Roswell Film Page#8August, 1995, Film Analysis & More
Please find on this page a combination of film analysis interweaved that occurred just prior and after the Bufora Conference. You will find here additional remarks related to a more thorough analysis of the Roswell Film by British researcher James Easton, professional photographer Bob Shell and UFO Researcher Bruce Maccabee, some updates from Colin Andrews, about the showing of the film and video by Steve Kaeser and IRI shares an updated analysis of the Roswell Film.
"I wonder if this case will ever end, and how many more pages we will need to prepare for it on our site"
Illinois Shapiro -- seen scratching his head?
Roswell Film Page 8 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.
ADDITIONAL FILM ANALYSIS AND MORE
- Roswell Film Analysis, James Easton, August 21st
- Analysis of Film by Bob Shell, various posts
- P.B. Studge Challenges Film Analysis
- Creature Dissection/Santilli Film - Bruce Maccabee
- Update on Roswell Film - Colin Andrews
- Steve Kaeser Update on Aug. 28th Showing
- Update from IRI - The Santilli Circus, 8/17/95
| 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
ROSWELL FILM ANALYSIS
Roswell Film by James Easton
From: email@example.com (James Easton)
Subject: "Roswell Film"
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 01:41:00 GMT
Some of the recent "informed" opinions expressed concerning the authenticity of the alleged "Roswell" footage are, at best, misleading and it would perhaps be helpful to clarify some facts.
John Purdie of Union Pictures, the company producing the forthcoming U.K. Channel 4 documentary, recently asked at least two U.K. special effects companies to view the footage and express an opinion.
The first published report comes from Rod Dickinson and John Lundberg, who along with their colleague, Sam Holland, viewed the "dissection" and "debris" footage on 19 July.
I have permission to publish their full report as time allows. I have already posted the majority of it on CompuServe and I noted that the main extracts were cross posted here.
The report notes that, "The three of us work in one capacity or another within the prop and model making industry, often creating foam and rubber puppets for TV and theatre."
Rod and John are also well known crop circle hoaxers and well appreciate the anatomy of a hoax and "how they exploit the belief system of their targeted audience."
They believe the film is a hoax and have suggested how the dissection footage could have been achieved. They also point out that if the film is a hoax, certain aspects, particularly the "authentic" viscera, indicate a technology which did not exist until the mid seventies.
However, their views are an informed opinion and the report contains no definitive proof that any of the footage was hoaxed. Indeed, Rod confirmed to me that if the workmanship was exceptional, it could be almost impossible to prove it was not authentic.
Similarly, the report from "CFX Creature Effects" offers an opinion and clearly states that. It is not a definitive conclusion.
It has been mentioned in relation to Saturday's Sheffield Star article that, "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."
That's not what he says in the report, which I also have permission to post as time allows.
The report mentions, "evidence of a possible moulding seam line down an arm in one segment of the film...", i.e., possibly it is, possibly it isn't. The report goes on to say, "but we were generally surprised that there was little other evidence of seaming which suggests a high degree of workmanship."
If all that was evident from a thorough analysis of the film is one segment which may show a seam or may not, it's not exactly a damning indictment.
It's also important to note the comment that the model suggests a "high degree of workmanship". Rod Dickinson confirms that the special effects community is a "close knit" one and experts have a generally recognised "signature".
It was also mentioned that, "Mr Wallace also explained that the cast has been done as if the figure was standing upright. The posture is ALL WRONG for a body lying down."
The report actually says that "...we felt that the general posture and weighting of the corpse was incorrect for a body in a prone position and had more in common with a cast that had been taken in an upright position".
This is again an _opinion_, not a definitive fact and also not an opinion expressed by Rod or John.
Further misleading comments include, "Santilli...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."
Perhaps he can't do so because these were independent investigations, undertaken in the U.S., the results of which will shortly feature in a U.S. TV special.
The above quote was followed by, "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!""
Rod Dickinson gave me his opinion of Stan Winston; "Stan Winston? He's the man. He's the best."
Stan was responsible for SFX on "Jurassic Park", "The Exorcist", the "Terminator" films, the alien autopsy in the recent Roswell TV Movie and a list of credits which explains why Stan Winston _is_ the best.
Of particular relevance is that Stan Winston has experience of faking autopsy scenes.
But we haven't been told what really matters; did Stan Winston think the film was an obvious hoax? Or, did he believe it was so authentic looking that the gist of his comment was, "If this is a hoax, I would like the guy who did this to work for me".
Mr Santilli certainly seems confident that SFX experts are on record who believe the film is not such an obvious hoax and I understand he has good reason to be.
I think what we might find is that there will shortly be made public a number of informed reports from senior and relevant figures within the medical and SFX community and whilst some will conclude it's a dummy, others will conclude it's definitely flesh and blood, but a "freak" human.
It can't be both.
And what none of the unquestionably relevant experts have been able to do so far is prove the film is not what it purports to be.
The dating of the film is therefore an important indication of what we can logically be dealing with, however, we really need every 16mm film reel to be thoroughly tested.
It is not inconceivable that we do have a film of a dissection which took place in 1947 or thereabouts and the additional footage is much more contemporary. The debris footage in particular must be suspect as this is the only footage which ties the story to the Roswell incident as we know it. It seems unlikely that we would not have any footage of the crash site, the vehicle, the debris field, military personnel, military vehicles, any identifiable personnel at all and yet have footage of the famous Roswell "I-beams", complete with hieroglyphics.
Incidentally, the story of the "VIDEO TV" markings on the hieroglyphics, may have been misconstrued from a remark made by the "CFX Creature Effects" team. In their report, it states that, "We were particularly unconvinced by the wreckage laid out on the table, and by the hand shaped control pads which seemed very crudely fashioned, and then there were the "VIDEO O TV" hieroglyphs (the hieroglyphs on one particular piece of wreckage appeared immediately to form recognisable words)."
Note that this refers to the hieroglyphs appearing to form words, not actual words themselves. Rod Dickinson said that his team hadn't perceived this and no-one else who has seen the footage has commented on this, notably Bruce Maccabee in his detailed review. It may therefore be a subjective observation. Those who have a copy of the hieroglyphs drawing which appeared briefly on the paragon site will note how the symbols can be considered to form the above, apparently meaningless phrase, but they can also form many others.
There is also vital evidence in the form of the supporting documentation. Aside from the cameraman's story, which contains details which can be verified, there is additional documentation which purports to be from 1947 and can also be date tested.
The cameraman's story of, and indifference to, the brutal treatment of the "circus freaks" is yet another intriguing aspect. It would certainly be consistent with the reaction to such humanoid creatures landing in the middle of a highly sensitive military zone at a time when a Russian attack was very much a perceived reality. I haven't seen this statement as yet, but I believe it does contain a number of surprising claims.
However, much will become clearer in due course and we can be reasonably confident of resolving this enigma.
But, it may take quite some time to do so.
Even if the film is proven to be a complete hoax or does perhaps contain some genuine footage which has been misrepresented, there is still the question of whether Ray Santilli was a willing participant or has himself been duped.
There is no question that there are several anomalies in Ray's statements of the film's origin, acquisition and processing, but having spoken to him personally, I would have to say that he seems the most unlikely source of such a sophisticated and complicated scam.
Perhaps he should not stand accused until we have seen all of the evidence in this case.
Please also note the following recent CompuServe posting:
I fully understand and appreciate the concerns of you all, The last thing I want to do is accept your money for a mail-order video if for any reason you are not happy.
For that reason every video will come with a REFUND-OFFER. If you return the video within a reasonable amount of time you will get a FULL REFUND.
Also please be aware you still have time to cancel your order should you wish.
This is the best I can do to give you some peace of mind.
The video is being offered in order that you can take time and study the footage for yourself, You should be able to form your own opinion rather than rely upon third party comments.
Regards to you all.
Incidentally, Ray mentioned that some of the footage, on video, is being examined by a prestigious and suitably equipped U.S. government organisation. I can't disclose the name as I do not have permission to do so, but I can confirm that this was apparently initiated by congressman Schiff.
Again, this is welcome and hopefully their conclusions will also be made public in due course.
--------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: TEXJE@BONALY.HW.AC.UK * JAMES.EASTON@STAIRWAY.CO.UK ---------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Film by Bob Shell
From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: Roswell Santilli Film *IS* 1947
Date: 19 Aug 1995 17:13:35 GMT
This is from Bob Shell of Shutterbug Magazine:
I have been hard at work on this film. I have now physically examined a section of the film, a section showing the "autopsy" room before the body was placed on the table, but clearly consistent with the later footage.
The film on which this was shot is Cine Kodak Super XX, a film type which was discontinued in 1956-57. Since the edge code could be 1927, 1947 or 1967, and this film was not manufactured in 1927 or 1967, this clearly leaves us with only 1947 as an option.
The image quality, lack of fog, and grain structure apparent in the film lead me to the conclusion that this film was exposed and processed while still quite fresh, which would be within a "window" of three or four years.
Based on this, I see no reason to doubt the cameraman's claim that this film was exposed in June and July of 1947, and processed "a few days later".
From my own research on the physical characteristics of the film, I am willing to go on record as giving a 95% probability that the film is what the cameraman claims it to be. I am only hedging 5%, because I still want secondary chemical verification from Kodak based on the chemical "signature" of the film.
I do not put my name on a statement like this lighty, and it is only after very careful consideration, and detailed examination of the film, that I do so at this time.
Permission to cross-post granted, so long as this is quoted in complete form and not altered in any way..
From: John W. Ratcliff <70253.3237@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: Film Dated to 1947
Date: 19 Aug 1995 14:52:05 GMT
Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736)
#: 118343 S15/Mutual UFO Network
Date: 18-Aug-95 10:04:40
Sb: #118021-#FINAL BOW FOR SANTILLI!
Fm: BOB SHELL 76750,2717
Thanks for your support. I have received full cooperation from Ray Santilli in my efforts to date this film. I have collected information in bits and pieces because Ray and his staff are not experts on this and don't always think to provide everything I need, and are so busy that it is hard for them to find the time to handle what must seem like endless questions from me. I am sure they will jump with joy when the first full day goes by in their office without a phone call or fax from me asking, yet again, for more details.
I am trying to build as sound a support as possible so that we will have a coherent and reliable body of evidence to present either in favor of the film or against it.
I'd really rather not comment any more on this matter until the tests have been done.
On the special effects bit, so what? Special effects people with damned good credentials have looked at the film and said that it isn't a fake. I can't go into details on this now without violating a promise of confidentiality, but if everyone will be patient just a few more days it will all be made public.
P.B. Studge Challenges Film Analysis
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (PBStudge)
Subject: Santilli's Shell Game; Prologue
Date: 20 Aug 1995 21:17:48 -0400
Let's begin by going through Eckers comments on film analysis and end on the introduction of Mr. Shell and his efforts.
Excerpts of what Don Ecker wrote and the D-guy keeps re-posting:
>"...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.Most Newsreel and combat footage of the time were produced using tripods, small cameras with turret type lens, and 16 mm film in 100 or 400 foot rolls. Some of the rolls I have of industrial fire research indicate they were shot at 16 frames per second. Some have the same type of markings peddled as evidence by Mantel and Santilli. So do the copies made by commercial copy houses, that is the symbols were transferred to the new clear base stock after the fact.
>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.SAFETY FILM is related to the base polymer of the film. The polymers used in film have varied over time. In 1929, Eastman Kodak Company assigned enlarged film production of cellulose acetate to Tennessee Eastman Company, which began full bore production in 1930. George Eastman, introduced transparent roll film on nitrocellulose support in 1889, and introduced cellulose acetate SAFETY FILM in 1908. One of the problems with old pre-1908 non safety film is it's volatility. Some early film stock is no kept under water to prevent it catching fire at the National Archive warehouses.
>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.Film symbols are fools gold. The symbols can be transferred to other clear film stock. A composite can then be created by with the original 1927, 47, 67 edge by using registration holes in the leader of the film. This permits and prevents frame wonder. This is very important when making special effects. Matting and other composite techniques have been around since the art of film was established in 1895. It is interesting that Mr. Shell does not mention these techniques or the possibility of there use.
>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.Be careful. You are probably now dealing with salesman, not *honest* technical folks. In the case of Kodak, the salesman in the Hollywood office was probably shown a clip of clear leader or the film symbols drawn on a sheet of paper. A naive reply from a nice kid in sales created a letter flogged about by the Santilli organization.
>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.Only if every one is being honest. Mr. Santilli and those in his organization have repeatedly obfuscated, lied, misinformed, embellished, dodged, weaved, and occassionally told the truth to the point were nothing can be trusted. Like buying 17 rolls of film on spec., seeing one allegedly say's Truman on the can, then saying he's not sure if anythings there, then presto alludes he's there, then bingo! Trumans footage is not resolveable. Again
>Santilli told me he did not have a negative, (later proven to be a lie) >and the cameraman did not have one.As I've said repeatedly without challenge from Sgt. Bilko, the man is a hoaxing lier. Does Mr. Shell think the company that he keeps or his endorsements for Fox or Mr. Santilli will really help his credibility? You lay down with dogs you get up with fleas. 'Nuff said.
>I then asked him who did?Try ringing up Volker Spielberg. X-;^).
>He said "the government I guess."Which government? USSR/CIS?, UK?, Taiwan?, Brazil?, East Germany (defunct), Czech Republic?, Albania?
>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.The non-existent cameraman and the non-existent cancelled check or bank transfer statement. No records found, none proven to exist except probably the monetary transfers from FOX Broadcasting to Exploitation Managments Swiss numbered account.
>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.The alleged piece Shell supposedly has *consistent* with Santilli's autopsy film is Cine XX. Is that the bit Mr. Ecker had a peek at in Santilli's office? Or is that the blank leader the Kodak Exec saw? The importance is this, if an original is in Mr. Santilli's possesion it will have a spliced WHITE leader on it typically used to thread those pesky 16 mm projectors. Clear leader typically means it is a composite copy, whose date can never be properly verified when liers are involved. It is at best fools gold. I will explore film examination and it's chemistry and dating in my next post.
>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.What type of analysis did Tony say Shell was going to perform? This is where it will get very interesting. To understand the processing of film and the chemistry involved I refer the reader to "The Chemistry of Photography" by Roger K Bunting, 1987 Photoglass Press. Forensic chemistry of the film in question is probably best left to NIST and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in coordination with KODAK. I'm sure someone from the FTC would be happy to help Mr. Santilli test the origin of his footage. To begin with Mr. Shell's complete report and film sample need to be re-analyzed using state of the art facilities. I'd like to see a thermal analysis (DSC to start) and IR-Vis-UV spectra of the polymer base stock along with some liquid and gas phase chromatography with some mass spec measurments of the trace elements to determine the age of the *alien autopsy* and ruined Truman footage.
By comparing it to samples from the National Archives and the *GOLD* standards supplied from Kodak archives from the period involved a calibration curve or fingerprint of the footage will present itself. This will also allow comparison to AGFA or ANSCO film stock from the same time used in the time period to make copies. I'm sure Mr. Shell won't mind all of this, as he no doubt wants to keep his credibility.
However the reader is again warned, the film bits used for analysis so far (clear and otherwise) show no aliens and could be from stock footage easily purchased from any of the film archives found in a good Professional video or entertainment industries magazine. The reason a hoaxer or movie producer would do this is obvious, getting his set reconstruction just right the way it was done for the recent historical treatment of four fingered Roswell aliens. I will post the name and phone number of several such companies in my Santilli Shell Game Series, coming this next week.
Warmest regards to all those KILL files, true believers, and hoaxers out there!
CREATURE DISSECTION / Santilli FilmANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
by Bruce Maccabee
CAVEAT EMPTOR: we have only the cameraman's word for it that this film is related to the Roswell crash events.
(See also my paper CAVITT EMPTOR in the MUFON library.)
The secret "word" for the day is TRUST BUT VERIFY!
(R. Reagan/M. Gorbachev)
I have studied the following portions of the Santilli film (as video): Damaged Creature Dissection(DCD) and Debris . I have not studied the "Tent scene" nor the Undamaged Creature Dissection (UCD).
There are approximately a gazillion things one could say about this film/video. Here are a few comments and things to watch for when you see it..
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.
2) Images of objects further away than (estimate) 5 ft or so are in good focus. Close ups within (estimate) 2 - 3 feet, are poorly focused. This suggests that the cameraman set a fixed focus of (estimate) 6 - 8 feet or so and did not try to refocus as he moved in for close up shots. Supposedly the cameraman used a standard lens on a Filmo 70 camera. If the standard lens had a 50 mm focal length, then the field of view was about 8 degrees high by 11 degrees wide. If the focal length was 25 mm then the field of view was about 16 degrees high by 23 degrees wide. Based on the images in the film I estimate that the 25 mm - "wide angle" - lens was used. The film may have had an ASA (speed) rating around 200. Under bright lights the cameraman could use, perhaps, f/5.6 or so. For a 25 mm lens at f/5.6, set for 8 foot distance, good focus occurs from about 5 feet to about 17 feet. For the same 25 mm lens set to focus at 6 feet and f/5.6, good focus is obtained over the distance 4 feet to 10 feet. Higher f/stop numbers would give greater depths of focus, but lower exposure. IF the cameraman wanted to be sure he got bright images he might choose lower fstop numbers which would give shorter depths of field. The are a lot of variables here and only the cameraman knows for sure - if he remembers. The point is, the defocus on close-ups can be explained as an artifact of using a fixed focal length - not zoom - lens at a fixed focal distance. Unfortunately, because of the (presumably) fixed focal length, the increased resolution (ability to see fine details) as the camera moved closer is counteracted by the poorer defocus so that ultimately details were lost rather than gained by the cameraman's actions.
3) The camera is almost always moving. There is hardly a second of stillness. There is, however, only a slight blurring of images resulting from the camera motion suggesting that the film was run at the normal speeed (at 24 frames/sec each frame is exposed for *roughly* 1/2 of 1/24 of a second, i .e., about 1/50 sec.) The continual movement makes it difficult to see specific details without frame-by-frame capability. However, this continual movement causes the camera to film the Creature from many different angles and to film more parts of the room than a tripod mounted camera pointed at the Creature would film.
4) There is a clock on the wall at the Creature's right side (to the left of the operating table as viewed by the cameraman) which reads about 10:06 at the beginning and about 11:45 at end. Hence we know EXACTLY (ROFL) when the dissection took place except for a few small details, such as which day, month, or year, and was it morning or night. These details can only come from the cameraman's testimony. (Note, at the end of the dissection the clock is seen as reflected in an observation window. The reflection causes a right-left reversal which must be "undone" to get the correct time.)
On a table against the wall under the clock are a bunsen burner (no evidence that it is burning), test tubes, beakers, some bottles and some sort of filtering or titration (?) apparatus with a ringstand and a funnel in the top of an Erlenmeyer (? been many years since chemistry) flask to act as a collector. There is no appearance of liquid at the bottom of the flask. On the same table one "doctor" was filmed twice as he (she?) writes on note paper. The writing is illegible on the video. MAYBE some of this could be read using the original film. On this table are placed metal (stainless steel?) dishes or bowls at several times during the dissection.
There is a phone on the wall that is closest to the head of the Creature (perendicular to the wall with the clock). It has a coiled cord hanging down. There is also what appears to be the standard ring of finger holes for dialing. The handset (microphone plus earphone) hangs over the dialing ring. There is a sign on the wall near the telephone. Large letters read DANGER. I can't read the printing below it. There is a window in the same wall, just a couple of feet beyond the head of the Creature. I presume the room on the other side of the window is an observation room.
5) There are at least three "doctors" in the "operating room" plus the cameraman. Through the observation window one can see a "doctor" wearing a surgical mask. He observes the activities in the operating room and occasionally looks downward as if making notes. There is a microphone (standard studio type) hanging over the operating table. (This could be an intercom system and/or for an acoustic recorder.) The doctors in the cutting room wear complete protective wear with only rectangular, dark windows where the eyes would be. (Looks almost like a welder's mask.) One of the doctors appears to be assisting the doctor who does the cutting. The assistant may be a female (some evidence of breasts).
6) At the very beginning the cameraman moves around Creature's body which is lying on its back on a table. The cameraman does not provide a view from the head toward the feet, but does provide almost continuous coverage at other angles. One can see the left and right sides and oblique views of the top (stomach, chest, etc) of the Creature. There is an obvious, and perhaps shocking (considering the descriptions usually given of aliens as "greys" with large eyes, etc), similarity in appearance to a human. However one notes (at least) the following dissimilarities :
A) head shape - more bulbous? - and definitely rounded at the top (no crest). Seems to extend above the eye-ear level more than human adult; i.e., more childlike. There is no evidence of hair and no evidence of a hairline (presumably it was not shaved before the dissection)
B) the chest is like a non-muscular male human (undeveloped breasts) although the crotch is female; there may be very poorly developed nipples, but I am not sure of this because what appears to be a nipple might be a slight bruise. Note: there is a bruise on the left chest which is a reasonably prominent dark area perhaps the size of a silver dollar (3 - 4 cm in diameter). The "nipple" is above and to the right of this bruise.
C) The Creature has six fingers and six toes. The foot looks like a normal human foot except for the extra small toe on each foot. The toes have toenails. The fingers are slender and appear to be jointed like human, and seem to have fingernails. However, all the 5 fingers (not the thumb) seem to be about the same length. This may be a distortion of perspective, but it appears that what would be the smallest finger, if it were a human hand, is almost the same length as what would be the middle finger, if it were a human hand.
D) The legs appear muscular.
E) The body appears somewhat muscular. The neck seems thin.
F) I do not know the height but it is probably in the range 4 to 5 feet.
G) It has a smallish nose
H) Its eyes are covered by a dark thin material. This covers the complete eye. After the "doctor" removes (quite deftly, as if experienced) this "filter" the Creature's eyes are seen to be rolled back into its head and one can see the very bottom of what would be the iris in a human eye. The eyeballs *seem* to be larger in proportion than human eyes, but not a lot larger (certainly not the "wrap-around eyes" we have heard about).
I) Here is the big anomaly: I see no evidence of a navel. There are a couple of faint dark spots at the left side of the lower belly. These are probably bruises. Does anyone know of off center "belly buttons" on humans? (If this is a hoax, one could imagine covering the navel of a huan corpse with tape that matches the skin color. )
What appears to be damage to the Creature is evident before the dissection:
D1) a big chunk was taken (chewed?) out of the inner right thigh
D2) the left thigh had lots of darkened areas - black and blue marks? bruises?
D3) left chest has a noticeable "bruise" (dark area); the left chin, also. Other darkened areas , presumably bruises, are visible at other parts of body, such as under the right arm. The right hand is nearly severed at the wrist.
D4) the left side of head above ears seems to have a round depression perhaps as large as an inch in diameter. This might be a slight bruise and not a depression. There is no evidence of bleeding.
The autopsy is not for the squeemish. The "doctor" begins at the left ear and cuts straight "downward" toward the shoulder along the side of the neck to chest and then around to the corpse's right side. At times I can see *both sides of the knife* indicating that if this is a hoax using a "bloodknife" (with a tube that emits dark liquid as the "doctor" moves the knife) it is well done, indeed. The track of the knife is a clearly marked thin dark line. However, drops of dark fluid ooze out of this thin dark line at several places *after*, sometimes long after, the knife has passed.
I am not qualified to comment on the accuracy/realism of the dissection/autopsy, e.g., whether the cuts which are made are logically what a doctor/pathologist would do.
COMMENT: Looks like a dissection on a real Creature. If this is a deformed human female - supposing the navel is there but covered up - then this is clearly a hoax since it is claimed to be the body of a non-human.
If after the best of image analysis based on the original film or a superbly excellent copy there is still no evidence of a navel, then.....
The Debris film
This is in good focus. The "trash" (debris) is on two tables. Individual pieces have labels attached. Some labels are readable (e.g., W138).
The right hand table has three "control panels", or "boxes" two of which seem undamaged and one which is clearly broken approximately in half. The edge of the broken panel shows that it is thick, perhaps 2" thick, with some sort of fibrous material inside (wires?). Each panel has left and right handprint depressions side by side. There are "dots" which may be raised above the surface which are within the depressions. Four dots are beneath the palm. There is a dot at the end of each finger and thumb, and there is an arc of dots within an arc shaped depression just beyond the finger tips.
The other table has variously sized pieces of debris. The edges of the metal-plate-like pieces are rounded or fused as if they had been melted - cut by a torch? The thickness appears to be 1/16" to 1/4" (not thin metal foils).
Of particular interest are the two "H" beams on the table. I call them H beams because they more resemble the letter H than the letter I. One beam has a cross-section size estimated at 2 to 3 " and a length of about a foot. It appears to be cut at each end but the cut is somewhat jagged (does not appear to be a saw cut). On one side of the H, on the outside, is a semicircular ridge running the length of the beam. The other beam has a smaller cross-sectional size, perhaps 1", and is a shorter piece, perhaps 6 - 8" long.
Now here is the real "waker- upper" (in case this has all been so boring you're falling asleep). On each side of the horizontal part of the "H" shape (what would be the vertical portion of the I shape) on each beam are symbols which resemble***OLD GREEK LETTERS*** There are symbols which are similar to delta, lambda, sigma, theta, rho. The symbols may be artistic variants of the Greek symbols. (Or perhaps some old Greek symbols are simplifications of the symbols on the "H" beams!)
Does that mean the aliens speak Greek? Were they bearing gifts? (Beware!)
Were they like the motorist whose car broke down on a deserted road and, while he was waiting for help from his friends (used the cellular telephone to call home), along came a drug crazed motor cycle gang (or jackbooted thugs)?
Closing comment: I suppose the sorriest outcome of this Creature Dissection Film activity would happen if the film is real but the majority of the world population decides it is a fake because it must be a fake... it can't depict real aliens because they don't exist - at least not here on earth ... because if it the film does show real aliens then we would all suffer PASTSHOCK... and no one wants to suffer from Pastshock. (This occurs when you find out that the history which you have been told is the "gospel" truth is actually untrue or, at the very least, must be interpreted differently.) Why would history need re-interpretation, you ask? Because if they are here now, they could have been here yesterday or last year or hundreds or thousands of years ago. And I presume you can guess what that means.
Keep your eyes on the skies.
Other Film Insights
Update on Roswell Film - Colin Andrews
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 15:20:28 -0500
From: ekomarek@Libris.Public.Lib.GA.US (Ed Komarek)
Subject: Update by Colin Andrews
>From CPR International Newsletter - Vol 4. No. 1 - Spring/Summer 1995_ROSWELL UPDATE_ - pp. 9-11
By Colin Andrews
(Editor's Note: Please see Roswell Film Image #7 for sketches done of the Wreckage shown in the Film by Mr. Andrews.)
Reg Presley and I were invited to several more extensive meetings and viewings with Ray Santilli, the businessman and owner of what is claimed to be the original original U.S. military film of the alleged UFO crash near Roswell, New Mexico, U.S.A., July, 1947. The footage is purported to cover the debris clean-up, autopsies of alien bodies, and examination of pieces of debris including glyph-type markings, on the metallic surfaces.
The first meeting was on the 20th of June. just shortly after I arrived in England, and took place in Ray Santilli's London office. Ray was very forthcoming and helpful, showing us a re-run of the footage shown at the May 5th meeting in the London Museum which had been held for the media and UFO researchers. Although Reg and I were at the May 5th meeting, this second run-through allowed us to look for further detail. We were able to view carefully one of the clips that had been of great interest to use regarding pieces of debris. Three metallic-type pieces each had images of hands, two contained images of two hands with six fingers, one appeared to have been torn in half and showed only one six-fingered hand. The images were impressed within the metallic substance, like a plaster mold. Within the area of the palm of each hand were four raised columns, such that it you inserted your hand into the impressions, you would contact these four pillars. At the end of five of the six fingertips on each hand existed another column, forming a curved row about 1/2 inch above the hand. A third-row of columns spread out above the hands in a trough-like depression While speculation is fruitless, it is tempting to envision a navigation device controlled by the energetics of the beings' hands.
Our meetings with Santilli were very successful and we were delighted when he agreed to do the first TV interview in his office with my friend Prof. Chiang for the World College of Journalism and Communications in Taiwan. Santilli allowed the Taiwan crew to see the film while he pointed out items which he felt were unusual and of importance.
Santilli also supplied the reports from the British government's top forensic pathologist, Dr C.M. Milroy, Dept. of Forensic Pathology, University of Sheffield, England. Some excerpts from his report:
"The autopsy room was small and the examination was being conducted by people wearing full protective clothing.....The head was disproportionately large. No head hair was present. The abdomen was distended. There was no evidence of decomposition. The overall external appearance was of a white adolescent female, estimated height 5 feet, tending towards a heavy built but not abnormally thin or fat. There were six digits to each hand and foot. The eyes appeared larger than normal and the globes were covered with a black material which was shown being removed.....The body was opened with a Y shaped incision but the skin of the neck was not fully reflected. [pulled back] A close of the knife being drawn against the skin was shown, with blood coming from the skin. This appeared to be an unusual amount of blood. The neck appeared to contain two cylinder structures either side anteriorly. These could have been muscles (sternocliedomastoid muscles) but were odd in appearance.....The skin of the chest was shown reflected, and the central rib cage and sternum block removed. The chest organs were removed individually. There appeared to be a heart and two lungs, but when close up shots of the organs were shown they were always out of focus.....What appeared to be the membranes covering the brain (dura) were shown being cut and removed. Although a close up of shot of the brains was shown it was again out of focus. however the appearance was not those of a human brain.....The injuries present to the body were less than those expected in an aviation accident. No injuries to account for the death were shown. Whilst the examination had features of a medically conducted examination, aspects suggested it was not conducted by an experienced autopsy pathologist, but rather by a surgeon."
Of the most direct relevance to the crop circles was the film footage of the debris which contained depressed images of glyph-type markings.
These images resemble things we have seen before in Egyptian hieroglyphs, indigenous art, crop circles and even crop circles created by hoaxers. One wonder whose hand is at work. Very similar patterns have been reported by contactees as well. Carlos Diaz as an example. We were asked not to release the images until several language experts had been given an opportunity to view them, however, it is now out on the internet and so a diagram follows. [Diagram similar to one briefly seen on Santilli Website]
After the interview of Ray Santilli by Prof. Chiang, I was surprised to hear Chiang say that he had seen photographs from this film before! My first thought was the rumor going around which stated that this film was made in Brazil 5-7 years ago and is a hoax. But Chiang assured me that he had seen the film after Taiwan officials had made a request last year to the U.S. government for access to UFO material. The Taiwan government was sent 80 black-and-white photos which Chiang says showed the same material as in Santilli's film. I had heard this same thing before from a Japanese colleague, Johsen Takano. I recently gave an interview to Takano in L.A. at the UFO Expo West for the Japanese UFO Museum which will be opening next year. I had previously arranged for Takano to meet with Santilli in Hong Kong to see the film on behalf of the Museum. In L.A., Takano told me that he had seen this film before, after a Japanese government request was made to the U.S. for material on the Roswell event. So what's going on?
To sum up, we have a businessman who makes no odds about it that his interest is not so much in the content of the film, but in making a return on his investment. He does, however, claim to genuinely believe the material is real (although he has no knowledgeable foundation in the subject on which to base that belief). His intent is to disseminate the film to a worldwide audience, which he seems well equipped to do. The first TV audience to see it has already done so in France. It was immediately spread throughout the country in every UFO Magazine. In the U.K. it is scheduled to air on the 26th of August on Channel 4 and in the U.S.A., watch for 'Encounters' on Fox TV. The Japanese are likely to sign contracts in the next few days. We are told by the executive producer of Union Pictures, Channel 4 (U.K.)., Tim Shawcross, that they sent a team to the U.S. on the 28th of June where senators of congress were shown a private viewing of the footage. They also interviewed local witnesses at Roswell, N.M., trying to verify the truth of the footage.
I have recently come under attack by members of the research community who do not feel that this film could possibly be real and are angry that I have been prepared to look at it and consider its possible merits.
They also feel that I am not equipped to be in the privileged position of seeing this information firsthand as I am not a seasoned Roswell researcher. In this, I couldn't agree more. However, because of my friendship with Reg Presley, I have had access to the footage when the more seasoned veterans have not. My feeling is that it is better to have someone viewing things firsthand and disseminating that information than to have no one doing it. I have made every attempt to pass everything I know to those in the field who have a basis of knowledge with the events of Roswell, those people who have talked to witnesses and documented the evidence so that they can make comparisons and evaluations. I am disappointed to find so many have already dismissed it as a hoax without having viewed the footage or researched the claims. Although the probability of a fake is high, I feel the need for research is equally high. As a hoax, it merits even closer observation as its timing and means of release certainly must be relevant.
I am keenly aware of the fact that this entire episode may well be manufactured by the U.S. government to make the UFO research community lose standing in the public eye, and probably has even more intention than that. If it is a government maneuver, why are they prepared to spread it to foreign administrations? As we go to print, intelligence sources have informed me that material exists and will shortly be released which proves that indeed this footage is the product of a film produced in Brazil 5-7 years ago, and is a hoax.
Is it coincidence that this is emerging so close to events underway in Washington? Six months ago the U.S. Air Force issued a statement in response to congressional pressure spearheaded by representative Steven Schiff. Rep. Schiff requested all government documents pertaining to the Roswell incident under the Freedom of Information Act. The request was delayed and eventually resulted in a government statement in the form of the Air Force report. In the report, it was acknowledged for the first time that an event did occur and was covered-up. However, they claim the cover-up did not involve UFOs, but rather the crash of several specialized balloons which were supposedly monitoring Russian nuclear testing activities. As a result of the public interest this report engendered, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), an agency which audits all government functions, is currently investigating this report. Other knowledgeable sources indicate that there will be an important release of information from the White House regarding the UFO phenomenon near October of this year. So what is going on?
Steve Kaeser Update on Aug. 28th ShowingAlso some Information about Roswell Film Videos Availability
From: email@example.com (Steven Kaeser)
Subject: Re: RE: Roswell Film
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 06:56:58
Organization: Kaeser Konsulting
In article <40PF7P$10T@INFO.CURTIN.EDU.AU> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
>From: email@example.com >Subject: RE: Roswell Film >Date: Tue, 15 Aug 95 14:35:31 +800 >>Peter G Dellys >>firstname.lastname@example.org >>Perth Australia >Because I am also from Perth, I took special interest in your post because you >mentioned the video screening. Were you talking about screening scheduled >overseas or in Perth (or both)? If you have more detail about when and where >it is due to be shown, please mail me or post to this newsgroup. >Thanx in advance. > >Pete-Santilli has been working hard to license the rights to some of the footage to producers that want to use it. Bob Kiviat is producing a special for the FOX network in the U.S., Channel 4 in England is producing a special in that country, and I understand that the Japanese have also begun producing their version of the documentary. August 28th is the official release date, when those who have placed pre-orders can expect their video copy in the mail. That is also the date for at least two of the above mentioned specials.
From: email@example.com (Steven Kaeser)
Subject: Re: Santilli Video
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 22:01:02
Organization: Kaeser Konsulting
In article <40MS60$ONQ@NEWSBF02.NEWS.AOL.COM> firstname.lastname@example.org (DONZON) writes:
>From: email@example.com (DONZON) >Subject: Re: Santilli Video >Date: 14 Aug 1995 02:58:08 -0400 >>I saw on Larry King Live that the autopsy video will be aired on TV. >>Can anyone tell me when? >I've been told the airdate on 7-10 minutes of the Santilli film will be >August 28. >A thirty minute video transfer of the Santilli film is available through >MUFON-L.A. for $59.95 postage paid, direct from Santilli. >Donzon@aol.com (Don Waldrop, Director - MUFON-L.A.For those who are interested, here is more information on the film:
Santilli Film / Buy it
Mutual UFO Network
July 1995 06:09:23
MARK L. CENTER, 76016,2242
Roswell Film Flash!!!
The UFO Audio-Video Clearing House has been named the only Officially Authorized North American distributor of the Ray Santilli "Alien Autopsy Footage" which is thought to be actual footage of the Roswell Crash of 1947. This exclusive mail-order contract has been confirmed by Dave Aaron, 74%Footage" which is thought to be actual footage of the Roswell Crash of 1947. This exclusive mail-order contract has been confirmed by Dave Aaron, director of the UFO Audio-Video Clearing House, on July 12th 1995.
On August 28th 150,000 copies will be made available to the American public exclusively through the UFO Audio-Video Clearing House. The tape will consist of 30 minutes of footage and it will be accompanied by documentation describing the footage.
All tapes will be sent out following the simultaneous worldwide release of 5 to 7 minutes of the footage which will be seen on various TV programs in many different countries on August 28th, 1995. Please be aware that you will not be able to get this footage before August 28th.
The cost of the VHS tape and documentation is $59.95, post paid. Please allow 30 days for shipping after the August 28th worldwide release. The UFO Audio-Video Clearing House accepts Master and Visa cards, personal checks will be cleared through your bank before the tape is sent to you. Best way of payment is by Money Order of by Cashiers Check. You can also contact Mr. Don Ecker at the UFO Magazine, Sunland, California.
Feel free to pass this information along to anyone who might be interested.
UFO Audio-Video Clearing House
P.O. Box 342-Comp
Yucaipa, California 92399
24 hour Phone # 909-795-3361
The impression that I had gotten from the Don Ecker description of the video sent to the FOX network was that it included all of the segments that have been mentioned as a part of the video being sold. This statement indicates that only a few minutes of each segment will be shown on the specials, which could be disappointing. However, even if FOX had been sent all viewable ENDthat only a few minutes of each segment will be shown on the specials, which could be disappointing. However, even if FOX had been sent all viewable footage, it is likely it would have been edited to a few key segments for airing.
The Sheffield Conference is this weekend, and it will be interesting to see if any reaction to the film is carried by the popular media.
Update from IRI - The Santilli Circus( Joachim Koch, August 17th, 1995 )
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Joachim Koch)
Date: 17 Aug 95 19:49:00
Subject: IRI-NEWS:THE SANTILLI CIRCUS
## Nachricht vom 12.08.95 weitergeleitet
## Ursprung : /UUCP/ALT.ALIEN.VISITORS
## Ersteller: Joachim Koch@242:1000/7.20
## Empfaenger: All
Subject: Roswell********************************************************************** *Announcement* *of the* *International Roswell Initiative* *IRI* **********************************************************************THE SANTILLI CIRCUS
by Joachim Koch
The aim of this article is to provide some medical background to demonstrate that there exists the possibility that an autopsy was not performed on an "alien being" in the film shown by Ray Santilli in London on May 5th. As a general surgeon in Germany, I feel qualified to write about this subject.
I practice in a large (700 bed) hospital in Berlin-Spandau,Germany. During the past 18 years I have seen many seriously injured individuals from all sorts of accidents. I have also attended numerous autopsies. Even today, seeing a body dissected is not pleasant for me. Although an autopsy is done in a clinical atmosphere for medical or scientific purposes, it nonetheless affects me deeply. When I leave the autopsy room to return to my normal duties, I take a few moments to forget the dissected corpse, and to remember the human being it once was.
If the being shown in the Santilli film was not a dummy --if it was once a living being from Soccoro, Dallas, Cambridge, Berlin, or wherever -- it deserves the respect civilized people pay to all our deceased.
If it turns out that the entity in the film really is an alien, then by our greedy plundering of the corpse and showing this publicly, we will have shown how little value we place on life. By our actions, we may have failed the test of becoming equal members of the cosmic community.
2. Some considerations about bodies and autopsies
It is important to remember what Glenn Dennis, the mortician at Ballard's, said he was told by the nurse who witnessed the autopsies. According to Dennis, the preliminary autopsy was performed in the Air Force hospital at Roswell, and the bodies seen by the nurse had four fingers, unlike the body in the Santilli film, which had six. If a preliminary autopsy in Roswell had been performed and the final dissection (in the Santilli film) was done in another place, perhaps Fort Worth or Wright Field, then sutures placed during the first autopsy should have been visible during the second autopsy shown in the film, but they were not. Not surprisingly, pathologists stitch up bodies more crudely than do surgeons, yet no one viewing the film reported any sutures, and in fact, the "doctors" in the film are seen making the initial cuts. The body in the film, then, could not have been one of the bodies that the nurse in Roswell saw being autopsied. Most, if not all, who viewed the film were puzzled by the odd outfits of the "doctors." Kent Jeffrey, who was present at the showing, described them in his June MUFON Journal article as "two individuals in white anti-contamination suits, complete with hoods and narrow, rectangular glass faceplates..."
What were these suits for? They could not have been for protection from radiation because in a previous film shown by Santilli, "doctors" were seen examining a body without protective suits. Moreover, in the recovery of an alien craft and its crew, testing for radiation would certainly have been one of the first steps, but Jesse Marcel, Sr., has testified that no radiation was detected at the crash site.
The suits could not have been for protection from the odor of a decaying body. A suit for that purpose would have required breathing apparatus. Nor could the suits have been protection against unknown bacteria or viruses. In that case again, some sort of breathing apparatus would have been required to guard against airborne organisms.
So, it is likely that the strange outfit worn by the doctors had a different purpose -- to conceal their identities.
It is hard to understand why the autopsy was not performed under better lighting conditions, why only two "doctors"were in attendance, and why only one camera was operating amateurishly.
An autopsy of an alien would have been an extraordinary event. It may have been performed in a large room or auditorium so that many pathologists could have been present. It would have been performed very carefully and methodically, perhaps over several weeks' time. Careful motion picture filming and many slides and/or still photos would have resulted. Conditions would have been ideal to facilitate the best photographic records possible.
Nothing done by the film's "doctors" seems to indicate that they were aware of handling something of extraordinary value to mankind. The whole scene looked unpleasant and somehow illegal.
3. Physical Features
Only one or two of the attendees of the May 5th showing were medical professionals. Those present did, however, see a few features supposedly common to those of a "real alien,"such as dark almond- shaped eyes, a larger than normal head,a small mouth, a small nose, and smaller than normal ears in an abnormal location. Also seen in the film were features that are not commonly reported characteristics of aliens --six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot. I am not one who believes that alien lifeforms from other planets/ worlds/dimensions must be different from human forms. In my opionion, they could look very similar to those on earth. We do not have to assume, however, that a six-toed being is an alien from outer space. Members of ourown human species here on earth occasionally have six toes.
In medical terms, having more than five digits on the hands or feet is a genetic variation called "polydactylism." Polydactylism is seen in several different medical syndromes. A syndrome is a group of symptoms that collectively characterize a disease or abnormal condition,nearly all are named by the men or women who first describe them.
There are approximately 34 syndromes in which polydactylism of the fingers is present, and approximately 36 syndromes in which polydactylism of the toes is found.
In approximately 12 syndromes hexadactylism (six digits) of the fingers is present, and 13 with hexadactylism of the toes.
In syndactylism, two or more digits are knitted together. Different degrees exist, and there may be skin between the digits -- like webbing (as in the webbed feet of ducks).
Note the description of one syndrome in particular. Extreme growth of the head; widespread eyes and deep eye sockets, abroad-based nose; increased growth of the base of the skull; a crescent-shaped skin fold at the inner upper eyelid;mongoloid axis of the eyelids; no hair between the eyebrows;lowering of the outer ear, which is small; small lips; lowerjaw underdeveloped; low birth weight; short length at birth(dwarf like); unproportioned growth (dyschondroplasia);multiple variations of the ribs, breastbone, hip, knee;malformations of inner organs possible; poly- and/or hexadactylism.
This description is not that of an alien, but of a human being who suffers from "C-syndrome," or in the American medical literature, from "Opitz trigonocephaly syndrome." Only a few cases of C-syndrome have ever been described formally, and these few died very young. Still, the description indicates the variation possible in humans.
Another variation seen in humans is "Ellis-van Creveld syndrome," also known as "six-fingered dwarfism." This is characterized by the underdevelopment of various bones,particularly the long bones of the body. Bilateral hexadactyly is also prevalent. Another symptom is hypoplasia (arrested development), dysplasia (abnormal development), or absence of the teeth, fingernails, or toenails. Some of these individuals show sexual infantilism, with hypoplasia of the sexual organs. One third of these patients die during the first year of life.
For a syndrome to be diagnosed, key symptoms must exist, but not all symptoms have to be present. So, a human being could have some symptoms of a particular syndrome, but not all, and that human could live to early adulthood.
4. A disgraceful game
For almost 50 years, the U.S. government has denied any knowledge of Roswell. In 1978, Jesse Marcel, Sr., spoke out, and the investigation of the Roswell incident began. In the spring of 1994, organizers of the International Roswell Initiative began gathering signatures on the"Roswell Declaration" asking the U.S. president for an executive order to declassify information about what happened in Roswell. So far, more than 19,000 Declarations have been signed. After decades of silence, a report on Roswell was issued in 1994 by the U.S. Air Force. The report identified the Roswell wreckage as that of a weather balloon. Most UFO researchers feel this was another attempt at a coverup.
A few months after the Air Force report, 14 rolls of film appeared, supposedly showing the crashed material at Roswell, as well as an autopsy of an alien. Have we all forgotten how the MJ-12 documents appeared out of the blue?
What do we really have? A film producer who knows film- and movie- making techniques, telling the public that he bought the film from an old man. The producer does not reveal the identity of the old man, but refers to him as Jack Barnett-- a name similar to Barney Barnett, an alleged Roswell character.
If the film really showed alien corpses, it should have been reviewed by independent UFO organizations using scientific methods. Instead of providing the film for review, Mr.Santilli began a game of cat-and- mouse. Some hints here,some interviews there. Some pictures to elder pop stars here, some pictures to crop circle researchers there.
Then,media involvement and the showing at the London Museum on May 5th.
I remember when I was a medical student that by paying the dissection assistants, it would have been possible to be alone with the cadavers. With a lookout in place, students could have filmed a body. It is not unthinkable that a financially strapped student might decide to make a film to fool the UFO community.
The so-called "doctors" in the film could have been anyone-- doctors, actors, army personnel, or students. The anonymity of the doctors is ensured by their outfits and masks. Who could distinguish between an actor wearing a mask and a once-living politician, given the poor lighting,poor resolution, and distance shots of the film? Recently, those involved with the Santilli film have attempted to explain themselves and establish the legitimacy of the film in interviews and on the Internet. However, in my opinion, they have lost their chance to be taken seriously by not playing it straight from the start.
Serious researchers should not lend credibility to Santilli's case. British UFO Research Association (BUFORA) especially should not show the Santilli film at the Sheffield conference in August. Instead, they should insist on a scientific analysis of the film by independent researchers (not Mr. Mantle). Mr. Santilli should not be invited to speak until he has disclosed everything about the source of the film, and until he has verified that he is not an employee of any intelligence agency. If BUFORA permits a showing of the Santilli film without scientific analysis,they are only encouraging this farce. The UFO community should wake up! It's time to stop Santilli, with his unscientific handling of this matter because he is damaging the credibility of the UFO community. Our research into the possibility of extraterrestrial life should not be tainted by the Santillis of this world who follow only their own interests.
We continue to engage in, and believe strongly in, free,independent, public, and scientific UFO research. We shall reject any who shun that kind of UFO research for the sake of money, religion, politics, or power. I will help thwart those on this planet who try to prevent humankind from evolving into a member of the cosmic community.
Joachim Koch Berlin, August 12, 1995 Hans-Juergen Kyborg ______________________________________________________________________The *International Roswell Initiative* was founded by *Kent Jeffrey* (USA), *Joachim Koch* and *Hans-Juergen Kyborg* (both Berlin, Germany) in 1994. It is officially greatly supported (among many others) by MUFON, CUFOS and FUFOR and became one of the most successful international grassroots efforts in Ufology. The central document is the "Roswell Declaration" which was published together with additional material in this bulletin board. If you have missed parts of the material or the Declaration itself please contact Joachim
Koch via email or look into the World Wide Web for:
this links to the index of all the Roswell Declaration articles.
Notice the capital 'IUFOG'. The actual petition page is at
Please sign the Declaration -NOW! Thank you!
--- GIGO+ sn 310 at wad vsn 0.99.950303