grand larcency George ? No wonder Ray Santilli doesn't like
PF> UFOlogists !!!

PF> Here's to a good night's viewing !! Best Wishes everyone,

Paul Fuller
Editor, The Crop Watcher,
Co-Editor, The NEW UFOlogist
Ex BUFORA Director 1989-93
Ex BUFORA 1978-93

Page Index