Cameraman of the Original
Alien Autopsy Gives Video Interview ?

The controversy surrounding Ray Santilli's Alien Autopsy film continues to rage.

In a futile effort to answer the demands of the critics, the supposed cameraman, recently gave a video taped interview.

This was so poorly done and handled, perhaps by design, it has become a controversy nearly as large as the films themselves.

Read the following comments from a variety of "UFO Experts" and decide for yourself if the authenticity of this interview isn't as much an enigma as the Autopsy films themselves.


Dave



The Cameraman was supposedly interviewed. That interview incredibly was released in error in Japan..............................

Below are the alleged camera man's answers to the questions (in Japanese, which are not provided):


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Start:

Ready? Okay. I have some notes, and on these notes I have answers to precise questions. My son is here to help me with this interview. You will excuse me, this is the first time I have been in front of a camera and I am a little nervous. And, I will use my glasses, and I have prepared a statement before we go on with the interview. I am the person who shot the film. I will not tell you my name, but I want you to know that I am not happy that I have betrayed my country. Our United States of America is the greatest country in the world, and I am proud to be an American. I do not want that to change.


Question #1:

It wasn't my decision to become a cameraman in the military. They found out that cameras were something I understand and do best. And that's why I was given the job.


Question #2:

Yes, I remember that I got a call from McDonald telling me to report to General McMullen. When I got to McMullen, I was told that a plane went down just outside Soccoro, New Mexico. A flight was being laid down to go down there and I was to be on it. I was told to film the crash site and stay with the team till they left.


Question #3:

There were injured creatures lying around, obviously in pain. The men at the site were scared. There was a great deal of confusion, there certainly was. My authority allowed me to operate independent as long as I didn't interfere with anyone. When I arrived, I set up my tent and once I had lights, I began. How did I feet about it? I was concerned about potential contamination, but I had no choice.


Question #4:

Even if I could remember, I wouldn't give you names! Yes, there were scientists, military brass, and medical experts, even Truman's team went down there...(pause) it was the full works.


Question #5:

We were told nothing and ordered not to discuss what we had seen. We all knew it wasn't a spy plane or any other type of plane we had seen before. No one knew how it crashed or where it came from.


Question #6:

The creatures kept crying out and the men were scared, but they were trained and ordered to go in and treated it like a war situation. Their first job was to recover the objects the freaks were holding just in case they were weapons of some kind. I filmed the assault on the freaks to get these objects. It turned out they were not weapons, but control units of some kind. The freaks didn't want to let them go, but they didn't stand a chance, we got them. Once the units were secured, the freaks were removed.


Question #7:

I kept all the film with me, went back to the base to process.


Question #8:

What do you think I am? I can't give names.


Question #9:

The protective suits made my job very difficult. Also the air feeds into the feet on those things and the surgeons were always getting in the way, but I expected that.


Question #10:

Most of the processing took place around August, by the time the military, as we knew it, ceased to be. The Air Force and the Army were about to split and my group was about to be dismantled for a time anyway (laughs out loud). In fact, you could say 1 was in a strange position at the time of not belonging to either one service. And eventually they found a home for us.


Question #11:

I took all the film because I had no one to report to. My orders were not to discuss the situation with anyone unless they brought up the subject first. The first batch had been delivered. the department folded and I had no one to deliver to. I tried to contact McMullen, but I couldn't get through. In the end I couldn't leave it laying around, so I took it home which is where it stayed.


Question #12:

Frankly, I wish I had never sold the film. He came back to me until I sold him the film. I sold the film because I needed money. I'm not proud of it. Santilli took about 25 rolls. That's it. I'm going to bed. No more questions. Turn it off. No more questions.




James Eastman's comments on the Camera Man ...


From what's been said publicly and from correspondence with Ray Santilli, it's possible to piece together the story of the video showing a person who claims to be the "alien autopsy" cameraman.

According to Robert Kiviat, the Executive Producer of the US FOX Network's "Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction" documentary, Ray Santilli, "arranged to have the cameraman answer 25 of my questions concerning the story".

It's understood that on 12th July, 1996, the tape was delivered to Robert Kiviat and Gary Shoefield, Ray Santilli's business partner, at a prearranged hotel room in New York. Kiviat was allowed to watch the video three times, but was not given the tape.

The tape was handed over by a man who claimed to be the camera man's son and apparently this person also appears briefly on the video tape.

An opinion from someone who has seen the video tape, is that the person on film has a strong New York accent.


On 9 December, 1996, during an on-line internet interview with OMNI, Kiviat stated, "I have that video "in the can" as we say and we are planning a possible broadcast to show the camera man's face for the first time on television anywhere. Unfortunately, it's not a full interview and it may not be up to network television standards. I am doing the best I can. Truly".

Referring to the possibility of showing the video to Retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Daniel A. McGovern, a former combat cameraman who has offered to speak with the cameraman in confidence, Kiviat added, "If I had it my way, I'd be flying to McGovern's house tonight to show him the footage. The only reason I can't do that is because my agreement with Santilli is that we both hold rights to the cameraman's interview and I have to clear that with him. My guess is that sometime in the next few months during the course of producing another program, McGovern will be shown the footage. That's my hope. Santilli clearly is asking for more money and to have it be part of a production that I would make. Unfortunately, I do not have a green light for production yet".

Some time after Kiviat had been allowed to view the video, it was also shown on separate occasions to Michael Hesemann and Bob Shell.


On Friday 16 August, 1996, during a German speaking conference on one of the CompuServe forums, Hesemann revealed full details of the video.

I wrote to Ray Santilli asking if he would like to comment on this disclosure and he replied, "I am sorry that news of the camera man's interview is out, however please note at present there are NO plans to use it".

He also added, "The whole thing will be attempted again later this year".


During subsequent discussions, he spoke of his dilemma with the tape; "The content of the camera man's interview really wasn't the problem. The problem revolved around the way in which it was filmed. To cut a long story short he insisted on filming it himself as he wanted to be in control of the lighting and the style of the interview - he wanted his image in silhouette. However expert he may of been with film in the old days, he made a complete mess of the shoot on digital tape because by turning up the brightness of any viewer you could get a clear picture of the man himself. The other problem was his nervousness - for the most part you can see him shaking.

It is great film footage however we have promised not to let it go".

This final comment, makes the sale of the broadcast rights something of a surprise.




Bob Shell Comments on What He Saw...................


Dear Bill,

I was also surprised there was not more chatter about the images. Perhaps it is only because the most vocal people are all out in Nevada worshiping at the feet of the "space brothers" gurus, and getting their "weirdness fix".

I was shown the video of "Jack" in Ray's office in London back in September. These images appear to be frame grabs from that same video, portions of which were licensed for use in a Japanese TV show.

"Jack" is reading the questions, prepared by Bob Kiviat, from the papers he is holding. He apparently needs his glasses to read, and so has them on for some of the video, and off for other parts. He speaks directly and with apparent sincerity directly into the camera when responding to the questions. I noticed no "growth" on his face, and don't see any in these images. His movements and his voice could well be those of a man of 80, but I'm no expert on that.


The man in the film is one of three things to my mind. He is 1/ an actor hired to portray the cameraman, or 2/ the real cameraman, or 3/ an imposter who somehow came into possession of the film and decided to pass himself off as the cameraman. I have no idea which is true.

Ray is not happy that these photos are on the net, and has said he will assert his copyright if anyone attempts to put them into print. Bob Kiviat has the exclusive rights to the video for the USA, and as far as I know is still hoping to use it in a future follow-up program.

Ray has promised me a first generation VHS dubb of the video for my own research. If this comes in any time soon, I want to make my own frame grabs.


Bob




Rebecca Schatte Thinks It's Fishy..........................


Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Autopsy Cameraman photos

I think those good people at missing persons should put his face on the side of a milk carton, or something along those lines. Mass mailings to the Tampa area?

Why do you suggest Tampa? Because Florida in particular has been mentioned a lot?

I'm sure something could be arranged that would not infringe on Mr. Santilli's copyright -- but let's get the right area.

Why couldn't sketches and/or computer imaging be done from the video of the cameraman? Is there some sort of copyright violation from doing an artist's rendition of the image?


Robert Kiviat was on television here in December -- the Leeza program. On that program he stated that he could not even show the video copy of the interview that he had to anyone because Santilli did not have permission from the cameraman because the video showed the camera man's face to clearly. Does anyone know when this program on Japanese TV ran -- was it December or January? Is it just me or does it seem like somebody is not being honest? Either Kiviat was not telling the truth in December or Santilli was not being honest with Kiviat. He had to have sold the video to the Japanese by December, if it was broadcast recently.

There is something fishy about this entire thing -- and it is getting fishier by the minute.

And why would the cameraman send a video to Santilli that was useless? Why didn't the cameraman give his son some of his famous photography tips -- you know, how not film a face or how to go out of focus, etc?


Has anyone heard from the Japanese what the audio portion of the interview said? I know Bob Shell and Michael Hesemann were bound to some sort of confidentiality agreement to not discuss what the heard on the video but now that the video has been shown couldn't they talk about it?

How long was the interview that Bob Shell saw in Santilli's office?

Anyone who cares to speculate or knows any of the answers to some of the questions are encouraged to reply.


Rebecca




Additional Comments from Bob Shell.......................


Bill,

This is almost too comical. Did Ray realize that the face could be seen by increasing the brightness or did you discover that? I would like to know if Ray knew this before or after it was sold to the Japanese and Bob Kiviat. I've heard somewhere that Bob Kiviat said he was NOT allowed to screen this specifically because the face could be recognized. Do you know why the Japanese were allowed to show it and Bob Kiviat wasn't?

Ray doesn't know much about film, but he knows video. He, or someone on his staff, realized immediately that the brightness could be cranked up to see Jack's face.

Ray says that the Fuji network broadcast the video prematurely due to a misunderstanding. It was not supposed to be aired before some time in May. Kiviat has had permission to use the video for some time, but the networks he has approached with it have been unimpressed and have not given the go ahead on a new program.

That's all I know about this weird part of this weirder story.


Bob




Bob Shell on the Cameraman, but more importantly discusses the SECOND AUTOPSY FILM.


James,

I know you are trying to get this right, so let me help you a bit. The earlier posting from Parascope is so fraught with errors, that I simply do not have time to correct every misstatement contained in it. At least you seem to be trying to get things right!!!!

The tape was handed over by a man who claimed to be the camera man's son and apparently this person also appears briefly on the video tape.

I was told the same story initially, about delivery of the tape to Kiviat and Shoefield in NYC, and that the camera man's son appeared in the video. However, when I saw the video in Ray's office in September, the only person appearing was "Jack" and Ray denied that anyone else had appeared in the video.

An opinion from someone who has seen the video tape, is that the person >on film has a strong New York accent.


I believe it was Philip Mantle who first brought up this accent thing. Philip later admitted to me that he could not distinguish regional American accents. John Purdy, also an Englishman, thought it was a Brooklyn accent, but he is also not intimately familiar with regional American accents. Both of these comments on accent were based on telephone conversations with "Jack" and not on this video. I think

I am the only American to hear see and hear the video in full aside from Bob Kiviat. This man's accent is neither Brooklyn nor New York. It sounds to me like upper Midwest accent, with use of some typical New York slang, so probably a midwesterner who spent time in New York, or around a lot of New Yorkers. Jack claimed to have grown up in Los Angeles in the movie community, and this could well fit since so many L.A. people were and are transplanted New Yorkers.

The issue of film reels has been talked to death, and I don't choose to comment on this any further at this point.


The "second autopsy" footage released by Santilli is only one of two such films he has. The other, claimed to be the "first autopsy", was shown privately to a few people, but has never been released on video. It's apparently very similar, but features a slightly smaller body, which has no visible injuries.

I have not seen this video, but do have stills from it. My impression is that the body is about the same size. It apparently looks "wrinkled" or "shriveled" unlike the other one. Supposedly this first autopsy was performed on July 1 and the one everyone has seen on July 3. Many of the criticisms of the autopsy which has beens seen lose validity if this chronology is true, since the "appearance that they have done all this before" and are moving too swiftly would make sense if they were simply repeating a procedure done just a few days previously.

When I asked Ray why this other autopsy was not released initially since everyone who has seen it says it is better in quality, his response was that it had not been released initially because it was unsuitable for television. He went on to explain that the bulk of this one is of a "gynecology exam" and that the doctor has his "arm inside almost to the elbow" at one point. Removal of a small white spherical object from the "genitals" is also shown in close up detail in this film. If Ray's description, which agrees with what Mantle and Andrews tell me they saw, is accurate, then it would make no sense from a financial point of view to attempt to sell TV networks something which they could not broadcast. This also argues against the hoax scenario since it would make no sense to produce an expensive hoax knowing in advance that it could not be shown on TV. I am confident that this material will be released to researchers at some point.


Judging from descriptions, Santilli again seems to have most, if not all, of this film.

The film is in the possession of Spielberg. When I visited Santilli in September he said that all film was with Spielberg aside from a certain portion which had been returned to "Jack" as agreed. Ray said he would be happy to show me the first autopsy, but he did not have a copy of it, having sent all copies of the video to Volker. My impression is that Volker is the one pulling the strings.


Bob Shell




The experts have worn each other out SPECULATING on what is real and what is not. They've picked this entire thing apart word by word injecting their own opinions.

The bottom line is there isn't enough solid evidence to prove it one way or the other. Until Santilli provides that proof, the Roswell incident remains alive and well.


Dave



More on the
2nd Autopsy Film

Dave's Favorite
Subjects Page