Subject: New Santilli interview
This is a transcript of an interview between Scott Chisholm (host) and
Ray Santilli (owner of alleged Roswell footage) on Talk Radio UK
yesterday (Monday August 21st). Also present in the studio were
Philip Walton (director of BUFORA) and Jeremy Barretts.
The most important piece of information given is that the film has now
(allegedly) been verified as 1947 and the images on it as early 1950's at
the latest.
S.C. - Scott Chisholm (Host)
R.S. - Ray Santilli
P.W. - Philip Walton (Director of BUFORA)
J.B. - Jeremy Barretts ("The lie detector expert")
S.C.: Ray owns the rights to that film, so lets talk to Ray.
Ray, can you just tell us briefly how you managed to
get your hands on the film?
R.S.: Yes, Hi firstly. I was working in America about 3 years
ago on a music documentary and, um, I came across a
cameraman that in the mid-fifties was working for
Universal News as a freelance. And, uh, we bought some
footage from him for the music documentary, and, er, he
was just a, he seemed like a regular guy, and he was, er,
we built up a good relationship and towards the end of
that he said, "Oh by the way, would you be interested..."
and started talking about, y'know prior to '52 when he
was working for the army air force. And he explained
that he was a camerman and that, er, in '47 he was sent
down to what was an aviation crash site.
S.C.: Now I've seen some shocking things written about you,
Ray.
R.S.: Yeah, yeah I've seen them as well.
S.C.: Ranging from all sorts of things from a spiv to a
con-man and all the rest. You don't sound that way to
me, I have to say.
R.S.: Well, thankyou very much, but, um, you see the problem
is that, er, it's very very hard to knock the footage
because the footage is what it is, er, and y'know as
we talk here today there isn't a shread of evidence to
say that the film is a hoax, in fact quite the opposite,
the evidence is building to say the film is real.
So if you want to knock the footage, the only way you
can knock the footage is really looking at maybe myself
and my company.
S.C.: Right.
R.S.: And I, y'know I except that people have to do that.
S.C.: Now what about Ray, what about, I also read that, at one
stage there was, there were figures burned into the film
and another version the figures were...
R.S.: No, that's all nonsense. You're talking about the
Sunday Times article?
S.C.: Yes.
R.S.: What happened was, before the broadcasters were involved
in the film, we were at the time going to produce our
own documentary on the subject and we had logged each of
the reels ourselves, um, in much the same way as you
would, um, a time code. Because what we'd done was,
there's information on the cannisters which we felt
maybe was relevant, and, er, we had superimposed that
over certain sections of the film, but...
S.C.: Right.
R.S.: ...all it is is logging information.
S.C.: And lets just remind...the film shows...what?
R.S.: It's the, the viewable footage is full autopsy and there's
debris footage as well. And from there on the quality
deteriorates.
[Break for a phone call to the show (from an astro-physicist)]
S.C.: Back to you Ray.
R.S.: Hi.
S.C.: [our last caller] seems to think that your film might
indeed be genuine. There is, I mean here we have an
astro-physicist who hasn't written it off.
R.S.: Mmmm. Well, firstly it is a difficult subject, and, er,
we're waiting until the 28th of this month before we
know the, er, the determination by the various
broadcasters but as far as the camerman is concerned he
can't tell you where the creatures came from, he can't
tell you where the vehicle came from. When he was sent
down there he was told that it was a Russian spy plane
that had crashed. Um, when they all got there they
obviously knew that it wasn't, but er, y'know, what the
creature is is a mystery to everyone at the moment.
P.W.: Ray, it's Phil here. I've seen the film when you showed
it to the directors of BUFORA and also at the conference.
I just wanted to say first, in the actual UFO groups
I don't think anyone's having a go at you at all, you
come over as a really nice guy, um, the main argument is
some people believe the Roswell incident, some people
don't, and it's trying to put the film into context
with that, that's the main argument. Um, I must admit
I'm skeptical on the whole issue of the film being
genuine because of the inconsistencies with reports
in the past and I think the first criteria's got to
be testing the film, obviously, to try and ascertain
tha age...
R.S.: Yes...
P.W.: Is the test gonna be done definately for the 28th?
R.S.: The tests have already been done, we had a fax this
weekend actually from the States to say that they've
given us a 95 percent probability now that the film is
1947. They've actually determined that the film stock
is something called CINE KODAK SUPER X X which was
discontinued in 1956, and they can determine from the
attributes of the film itself that, um, that it was
shot within 2 years of manufacture, and it's, y'know,
it's obviously a very important piece of news for us,
and, er, y'know that's unfortunately too late for the
Channel 4 program, but that's what we got in this
weekend.
P.W.: Because there were offers from KODAK...
R.S.: Yeah, we did KODAK at the very beginning just in terms
of the codes, but, um, this new report is from a more
detailed examination. We've also given the film to NASA
who have been re-focussing images, looking at, er,
reflective surfaces to see what's been going on behind
the camera, and, um, from everything that I hear the
footage and the film that goes out in America on the 28th
is a very very positive look at the event and our footage.
J.B.: Ray, physically how much film is there? I mean is it
a huge great cannister of film?
R.S.: Well, we took 22 reels of film, er, from the cameraman,
but we only had...
J.B.: What was he doing with the film?
R.S.: Well, each reel of film is about 3 minutes in duration,
and during the event itself he shot hundreds of cannisters
of film, what he did was he separated problem cannisters,
either exposure problems or where the film had jammed,
or focus problems or whatever. He sent the first batch
back to Washington and retained the second batch just to
work on in development, and, um, it was a coincidence
really, because at that time, or just after that time,
the army and the air force split into 2 different
divisions, the army went one way and the air force
went in a different direction, and, um, he just simply
called Washington on a continual basis to say "come
and pick up this second batch of film, it's part of
the first job", and he was being passed around from
pillar to post and in the end he just gave up, he gave
up hounding them on a weekly basis to pick up the film,
and he just stuck it in his archive. That's how he
kept it.
P.W.: How much of the rest of the film...you say we've got
so many minutes that we've managed to see at the
conference and that, the rest of the film isn't of
good quality. Is there, some of the rest of the film
of the autopsies and the materials, quality enough to
actually see something...
R.S.: The problem that we have is that we get jumped on from
a very high height if somebody comes to us and says
we're using film that's not authenticated or is a
different film stock or whatever, so in order to play
safe the initial screenings here on the 28th, um,
we've used only what we know to be, um, completely
verified and also, um, y'know, good viewable quality,
um, after that the greyer areas of the film materials
that we have can then be analysed.
P.W.: Right, so we should be able to see more footage that's
of the poorer quality later...
R.S.: Yeah, and, er, y'know technology changes on an almost
weekly basis and there could be the technology that,
er, available where we can retrieve the image from the
negative stock and so forth.
S.C.: Ray, you're sitting on probably the most sensational
images ever taken.
R.S.: Mmmm, I think so.
S.C.: Where's the original Pal?
R.S.: The original? Well, we have the...
S.C.: I hope it's in a big vault somewhere.
R.S.: Yeah, yeah I was gonna say, um, Switzerland in a
safe, and that's about it really. Some went back
to the cameraman and some's still with us.
S.C.: Listen I believe you Ray. There's no chance of
getting a piece of the action is there?
R.S.: [laughter] There isn't any action.
S.C.: We can handle publicity for you Ray, I mean...
[general laughter and muttering]
S.C.: Ray, it's been a pleasure talking to you...
R.S.: Thanks.
S.C.: Like to talk to you again soon...
-> Send "subscribe FocusUFO-L" to misc@interport.net
FAQ for FocusUFO-L is available at: http://www.interport.net/~misc/
Page Index
About the Cameraman - George Wingfield
The following is a bulletin I recieved from George Wingfield. I
talked with him at the BUFORA conference in Sheffield,
19/08/95, and he gave me permission to post this in CIS.
Mick Sparham, Notts. 20/08/95
The Santilli Film Footage:
GW Bulletin #8 (14 Aug 1995)
Three months after the May 5th screening the British press has
at last begun to notice Ray Santilli's "Roswell" film footage
and the fact that this will be shown nationwide in a Channel
4 TV special in just two weeks time. Despite fairly even handed
articles in The Guardian and The Times, other newspapers have
approached the story in heavy debunk mode starting from
the position that, since we know there are no such things as
extraterrestrials, the film must obviously be a hoax.
The three principles of debunking, as enunciated by Stanton
Friedman, have been put to full use as never before :-
(1) What the public doesn't know, I'm not going to tell them.
(2) Don't bother me with the facts, my mind's made up !
(3) If you can't attack the data, attack the people.
Not only have some newspapers adopted these tactics, but also
one UFO group, which has unleashed a series of broadsides
against Santilli including the charge that his company was in
receivership and that his close colleague, Chris Carey, was
director of a company that made plastic dummies for theatrical
and movie purposes. Both these things turned out to be untrue
but never mind that! The latest charge, which comes from Graham
Birdsall, is that Santilli is now being investigated by
Britain's Serious Fraud Squad. So, Scotland Yard has been
called in !! Santilli tells me this is utter nonsense. We
shall just have to wait to see whether this allegation has any
more substance than the previous ones.
Having said that, one cannot deny that there is still a high
probability that the film footage is not what it purports to be.
Even so, a study of the known facts is more to the point than
the character assassination and blind prejudice which is coming
from so many directions. One recent development is the release
of the cameraman's own story which, I myself, find frankly
unbelievable. I hope to copy the story verbatim (approx. 600
words) in my next bulletin.
To summarize, the cameraman ("Jack Barnett") is dispatched from
Washington DC, on the orders of General McMullen, on a special
assignment. He flies out of Andrews Field with 16 other
officers and medical personnel to Wright Field (which he calls
Wright-Patterson, although this name came later). They collect
more men and equipment and then fly on to Roswell in a C54. From
Roswell they drive to the cordoned off crash site, which is now
specified as being just south-west of Socorro, N.M.
[ The site, which I was previously told was just outside an
Apache Indian reservation, is now said to be quite near the
"Apache Creek" National Wildlife Refuge. This presumably refers
to the Bosque del Apache NWR which is 20 miles south of Socorro
and straddles the Rio Grande. There is a world of difference
between an Indian reservation and a National Wildlife Refuge,
but let that be ... there's worse to come! Nevertheless, the
Socorro location is more in keeping with the "Barney" Barnett
crashed disk and alien bodies story.]
There, JB and the others see a "large disc 'flying saucer' on
its back with heat still radiating from the ground around it".
Those there already had done nothing and were awaiting orders.
They wait until the heat has subsided before moving in. "This
was made all the worse by the screams of the Freak creatures
that were lying by the vehicle. What in God's name they were
no one could tell, but one thing's for sure, they were Circus
Freaks. Each had hold of a box which they kept hold of in both
arms close to their chests. They just lay there crying, holding
those boxes."
[If this account is true, the wretched "freaks" must have been
lying there bawling at least 24 hours, probably much longer,
considering the time it would take to be summoned, briefed,
gather the men and equipment, fly from D.C., via Wright Field,
to Roswell and then drive for hours across the desert. If the
aliens were badly injured, one would hardly expect them to have
survived or to still be hollering and howling after all that
time ... but there's worse to come!]
"At around 6 am it was deemed safe to move in; again the freaks
were still crying and when approached screamed even louder.
They were protective of their boxes but we managed to get one
loose with a firm strike at the head with the butt of a rifle.
The 3 freaks were dragged away and secured by rope and tape; the
other one was already dead."
[Was such brutality the norm, even in 1947 ? One supposes this
poor intelligent female creature had travelled halfway across
the galaxy only to crash on barbaric planet Earth. There, lying
injured, she is whacked on the head with a rifle butt, tied up
and dragged away. Doesn't that make one proud to be American?
Well, I suppose no one had seen the movie ET then, but perhaps
this story is only fiction too ....]
The account concludes with the removal of the debris on a
flat-top (flat-bed?) truck to Wright-Patterson. There is no
mention of how, and when, and where, the three surviving
"freaks" died. Maybe they were actually killed by their
captors? A month later two of them were autopsied in a military
hospital in Fort Worth (or Dallas). The cameraman filmed the
autopsies wearing a thick protective anti-contamination suit
like the surgeons.
Because of this it was difficult to handle the camera properly
or to load and focus it. This, at least, does seem a plausible
reason why the close-up shots were never in focus. In May 1949
he was asked to film the third autopsy; the implication is that
one of the aliens lived for nearly two years after the June 1947
crash.
There seems no doubt that the cameraman, "JB", does indeed
exist. Channel 4 producer John Purdie and his team insisted on
making contact with him and recently travelled to the U.S.
specially to see him. A meeting is said to have been arranged
at which he did not show. A further attempt to persuade him to
appear in front of the Channel 4 cameras was equally
unsuccessful. He became angry and said that he would only speak
on camera if they produced a note from the President granting
him exemption from any government sanction.
Naturally enough this was not something to be had. Rumour has
it that Steven Greer offered to secure such exemption through
CSETI's "high-level contacts with the White House", but so far
there is no note signed by Bill.
Meanwhile all sorts of theories are being promoted about the
provenance of the "alien" bodies seen in the autopsy sequence.
One is that these are humans with a genetic defect known as
"Turner's syndrome". Proponents of this theory should produce
photographs of similarly afflicted people. The "Brazilian
sci-fi movie" (made about 5 years ago) claim is still doing the
rounds. Surely someone can come up with a copy of such a movie
if it were to exist? A more recent claim is that the "alien"
bodies are those of nuclear testing victims or even young
Hiroshima/Nagasaki survivors. The idea that nuclear victims can
grow extra digits or that their ears shrink and change position
is absurd. The next generation may show mutations but
these are hardly the sort of changes which happen in the short
term to the survivors of atomic bombs or those subjected to
massive radiation exposure.
When the Channel 4 documentary is screened on August 28th we
shall no doubt see what they have to say about their meeting
with cameraman "JB". In the meantime Santilli will present his
case, together with "all" of the film footage, at BUFORA's UFO
conference in Sheffield, England, on August 19-20th. We will
keep you posted.
George Wingfield
Page Index
BUFORA ON CNN, August 18th
From: magus@hassop.demon.co.uk (Kevin O'Crean)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: BUFORA ON CNN TODAY (Exclusive!)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 18:52:42 GMT
Organization: HASSOP COTTAGE
BUFORA PULL BACK FROM THE BRINK
By Kevin O'Crean
Friday 18th August 1900 hours BST
---------------------------------
At 18:40 hours today British Summer Time, Philip Walton, the Director of BUFORA
appeared on CNN World News, being interviewed in London and being asked about
the Roswell Incident.
This amazing appearance by Walton where he states categorically that he dos NOT
believe the Roswell Alien is real and further more does NOT believe any Aliens
have landed OR crashed gives fuel to the speculation that BUFORA may now publically
withdraw its alleged affinity with Santilli and the belief that the Roswell
footage is genuine in an attempt to regain its credibility.
Asked if he believed the Roswell Alien was real, Walton replied "e-e-r NO!" and later
when asked if he believed if Aliens had landed or crashed on Earth he replied
"E-r-r NO!" Although he did believe that there was possibly life elsewhere.
He was asked about abductions where he said "There was no tangible evidence"
and when asked about Crop Circles, he smiled and implied they were hoaxes.
REMEMBER THIS IS THE DIRECTOR OF BUFORA!
Walton's remarks appear just 18 hours before the first public release of the
Footage. This writer predicted 3 months ago, that when 'expert' opinion would
begin to refute the film, or the evidence to support it did not appear that the
so-calleds upporters and fence sitters would slide off the fence on the winning side,
just in time.
BUFORA has at last come off the fence and stated categorically on World TV that they
consider it a hoax. This statement must be a big disappointment to Philip Mantle the
Pro santilli member of BUFORA.
BUFORA have heard the call and have taken to the lifeboats!
Kevin O'Crean
Page Index
Kevin O'Crean Remarks from BUFORA Conf.
From: magus@hassop.demon.co.uk (Kevin O'Crean)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ! Part2
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 19:01:09 GMT
Organization: HASSOP COTTAGE
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I have just returned from the BUFORA conference having interviewed Santilli
personally with the rest of the world press and viewed the film. He *may* or may not
have known it was me, but his press officer Chris Clarey was certainly twitched up.
Our overweight German UFO expert and Santilli worshipper Michael Hesseman was also in
attendance. I will be reporting in full measure once I have had my tea and stopped
laughing!
Why was there so much security? Why were there bouncers and uniformed guards
everywhere in the cinema? Why did Phil Mantel warn that if ONE camera as much as
popped the film would cease. We couldn't undrestand why, but then after the film
started, we understood........it was so clear!
RTL, REUTERS, AND MYSELF AND OTHER WORLD PRESS GASPED AS WE SAW ON THE EDGE OF THE
'ALIEN' WRECKAGE THE WORDS ........................................**VIDEO TV**
Today, we have seen a sample of film that is an affront to the Intellginece of man.
We have also seen the wheels of big business in action.... BIG business!
This has *nothing* to do with UFOlogy and nothing to do with serious research. I
predicted to PBStudge a week ago, that I suspected an announcement would be made with
regard to the age of the footage. I also predicted that the film would then be locked
away and would not be avialable for any further investigation.
Today, face to face with Santilli, whose face dropped when I mentioned this fact,
confirmed that NO MORE FILM will be available for testing.
Bob Shell can afford to be confident in placing his name on this result, because if
he *is* in *error* then NOBODY is going to ber able to prove it!
Santilli also has said he no longer intends to follow up the cameraman's
authenticity. (HE is saitisfied)
But, Bob Shell has still to justify why:
A STUDIO PROP LABEL IMPRINT APPEARS ON A 1947 FILM
................
Santilli admitted it was an IN-HOUSE test
I am taking bets in front of the whole world that Santilli or should I be more
accurate INTERNATIONAL EXPLOITATION MANAGEMENT LTD will not allow the film to be
tested by anyone else ever again!
The 'surgeons' were so (xxxx-absolutely) afraid to touch the damn thing in case it fell on the
floor.....
I CHALLENGE YOU SANTILLI, GIVE TO AN INDEPENDANT TESTER, YOU HAVE *ADMITTED* TO THE
WORLD PRESS THAT IT WAS AN IN-HOUSE TEST!
................
Page Index
Ray Santilli's Response to K. O'Crean
From: John W. Ratcliff <70253.3237@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Ray's Response
Date: 19 Aug 1995 14:50:29 GMT
Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736)
#: 118935 S1/General/Welcome!
19-Aug-95 02:16:46
Sb: FINAL BLOW (RESPONSE)
Fm: Ray Santilli 100612,2261
To: ALL
Kevin must be extremely disappointed this morning as the Sheffield Star
ran what was a very well balanced story. By no means did they state that
the film was a fake they just posed the question "could it be".
Also please note that Kevin's Poison pen message was wrong in almost
every detail. Today nearly four months after millions of dollars
worldwide has been spent on the investigation of the film by
broadcasters there is not a single shred of evidence to say this film
is a hoax. All we have are a few Special effects companies trying to
cash in with opinion only. Every medical expert and people that conduct
autopsy's all day long confirm that the creature is flesh and blood.
Also most of the MAJOR Special Effects companies that are not scratching
around for a living are on our side.
Kevin, nice try....not good enough........
Ray Santilli
------------------------
#: 118943 S15/Mutual UFO Network
19-Aug-95 02:47:52
Sb: #FAKE OR REAL ?????
Fm: Ray Santilli 100612,2261
To: ALL
Over the next few days I am sure you will witness the last throes of the
people that have tried from the beginning to discredit the film. As the
Air date nears every attempt will be made to cause as much damage as
possible.
After the 28th you will have the opportunity to make your own assessment
however the investigation goes on.
Please keep an open mind and only accept hard evidence. This applies for
and against the film.
Best regards,
Ray
Page Index
REUTERS NEWS WIRE: BUFORA Conference
From: skaeser@cais.com (Steven Kaeser)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo,alt.aliens.ufo
Subject: BUFORA Conference on Reuters
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 06:23:13
There have been few mentions of the Sheffield event, but it did manage to make the
Reuters news wire:
=============================
10 REUTERS 08-20-95 10:56 AET ............... 48 LINES
BC-BRITAIN-ALIEN 1STLD
UFO enthusiasts argue over ``alien visitor'' film
(Corrects 4th graf by deleting extraneous word Rumours)
Andrew Marshall
SHEFFIELD, England (Reuter) - Delegates to a weekend UFO
conference in this northern England city argued Sunday over
whether a grainy black-and-white film provided final proof that
an alien spacecraft crashed in New Mexico 48 years ago.
More than a thousand enthusiasts of UFOs (Unidentified
Flying Objects) and other delegates watched the first public
showing of a film showing a humanoid female creature with
reptilian eyes being dissected by scientists on an operating
table.
While many delegates believed the film was genuine, some
anatomists and film experts disagreed.
British film-maker Ray Santilli says he bought the film from
an octogenarian former military cameraman who said he took it
after an alien spacecraft crashed into the desert near Roswell,
New Mexico, in 1947.
The film, shown at a British UFO Research Association
(BUFORA) conference, appeared to show that the creature had a
huge hairless head, with a face dominated by large lizard-like
eyes. It had six fingers or toes on each hand or foot.
Blood oozed from the body as surgeons in bulky radiation
suits cut open the chest to reveal a bizarre pulpy mass of
internal organs.
They removed the lenses from the eyes and peeled away the
scalp, before sawing through the skull and removing a strange,
gelatinous brain.
Santilli insisted the film was no hoax. ``There isn't a
single shred of evidence that it's a fake,'' he said.
He said both the U.S. space agency NASA and Kodak, makers of
camera film, had been commisioned to study the footage and their
findings would be announced Aug. 28 when the film is scheduled
to be shown on television in several countries.
``It was amazing. It's a historic day -- we've finally got
proof of aliens,'' said Paul Cottam, an engineer from Newcastle,
Northern England.
But British anatomist Dr. Fred Spoors told Reuters the
creature looked suspiciously human. He said the probability that
aliens would evolve to look so human was extremely remote.
Special effects experts at the company Creature Effects were
also unimpressed. ``None of us were of the opinion that we were
watching a real alien autopsy,'' they said in a statement. ``We
all agreed that what we were seeing was a very good fake body.''
A check of the Associated Press news wire failed to show any mention on Sunday.
--
*
* SearchNet HeadQuarters BBS 617-961-4865 or 508-586-6977
* Subscribe to our mailing lists. Send a message to
* majordomo@world.std.com "subscribe snet-l"
* "subscribe i_ufo-l" *
Reuters Press Release Before the BUFORA Conference
From: John.Powell@f4.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Powell)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Santilli
Date: 18 Aug 95 14:23:54 GMT
Sender: ufgate@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (newsout1.26)
UFO meeting to see 'aliens' film; is it a hoax?
--------------------------------------------------
(c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Reuter Information Service
LONDON (Aug 17, 1995 - 11:24 EDT) - A film which may prove that
extraterrestrial creatures crash-landed a spacecraft on Earth will be
shown in public for the first time on Saturday at a British UFO
conference.
One question will float over the gathering like a spectre -- is the
footage purportedly showing a female alien with lizard-like eyes genuine
or just an ingenious, elaborate hoax?
Its owner claims the film was shot by a military cameraman in the
aftermath of a flying saucer crash in New Mexico in 1947.
Rumours of a mysterious crash in the New Mexico desert near Roswell have
circulated for decades. UFO investigators have always claimed that an
alien spacecraft fell from the sky and this momentous event was covered
up by U.S. authorities.
The UFO conference in Sheffield is attracting UFO experts and
enthusiasts from all around world.
The announcement that British film-maker Ray Santilli had stumbled upon
military footage of the event, showing dead alien creatures, astonished
scientists and UFO experts.
Santilli says he bought the film from an octogenarian military cameraman
who had shot top-secret footage of alien corpses after the crash. The
man kept quiet about the film for years before selling it to finance his
granddaughter's wedding.
The footage has been shown privately to scientists, politicians and UFO
investigators. It reportedly shows surgeons in white radiation suits
examining a female alien.
She is humanoid with a huge hairless head and lizard-like eyes. She has
six fingers on each hand, and similar feet.
Surgeons cut through her chest, which appears to bleed, and remove
strange-looking internal organs. They saw off the top of her head to
expose her brain, and remove her eyeballs.
According to Santilli, experts at Kodak in New York say the film's stock
number suggests it was made in 1927, 1947 or 1967. He has claimed that
President Harry Truman is visible on one piece of footage, watching the
bizarre spectacle.
But experts who have seen the film are extremely sceptical.
"I think this film is completely extraneous to the question of a crashed
saucer, government cover-up, extraterrestrial visitors or anything like
that," said Stanton Friedman, an American nuclear physicist who has
spent decades investigating the Roswell incident.
"There was certainly none of the excitement I as a physicist would
expect from doctors having a unique opportunity to autopsy an alien
being," he told Reuters Television.
British anatomist Dr Fred Spoors told Reuters the alien looked
suspiciously human -- suggesting that the film had shown a human with a
genetic abnormality. He said the chances of aliens evolving to look so
human were extremely remote.
Special effects experts who investigated the film have also been
unconvinced.
"There are certain giveaways in the footage that suggest the alien is
just a dummy," said Rod Dickinson, who creates sophisticated props for
films. "It's a good hoax, but not astoundingly good."
But Santilli insists the film is genuine. "It would be utter madness to
attempt a world-wide "hoax' on this level by attempting such an easily
discovered forgery," he said in a letter to a Sunday newspaper. He
declined to be interviewed.
And even some of those who doubt the film's authenticity remain certain
that something mysterious did happen at Roswell.
"I am absolutely convinced a saucer did crash outside Roswell," Friedman
said. "We're dealing with the biggest story of the millenium -- visits
to planet earth by aliens, and the successful cover-up of the best data,
the bodies and the wreckage for 48 years."
--
John Powell - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Powell@f4.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
======================================================================
Inquiries regarding ParaNet, or mail directed to Michael Corbin, should
be sent to: mcorbin@paranet.org. Or you can phone voice at 303-429-2654/
Michael Corbin
Director
ParaNet Information Services
Page Index
Linda M. Howe Discusses Conference on Art Bell
From: videodog@aol.com (Video Dog)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Linda How on Shefield (Art Bell's "DreamLand")
Date: 21 Aug 1995 02:17:35 -0400
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Some observations about Linda Howe's report about the Shefield Conference
on Art Bell's "DreamLand":
Now the story is the crash was NOT from Roswell but from an earlier crash
some distance away. This information came from the complete(?) story of the
cameraman (and his
background) that was relayed at the conference. He told of being driven
out to the desert to film the crash recovery and local autopsies. When he
arrived he observed that five of the six "freaks" were still alive and
were shrieking out loud while holding unto "little metal boxes". A couple
were persuaded to let go of their box with swift strikes to the head with
rifle butts. After the field work, the cameraman said, all the wreckage
was flown to Wright-Pat.
Also, Linda reported that the "six fingered control panels" and other
debris were shown. The impression I got from the report was that more people now believe
Santilli's "hoax" may not be one.
Page Index
Pre-BUFORA News Announcements - Kevin O'Crean
From: magus@hassop.demon.co.uk (Kevin O'Crean)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: SANTILLI FACES THE FINAL CURTAIN!
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 22:22:48 GMT
Organization: HASSOP COTTAGE
As yet another SFX company from Pinewood Studios declares
the footage a Hoax......
DOES SANTILLI FACE THE FINAL CURTAIN?
exclusive by Kevin O'Crean
-----------------------------------
The Sheffield Star is tomorrow (19th Aug) getting ready to plaster its pages on the
Roswell Footage and Santilli announcing the whole matter a complete *SHAM*.
Ray Santilli the Managing Director of Merlin Films (xxxxx) is due to appear at
the BUFORA conference on Saturday 19th August.
Many other National Newspapers and News Media are following suit.
Inside information from the Special Effects Company at Pinewood Studios, the same who
did casting and moldings for Star Wars Aliens' and other films has revealed that
after viewing, it is in their expert opinion that the Alien is a fake, albeit a good
one and one obviously done by SFX experts.
Mr Cliff Wallace of CFX Creature Effects at Pinewood Studios explained that they knew
just where to look and what to look for and one of the many 'give aways' was a
moulding 'seam' on the arms.
Mr Wallace also explained that the cast has been done as if the figure was standing
upright.
The news was passed to Santilli who reacted with complete dismay, but later in his
usual fashion reacted by saying that he had a number of other experts who had said
the opposite, but when asked to divulge names and numbers, did not do so.
A Mr Stan Winston who did the Terminator effects has been quoted as saying, "I would
like the guy who did this to work for me!"
Santilli is still bleating that he feels it *may* be genuine, but will still not
subject the film for testing until he has placed the videos on sale.
This of course is a complete U-Turn for Ray who asked everyone to judge for
themselves, yet as people do so, he is upset and now declaring it is genuine.
...................
The film STILL has not been tested.
The cameraman has not been verified.
...................
Kevin O'Crean
Page Index
George Wingfield on BUFORA Conference
Comments from Paul Fuller, Crop Watcher
From: Paul Fuller <100611.1013@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Wingfield Bulletin Review
Date: 28 Aug 1995 22:13:36 GMT
Organization: The Crop Watcher (magazine about crop circles)
PF> This is my personal review of George Wingfield's latest Bulletin
:- (Paul Fuller)
Santilli Alien Film. GW Bulletin 9, August 27th 1995
--------------------------------------------------------
The long awaited public screening of Ray Santilli's film footage,
allegedly shot following the crash of a flying saucer near Roswell in
1947, took place at the BUFORA UFO Conference at Sheffield on August
19th. Reaction to the film, as before, was very mixed but a majority
of those present either withheld judgement or opined that it must be a
hoax.
PF> Jenny Randles informed me that the general opinion in the overflow
PF> auditorium was very negative, with several people angrily
PF> demanding their money back ! One professional TV man of 20 years
PF> experience (and who believes in ETs) angrily denounced the film
PF> whilst being filmed for the BBC by Jenny Randles. He stated that
PF> the film was clearly a hoax and that he could see how it had been
PF> done. He believed that "the hoaxers" had left obvious clues to see
PF> if people would detect their fraud. The reaction of the audience
PF> to the debris wreckage was particularly negative. Of course, they
PF> could be wrong !
The auditorium was cleared before the screening and a team of private
security guards scoured the place for concealed cameras and recording
devices. Then the audience was re-admitted with the security men
frisking each person as they entered.
PF> Jenny Randles told me that a lot of people in the overflow
PF> auditorium were very unhappy with this arrangement, and that
PF> the reason why Merlin's private security guards had to frisk
PF> people was because the official security people were warned
PF> by a police woman that to do so would be considered a breach
PF> of civil liberties and court action might result !
The footage screened was principally a replay of the autopsy sequence
first shown in London on May 5th. Some of those unfamiliar with such
dissections showed evident revulsion or gasped aloud as the strange
alien corpse was carved up and opened out by a surgeon clad in white
protective clothing. The goriness of this sequence was equally
unappetising the second time around. Clearly the body was not long
dead at the time of autopsy since there were no obvious signs of
decomposition and a slight trickle of blood resulted from each scalpel
cut. Few supported the thesis that this was a cleverly constructed
plastic dummy stuffed with offal to simulate internal organs.
PF> That's _not_ what I heard :-)
Appended after the autopsy was a brief display of the panels bearing
supposed alien characters that have been referred to previously. The
suggestion by some skeptics that the symbols spell out the words
"VIDEO O TV" requires a huge leap of the imagination and this surely
derives from some madder realm of the Internet. (Maybe the words are
"KEVIN O CREAN" ? --but more of this nonsense later!)
The symbols are not very impressive and some do resemble Greek
characters or others, possibly from ancient middle eastern script.
Nor are the "control panels" very convincing, two of which are held up
for display by a man whose face is not visible. These thick panels
each contain two hand impressions for hands with six digits: five
fingers and a thumb. In semi- circular grooves below the position of
the fingertips there appear to be control buttons and there are also
separate depressions with a button for each thumb. Further longer
arc- shaped grooves with additional buttons run parallel to and beyond
the fingertip grooves. Other control buttons or sensors are seen
within the hand impressions below where palm and wrist would fit.
These "control panels" look to be clumsy "low technology" stuff such
as might have been thought up for a 1950s sci-fi B movie.
After all, in 1995, we'd expect aliens to fly their craft by direct
mind signals rather than primitive fly-by-wire panels!
PF> For once I actually agree with you George - a soundly sceptical
PF> argument.
*************************************************************
Meanwhile the Internet rumour mill has gone into overdrive in the
attempts by some groups to discredit the Santilli film.
One example of deliberately false information put out for this purpose
has been the postings of a certain "Kevin O'Crean" of "Hassop Cottage,
England". In his latest bluster (August 18th) this "person" claims
that BUFORA has officially disavowed the Santilli film and "stated
categorically on World TV that they consider it a hoax". Here
"O'Crean" adds "God save the Queen!"
PF> This is a very strong allegation George, I hope you can prove your
PF> allegation that "Kevin O'Crean" has _deliberately_ disseminated
PF> false information. He may just be human and made an error. This
PF> "debate" has generated an awful lot of heat - I think we should
PF> make some allowances !
An alternative version of this malicious claim, which also appears to
be circulating on the Internet, is that "the head of BUFORA" stated on
CNN that the Roswell film was a hoax made in Brazil 6 or 7 years ago
and that Santilli knows this.
Further he was alleged to have stated that he didn't believe that
aliens had ever made contact with earth and that UFO's didn't exist as
extra-terrestrial vehicles.
Much of this story is completely untrue. It relates to what was said
by Philip Walton (who is a BUFORA functionary) and is solely his
personal opinion. In no way does it represents BUFORA's official
position.
PF> BUFORA don't appear to have a consistent "official position" -
PF> although today Mantle was quoted in the "Daily Telegraph"
PF> newspaper stating that he holds a position of "neutrality" -
PF> something the reporter quickly dismissed based on Mantle's
PF> previous claim that the film shows the "only known instance of
PF> aliens on film". This is the basic problem - and my basic quarrel
PF> with Philip Mantle. He has not been consistent in his public
PF> comments about the film and he has not taken steps to clarify
PF> statements made on his behalf when he appears to have been
PF> misquoted. How do we expect UFOlogy to be taken seriously under
PF> these circumstances ? How can we expect the world to take UFOlogy
PF> seriously when we allow a prominent UFO group to show this much
PF> hyped film at their conference without bothering to do more than a
PF> minimum of research into the film ?
Walton is not the head of BUFORA; that is John Spencer.
PF> Who - so far - has said nothing publicly about the film, failed to
PF> clarify his Director of Investigations' misleading and highly
PF> damaging press statements and who is even now having to apologise
PF> to UFOlogist Jenny Randles on behalf of Mantle for a note sent by
PF> Mantle to a newspaper reporter commenting on aspects of Randles'
PF> private life. In a recent conversation with a senior member of
PF> BUFORA Council I was told that Jenny Randles' suggestion of
PF> holding a "debate" between proponents and skeptics was to have
PF> taken place at the BUFORA Conference. A spare spot arose during
PF> the proceedings after an Italian speaker was asked to withdraw by
PF> Mantle due to legal problems in Italy. However, despite having
PF> this spare "slot" Mantle voted down the opportunity of holding an
PF> open debate. Why ?
PF> George Wingfield seems to have forgotten that in "Yes" magazine a
PF> few weeks ago Philip Mantle presented himself as "the president"
PF> of BUFORA.
Philip Mantle, who is BUFORA's Director of Investigations, and who
organised the Sheffield conference, confirmed on August 25th that
there had been no "official" change of position either by BUFORA or
himself. The claim about the Brazilain sci-fi film, he said, was an
unproven rumour and has no basis in fact, as also the charge that
Santilli knows that this is the case.
I can reveal that "Kevin O'Crean" himself is a hoax. There is no such
person and all of the tendentious and misleading claims from this
Internet source should be viewed with grave suspicion. It seems that
"Kevin O Crean" is almost certainly an irresponsible group of students
who live at Hassop Cottage, near Bakewell, Derbyshire (which is where
the tarts come from).
PF> Wrong again George - I can reveal that I have been corresponding
PF> with the "real" Kevin O'Crean - his name is Mike Jamieson - and he
PF> certainly_does_ exist ! He was witness to Michael Hesemann's
PF> unprovoked personal attack on Jenny Randles in front of the
PF> world's press at the Sheffield Conference which has been reported
PF> in this newsgroup and elsewhere by Jamieson and which was
PF> witnessed by David Clarke.
They say that the MUFON Encounters Sysop on Compuserve has now refused
to post their "Kevin O Crean" articles on the Forum as "the truth is
beginning to hurt". The sysop is a sensible guy since "O'Crean's"
travesty of the truth was becoming insulting !
PF> Sometimes the truth hurts !
************************************
Scepticism regarding the film footage is understandable, but much of
that which we have heard is based solely on speculation and basic
denial that aliens could possibly exist. Santilli maintains,
correctly, that so far no one has been able to prove that the film is
a fake. Currently one can choose any of the following speculative
scenarios to explain away the film :-
(1) This is a Brazilian sci-fi movie made in the 1960s/1970s or 1980s.
(Let's see a copy of the alleged movie!)
(2) The alien body is "definitely" the corpse of a human suffering
from Turner's syndrome. (Let's see some photos of other humans
suffering from this condition.)
(3) The alien body is the corspe of a human suffering from Laurence-
Moon-Beadle syndrome. (Likewise; has this one got something to do
with Jeremy Beadle ???)
PF> ROTFL !!!
(4) "I have little doubt that the body was a doctored human corpse.
If such is the case it would make this one of the most despicable and
deplorable hoaxes ever perpetrated. It would mean that those who put
together this atrocity butchered the body of a once-living human being
(a woman in this case) solely out of greed" -- Kent Jeffrey of the
International Roswell Initiative.
(If this rather extreme position is the case, it should be proved and
criminal proceedings instituted. Pathologists who have seen the
footage have not noticed any external signs that the corpse was
doctored in order to attach extra digits, enlarge the size of the
head, the eyes, etc.)
(5) The body is a cleverly constructed latex dummy and contains offal
to simulate internal organs. The technology to produce such a hoax
did not exist until the mid 1970s and so the film must be a hoax
produced in the last 20 years, but most likely in the last 5-10 years.
(This is the position of circlefakers John Lundberg and Rod Dickinson
who are associates of the CFX Creature Effects people at Pinewood
Studios. A report by CFX mentions evidence of a "possible" moulding
seam line down one arm of the alien corpse in one segment of
Santilli's film. If this is all the evidence they think they can see,
it doesn't amount to much. Naturally, they say that special effects
are so good these days that one wouldn't be able to see any flaws! On
August 26th we heard that three photos had been mailed anonymously to
the Fortean Times in London showing "the Santilli alien corpse under
construction by special effects people". Editor Bob Rickard was said
to be unimpressed and the dummy did not much resemble the corpse in
the film. This hoax, though I've yet to see it, sounds possibly the
work of circlefakers Lundberg and Dickinson.)
PF> Whilst I haven't seen the photographs in question, they do _not_
PF> show a "corpse" under construction by "special effects people"
PF> prior to filming. You only had to ring Bob Rickard to check this
PF> George !
PF> Readers please see my separate posting on behalf of Lundberg
PF> and Dickinson denying George Wingfield's allegations.
(6) Santilli is a con-man and a fraudster whose company is in
receivership, etc, etc. So too is Philip Mantle (who had a big bust-
up with the Quest UFO Group a few years back) and therefore the whole
thing is a scam which has been used as a trick to pack the punters in
at BUFORA's annual conference ... Santilli is being investigated by
the Serious Fraud Squad, etc. (This is the position of the Quest UFO
Group, which --dare I say it? -- might just have something to do with
sour grapes.)
PF> I have worked with Quest International over the past few months
PF> in an attempt to find an explanation for the film. Previously I
PF> have repeatedly criticised Quest International and their work in
PF> public. In my opinion Quest International - and James Easton in
PF> particular - are not motivated by "sour grapes" - neither are they
PF> "peeved" - as Mantle alleges in todays "Daily Telegraph" article.
PF> They, like me, have been horrified at BUFORA's public association
PF> with this film - horrified because BUFORA have done virtually no
PF> research into the film, have only now managed to obtain a piece
PF> of the original film for analysing and who have appeared to allow
PF> their Director of Investigations to repeatedly promote the film as
PF> genuine and authenticated in the UK press without reprimand or
PF> correction. Can this really be how UFOlogy is to progress and
PF> convince the world of our claims ??
PF> In my opinion this was a golden opportunity for UFOlogists to
PF> demonstrate that we _are_ capable of investigating UFO claims
PF> properly - this is how UFOlogy will progress - by encouraging
PF> scientific institutions to come and actually handle the
PF> unexplained data UFOlogists deal with. BUFORA chose not to go down
PF> this route. Instead they believed - rightly or wrongly - that this
PF> was an opportunity to make money to help fund photographic work.
PF> This decision has been widely criticised by UFOlogists and by the
PF> press, who perceive BUFORA as only being interested in the money
PF> (as evidenced by Edward Fox's article "What a load of rubbish" in
PF> today's Telegraph).
PF> The real issue we must all debate is this - was BUFORA's
PF> decision justified given the huge damage inflicted on UFOlogy by
PF> BUFORA's promotion of this film ?
7) The alien corpse is a victim of secret nuclear testing.
Alternatively she was an adolescent Japanese atom bomb victim from
Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The US military carried out tests on many such
wretched creatures in New Mexico during the 1940s.
(Objection: Nuclear radiation doesn't cause one to grow extra digits
or enlarge one's head and eyes and lose one's navel.
Mutations caused by radiation afflict the next generation(s).
This autopsy is (supposedly) only two years after the first atomic
weapons tests in New Mexico and the Hiroshima bomb.)
PF> Hmmmm. How about someone who _previously _ suffered
PF> from a genetic disorder ? How about someone who was an
PF> embryo during the a-bomb tests and who suffered genetic
PF> mutation once they were born. If the film was shot in 1955
PF> using 1947 film is this a possible explanation ? I suggested
PF> to Ray several months ago that this was a possible source of
PF> the footage and he agreed to try and follow this up - goodness
PF> knows how how, he must be far far too busy to do so.
(8) The alien corpse is a victim of secret germ warfare or genetic
engineering carried out by the US government. This is rumoured to be
the conclusion which the Channel 4 documentary on Roswell, including
sequences from Santilli's film, will put forward when the TV programme
is screened nationwide on August 28th. (The same objections apply to
germ warfare testing as to nuclear testing, above. Genetic
engineering was barely even thought about in the 1940s and 1950s; if
the "freaks" were genetically engineered, then the film must have been
made at a much later date, say, the 1980s. This is highly unlikely.)
PF> I gather that Philip Mantle's quote in The People, 20 Aug :-
PF> "Now Philip Mantle, director of investigations at the British
PF> UFO Research Association, says : 'New data suggests the
PF> bodies in that film were definitiely genuine. The Channel 4
PF> documentary will reveal some very strange experiments being
PF> conducted on behalf of the US military.' "
PF> was written by his co-author Carl Nagaitis [info from Rodney
PF> Howarth, who spoke with Carl Nagaitis at the conference]. This
PF> development was not discussed during the conference - presumably
PF> because there was no public forum for discussion aside from the
PF> ten minute question-and-answer session with Ray Santilli - yet
PF> this article was written several days prior to the conference.
PF> Again this would have been an opportunity of demonstrating
PF> that not all UFOlogists believe that the film is automatically
PF> genuine just because it supports their preconceived views .
PF> The astonishing thing about the autopsy film debate is the number
PF> of prominent UFOlogists and UFO groups who _have_ temporarily
PF> abandoned their pre-conceived views and adopted the correct
PF> skeptical attitude. Sadly I fear that their good work will be
PF> overshadowed by the misquotations being attributed to others.
(9) The film was made as part of a "Psy Op" by the CIA or other US
intelligence agencies. It was deliberately staged during the late
1940s or 1950s to deceive the Soviets for reasons which are unknown.
An alternative version of this scenario is that it was produced to
trade with particular foreign governments (Brazil has been suggested)
for intelligence material or material relating to genuine UFO events
in which the US government was interested. I am told this is the
thinking in some CIA circles who are familiar which the format of such
psychological operations, though this is speculation rather than
anything definite. (Well, maybe ?)
My own position remains that expressed in Bulletin #1. The film is
either a cleverly prepared deception --possibly in category (9)-- or
it is the genuine article. Alternatives such as some of those above,
suggesting that it is some other legitimate scenario, unconnected with
Roswell or aliens, are simply not convincing. It is obviously too
soon to reach a definite verdict until a lot further testing of the
film has been done and the cameraman (who we know exists) has been
thoroughly questioned.
PF> George, I challenge you to state how you know that the
PF> camera-man exists. Who has told you that he exists ?
PF> Have you spoken to him, or visited him ? I gather that
PF> the camera-man will not be appearing on tonight's documentary.
Michael Hesemann, who spoke about the Santilli film at the Sheffield
conference, expressed a similar viewpoint. He said:
"This film may very well be authentic. I don't say this film is
definitely the real thing. I only say that every thing we checked out
checked out in favour of it. Indications that it may be a hoax didn't
check out. We have more indications that it may be the real thing
than we have against it."
PF> You must have missed Hesemann's more positive claims
PF> made in this newsgroup and elsewhere.
He went on to say that he had never found a more open and co-
operative guy in any motion picture company than Ray Santilli.
PF> By all accounts agreed.
Michael has spent hours talking to Santilli and getting information
from him about the film and its origins. He has also recently
travelled to New Mexico to do research on the spot which has turned up
a number of new factors. This and a verbatim account of the
"Cameraman's Story" will be presented in my next bulletin (rather than
in this one as previously stated). Michael's research contrasts
starkly with the strident speculation by many of those voices on the
Internet who have never bothered to talk to Ray Santilli, let alone
travel to New Mexico.
PF> Oh dear dear dear !!! I suppose if I told you the moon was
PF> made of green cheese and that I'd been there that would
PF> prove it for you, would it George ?
PF> In point of fact James Easton _has_ been "talking" with Ray
PF> Santilli for quite some months - and he has made a lot of
PF> progress in establishing the basic facts surrounding this
PF> intriguing footage. I think the international UFO community
PF> owes a lot to Quest for their tenacity and effort. To see others
PF> allege that Quest are motivated by "sour grapes" and "jealousy"
PF> is - in my opinion - insulting and an obvious attempt to deflect
PF> attention away from the real source of the problems we UFOlogists
PF> face with the promotion of this film by a handful of influential
PF> UFOlogists.
At the end of the screening of the Santilli film footage at the
BUFORA conference in Sheffield, an extraordinary thing happened
despite the tight security surrounding the whole event.
Suddenly there was panic and consternation. Ray Santilli and Chris
Carey looked utterly thunderstruck and bewildered.
BUFORA stewards raced around in alarm searching everywhere.
The vital video recording of the alien footage had vanished ...
[to be continued]
George Wingfield
PF> Isn't it time you owned up to your little piece of autopsy film
PF> grand larcency George ? No wonder Ray Santilli doesn't like
PF> UFOlogists !!!
PF> Here's to a good night's viewing !! Best Wishes everyone,
Paul Fuller
Editor, The Crop Watcher,
Co-Editor, The NEW UFOlogist
Ex BUFORA Director 1989-93
Ex BUFORA 1978-93
Page Index
