After attending the May 5th London Museum screening of the alleged
"Roswell Film", researchers Robert Irving, John Lundberg and Rod
Dickinson obtained an interview with Philip Mantle, the Director of
Investigations for BUFORA, and prominent commentator on the Ray Santilli
film.
=================================================
An Interview with Philip Mantle
(post-Roswell alien autopsy screening)
London, 5th May 1995
Copyright Robert Irving, 1995
Rob Irving (turning on tape recorder) : You're a media man aren't you?
Philip Mantle: Yeah. There are lots of rumours circulated about this
... so-called piece of film. One is that it was all a publicity stunt
created by me to help promote the Roswell movie starring Kyle MacLachlan
and Martin Sheen, because BUFORA were trying to help promote it, that's
not true; good idea, I wish I'd thought about that, but I didn't.
Another rumour was that Ray Santilli had made the film for whatever
reason, again I can't find any substance to that rumour. Another rumour
is that it's some kind of Brazilian or South American B-movie or
docu-drama type thing, that was (a) offered to Jacques Vallee when he
was down in South America ...
Rob Irving: It's a snuff movie!
Philip Mantle: Yeah ... and he said no thank you. Or (b) that it was
offered to an American TV company and they said no thank you, they
identified it for what it was, and sort of every other rumour in between
that you can think of, none of which can be, at this moment in time,
proved, or ... whatever...
John Lundberg: Have you made any moves to try and get it authenticated?
Philip Mantle: Yeah, on behalf of BUFORA we put a two page proposal to
Ray, part of which is to have it analyzed at Kodak. Kodak have NOT
analysed it, they've agreed to do so, and also a private film company in
London that has a lot of access to special effects and this kind of
thing ...
John Lundberg: What's the name of that company?
Philip Mantle: I forget. I have it in a file at home, I can't remember
what it is.
Rob Irving: But, haven't you known Ray Santilli for a couple of years?
Philip Mantle: I'll just finish off ... we also said if he would just
give us a copy of the film, on video will do, we'll then get it checked
out by a historian and a doctor or somebody who was in the medical
profession.
Rod Dickinson: Someone familiar with the surgical procedures of the
time?
Philip Mantle: Yeah. We haven't got anybody lined up to do that, I'm
not going to line somebody up to do it until I have a copy in my hands.
And I've said if you want me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, I'd
gladly do that in the meantime, I mean that's not a problem. But yes,
we knew of the story almost two years ago now. Ray contacted me and
told me about it and I basically said, Yeah, a nice story, but that's
all it remains, its a story; I mean this was just on the end of a
telephone and I just said ... 'show me', it's a simple enough thing to
ask. Again I said if you want me to sign something I won't reveal it, I
won't speak about it, that's no problem. So, various appointments were
made to view the film, they were always cancelled by Ray, so in the end
I just said 'Oh look, forget it', and I put it in writing as well, its
just another fancy story, there've been hundreds of the damn things.
So then earlier this year I was reviewing the "Roswell" movie and I
thought, I wonder if that chap still claims to have this film, so I
phoned him up out of the blue, he says 'yeah, but you don't believe me
Philip', well I can't believe it until I see it with my own eyes. So we
arranged to make an appointment to see him, which we did, saw a piece of
film, wouldn't convince you of anything, but it was interesting. So, I
asked him there and then if he would speak at our conference in August
which was already organised ...
John Lundberg: How much footage did you actually see?
Philip Mantle: I saw about seven minutes to start with.
Rod Dickinson: And are we right in thinking that its not what we saw
[today, at the Museum of London "screening"]?
Philip Mantle: Not what you've seen today, no.
Rod Dickinson: How does it differ?
Philip Mantle: I'll tell you about that in a minute ... and I said
speak at our conference, show the film, the conference was already
planned and organised, so to my surprise he said 'yes'!
So, a colleague of mine by the name of David Clarke phoned me a couple
of days later, out of the blue. I haven't spoken to David for perhaps
six months and he's a journalist on the "Sheffield Star" - he was
writing some article and he said 'give us a few quotes about your
conference, I'll do a little snippet now and I'll do you a bigger piece
later on'. So I told him about all the speakers and I said 'oh, by the
way ...', Santilli, the film, etc. So he ran that in the "Sheffield
Star", then the Whites press agency from Sheffield rang me a couple of
days later and they said 'is this correct?' ... 'yeah', they asked me
a few more questions. I told them basically what I knew and what I'd
seen and they sent the story around the world and then we started
getting phone calls quite literally from around the world.
John Lundberg: When was this Phil?
Philip Mantle: Oh, I don't know ... about six weeks ago.
John Lundberg: Right, but before that Reg [Presley] had been on TV
and he broke it really, didn't he?
Philip Mantle: Yep, he broke it. So, the story went quite
accidentally around the world.
Rob Irving: What's Reg's appraisal?
Philip Mantle: I don't know, you would have to ask him. So the story
went quite accidentally around the world.
John Lundberg: So the whole spate of publicity in March came out of
the David Clarke 'Sheffield' piece?
Philip Mantle: Yes, that's it, from a couple of column inches it went
around the world. And then we had some more conversations with Ray, we
saw another autopsy last week, similar to today, but not the same it
was different and then of course you've seen what we have today.
John Lundberg: Have you seen the crash site at all?
Philip Mantle: No.
John Lundberg: And what about the rumour that [President] Truman was
meant to be there then?
Philip Mantle: That's a rumour, I haven't seen that.
Rob Irving: What do you think about the film now?
Philip Mantle: I don't think any more now than I did originally, it's
interesting, it's ambiguous, I neither believe it or disbelieve it, you
know, I mean, I think when you are dealing with something like this
whatever beliefs you may have one way or the other you put them in your
back pocket and lock them up. We've put a very sound proposal to him
to have the film analysed, he will either accept it or he won't. If he
doesn't it will obviously cast doubt on the authenticity of it, but the
crux of the matter is not whether we have it tested at Kodak or
anywhere else, it's the camera-man ...
Rob Irving: Do you know the name of the camera-man?
Philip Mantle: I've been told a name, whether it's genuine or not I
don't know.
Rob Irving: It's a similar name to one of the original witnesses.
Philip Mantle: Yeah. Let's say that Kodak say 'yeah, its fifty years
old' and all this lot, I don't think that for a minute they would say
that the image on the film is what people claim it is, they'll only
test the age of the film. The crux of the whole matter is the
camera-man.
Rob Irving: What do they test it for?
Philip Mantle: They can check the nitrates of the film, they can check
if its fifty years old. The film company in London can test if it's,
say, a montage like they did in Forest Gump, when he meets Nixon [sic]
and what have you, they have told me in writing that if that is the
case they can prove that, so I'll leave that in their hands, I'm not a
film technician. Whatever, they'll run it through the computer and so
on. But I know as well as you gentlemen that if you put enough money
and enough time and effort into faking a piece of film that it can be
done, it can pass the tests, that's why you must have access to the
camera-man, did he have the knowledge, the technology ...
John Lundberg: A tripod!
Philip Mantle: [laughter] Yeah, did he have two hands to try and focus
it! All that kind of thing and also did he have the motive as well,
there has obviously got to be some kind of motive, so until that time,
until that day happens it's all up in the air.
Rod Dickinson: But don't you think its odd to hold a press conference
without any questions?
Philip Mantle: Ridiculous! I offered to open the proceedings for him,
and just again highlight what I've said to you gentlemen and point out
what we've offered to do in the ways of analysis, he should have taken
questions, but again if he did take questions he would only be quoting
the camera-man. Its difficult because a lot of people are asking me
questions and I can only quote what Ray Santilli has told me, I can't
say 'that's the truth', I can only quote him. So he's in a very
awkward situation, trying to defend it.
Rob Irving: Have you had any cause to actually believe that one of us
had something to do with the film?
Philip Mantle: No.
Rob Irving: Well, where did that come from?
John Lundberg: _UFO Magazine_ basically implied it.
Philip Mantle: There are a lot of people who have not had access to
the film, not seen it, they're extremely peeved. I don't want to
mention any names but there are well known researchers in this country
and overseas who are pissing their pants because they haven't seen it,
but they believe they've got some kind of divine right, I only got
involved in it quite by accident you know, they should have come today.
Rob Irving: Has anyone from Quest seen it?
Philip Mantle: No.
Rob Irving: Because Tony [Dodd] is claiming to have seen it. Well I
understand that somebody said that Tony had seen it ... Roy Lake
[London UFO Studies] ...
Philip Mantle: As far as I'm aware, no one from Quest has seen it.
I wouldn't show them it anyway, but that's purely personal [laughter].
But there's all kinds of silly rumours, none of which amount to anything.
And I dare say that after today there will be even more rumours flying
around.
[break in tape recording]
Philip Mantle: The idea that it was a B-movie, that's a rumour worth
following up.
Rod Dickinson: Yeah, but that's actually based on a total
misunderstanding of alleged snuff movies. South America is where snuff
rumours allegedly came from, and actually it was shown that they didn't
come from there at all, that they were actually [B-movies] produced
initially by an American producer and then when they were put in the
hands of a distributor the distributor changed the end of the movie and
added on the end of it this [fake] footage of someone being killed, and
then distributed it as genuine footage that had come from South
America. It's the same myth.
Philip Mantle: It's mythology, or folklore, whatever you like to say,
but it's something we have to check out. One of the rumours was that it
was offered to Jacques Vallee, so I've written to Jacques just to say
'is it true or is it not', obviously he will say 'yeah or nay',
hopefully. The other one was that I think it was the "Unsolved
Mysteries" program on American television, that they'd seen it and
said it's a Brazilian B-movie. I've got their address, I'll write to
them and ask.
John Lundberg: I was surprised by your piece in _The Independent_
[newspaper] ...
Philip Mantle: How pro it was ...
John Lundberg: Yeah! I was a bit taken aback actually ...
Philip Mantle: Well there's more than one way to skin a cat John, you
know that [laughter].
John Lundberg: Yeah, but that was a very positive way of skinning a
cat though, wasn't it?
Philip Mantle: Well yes, but if you've seen other things that I
wrote ...
John Lundberg: And you should have said 'Holy Grail' not 'Turin
Shroud'.
Rob Irving: Yes.
Philip Mantle: Erm, ... I'll say that next time! [laughter]
Rob Irving: You don't want to get into trouble with Lynn Picknet do
you.
Philip Mantle: No, no, no. But it's true. If you look at the Shroud
of Turin they've been analysing it up hill and down dale for donkeys
years and they're still arguing about it.
John Lundberg: Right, that's true ...
Philip Mantle: ... and I would hazard a guess here now, that the same
will happen with this piece of film because the will to believe in some
quarters is so strong it doesn't matter what you do. They carbon dated
the Shroud and said, 'oh, it's a mediaeval forgery', but now they're
saying 'ah, but the Shroud was on fire at one time and it cocks up the
carbon dating', that's because the will to believe in it is so strong.
It's the same with this piece of film now, I've spoken to a few people
here, taken their opinions and some are you know, 'YEAH' and some are
saying 'well I'm not so sure' and others are saying 'well, nah' - the
will to believe in some people is so strong.
[break in tape recording]
Rob Irving: Do you think its an exercise in tantalisation?
Philip Mantle: Well yes, it is. I mean Ray's a business man, there
are a lot of television companies who are represented here today, you
can almost hear the cheque books rustling in their back pockets.
John Lundberg: Has he sold the rights to Fox in America?
Philip Mantle: I don't think so. But there's nothing wrong with that,
he's a business man and if somebody is prepared to buy the rights
without any analysis, I mean good luck to them, I don't have a problem
with that.
[break in tape recording]
Rob Irving: Could you repeat what you just said about the camera-man?
Philip Mantle: Well the crux of the whole matter is *** *** [the
camera-man's name] - he claims that the crash took place three or four
weeks prior to the dates that are in all the books and that the
autopsies were conducted in Dallas, Texas not in Roswell. I've even
offered to go to America and interview him in person. Until somebody
does, or he comes to Sheffield to the conference and stands on the
stage, it remains even more ambiguous than it is, we have to have access
to the camera-man.
Rob Irving: I heard from somebody recently that the news from America
was that they had checked up on his credentials in the military and
there weren't any.
Philip Mantle: Well they don't know who he is. The other story I've
heard is quite the opposite, that there are 250 [camera-man's name] s
that were employed by the US military! [laughter] So you believe what
you want to believe, again I don't know.
**END OF TAPE RECORDING**
Copyright Robert Irving 1995.
*-------------------------------*
|...............................|
|.. legion@werple.mira.net.au ..|
|...............................|
*-------------------------------*
=================================================
Article on Roswell Film Footage by Philip Mantle
From: brenne@telepost.no (Ole-Jonny Brenne)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet..ufo
Subject: Philip Mantle on alleged 'Roswell' Autopsy Footage.
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 22:39:10 GMT
Organization: UFO-Norge
I have been asked to forward the following message to you. Read it
carefully!
- Forwarded message begin -
THE ROSWELL FILM FOOTAGE.
By Philip Mantle:
Director Of Investigations,
British UFO Research Association.
Much has already been written about the UFO crash at Roswell in July
of 1947, so I won't go over old ground. More recently a great deal has
also been written about the Roswell film footage currently in
possession of Mr. Ray Santilli, Managing Director of The Merlin Group
in London. To verify my involvement with Ray Santilli and the film in
question I would like to take this opportunity to put the facts
straight.
I was first contacted by Ray Santilli almost two years ago when he
discussed with me the possibility of putting together a UFO
documentary video. For those who don't know, the Merlin Group has put
together a number of video's on a whole host of different subjects or
issued overseas video's under license here in the U.K. They have never
made a UFO documentary. They have also issued music tapes and
commissioned books. For a variety of reasons the planned documentary
with Merlin never came off but it was during this time that Ray
Santilli told me the story of the Roswell film footage and how he
obtained it.
Santilli claimed that at some point previously (I do not know the
date) he had flown to the USA to research a documentary on the late
Elvis Presley. In order to do this he had traced a veteran cameraman
who was one if not the first person ever to film Elvis live on stage.
Santilli purchased some archive film of Elvis from the man in question
and returned to his hotel happy with the film he had obtained. Before
flying back to England he was telephoned at his hotel by the cameraman
in question who asked him to go and see him before he left as he had
something even more interesting to show him. Santilli agreed but this
time it was not film of Elvis but of the UFO crash at Roswell in 1947.
Santilli eventually agreed to purchase the film for cash, the exact
amount on money involved I do not know. Having purchased the film he
returned with it to England.
After being told this story both on the telephone by Ray Santilli and
in London in person when I first met him, I simply asked him to show
it to me. Unless he did it would remain nothing more than another
fanciful story. I told Santilli's version of the story about this film
to one or two of my trusted colleagues in the UK, one of whom is John
Spencer, now BUFORA's Chairman. I also took the opportunity to brief
Walter Andrus, International Director of MUFON when he was a speaker
at BUFORA's conference in bristol in 1993. Both John and Walter asked
me to keep them informed. I also contacted various Roswell researchers
whose response was luke warm to say the least.
Santilli on several occasions made appointments for me to view the
film in London none of which ever materialised. Reasons for this were
given many of which sounded quite reasonable but I was left with no
choice but to assume that Santilli's story was nothing more than just
that, a story.
Over the next year or so I had infrequent contact with Santilli either
on the phone or fax machine none of which resulted in me seeing any of
the film. In early 1994 I was about to set to work on writing a review
of the Roswell movie with stars Kyle MachLachlan and Martin Sheen. In
the process of doing this I picked up the phone and called Santilli
completely out of the blue. I asked him once again if he still claimed
to have this film from Roswell to which he replied "Yes, but you don't
believe me Philip". Once again I repeated my request to see the film
and again we discussed the possibility of a screening of it at
Santilli's office in London. After a variety of more phone calls and
fax messages my wife Sue and I eventually went to Ray Santilli's
office in London on Friday March 17th, 1995.
At this meeting with Santilli he once again told us the story of how
he obtained the film footage but he did not show us any film in his
office. Instead I was given a copy of a segment of film which Santilli
called the "on-site examination footage" to take away and view at my
leisure. I have viewed this section of film over and over again and
although it is quite poor quality a number of things can be seen. The
sequence is filmed inside a fixed position in a 'corner' of the room.
At the far side of the room are two men in white coats in front of
which is a 'table' of some kind on which lies a figure (presumably one
of the dead aliens). This figure is partially covered by a light
colored sheet of some kind although its head, arms and legs are
visible. In the foreground is a person dressed in dark clothing with
his back to the camera. The inside of this place is illuminated by
what look like gas or oil lamps, but certainly not electric light.
The two men in white coats appear to be taking 'tissue samples' of
some kind whilst the person in dark clothing simply seems to walk
about doing nothing in particular. The figure or alien on the table
does not appear to be short nor particular tall either. Not much
detail can be made out because of the poor quality of the film but its
large dark eyes can be seen without too much difficulty. The film is
black and white and there is no sound recording to accompany it.
Intriguing though this segment was it really did not serve to do
anything other than arouse my interest even more. Whilst in Ray
Santilli's office I asked him if he would speak at BUFORA's conference
in Sheffield on August 19 & 20 and show the film and to my surprise he
agreed to do so. Just a few days after his confirmation as a speaker
at a conference that was already organised I was telephoned by a
friend of mine by the name of David Clarke. David is a former BUFORA
Council Member and is now a journalist with the Sheffield Star
newspaper. David was writing a small article on a young man in
Sheffield who was just starting his involvement with the UFO
investigations and he asked me for a few quotes about the conference
so that he could give it a plug for me. I told David all about the
speakers and the Ray Santilli Roswell film which he ran in the
Sheffield Star. A few days later I was contacted by the Whites Press
Agency in Sheffield who asked me if the article in the Sheffield Star
concerning the conference was correct. I confirmed that it was and
they asked me a few more questions before thanking me for my time. The
next thing I knew I was receiving telephone calls from TV, radio and
newspapers from around the world all wanting to know about the Roswell
film, Ray Santilli and of course the conference. I told them what I
could but by and large I passed them onto Mr. santilli himself. This
exposure was somewhat premature but at least it brought international
attention on the film in question.
Eager to see more of the film another appointment was made with Ray
Santilli for April 28th. Again my wife Sue and I visited Ray at him
office in London to view another segment of film. This time we were
shown one of the autopsies. Unlike the previous film this was very
clear. Again it was in black and white with no sound track. The alien
is laid on a slab inside what looks like a morgue or should I say
hospital. The walls are all white etc. The alien is humanoid almost
human looking with a enlarged abdomen, two arms two legs, but it has
six didgits on each of its hands and feet. There is no hair visible
anywhere, the head is slightly emlarged but it has a nose, mouth, ears
and two dark eyes. Female genitalia is also visible.
The autopsy begins with the 'dark eyes' being removed. This is in fact
a kind of dark covering over the eyes itself. Once removed the
eyeballs are visible underneath although they are rolled up into the
head. The alien's body is cut open and various organs are removed and
placed in various receptacles. A kind of 'crystal' or 'mineral' about
the size of a marble is also removed from the chest cavity. The head
is cut open and the skull sawn open to gain access to the brain.
The people conducting the autopsy are completely covered in protection
suits of some kind and unfortunately the faces of these individuals
are not visible. This autopsy is conducted by two people who appear at
times to be also writing down the process as they go along. Behind the
head of the alien is a gap then a wall with a window in. Through this
window another person can be observed apparently wearing surgical
clothing, cap, gown, mask etc. Unlike the first piece of film apart
from a white coat the people were not wearing a surgical mask. As I am
not qualified to comment on the procedure used in the autopsy nor the
instruments used I will refrain from doing so. Nor will I comment on
whether certain other objects in the room such as a telephone and
clock were available in 1947.
On May 5th, 1995, my wife Sue and I along with over 200 others were
invited to attend another screening of more of the film at the Museum
of London. We did attend as did Kent Jeffrey from the USA, Roberto
Pinotti from Italy, Michael Hesemann from Germany, along with Reg
Presley and Colin Andrews to name a few. Also in attendance from
around the world the world.
After a short reception we were shown into the viewing theatre in
which another of the autopsies was shown. This time the alien had a
damaged leg unlike the previous autopsy where the creature was fully
intact. The procedure was pretty much the same as before but by no
means exactly the same. Again I will not comment on the medical
procedures used nor artifacts in the autopsy room as I am not
qualified to do so.
Afterwards opinion seemed to be mixed but many people including myself
were a little disappointed that more of the film was not shown.
However, I had now in total viewed something like 40 minutes worth of
film, which was becoming more interesting each time I saw more of it.
In between times on behalf of BUFORA on April 20, 1995, I personally
put a two page proposal to Ray Santilli to outline how we would like
to conduct the analysis of the film in question. Copies of this
document were also sent to John Spencer and Walter Andrus along with
Ray Santilli of course. Basically it outlined that we would like a
copy of all of the film in question, a copy of any and all
documentation connected to it, the serial numbers from all canisters
of film, plus one whole canister of the actual film itself. Two
companies in England has agreed to undertake the analysis of the film.
Kodak is one, the other is Hasan Shah Films. I also requested access
to the original cameraman who had taken the film. Ray Santilli has
agreed to in principle to our proposals but they have yet to be put in
practice.
A great many rumours have circulated and are still circulating about
this film. Some of these I can not verify or deny but others I can.
The first concerns Reg Presley. Reg is the lead singer with the
sixties pop group The Troggs and he is well known in the UK for his
interest in UFO's and crop circles. One of the rumors is that Reg is a
financial backer of Ray Santilli and that his only involvement in this
matter is for publicity purposes. I have spoken with Reg about these
rumors ands he denies them all stating that he has no financial stake
in the film and he certainly does not require any publicity. His
motives are purely out of interest in the UFO subject. Another rumor
is that the film in question was offered to UFO researcher Jacques
Vallee in Brazil some years ago. I wrote to Jacques to question this
rumor and in a letter to me dated 1 May 1995 he states: "The rumor you
heard about me, Brazil and the alleged Roswell film is just that, a
rumor. i have never made any such statement. I have been told that the
rumor was being spread by someone named Dan Smith, but I don't know
whether he invented it, or was simply repeating it."
Another version of this same rumor is that the film was offered to the
American TV show "Unsolved Mysteries" who automatically confirmed it
was a South American "B" movie of some kind. Just today (9 May 1995) I
spoke with the Unsolved Mysteries show in the USA who have once again
denied this rumor. Other rumors that I personally am involved with the
hoaxing of the film in order to gain publicity for BUFORA's conference
and/or the Roswell movie are just as ridiculous as any of the others I
have heard. I dare say that there are many more rumors circulating
that have not yet come to my attention.
In my opinion BUFORA and myself have approached this whole issue in an
unbiased manner and have treated all parties concerned correctly and
professionally. We have put to Ray Santilli a sound and reasonable
plan to undertake the analysis of the film and if he agrees to
cooperate then we may well begin to get to the bottom of the matter.
We have attempted to follow up any rumors that could at least be
feasible but to date (9.5.95) none of them have yet stood up to
scrutiny. We will of course continue to do this and offer our full
cooperation to Ray Santilli and any serious professionals or
researchers who can offer sensible ideas on how to further analyse the
Roswell film footage.
Philip Mantle.
BUFORA 9.5.95.
- End of forwarded message -
Page Index
Review of Mantle's Statement by J. Easton
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 19:50:42 +0100
From: James Easton
Subject: Mantle's Statement
Regarding...
>Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 09:15:27 GMT
>From: Ole-Jonny Brenne
>Subject: Philip Mantle on alleged 'Roswell' Autopsy Footage.
>I have been asked to forward the following message to you. Read it
>carefully!
Thank you, we will.
>I was first contacted by Ray Santilli almost two years ago when he
>discussed with me the possibility of putting together a UFO
>documentary video.
Intriguing. I thought Santilli had no interest in the subject:
"The fact that we stumble across it, have no real interest in UFO's ...I accept is hard to swallow."
Ray Santilli, 3 June 1995
>For a variety of reasons the planned documentary with Merlin never
>came off but it was during this time that Ray Santilli told me the
>story of the Roswell film footage and how he obtained it.
According to Mr Mantle, this confirms that some 2 years ago, Ray Santilli told him how he had _acquired_ the footage.
>Santilli claimed that at some point previously (I do not know the
>date) he had flown to the USA to research a documentary on the late
>Elvis Presley. In order to do this he had traced a veteran cameraman
>who was one if not the first person ever to film Elvis live on stage.
>Santilli purchased some archive film of Elvis from the man in
>question and returned to his hotel happy with the film he had
>obtained. Before flying back to England he was
>telephoned at his hotel by the cameraman in question who asked him to
>go and see him before he left as he had something even more
>interesting to show him. Santilli agreed but this time it was not
>film of Elvis but of the UFO crash at Roswell in 1947.
>Santilli eventually agreed to purchase the film for cash, the exact
>amount on money involved I do not know. Having purchased the film he
>returned with it to England.
In other words, Santilli had the alleged original 16mm film in his
possession some 2 years ago.
This seemingly poses a *major* problem with the most recent chronology, according to Mr Santilli's version of events.
George Wingfield met with Ray Santilli and Chris Carey at their office, on Monday 5 June, 1995.
George recalls that, "actual purchase of the film by Santilli and his German backer, Volker Spielberg, had taken place only six months ago, although they had first met the cameraman and been shown some of the footage in 1993."
Additionally, on "The Big Breakfast", broadcast on Thursday 8th June 1995, the following conversation took place:
Mark Little: Later this year, now is this a bit X-File'y, has the
government been stopping you from showing this film?
Ray Santilli: No, not at all.
Mark Little: Why haven't we seen it Ray?, why is it taking so long to see this great thing?
Ray Santilli: Well it's not a question of taking so long to see it, I mean we didn't acquire it ourselves until quite recently so it's just a question of us formatting a program, when the program is finished the program will be released. But we're not rushing, we're not working to anyone else's agenda but our own.
We now seem to have a completely different version of events; the film was only required some six months ago, or "quite recently".
>Santilli on several occasions made appointments for me to view the
>film in London, none of which ever materialised.
Could this perhaps be because Santilli didn't have the film...
>Reasons for this were given, many of which sounded quite
>reasonable...
Reasonable perhaps, but truthful?
>Over the next year or so I had infrequent contact with Santilli
>either on the phone or fax machine none of which resulted in me
>seeing any of the film. In early 1994 I was about to set to work on
>writing a review of the Roswell movie with stars Kyle MachLachlan and
>Martin Sheen.
This should be 1995, not 1994.
>In the process of doing this I picked up the phone and called
>Santilli completely out of the blue. I asked him once again if he
>still claimed to have this film from Roswell to which he replied
>"Yes, but you don't believe me Philip". Once again I repeated my
>request to see the film and again we discussed the possibility of a
>screening of it at Santilli's office in London. After a variety of
>more phone calls and fax messages my wife Sue and I eventually went
>to Ray Santilli's office in London on Friday March 17th, 1995.
>At this meeting with Santilli he once again told us the story of how
>he obtained the film footage but he did not show us any film in his
>office. Instead I was given a copy of a segment of film which
>Santilli called the "on-site examination footage" to take away and
>view at my leisure.
I'm afraid this is a significant admission by Philip Mantle.
The following article appeared in "The People", a U.K. national Sunday
newspaper, on Sunday 5 March 1995, and therefore some 2 weeks before Mr. Mantle had seen any of the alleged "Roswell" footage:
BEWARE...THEY'RE STILL OUT THERE!
ALIENS ARE CAPTURED...ON FILM.
By JULES STENSON.
An amazing film showing the first real-life pictures of aliens is about to be released - and here's what they look like.
These drawings (included within the article) are based on statements from witnesses who saw their mutilated bodies.
American military personnel filmed post-mortem examinations carried out on the creatures from outer space, whose UFO is said to have crashed in the United States. They also filmed debris from the wrecked flying saucer.
Now the astonishing footage - never seen publicly before - has been bought for 100,000 (pounds) by London-based film producer Ray Santilli.
He is making a video of the footage with Reg Presley, singer with Sixties pop band The Troggs, who is a UFO enthusiast.
[Deletion of Roswell case history]
Philip Mantle, director of investigations for the British UFO Research
Association, said: "The footage shows the whole event - the crash scene and between three and five aliens, some of them mutilated.
The wreckage was not discovered until about a week after the crash, so some of the bodies had decomposed and were partly eaten by predators.
The aliens have flesh and blood and are like humans. They had overly large heads and no hair. Their noses, lips and ears were small and they had dark, sunken eyes. They are very human-looking.
The footage is unique. It is the only known instance of aliens on film.
An air force officer from Washington was brought in to take the film.
He kept some film rolls secretly for years, then sold them to Ray Santilli because he needed the money."
...Harry Maguire, who works for Santilli's film company Merlin Productions, confirmed that a video was being made from the Roswell footage.
He said: "There are a few loose ends to be tied up yet. But we do have the footage."
[END]
I understand that Carl Nagaitis, a close acquaintance of Philip Mantle and often referred to as his "press agent", had "tipped off" the press about this story and that these quotes had subsequently been directly obtained from Philip Mantle.
For someone who had not apparently seen the film, Mr Mantle seems to know an astonishing amount of detail about its contents and background.
>In my opinion BUFORA and myself have approached this whole issue in
>an unbiased manner and have treated all parties concerned correctly
>and professionally.
Truth be told, BUFORA were as much in the dark as anyone as to what was going on.
It was not until Saturday June 3rd, that the BUFORA council saw some of the footage for the first time.
As for Philip Mantle having acted in an unbiased and professional manner on behalf of the BUFORA members, and many others whose interests he represented, you can reach your own conclusions.
As regards the exact chronology of the film's acquisition, the alleged
existence of the film was certainly known of some 2 years ago. It would therefore appear that either Mr Santilli has had the film for some 18 months longer than he now seems to imply, or that he has only "quite recently" acquired the film and that Philip Mantle was being grossly misled that Santilli had purchased it some 2 years ago.
If we are to take at face value the comments reported by George Wingfield and Santilli's own remarks, then certainly the latter seems to apply.
It also seems unlikely that Philip Mantle would fabricate the story
allegedly told to him by Santilli when the film was first discussed.
In which case, Santilli must have been untruthful and we should bear this very much in mind.
Perhaps Ole-Jonny would ask Mr Mantle if he would now care to release a further statement, commenting on these points.
Cheers,
James.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: TEXJE@BONALY.HW.AC.UK * JAMES.EASTON@STAIRWAY.CO.UK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Page Index
( Partial reprint from ORTK Britian Newseltter as related to the
Roswell Film ..... Illinois )
From: ekomarek@Libris.Public.Lib.GA.US (Ed Komarek)
Subject: ORTK Britain Forum 1/1
NOTE: Many thanks to Laurent for scanning in the ORTK Britain Forum. This is a separate newsletter put out by our sister organization in Britian. It includes a very detailed discription by John of the alledged Roswell archivial footage. The best, Ed
ORTK BRITISH FORUM
Operation Right to Know
END UFO SECRECY!
ORTK BRITAIN
SPONSOR FOR: International Roslwell Initiative
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGAINST THE SUPPRESSION AND DENIAL OF UFO EVIDENCE
THE ROSWELL AUTOPSY FILM?
On Friday May 5th 1995 I attended the London showing of the alleged 1947 film of an autopsy on one of the entities from the Roswell UFO crash. The issue of this film is presently generating much debate, speculation and general rumour mongering. Inevitably stories about the film, the individuals in possession of the film, and the people who have seen the autopsy (l) are being retold and retold, adding to the ever deepening confusion over the principal concern - does the film show an authentic autopsy of a non-human entity ?
The following are my personal recollections on the film, bearing in mind these are written from memory after one viewing. The sequence of the autopsy set out may well be incorrect, but I believe my general description of the room, procedures and the entity, are reasonably accurate. I suggest that you compare my account with others, to give an overall balance. The bracketed numbers refer to the notes at the end of this article. It should also be remembered that because of the general confusion surrounding the film, establishing even the simplest of truths is becoming an impossibility.
On the morning of May 5th I met with Kent Jeffrey (International Roswell Initiative) at his hotel. Kent had flown into London specifically for the showing. At approximately 12.15AM we met with other researchers in the lobby of the lecture theatre, Museum of London, London Wall, London, the venue for the film showing. Many well known UFO personalities were present. We were each given an eight page document, consisting of a top sheet (2) with the heading "Roswell" and seven pages of MJ12 material. Ray Santilli
(Merlin Publishing) was present and word spread that he was not prepared to take any questions before or after the film showing. We were also told to deposit all our bags, cases, etc. at the Museum reception. Specifically no cameras were to be allowed into the lecture theatre, although personal tape recorders were to be allowed (I did not take one !)
At just after l.OOPM we entered the lecture theatre. I was frisked at the door ! There was no verbal introduction to the film, which began with written credits in a modern block lettering. The credits briefly explained the nature of the film and also stated that the film was made up of segments each approximately 3 minutes duration (3). The film, presumably a video copy, did fade out and back in roughly every 3 minutes. The film was black and white and without a sound track. The total duration of the showing was approximately 25 minutes.
The opening shot shows a full length figure face up on a table or bench in a pale walled room. I have an impression that the room is not very large. The wall behind the head of the entity has a glass window of a size roughly 4 feet in length and 3 feet in height, and behind this window stands a figure in a pale outfit, complete with hood and visor (4). To the left of the window there is a wall mounted telephone, or intercom, with a coiled cable hanging beneath it (5). On the other wall, running parallel to the length of the table and entity, there is a round wall clock, roughly 12 inches diameter and with large bold numerals. The clock is indicating 10.20. This wall is perpendicular to the window wall, the corner approximately
2 feet beyond the wall telephone. The table has an extension at the head of the entity, the extension making the table L shaped, the L pointing to the long wall with the clock. The space between the table and the window appears quite small, perhaps 4 to 5 feet. On the extension is a shallow metal tray, perhaps 18 inches square, containing rows of surgical type instruments. A cube shaped microphone, roughly 2 to 3 inch sided, hangs over the table. The clock wall also contains a bench or table along at least some of its length.
The initial full length view of the entity is quite brief, but damage can be seen to the right leg, and the general appearance is 'dwarfish' with well built limbs and swollen abdominal region (6). The entity is naked and the skin tone is pale and I have an impression of darker blotches to certain areas. The initial full figure view is followed by a close up pan up the figure from feet to head. The feet are broad at the toes, and six toes (7) can be counted on the left foot. The lower legs are quite broad presenting a somewhat muscular appearance. The upper legs are similar in
proportion, with large middle sections, giving an impression of quite heavy or well developed musculature (8). The right leg is disfigured by an open gash, or burn, some 10 to 14 inches in length and with a darkened interior. The leg damage is the only visible external injury. The gash runs from above the knee position down to roughly the mid part of the lower leg, and is positioned to the front of the leg.
The abdomen is swollen relative to the rest of the torso. The chest
area is flat in profile and rounded in section. Darkened spots to the chest front/sides may be nipples, although I can not confirm this. Similarly I can not confirm the presence, or not, of a navel. The neck appears humanly proportioned, although the head seems a little larger (9). The chin is rounded, as is the general head shape. The mouth is opened, presenting a darkened interior, blackened rather than just in shadow. There is an impression of lips, thin and dark, and the overall size of the mouth is quite small (10). The nose is squat in appearance and quite small. Ears are also quite small, but otherwise human in appearance, although perhaps positioned further back on the head. The eyes present a dark exterior and are approximately 50% larger than average human eyes. The shape of the eyes is oval and they are positioned as human eyes (11). No eye brows are visible, although ridges above and below the eyes give an impression of eye lids. The forehead is perhaps 20% to 30% larger than an average human proportion.
The figure appears devoid of all body hair. A quick pan down the figure shows the shoulders and arms to be also muscular in form, perhaps less so than the legs. Arm length appears humanly proportioned, but like the feet, the hands are broad, giving a suggestion of six fingers, although I can not confirm this. Rapidity of camera movement makes it difficult to see the hands clearly for any length of time.
A change of camera angle to one looking up the figure from the feet
seems to show a vertical groove or slit in the pubic area, suggesting that the figure is female, although no pronounced genitals are visible, so I advise caution over this point.
Two doctors enter the field of view of the camera. They are wearing
identical white suits (12). The suits are complete with hoods and visors, and both doctors are wearing surgical type gloves. With somewhat stiff unnatural movements (13) one doctor begins to check the body over, using his hands to move the head slightly. The camera moves about excessively from one position to another, including lots of zooming in (14) making viewing hard work. During the course of this external check of the body the legs are separated slightly in a rather false appearing check on the pubic area. This procedure does not enable sex identification.
Using tweezers one of the doctors (15) removes a dark membrane ? from one of the eyes (contact sunglasses !) and I get the impression that he has prior knowledge of this procedure, as little or no preliminary eye examination is carried out (16). The eye interior, behind the membrane is white or very pale and the eye ball is not clearly seen. I believe the eye ball to have rotated upwards under the upper eye lid, although I can not be certain. The membrane or dark eye covering is transferred to a glass jar containing a clear liquid, into which it submerges. The membrane is oval in shape and appears to be quite stiff, not curling or flapping as the transference is made.
A long cut by surgical scapel, beginning neck left hand side, down
the left hand side of the torso and across the lower abdomen is carried out. A dark fluid trickles from the cut line immediately behind the scalpel presenting a realistic appearance (17). This cut of the chest and abdomen is rapidly followed by the opening of the chest and abdominal areas (16). A rib cage is not evident, the chest region appearing somewhat hollow and devoid of internal organs (18) and both the chest and abdomen interiors are dark, almost black, in colour tone. At least two separate organs are removed with the aid of surgical scissors, both organs approximately fist
sized, and placed in separate metal bowls. I can not identify the organs, either those removed, or those remaining in the body. Roughly mid way in the opened area is a patch of lighter coloured material of no recognizable shape. Some of this material is cut free and removed from the body.
The camera moves to briefly focus on a preprinted form, roughly A4 in size, and positioned on the table resting-along the clock wall. A doctor writes something on the bottom part of this form (19) after one of the organs is removed. His gloved hand appears quite clean.
A cut with scalpel beginning head right hand side and ending at the
left ear is made. Little or no fluid escapes from the incision. A saw is used to open the head (20) and a large organ, roughly 3 to 4 fists in size, is removed from the opened head. Attached to this organ is a quantity of softer material, and the two organs are placed in a metal bowl. Both pieces of material appear soft, although the first piece removed is denser than the second, which displays no particular integrity of shape. The denser organ or brain ? does not display the folds of a human brain, although it does retain a rounded and coherent shape after removal from the head.
Immediately after the removal of the head material, the film abruptly ends and we all leave the lecture theatre. There was no organized discussion following the showing.
(1) I had not intended to devote this much space to this film showing, but since my name has occurred several times in other literature concerning the showing, I felt it necessary to present my own account of recollections and thoughts. It is all to easy to get misquoted !
(2) Top sheet wording, under heading "ROSWELL"
"Following mans first use of atomic weaponry UFO sightings around US
military establishments became a common occurrence. This cumulated in the summer of 1947 with the crash of an object in the New Mexico desert less than a few miles from the 509th bomb group stationed at Roswell, the home of the Atomic bomb.
Enclosed you will find a document recovered from the US National Archive. It is alleged to be the briefing document prepared for President Elect, Dwight D-Eisenhower by president Truman.
The true events surrounding Roswell may never be known however with the passage of time new evidence continues to surface.
For further information regarding the remarkable footage you are about
to see please contact us at:
INTERNATIONAL EXPLOITATION MANAGEMENT
40 Balcombe Street Phone: 0171 723 7331
London NW1 6ND Fax: 0171 723 0732
(3) This might be at variance with the original description of the celluloid film - 15 canisters of film, each 10 minutes long. (the credits confirmed that the film was 16mm)
(4) According to some, the suits are radiation suits.
(5) One of the most discussed points of the film. Were coiled type cables available in 1947 ? I checked with archives at the British Telecom Museum, and was told coiled cables came into use in Britain on the series 700 phone, circa 1960 and originally with straight cable. Therefore definitely post 1960. I was told the USA might have been a couple of years ahead, but not much more. However - Philip Mantle (BUFORA) phoned me with details of a phone/phones available in the 1940s with coiled cable. I asked him to fax me the information - from a book "Bakelite An illustrated guide to collectable Bakelite objects" and a phone (suspiciously modern looking) is shown from the 1940s with a shiny appearing coiled cable. Shiny flexible plastic in the 1940s ? The text under the photograph of the phone, referring to a brief history of the Bell Telephone Company's use of Bakelite, does
not refer specifically to the phone illustrated. I understand Philip Mantle obtained this information from Ray Santilli. It has been established that coiled cable was available special order in the USA from as early as 1939, so it is conceivable that the coiled cable shown in the film is authentic. Such cable must have been rubber with cloth covering, not plastic ? If the cable in the film is reflective (some say it was - I can not remember) this must cast further doubt on a date of 1947 for the film.
(6) The general appearance of the figure is at odds with Roswell testimony such as that from Glenn Dennis who spoke with a nurse present at an autopsy on the Roswell entities. (I estimate the figure is roughly 5ft. tall)
(7) Roswell testimony indicates 4 digits to the hands, and most probably the feet also.
(8) This is also at odds with Roswell testimony, which describes spindly under developed musculature.
(9) The head did appear to be deeper front to back than a normal human head and perhaps 20% to 30% larger in proportion than human.
(10) The mouth could have been human.
(11) The eyes were not noticeably slanted and once the dark covering had been removed could have been human, although their size was large by average human size.
(12) and (15) Only one doctor performs the surgery. The other holds the various bowls and takes away the organs. But both are wearing the same suits and both wear gloves. I am not certain as to which doctor writes up the notes on the printed form.
(13) The actions of the doctor performing the physical examination appeared staged. Perhaps this is a subjective comment, but others present at the showing share this opinion. Conversely though, if authentic, the autopsy was highly unusual.
(14) I have checked with others and they confirm my opinion that the camera used incorporated a zoom lens. Some maintain these were not available in 1947.
(15) I am not certain as to when this was undertaken - it was either before or after the chest/abdominal work.
(16) There is a general sense that the 3 minute film segments were not shown in order, or that they were edited segments, resulting in procedural - gaps.
(17) I am of the opinion that the figure was not a latex rubber dummy or similar. However I am not an expert in special effects ! The figure looked like an authentic corpse, rather than something stuffed with animal innards. If not a genuine non-human entity, I would favour a human freak or worse, an altered human corpse.
(18) Again a procedural-gap may account for this. A film segment not shown.
(19) Philip Mantle has confirmed that a freeze frame of the form indicates the name of Dr. Detlev Bronk. Dr Bronk is one of the named MJ12 members. If true, like the MJ12 papers themselves, this indicates either authenticity or an elaborate hoax. And George Wingfield tells me that even Bronk's name "Detlev" has two different spellings in the UFO literature. If Dr Bronk's name is on the form, it will be interesting to note the spelling of his Christian name (if present).
(20) The sawing of the head is made difficult to observe because of the camera position, which places the doctor's hands in the line of view. And once again there seems to be a procedural-gap in the film sequencing because I do not recall seeing the head actually being opened up.
Summary: To recap, this account is written from memory after one viewing so please allow for some errors when the film is finally made public. I have checked with the BBC and was told that contrary to statements in the press, the BBC have no plans in the immediate future to show the film (it was referred to by the BBC as a documentary).
As far as I am aware Kodak has not at the time of writing authenticated the date of the celluloid film. Kent Jeffrey checked with Kodak in the USA the date coding on the film. According to Mr Santilli the film is coded with a triangle and square, and Kodak first confirmed this dated the film to 1967. However when specifically asked about 1947, Kodak stated that the date code went in a 20 year cycle ! So conceivably it might date to 1947. Presumably careful analysis of the celluloid by Kodak could confirm the date of manufacture.
Apparently at a near future date Mr Santilli is organizing a second showing involving more of the footage, perhaps the debris field, which he says he has.
As a final note, the film is most certainly the talking point at the moment, especially amongst the UFO community. I generally prefer not to dismiss UFO related information unless I have solid evidence for doing so. This approach is in my opinion the only sensible way of dealing with this film.
My gut feeling: The film is not an authentic autopsy of an entity from the Roswell crash. But in many ways I hope I am wrong.
As a final, final note. At a UFO conference weekend May 20/21 in Sanmarino, Italy, Philip Mantle accompanied by Chris Corey (Merlin Publishing) showed 5 slides made from the film. This received attention in the Italian press.
"The truth is out there" somewhere !
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION RIGHT TO KNOW - Britain now has an Internet capacity via ORTK member Paul Vigay. Email: psigayPcis.coopulink.co.uk
ORTK Britain coordinator and Forum editor:
John Holman 20 Newton Gardens, RIPON, N.Yorkshire HG4 1QF
Phone & Fax 01765 602898 better to let me know if you want to fax
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscription to ORTK Britain Forum: £6.00 - 4 editions, including post
Please get in touch for more information and/or joining ORTK Britain.
_______________________________________
Send a message with only HELP (uppercase) in the message body to:
ortk
Page Index
(Note: V J Enterprises is also in negotiation with Mr. Santilli to share whatever photographs he is offering and documentation related to the film in exchange for space to advertise the video he will be selling. Check our site the week of July 3rd to see if we have been able to receive the materials to share .... Illinois )
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 17:52:17 +0100
From: James Easton
Subject: "Roswell" Video: Update
As Kevin Coates from Paragon Publishing has announced, the WWW page
dedicated to the alleged "Roswell" archive film will be located at:
http://194.72.242.4/roswell.html
I spoke to Kevin last night (Kevin is the source of the advance updates and there now seems no problem in making this information known) and he confirmed that as from 1 July 1995 and initially exclusively via this WWW site, The Merlin Group will make available a "60 minute" video of the entire "archive" footage. This is apparently to retail for around 33 pounds sterling.
But there's a catch.
Whilst The Merlin Group will accept orders as from 1 July, no videos will be despatched prior to August 24th, after the footage has been shown at the BUFORA conference on August 19-20th.
Should you have placed your order prior to the conference and should the footage shown there turn out to be less than convincing, I don't think the video is being sold with a money back guarantee.
Kevin also confirmed that on August 26th, Channel 4 Television (UK) intend to broadcast a documentary on the archive film story. It would come as no surprise to find similar documentaries appearing in other countries once the film is made available.
I believe that the WWW site will contain 5 photographs, showing various scenes from the video footage and that these include the first "evidence" of the crash site and the "I-beam" hieroglyphics from the alleged wreckage.
President Truman is, alas, conspicuous only by his absence.
The web site documentation will apparently include details of analysis
confirming the dating of the original 16mm film. I hear it will be claimed this was undertaken by Kodak, but I'll believe that when I see it. The "authentication" may be no more than the previous claims that the coding symbols are consistent with 1947 film stock.
I understand the documentation also includes a statement from
Professor M. A. Green, Department of Pathology, University of Sheffield.
The site documentation will further include a number of legal disclaimers.
The Merlin Group are now actively marketing the footage and slides are being freely offered to such as UFO Magazine (UK) in return for publicity, particularly concerning the sale of the video.
Kevin had agreed to let me have advance copies of the material, but he did not manage to pick this up yesterday as planned. No matter, it should be available to us all tomorrow.
I have released a "watered down" version of this to a.p.ufo.
Cheers,
James.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: TEXJE@BONALY.HW.AC.UK * JAMES.EASTON@STAIRWAY.CO.UK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 13:10:13 +0100
From: James Easton
Subject: * "Roswell Film" - WWW Site *
Hi All!
Shhhhh...
The Roswell WWW page is at:
http://194.72.242.4/roswell.html
It is not officially operational until Wednesday 21 June, but I hope to have access to much of the material this evening (Monday 19th). This apparently includes scanned images of slides showing autopsy sequences and the hieroglyphics on the "I-beam". Possibly also slides from alleged crash site footage.
I understand it also includes a statement from Professor M. A. Green,
Department of Pathology, University of Sheffield.
An unconfirmed story, which should also be clarified definitively this
evening, suggests that as from 1 July 1995 and exclusively via this WWW site, Merlin Productions will make available a video of the entire "Roswell" footage. This is apparently to retail for between 40 to 50 pounds and initially 5000 copies have been produced for sale.
* I cannot confirm this as yet. *
I will of course let you all know what I hear later today.
Needless to say, this information is not for public dissemination as yet - someone may lose their job if this goes public at the moment.
Cheers,
James.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: TEXJE@BONALY.HW.AC.UK * JAMES.EASTON@STAIRWAY.CO.UK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 95 09:08:53 0000
From: Kevin Coates
Organization: Paragon Publishing Ltd.
To: rshapiro@interaccess.com
Subject: new roswell site
X-Url: http://www.protree.com/vjentpr/roswell.html
check out http://194.72.242.4/roswell.html from wednesday pictures from the roswell film will be shown exclusivly on this site
(Note: Below, is an example of one of the reports that Mr.
Santilli has had done on the film which appear on the paragon site done by a Forensic specialist in England ..... Illinois)
The University of Sheffield
Department of Forensic Pathology
(2nd June 1995)
At the request of the Merlin Group, I have reviewed a film which was claimed to show a post-mortem examination being carried out on an extraterrestrial being. The film was allegedly taken on a U.S. military base in 1947.
The film is in Black and white. A full record of the autopsy was not present, as apparently only some reels of the film record were available. No sound was present.
The autopsy room was small and the examination was being conducted by people wearing full protective clothing. Beside the autopsy table was a tray of standard autopsy instruments.
The Body was human in appearance and appeared to be female but without secondary sexual characteristics - no breast development or pubic hair was visible. The head was disproportionately large. No head hair was present.
The abdomen was distended. There was no evidence of decomposition. The overall external appearance was of a white adolescent female, estimated height 5 feet, tending towards a heavy built but not abnormally thin or fat. There were six digits to each hand and foot. The eyes appeared larger than normal and the globes were covered with a black material which was shown being removed.
There was an extensive and deep injury to the right thigh. this was not shown in very close up detail, but appeared to be burnt and chard down to deep tissues. No similar injury was present, although there was possible bruising down the left hand side of the body. Overall there was a general absence of injuries.
The body was opened with a Y shaped incision but the skin of the neck was not fully reflected. A close of the knife being drawn against the skin was not shown, with blood coming from the skin. This appeared to be an unusual amount of blood. The neck appeared to contain two cylinder structures either side anterioly. These could have been muscles (sternomastroid muscles) but were odd in appearance, though they were not shown in close up.
The skin of the chest was shown reflected, and the central rib cage and sternum block removed. The chest was shown reflected, and central rib cage individually. There appeared to be a heart and two lungs, but when close up shots of the organs were shown they were always out of focus. The abdominal organs were not clearly seen, though it did not appear that the being was pregnant, an explanation that had been proposed for the distended abdomen.
The scalp was shown being reflected anteriorly, having been cut in a standard autopsy manner. The skull was then shown being sawn with a hand saw across the front of the scull, though the backward cuts and removal of the scull cap were not shown. What appeared to be the membranes covering the brain (dura) were shown being cut and removed. Although a close up of shot of the brains was shown it was again out of focus. however the appearances were not those of a human brain.
Overall the appearances were those of a white adolescent female with a humanoid body. There were six digits to each hand and foot and the body shape was dysmorphic. No accurate determination could be made of organ structure because every close up shot was out of focus. The injuries present to the body were less than those expected in an aviation accident. No injuries to account for the death were shown. Whilst the examination had features of a medically conducted examination, aspects suggested it was not conducted by an experienced autopsy pathologist, but rather by a surgeon..
Dr C.M.Milroy, MBChB,MD,MRCPath, DMJ
Senior Lecturer in Forensic Pathology
From: skaeser@cais.com (Steven Kaeser)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: That Autopsy film,
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 17:59:52 GMT
Organization: Kaeser Konsulting
In article <1995JUN21.165504.18318@ZIPPY.DCT.AC.UK> Andy Cobley writes:
>Subject: That Autopsy film,
>A new web site seems to have been formed that whilst under
>construction claims it will have stills of this film. It can be
>reached at
>http://194.72.242.4/rosindex.htm
>Andy C
There is very little on this site as yet, but it should be interesting when the new "stills" are added. One post has indicated that the site will offer five (5) images from the film, and include at least one of the crash site and the "I-beam" hieroglyphics from the wreckage. But, if you log in today, you will only see brief mention that you should keep checking back.
Page Index
