ORTK BRITISH FORUM Operation Right to Know END UFO SECRECY! SPRING News from Operation Right To Know Britain 1995 BITTERLY COLD MARCH DEMO! 25 demonstrators assembled outside the Ministry of Defence building in Whitehall, London, for the March 20th lobby of the MOD. The air temperature was frosty, the response from Miss K Philpott, Secretariat (Air Staff)2a, Ministry of Defence, was demonstrably frosty, and the media gave us 'the cold shoulder' by not turning up ! ! BUT we held our UFO awareness placards aloft and gave out over 1000 leaflets to the public. And one or two people seen to enter the MOD building took leaflets. On several occasions curtains behind the ground floor windows of the building were observed to be drawn back ! Perhaps someone was paying attention. At 12 noon Karen Douglas and myself entered the building and met with Miss Philpott and I presented her with a personal letter and open letter to the MOD. She did not want to talk (in contrast to Nick Pope - May 23rd 1994 MOD demo - who was quite amenable to discussion about our aims) and after a very brief but courteous acceptance of the documents made her escape from the building lobby. She subsequently replied to the letters and I include her reply in this Forum. The demonstration was covered during the morning of the 20th, nationally on BBC Radio 1 and 5, and locally in Yorkshire on BBC Radio York and Stray FM in Harrogate. I believe one or two other regional stations also covered it. Overall the media response was disappointing, in contrast to the 1994 May 23rd demo, which received lots of coverage, both recorded and live on the day. Everyone present on March 20th had a very good time and by handing out over 1000 Iea-M- its, we are perhaps reaching people who might otherwise never consider to e I'm gnificance of the UFO issue. Media response, or lack of it, is something eve can not predict. And after two demonstrations I am finding the accumulative effect very encouraging, especially BBC Radio, who contact me quite frequently for information. Publicly demonstrating about the suppression and denial of UFO evidence has to happen. Public opinion on UFOs is a political issue (hence the cover-up), UFOs must become a world wide public matter, if we are to see the cover-up overturned. ORTK USA DEMONSTRATION MARCH 29th 1995 The demonstration held outside the General Accounting Office (GAO), in Washington, DC, was to show support for the GAO's ongoing investigation into official documents relating to the Roswell Incident and New Mexico Congressman Steven Schiff's efforts into bringing the investigation about. 30 demonstrators took part and 8 weather balloons were flown, to illustrate the falsity of the official cover story regarding the Roswell crash. Media coverage was excellent with US national and international TV news of the event. Including French and German TV, and Channel 4 news here in Britain, although I missed it. Typical ! Media response USA contrasts the UK. They received greater coverage this time around than their May 23rd 1994 Pentagon demo, we had an opposite situation. ORTK BRITAIN SPONSOR FOR: International Roslwell Initiative INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGAINST THE SUPPRESSION AND DENIAL OF UFO EVIDENCE 2. 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' 3. 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 4. 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 5. 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 6. "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 ! ORTK BRITAIN - TITLE You might have spotted that the cover of this edition does not display the 'Alien Acknowledgment Campaign' title. And for one reason. It has been decided, after some consultation, to drop the AAC title from Operation Right To Know - Britain. The reasons for this are principally: (1) To better promote a corporate international identity and conformity of strategies and aims. (2) Operation Right To Know is a less emotive title than AAC. The word 'alien' continues to invoke fear and negativity amongst some people, which could be judged counter-productive to ORTK objectives. (3) I have experienced problems with identity when talking with the media. Staying exclusively with ORTK Britain will alleviate these problems. The UFO issue now needs a world wide cohesion of thought and direction by all concerned and ORTK could, with world wide support, help galvanize these objectives. 7. (Copy of letter presented to MOD on Monday March 20th 1995) ALIEN ACKNOWLEDGMENT CAMPAIGN ORTK BRITAIN THE AAC, 20 Newton Gardens, Ripon, N.Yorks. HG4 1QF Tel.0765 602898 (UK coordinator John Holman) Ministry of Defence Whitehall LOBBY OF THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 20th March 1995. UFO SECRECY: Organizers and supporters of Operation Right To Know (Britain) are today lobbying the M.O.D. on the issue of military secrecy on UFOs. We are fully aware of your current policy on public statements about the UFO issue, and request that this policy be revised, and present M.O.D. knowledge, assessments and conclusions on the UFO issue be made public. ORTK accepts that there are grounds for military secrecy on matters concerning the defence and security of the United Kingdom, but we cannot accept that UFOs fall within this category. And you confirm this by stating in communications to the public the general assessment that to date 'no UFO sighting report investigated has indicated any threat to the defense and security of the United Kingdom.' We request a full written commentary on the following y points: (1) UFOs constitute a global phenomenon of major proportions and as such cannot be considered a national security issue for any one nation alone. Rational sense dictates that major world authorities, military and or governmental are in collusion on the issue of UFO secrecy and denial, and have been for many years, at least since the 2nd. World War. (2) Many 2nd. World War pilots filed UFO reports. Pilots, both military and civilian, continue to report UFOs. One example occurring during the recent (1989-1990) UFO wave over Belgium. Colonel W DeBrouwer (Belgian Air Staff) confirmed during several TV interviews, that Belgian F16 aircraft recorded radar lock-ons of an object seen visually by civilians and police, and confirmed by 4 ground based radars. I have raised the Belgian UFO wave with you before and you have declined to comment, other than you do not involve yourselves in UFO reports from outside the United Kingdom. Rational sense, once again, dictates that you must have been fully briefed on the Belgian events. ("You" in the above refers to those parties privy to the UFO information collusion) (3) This document is not a presentation about UFO evidence, because the M.O.D. must already be fully aware of the evidence, that promotes both the March 20th lobby and this document. (4) We request that those establishments world wide, involved in the suppression and denial of UFO knowledge, change-their collective policy, and openly and honestly tell the people of the world all they know and understand about the UFO issue, irrespective of how little or how much this knowledge may be. (page 1 of 2) 8. (5) We ask that the M.O.D. consider the following points and speculation on these points: During summer 1994, in the USA, a crop circle formation and the surgical mutilation of a cow, occurred during the same time span and in close proximity to each other. Biological analysis of several crop circle formations and several animal mutilation sites, is establishing a link between these anomalous events. UFOs are a common factor between some crop circle events and some animal mutilations. Very recently biological analysis of samples taken from the site of a UFO landing, appear to confirm this link. Another common factor between circle formations and animal mutilations is their timing and evolution. Both occurrences began to be noticed during the mid to late 60s and both have continued to escalate in numbers with resulting deepening human awareness and interest. During the last 5 years there have been several mass public sightings of UFOs, many in day light, resulting in public acceptance of UFOs. Hundreds of video recordings of UFOs have been made, supporting the eye witness testimony, and establishing the existence of UFOs. The current public position on the UFO issue expressed by the M.O.D. and other authoritative establishments world wide, is rapidly being perceived as wholly inadequate. It could be the case that maintaining the secrecy and continuing the denial of UFO matters is causing these events to deepen. If public control is a factor in this policy of denial, such a policy could be perceived as having the opposite effect. For instance: If the animal mutilation phenomenon continues to deepen and escalate, what might the effects of this be ? No one, no official body, has the right or capacity to maintain such denial of an issue of such importance as the UFO issue. Some acknowledgment is now required that something of importance is occurring world wide. Parliament has the right to be informed. The public have a right to know, just what is known about these issues. And so we request that those in authority who understand this situation consult with their international partners and collectively amend this policy of UFO secrecy, suppression and denial. John Holman (ORTK Britain Coordinator) March 17th 1995 (In addition to this open letter to the MOD, I gave Miss Philpott a letter addressed to herself. Her reply, next page, refers to my letter to her, but not my open letter. I aim to follow up this lack of response to my open letter) You might be interested to know that Nick Pope (MOD) attended the London film showing. He spoke with me about his forthcoming book, interestingly titled "Open skies closed minds" - and added that he was not currently popular in some areas of the MOD - because of his book. He suggested that perhaps ORTK Britain might like to stage another Whitehall demonstration if needs arise - a reinstate Nick Pope demo! 9. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE From: Miss K Philpott, Secretariat(Air Staff ) 2a, Room 8245, Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB Telephone (Direct Dialling) 0171 2182l40 (Switchboard) 0171 2189000 (Fax) Mr J Holman Your reference 20 Newton Gardens Ripon Our reference North Yorkshire D/Sec(AS)12/3 HG4 lQF Date 5 April 1995 Dear Mr. Homan, 1. Thank you for your letter of l6th March. 2. First I feel it important to explain once more the precise responsibility that the Ministry of Defence has in connection with the subject of unexplained aerial phenomena, to clear up any lingering misconceptions. The MOD and HM Forces have responsibility for the defence of the United Kingdom. In order to carry out that responsibility we must ensure that we remain vigilant for any potential threat, from whatever source. It is therefore quite proper that we look at reports of unexplained aerial phenomena in order to establish whether what was seen is of defence significance. If no threat is discerned, and in connection with unexplained aerial phenomena this has been the case in all instances to date, we make no further attempt to investigate and establish exactly what may have been seen.t 3. As such, we do not have any direct interest, expertise or role in respect of UFO/"flying saucer" matters, or those relating to the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms, about which we remain totally open-minded. We therefore in fact fully concur with your statement in paragraph 3 that "the MOD's role in maintaining the security of the United Kingdom has little to do with the UFO subject". 4. Moving on to other points you raise in your letter I can confirm that the document entitled "International Roswell Initiative" which you enclosed with your letter of 27 February to Lord Henley was passed to this office. As the explanation in my second paragraph should have made clear, the incident to which this material refers falls outside this Department's area of responsibility, and therefore I have no comment on the document. 5. You refer to the 'UFO' sightings over Belgium in l990. In view of their location and the lack of any indication that any threat was posed, the Belgians decided not to notify any other country and the UK was not made aware of these detections. They occurred outside the UK Air Defence Region and there is no record of any detections having 10. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- been made on any British system. When this matter was raised by a member of the public last year, our experts confirmed that there was no reason to question the judgement made by the Belgian authorities at the time. 6. You asked why letters from the public directly addressed to Ministers on the subject of "UFOs" are always answered by this office. All letters from the public sent to Ministers on any topic are routinely passed to the section with responsibility for the matter addressed for official reply; in the case of unexplained aerial phenomena, this office would respond. You will appreciate that the volume of correspondence sent to Ministers is extremely high, as such they generally only personally reply to letters sent by Members of Parliament, peers and so on. 7. With reference to paragraph 3 of your letter it is incorrect to say that the MOD has "decided that UFOs do not represent a threat to the defense and security of the United Kingdom"; this is a clear misrepresentation of our stated position. To reiterate once more, the MOD remains properly vigilant for any potential source of threat; however, it remains the case that to date no "UFO" sightings has ever thrown up evidence of a physical threat to the UK. 8. I am afraid that your assertion that we would wilfully manipulate files to ensure that they would not be released to the Public Records Office in the proper fashion does not deserve a response. I have already explained in my letter of 8 March that the terms of the Public Records Act apply to all Departmental files, including those in this office relating to reports of unexplained aerial phenomena. 9. I hope that this letter will serve to clear up any remaining misconceptions. Yours sincerely, Subscription to ORTK Britain Forum: £6.00 - 4 editions, including post Please get in touch for more information and/or joining ORTK Britain.