Malta UFO Research is only providing space for this article on the WWW.
Malta UFO Research is of the opinion that the "Santilli Alien Autopsy Footage" is false, but we can be
proven wrong at any time! There are many differing viewpoints on this footage and the article below represents
one of them.
An article on the "Santilli Alien Autopsy"
by Ed Gehrman
"From the start it was plain to see this was no Russian Spy Plane.
It was a large disc "flying Saucer" on its back with heat still
radiating from the ground around it...It was decided to wait until the
heat subsided before moving in as fire was a significant risk, this
was made all the worse by the screams of the Freak creatures that were
lying by the vehicle. What in gods name they were no one could tell
but one things for sure, they were Circus Freaks, creatures with no
business here. Each had hold of a box which they kept hold of in both
arms close to their chests" The Cameraman.(George Wingfield Bulletin)
"I am too much of a skeptic to deny the possibility of anything."
T.H.Huxley
I was one of those folks skeptical of the Roswell Alien Autopsy
footage. If it hadn't been for a quirk of fate I'd still be as
ignorant as most other UFO investigators, floundering in cynical
hubris, easy targets for sci-cops wielding sharp edged retorts.
My wife and I were returning from in trip to New Mexico,
Sunday,September 3,1995. FM reception had been poor that day so as we
approached Reno, I turned on the radio, hoping for some mellow sounds.
Luckily, the scan-tune landed on Art Bell's Dreamland, and I lingered
there for a consequential moment, listening to an expert on movie
cameras explain film dating. The substance of his remarks and the
subsequent wrapup by Bell seemed to indicate that the Roswell Alien
Autopsy footage, shown on Fox TV the previous week, was probably
authentic. Could this possibly be correct? All the communication
coming from the UFO community for the last three months had been
contrary to this notion. Art Bell's contagious excitement piqued my
interest; I decided to reexamine my assumptions about this potentially
explosive but controversial film footage. I hope you will, too.
Research soon disclosed that most of the public incredulity was being
driven by the joint efforts of UFO scholars and Sci-cop hit squads,
using ugly rumor, misrepresentation, and twisted logic to distort Ray
Santilli's motives and the legitimacy of the cameraman and the footage
he shot, footage that proves that the amazing series of events known
as the "Roswell Incident" did occur. Our government knows that an
Alien craft fell from the sky on May 31, 1947 and they have it,
somewhere. Why aren't they letting us in on the secret? For the
first time we all have the proof that this did indeed happen. Aren't
we going to do anything about it?
Virtually everything written on the NET these days about the Roswell
autopsy footage is negative. This is my contribution toward a more
balanced discussion. The information compiled for this report is
taken directly from the WWW. It's all there if you care to look, from
the first rumblings of the Alien photos around the first of the year,
to Truly Dangerous Company's self advertising coup.
I believe Ray Santilli's footage is exactly what he and the cameraman
say it is and that it confirms our Army's involvement in the Roswell
incident. Our government╣s constant denial of UFO's and their blatant
lies and misleading assertions around this issue should eventually
force all of us to question whether they really are looking out for
our best interests.
Kodak
It's important to first establish just what Kodak's position is
concerning the footage. The following is taken from a press release
that Kodak's Marketing Planning Manager P.G. Milson (not some flunky)
sent to the outside world. This is the only official public Kodak
release of information so far on this subject.
"We have been asked to confirm the age of a piece of film know as the
Roswell film...We have seen sections of either the film or its
projection leader in three Kodak locations: UK, Hollywood and
Denmark...Conclusions...
1)In our process we put a code on the edge of the film which repeats
every 20 years.
2)The symbols we have seen on the Roswell film samples suggest that
the film was manufactured in either 1927,1947 or 1967. ( This memo
substantiates that the film could have been shot in 1947 so at least
that one fact is secure and we now know that they saw more than just a
leader but the real footage. Kodak isn't going out on a limb for this
crazy happening but they can't dispute their findings, either)
3) We are therefore, unable to categorically confirm when the film
was manufactured (This is a hedge if I ever heard one)
4) It should be remembered that even if the age of the film
manufacture is confirmed, this does not necessarily indicate that the
film was shot and processed in the same year...(the rest is disclaimer
and of no consequence)"
This information should establish just what Kodak saw and what they
didn╣t see and also that Santilli did do what he said he did, which
was have the film dated.
Ray Santilli
The following is a one hour question and answer conference,real time
with Ray Santilli fielding questions being asked by just plain folks,
all on line. It took place June 26, 1995. As far as I know, his
story has never changed from this first raw and honest discourse, and
I think this is still the truth as he knows it.
HOW DID YOU GET THE FILM?
We came across a freelance cameraman of the 50's during research for a
music project, two years ago. The film has been authenticated in
writing by two separate offices of Kodak. The most important aspect
of this is that Kodak (in writing) have stated that apart from the
date of the safety print film which is 27, 47, or 67, the original
negative was also 27, 47, or 67. Thereafter codes changed. Negative
film stock is only usable for around three to four years. Next week a
collection of your senators will see it. I myself have never seen a
UFO.
WHAT CONDITION WAS THE FILM IN WHEN YOU RECEIVED IT?
50 year old film is difficult to preserve and will deteriorate. For
the greater part the footage was in dreadful condition. Unfortunately
some parts were so corroded, we could only rely upon digital
enhancement to retrieve the image. The film stock was NOT numbered
at that time; only codes were used. There are a number of reasons for
the film╣s condition, the primary one being the passage of time and
poor storage. And no I don't know where the Aliens came from.
HOW CAN YOU VERIFY THAT THE FILM IS REAL?
The film has been authenticated apart from Kodak. We have brought in
five medical experts from London, Paris and Rome. They have all
confirmed that the creatures are real and not possibly human. In
addition we brought in leading film special effects companies and
model makers to determine whether or not the technology existed around
the Kodak dates to hoax the footage. They all answered, NO! There
are no zoom shots in the film.
WHO WAS VOLKER SPIELBERG?
We did not have the right amount of money. He helped us out.
WHAT IS THE CAMERAMAN╣S TIME LINE FOR THE ROSWELL INCIDENT?
He was first informed on June 2, 1947. He says that they thought they
had the entire area cleaned up only to discover as a result of the
information coming out of Roswell in July that they had missed an
area. It seems as with any aviation crash the debris was scattered
and some was found by Brazel.
HOW COULD A CAMERAMAN MAKE FILM FOOTAGE LIKE THIS THAT IS THEN
OVERLOOKED BY HEAVY MILITARY SECURITY?
Once the filming and cleanup was over there were hundreds of canisters
of film. The first shipment was sent on to McMullan in Washington.
The second was missed as Washington assumed the material was sent. We
got the second shipment. There is only one type of Alien shown in the
film. The typical reaction of those that have seen the film is that
it is real. But we know that the film comes from Roswell and that the
creatures are real, not human. You will have to see the medical
reports. We will know the military's position next week. It is
heating up.
HAS THE CAMERAMAN BEEN INTERVIEWED?
The cameraman's identity is protected for now. Should he wish to come
out into the open, that is another matter. I know that many of you
think his reasons for keeping quiet are not sound but you are
forgetting that this man is in his 80's. His view of life is very
different from yours and mine. He just doesn╣t want the hassle and
the trouble this would bring.
WHERE WAS THE CRASH SITE?
The cameraman was flown into Roswell and then driven for a few hours
to the crash site which was close to a Mescalero Reservation, near
White Sands.
CAN WE SEE THE ALIEN╣S BRAIN IN THE FILM?
Yes you can. The camera did not have a zoom. Every time a closeup
was needed, the cameraman had to move in. He had to put on the same
Bio-Hazard outfits as the doctors. It meant that the camera was not
easy to operate, however the shots are all quite good. The mail order
footage will be raw and not digitally enhanced.
HAVE YOU SHOWN THIS FILM TO RELIGIOUS LEADERS?
Yes, we covered all faiths. The reaction was very bad. Most walked
out.
Have we become so cynical that we're unable to believe straight
answers when they are given. Why can't we take Santilli at face
value? He realizes that he now owns a very contentious strip of film,
but I don't feel he's "just" trying to make money. Later Santilli
statements only clarify and enhance this original attitude of open
honesty.
Bob Shell
People were asking who the hell I am. And rightly so, because I am not
a member of the UFO community, and have not been actively involved in
UFO research. So here I come out of the blue offering to help solve a
very important core mystery of the UFO community. I've got some nerve.
Actually, I started out as a zoologist, and worked in that capacity at
the Smithsonian institution. This was in the mid and late 60s. During
this time I met, became friends with, and was heavily influenced by
the late Ivan T.Sanderson, one of the most intrepid investigators of
Fortean phenomena whoever lived. Ivan showed me how to open my mind to
other possibilities about how the world worked. Also, while at the
Smithsonian, I met Don Keyhoe who was operating NICAP out of an office
on Connecticut Avenue in DC, just off DuPont Circle. Don was a weird
old bird, who was always hinting that he knew a lot more than he could
say. I spent a lot of interesting time in his library. But I never
really got into the mainstream of UFO investigation, partly through
lack of time, and partly through the stigma attached which would have
been death to my job at the museum. While at the Smithsonian, I also
pursued my interest in technical photography, and as the years went by
I became more interested in photography and less interested in pure science.
Part of this was that I discovered that you could make a lot more money
in photography, and it was a good way to meet "chicks" (as we said in those days).
Since 1972, I have made my living in photography, and have studied all
aspects of photography, nowadays working heavily on digital imaging. I
am writing a book right now provisionally titled Photography:
Electronic Imaging for Rockport Press. This will be my fourteenth book
on photographic topics when it is published next year. My most
important research project to date was a detailed history of the Canon
Camera Company, which was published in England last year by Hove Photo
Books as Canon Compendium...I am widely published and considered a
technical expert in photography. In addition to the books, my regular
job is as Editor of Shutterbug, the world's third largest photo
magazine. I am Technical Editor of Photo Pro
magazine, Technical Editor of Outdoor & Nature Photography magazine,
Technical Correspondent for Color Photo in Munich ( one of Germany's
top two photo magazines), and have written for photo magazines and
journals in England, Australia, India, Japan, South Africa, etc. etc.
I do free-lance photographic consulting, and am currently a consultant for
two major Japanese camera companies, providing input on design. I have
acted as a photographic technical consultant for the FBI, for
intelligence agencies, and for private industry. I have been qualified
as an expert witness on photographic interpretation in several federal
court cases (the side I was on won every time!). I do not claim to be an expert on
motion picture photography. I have done my share of 16 mm filming,
including one hour long documentary. My reason for offering to help in
this matter was that it was obvious from the documents I saw that Ray
Santilli was not going to the right people at Kodak. Over my many
years working in the photo industry I have developed a good working
relationship with many of the technical staff at Kodak in Rochester,
and I knew just which channels to go to for information on 16 mm film
dating (Neil Morris, Manchester University)
Part 2 of the "Santilli Alien Autopsy" article
RETURN TO INTERESTING FILES & INFO PAGE 2
