Sacred Texts  Esoteric & Occult   Mysteries
Buy CD-ROM   Buy Books about UFOs
Index  Previous  Next 

Alien Autopsy FAQ

                               ณ  ณ
                               ณ  ณ
                  บ   T R U S T   N O   O N E   บ
                               ณ  ณ
                               ณ  ณ
                             /      \               //======//
       ===\\                /        \             //     //
           \\              /          \           //====//
          ==\\            +------------+              ///
 Things to beware of in 1997:
 Goverment to plan release of 'sensitive' material to internet in order
 to claim 'national security' neccessity for control and regulation.
 Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 02:06:51 -0400
 From: UFO UpDates - Toronto 
 Subject: UFO UpDate: Alien Autopsy FAQ
 Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 22:50:47 -0400
 To: (ufoupdates-toronto)
 Subject: Alien Autopsy FAQ
 James Easton has compiled an excellent FAQ on the Alien  Autopsy. Enjoy!
 'Alien Autopsy' FAQ
 This document sets out to clarify some of the facts relating to the
 controversial "Alien Autopsy" footage which a London based businessman, Ray
 Santilli, claimed to have acquired in the United States.
 It does not attempt to cover all of the issues, but will hopefully provide
 a factual summary of the background and significant developments in the
 story so far.
 Updates to this document will be available from my web site at:
 The document has been prepared as an ASCII text file and is best viewed as
 such. Some of the formatting may be altered if a Windows font is used.
 James Easton.
 What is the basic story of how the film was allegedly acquired?
 Ray Santilli was in Cleveland looking for some archive music footage and
 memorabilia. He met an elderly cameraman who had some relevant material and
 who also subsequently offered to sell the "Roswell" footage.
 When did this take place?
 Originally, Ray claimed that, "As a result of research into film material
 for a music documentary I was in Cleveland Ohio USA in the summer of 1993".
 He had confirmed this on a number of occasions.
 Subsequently, it was revealed that this actually took place a year earlier
 than claimed and Ray acknowledged this fact.
 What are the particulars of the story?
 Ray Santilli's "formal" statement claims that:
 "As a result of research into film material for a music documentary I was in
 Cleveland Ohio USA in the summer of 1993. Whilst there I had identified some
 old film material taken by Universal  News in the summer of 1955. As
 Universal News no longer existed and I needed the film to investigate the
 source of the film and was able to determine that the film was shot by then
 a local freelance cameraman. He had been employed by Universal News because
 of a Film union strike in the summer of 1955".
 This poses a scenario where, whilst in Cleveland, specific archive music
 film had been identified and the cameraman located. This is subsequently
 "The cameraman was located, following which a very straight forward
 negotiation took place for his small piece of film i.e.: cash for three
 minutes of film. Upon completion of this the cameraman asked if I would be
 interested in purchasing outright very valuable footage taken during his
 time in the forces. He explained that the footage in question came from the
 Roswell crash that it included debris and recovery footage and of most
 importance autopsy footage".
 "...After hearing the story I was taken to the cameraman's house and viewed
 the footage".
 Was the footage in a condition to be shown?
 Bob Shell, Editor of Shutterbug Magazine and Technical Editor/Correspondent
 for a number of photographic magazines, had offered his assistance to Ray
 Santilli and Bob has since become involved with the footage story. I asked
 Bob about this point and he confirmed that, "The film Ray/Volker have is,
 according to them, extremely brittle. If the pieces I have indeed come from
 this film, it is far too brittle to be projected. That is why I assume a
 later copy is what was projected.
 If the condition is as in my samples and as stated for the rest, this would
 be completely impossible".
 Ray claims that not all of the film was in this condition and the cameraman
 was able to project some of it onto a wall in his house.
 In an interview given to Philip Mantle, Director of Investigations for the
 British UFO Research Association (BUFORA) on 27 June, 1995, Ray Santilli
 further clarified that:
 "About two and a half years ago we were in the States researching what was a
 music documentary and we were looking for some early footage of people like
 Bill Hailey, Pat Boone and Elvis Presley, and we came across a cameraman who
 in the 1950s was a freelance, he was working for various different people as
 and when he was employed, and at one time during the early part of 1955 he
 was employed by Universal News to film over a particular weekend what was a
 variety of rock concerts and so forth at different high schools across
 America. The reason he was employed by Universal News was that there was a
 union strike on and Universal News could not use their usual news cameraman,
 so he was used..."
 The cameraman was subsequently given the name of "Jack Barnett".
 During October 1995, French TV station TF1 broadcast a documentary in which
 reporter Nicolas Maillard located Cleveland based disc jockey Bill Randle,
 well known during the 1950s. Randle confirmed that he co-produced with
 Universal Pictures a film called, "The Pied Piper of Cleveland". This film
 was shot in 1955 in highschools in Cleveland and featured Bill Haley and the
 Comets, Pat Boone, and for the first time the relatively unknown Elvis
 Presley, invited by Randle.
 Randle further confirmed that on 4 July, 1992, Santilli was in Cleveland,
 looking for this footage.
 The film was shot by director Arthur Cohen and a Chicago newsreel cameraman
 called Jack Barnett.
 Jack Barnett was never in the army and died in 1957.
 Has Ray Santilli commented on this coincidence?
 In public correspondence with Ray, discussing the discrepancy with the dates
 and the fact that the "cameraman" has a seemingly identical persona to the
 late Jack Barnett, Ray commented that, "I still maintain that the story of
 the films acquisition is true, certain non-relevant details were only
 changed to stop people getting to the cameraman. Yes the trip to Cleveland
 was 1992, Yes during that trip I met Bill Randle but he was one of many
 people we met. Yes during that trip I met the cameraman and NO the
 cameraman's name is not Jack Barnet, I have always made it clear that the
 name had been adopted to protect the cameraman's real name".
 Is there evidence that Ray Santilli acquired memorabilia on this visit?
 Yes, in correspondence Ray recently mentioned to me that, "I came back with
 many hours of rare Elvis film, so rare that Polygram commissioned a report
 by ex-BMG (RCA) director Roger Seaman".
 This is substantiated by an article Ray alluded to and which I was able to
 locate a copy of.
 The article was published in the London "Daily Mirror" on August 17, 1992
 and is headed, "ELVIS: his last amazing letter". The article mentions Ray
 Santilli and his company by name.
 Is this supposed to be the same Roswell case as documented in recent years?
 Ray Santilli has confirmed this on a number of occasions, e.g.:
 "The one thing I can tell you that may be of interest to your readers is
 that our cameraman states that the event that occurred in Roswell occurred
 about one month before it was announced in the press. What happened was that
 the vehicle did crash and they were sent there to film and to clear up the
 area. The whole area was totally cleaned up. An then, purely by accident, a
 small piece of debris was found in an area that had been cleaned up and when
 that was found, the military had to go back in to the area again. That was a
 couple of weeks after the main event happened".
 Interview dated 8 April 1995 for "Phenomena" magazine.
 Bob Shell has also confirmed that the "cameraman claimed that a rancher
 found some debris on a ranch near Roswell and caused a real commotion at the
 base", and that after completion of the operation they found they'd missed a
 whole bunch of debris which had fallen on the Brazel Ranch...".
 Have any independent witnesses spoken with the alleged cameraman?
 Philip Mantle received a call from someone claiming to be the cameraman, but
 didn't discuss specifics of the case, it's understood that John Purdie, the
 producer of the Channel 4 documentary spoke with someone also claiming to be
 the cameraman and Ray Santilli claims that his partner, Gary  Shoefield has
 also spoken with him.
 Where did the "Cameraman's statement" originate?
 Bob Shell worked from Ray Santilli's secretary's translation of an alleged
 audio tape, the "rough draft transcription" having been forward to him by Ray.
 He confirmed that, "What I did was take the Irish secretary's transcription
 (much of which she apparently had difficulty understanding) and correct
 obvious spelling errors, and put the language as it ought to be when spoken
 by an American. I also researched the names mentioned, found out who they
 were, and inserted this information parenthetically".
 The finalised statement was available during August, 1995.
 A later version of the statement is headed, "OPERATION: ANVIL - Now known as
 the Roswell Incident". Is there any information on Operation Anvil?
 There is a relatively well known WWII exercise which for most of the
 planning stage was known as Operation Anvil, the code name subsequently
 being changed to Operation Dragoon.
 There's no indication of any subsequent operation with the same name.
 Do the claims in the statement check out?
 The names mentioned are contemporary, but there are only two basic claims
 which can be researched; that he "filmed the tests at White Sands" and "had
 not long returned from St. Louis, Missouri", where he had "filmed the new
 It's well documented that Berlyn Brixner was responsible for all filming of
 the actual July 16th, 1945 Trinity test and when this was pointed out, it
 was claimed the "cameraman" had filmed from the air. It's not clear whether
 it's claimed he filmed the actual Trinity test. There is no known aerial
 film of the Trinity test.
 According to the company, all tests of McDonnell Aircraft Company's Ramjet
 helicopter, "Little Henry'", were likely to have been filmed by McDonnell's
 own staff, Chester Turk and Bill Schmitt.
 When did the "autopsies" allegedly take place?
 It's apparently claimed this was between July 1 and July 3, 1947.
 Is there a sketch of the alleged craft and what does it look like?
 A sketch was supplied via Ray Santilli.
 It shows a "teardrop" shaped object with upward "fins" on both sides at the
 rounded back.
 Has this been seen before in connection with the Roswell case?
 Yes, it's a close match with the sketch drawn by "Frank Kaufman". Kaufman is
 not universally regarded as a credible witness and his sketch relates to a
 completely different location.
 Has the "cameraman" described the location of the "crash site"?
 Ray Santilli has given a location, allegedly provided by the cameraman.
 Bob Shell and Michael Hesemann work closely with Ray Santilli and have
 attempted to locate the exact area. Both have spoken in "conference", with
 Ray Santilli claiming to be speaking with the cameraman on another phone.
 Some assistance was apparently provided in seeking the "crash site", via
 this method.
 However, Bob Shell claims that, "Michael, Wendelle (Stevens) and crew were
 nowhere near the crash site" and some information he received from the
 "cameraman", via Ray Santilli, was also wrong.
 Bob further commented that, "even if his overall story is true, it seems
 that the old fellow is suffering from lapses and mental confusion at times".
 Has there been any further information on the alleged cameraman?
 He is apparently over 80 years old and was once in the "film archive business".
 Have Kodak authenticated any of the footage?
 Kodak have never been presented with any film known to contain images from
 the footage.
 What film has Kodak seen?
 Kodak in Hemel Hempstead, London were asked to verify the dating of a blank
 film strip, approximately 2 inches long. The edge codes indicated a date of
 either, 1927, 1947 or 1967.
 Peter Milson, Marketing Planning Manager and Motion Picture and Television
 Imaging Manager, explained:
 "...and what he's done, obviously I can't blame him for this, is given me a
 bit of the leader, or given us a bit of the leader and said this is the same
 as the neg, this is from the same bit of film".
 Kodak in Copenhagen were also asked to verify the dating of a similar blank
 strip. The film was forwarded to them by Tripple Entertainment, based in
 Denmark. It seems that Tripple Entertainment wished to have some film
 authenticated during business negotiations with Ray Santilli's company.
 Again, the edge codes indicated a date of either, 1927, 1947 or 1967.
 Kodak in Hollywood were asked to verify what Ray Santilli terms, "film with
 image". It's not known what the image was.
 Laurence Cate of Kodak confirmed that two people asked if someone could look
 at a piece of film in a 16mm canister. As his office is nearby and he was
 aware of the request, he offered to assist. Laurence was asked what he could
 say about the age of the film and having explained that he couldn't carry
 out a scientific examination there and them, he offered to have a look at
 the edge codes on the print film.
 The edge codes again indicated a date of either, 1927, 1947 or 1967.
 Are Kodak prepared to carry out a detailed analysis of film with images
 known to have come from the footage?
 Yes, there is a standing offer. According to Bob Shell, Kodak "want to see a
 strip at least 50 frames in length so they can do some sprocket spacing
 measurements. Spacing of sprocket holes was changed around 1960 when new
 equipment was installed, and Kodak can easily determine whether the film was
 made before or after this equipment change if given a long enough strip.
 Kodak also needs to see a strip which is intact from edge to edge, since
 this is an important measurement to determine film shrinkage. Film shrinks
 as it ages.
 Kodak also wants to perform chemical tests on a piece of film which can be
 firmly established to be from the same film on which the alien appears".
 Ray Santilli is aware of this offer, but it has never been taken up.
 Didn't Bob Shell verify a film sample as dating from 1947?
 Bob Shell's statement, dated 19 August 1995, was:
 "I have been hard at work on this film. I have now physically examined a
 section of the film, a section showing the "autopsy" room before the body
 was placed on the table, but clearly consistent with the later footage.
 The film on which this was shot is Cine Kodak Super XX, a film type which
 was discontinued in 1956-57. Since the edge code could be 1927, 1947 or
 1967, and this film was not manufactured in 1927 or 1967, this clearly
 leaves us with only 1947 as an option.
 The image quality, lack of fog, and grain structure apparent in the film
 lead me to the conclusion that this film was exposed and processed while
 still quite fresh, which would be within a "window" of three or four years.
 Based on this, I see no reason to doubt the cameraman's claim that this film
 was exposed in June and July of 1947, and processed "a few days later". From
 my own research on the physical characteristics of the film, I am willing to
 go on record as giving a 95% probability that the film is what the cameraman
 claims it to be. I am only hedging 5%, because I still want secondary
 chemical verification from Kodak based on the chemical "signature" of the film.
 I do not put my name on a statement like this lightly, and it is only after
 very careful consideration, and detailed examination of the film, that I do
 so at this time.
 Bob Shell
 Permission to cross-post granted, so long as this is quoted in complete form
 and not altered in any way".
 Isn't this solid evidence that the footage may date from 1947 as claimed?
 No, subsequent information determined that:
 - the film strip is print film, not camera original film
 - there is no evidence that the film sample shows the "autopsy" room and it
 is not clearly consistent with the footage which directly follows
 - the only evidence that the film stock was Cine Kodak Super XX, came from
 the alleged photocopied reel labels, not from the sample itself
 - Bob's samples do not actually have any edge codes, the edge with the codes
 has been torn off.
 On 20 April, 1996, Bob commented publicly that, "My 19th August statement
 was written when I still thought I had camera original film. It has been
 superseded by new information. Please disregard it".
 Discussing this at length with Bob, he recently also confirmed that, "Really
 the only evidence for Super XX that we have at present is the cameraman's
 word and those film boxes".
 No actual film boxes have apparently been seen. Bob did hope to analyse the
 claimed boxes, but as he was about to do so, they were seemingly no longer
 Are the sample frames definitely from the footage?
 The samples frames are all from the opening sequence of the "second autopsy"
 footage in the "Roswell: The Footage" video. They are not seen anywhere else.
 The frames handed out are missing from the video sequence, having seemingly
 been distributed before the other frames in the sequence were added.
 They show some stairs and an open doorway through which a covered table can
 be seen. The height of the table appears to be clearly too low for it to be
 the "autopsy" table. This very brief sequence is followed by some blank
 frames before the "autopsy" footage begins.
 The sample frames can not be linked to the central footage and could be
 frames from anywhere.
 Has Ray Santilli commented on this?
 Ray responded that, "The reason the frames were not included in the
 sell-through video or broadcast programmes is simply we could not make head
 or tail of the images and felt them irrelevant to the story and film itself.
 For that reason we only included the frames in the version of the film
 containing all the footage from the relevant reels.
 The frames were contained on the outside edge of one of the reels and were
 in such poor condition they fell apart on handling. We did not falsely
 recompile the frames which we could easily have done we presented them on
 the video in their natural state which is why the frames jump. The fact the
 image fades from black on the video is irrelevant and normal practice when
 presenting images on video.
 The frames are part of the film, however if people wish to think otherwise
 that's fine by me. They are wrong".
 What film samples are known to exist?
 John Purdie, producer of the Channel 4 documentary has some 10 strips, Bob
 Shell has two short strips of film and both Philip Mantle and Bob Kiviat
 have a single, short strip.
 None of these frame samples contain images from the actual "autopsy" footage.
 Have these frames been date tested?
 Philip Mantle's sample was recently date tested and it seems the results are
 currently inconclusive.
 What did Ray Santilli claim to have purchased?
 "I came away with 22 reels of film, 21 safety prints and one negative".
 "There are 22 reels plus scraps, etc. The reels were 3 minutes in duration
 apart from scrap reel of 10 mins approximately".
 What footage is known to exist?
 There are four sequences of film:
 1. The "tent examination".
 2. The "debris".
 3. The "first autopsy".
 4. The "second autopsy".
 When did each first appear in public?
 The approximate dates were:
 The "tent examination": late December '94/early January '95
 The "second autopsy": April 1995
 The "first autopsy":  April 1995
 The "debris": June 1995
 Which videos contain the footage?
 1. "Roswell: The Footage".
 This is the most complete. Released by "Roswell Footage Limited", one of Ray
 Santilli's companies, it contains the "raw" footage and essentially features
 the entire "second autopsy" and "debris" footage. A slow motion replay of
 the "second autopsy" is included.
 It also helpfully documents the description of each reel shown, the
 descriptions allegedly originating from the reel labels.
 2. "Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction?"
 The well known and hugely successful FOX production.
 3. "Incident at Roswell".
 The UK based Channel 4 documentary, with the entire "second autopsy" footage
 following on from the documentary.
 What happened to the "tent examination" and "first autopsy" footage?
 The "first autopsy" video was only shown privately to a few people.
 It was subsequently claimed that the "first autopsy" was effectively owned
 by a German acquaintance of Ray Santilli's called Volker Spielberg.
 According to Ray Santilli, Volker Spielberg helped finance the purchase of
 the film canisters and is a "collector".
 The "tent examination" footage was not included in the "raw" footage video
 as it apparently came from the "scrap reel" and could not be definitively
 linked to the other footage, the "cameraman" himself being unsure of the
 circumstances under which it was filmed.
 Who has seen the "tent examination"?
 This was the first footage to be shown. Video copies were given to at least
 Colin Andrews and Philip Mantle.
 An approximate two minute sequence from the "tent examination", seemingly
 "bootlegged", can be seen on a video entitled, "Penetrating the Web 2".
 What does it show?
 A "body" on a table, in a very poorly lit environment, possibly a "tent".
 The "body" has a long sheet draped over it. A head, what seems to be the
 right hand and two feet are evident.
 The primary light source is a lamp suspended above the table. Two people
 wearing white coats are attending the body and there is an unidentifiable
 figure to the left hand side of the camera, apparently observing
 proceedings. The "attendant" nearest the camera appears to be female, but
 the overall quality is too poor to be absolutely certain.
 Neither of the "attendants" are wearing face masks, nor are they apparently
 wearing protective gloves.
 The male attendant is seen performing some kind of procedure which involves
 using a knife to cut away either some material or a part of the body.
 Due to the overall poor quality, it's not possible to determine if the
 "body" is consistent with the "autopsy" footage.
 However, Ray Santilli apparently has a copy of this footage which is very
 David Roehrig, Producer  of the FOX program, confirmed that, "We have a copy
 that is very "blackened".
 When asked if this appeared to have been intentional, he commented, "My
 guess is that it was. But, it's only a guess. Having worked with telecine
 equipment before, I can't imagine how that would happen by accident".
 Who has seen the "first autopsy"?
 Maurizio Baiata was apparently shown this footage by Chris Cary, an
 associate of Ray Santilli's, on 26 April, 1995. Reg Presley may have
 accompanied Baiata to this showing.
 According to Philip Mantle, his wife and himself were shown this footage in
 Ray Santilli's office, on 28 April, 1995.
 How does it compare to the "second autopsy"?
 Apparently extremely similar. It seems to be filmed in the same room and
 those performing the procedures are wearing the same "protective suits". The
 "body" is hairless, is similarly "humanoid" and evidently "female", with an
 enlarged head, enlarged abdomen and six digits on the hands and feet.
 It does not however have any apparent damage, i.e., nothing comparable to
 the leg wound or partially severed right hand in the "second autopsy".
 The autopsy begins with the eye coverings being removed and similar to the
 "second autopsy", the eyeballs are visible underneath, rolled upwards. The
 body is cut open and various "organs" removed and placed in receptacles. The
 head is cut open and the skull sawn open to remove the "brain". The
 procedures are performed by two people who take notes as they proceed.
 Through the observation window, someone wearing a surgical gown, cap and
 mask can be seen.
 The film does not go out of focus so much, but there are fewer close-ups.
 Is the "second autopsy" footage consistent with the "cameraman's" claims
 that the contents are from a few reels "held back", but never collected?
 The "second autopsy" footage seems to be completely at odds with this claim.
 In the "Roswell: The Footage" video, each reel is preceded with a
 description and we have the following for the "autopsy".
 ------------- Description -------------          Time
 Autopsy   Reel No. 53   Body No. 2              10:05
 Autopsy   Reel No.      Body/Leg                10:20
 Autopsy   Reel No. 56   Body/Leg No. 2          10:40
 Autopsy   Reel No. 59   Chest No. 2
 Autopsy   Reel No. 61   Chest No. 2
 Autopsy   Reel No. 62   Head/Eyes No. 2
 Autopsy   Reel No. 63   Head No. 2              11:30
 Autopsy   Reel No. 64   Head No. 2
 Autopsy   Reel No.      Brain                   11:45
 The time is taken from the clock visible at certain points in the footage.
 As with the second reel, the last reel isn't numbered on the video, but the
 content follows on from the previous reel and judging by the time on the
 clock, it would seem to effectively be "Reel No. 65".
 The first reel, which shows the opening sequences is numbered 53, the last,
 say, 65. The total number of reels used during the one hour and forty
 minutes of filming would therefore be 13.
 If Ray Santilli has 9 of those reels, only 4 are missing and that's assuming
 they are not reels he theoretically has and from which images couldn't be
 The "cameraman's" story which claims that these are reels which were never
 forwarded, would therefore mean that, at best, only 4 rolls of film could
 ever have been.
 What is important to note is that on the reels which allegedly do exist,
 there are frequent breaks in filming during which significant sections of
 the "autopsy" are missing. Most of the one hour and forty minutes of the
 "autopsy" could not therefore apparently have been filmed.
 There was no other cameraman present, but it is claimed that a stills
 photographer took photographs during these numerous breaks. There is no
 evidence of any stills photographer in the footage.
 The footage which exists is in essence a summary of the alleged event.
 Is Ray Santilli aware of this and how does he explain this seemingly major
 Yes, this has been detailed for Ray on the CompuServe MUFON forum, which he
 sometimes contributes to, and Ray commented that, "all I can do is go back
 to the cameraman and ask for further details regarding the reels that were
 sent back and why some were retained. ... For my part the information I have
 provided in relation to the reels I collected is correct".
 No explanation has been forthcoming as yet.
 Have any of the other alleged reels been documented?
 Yes, three photocopies of what are claimed to be the original reel labels
 have been made available. These include "Reel # 64", which is accounted for
 in the "second autopsy" footage, and the following two reels:
 Reel No. 31    Recovery
 Reel No. 52    Truman a...
 No footage from these further two alleged reels has ever been seen.
 Wasn't there supposed to be footage of President Truman?
 Ray Santilli claims he was led to believe that the Truman footage existed
 and optimistically stated that it could be recovered. The label which it's
 claimed belongs to the reel with the footage of Truman is headed "Truman
 a...", the rest of the description being torn away.
 Ray claims that this reel is stuck together, but it is hoped that images can
 be retrieved some day.
 The "debris" footage is also documented on the "Roswell: The Footage" video,
 as three reels simply marked "Tagging".
 Is the "debris" footage consistent with what has been described by witnesses
 to the debris found by Mac Brazel?
 The "debris" footage is essentially the link between the "autopsy" footage
 and the Roswell case. The panels with six-fingered hands imprinted are a
 link to the "autopsy footage" and the I-beams with "hieroglyphics" are
 similar to those described by such as Dr Jesse Marcel Jnr.
 Dr Marcel Jnr. has on a number of occasions described the "hieroglyphics" he
 recalls as being "embossed". Curiously, in the Channel 4 "Incident at
 Roswell" documentary, when asked for his comments on the I-beams in the
 "debris" footage, he said the embossed symbols in that footage are different
 because, "the ones I saw were not raised above the level of the beam".
 Dennis Murphy recently mentioned on the CompuServe MUFON forum that he had
 spoken to Miller Johnson, who designed a "replica" I-beam with Dr Marcel Jnr.
 Dennis commented that, "I asked Miller Johnson if Jesse Marcel Jr. knew
 whether or not the symbols were embossed into the I-beam. He stated that
 Jesse was not sure if they were or not. The subject had come up though".
 The "hieroglyphics" on the "replica" I-beam are unlike those in the footage,
 the "hieroglyphics" in the footage being relatively consistent with what Dr
 Marcel Jnr. had previously described.
 In summary, what can be accounted for from the claimed 21 reels of 3 minutes
 duration, plus the "scrap" reel?
 According to Bob Shell, "As I understand it, this roll of negative film has
 nothing to do with the rest of the film and was apparently included by
 The "tent footage" apparently originated from the "scrap" reel, and that
 leaves 20 theoretical 3 minute reels to account for.
 This seems to include the following:
 Debris        Tagging
 Debris        Tagging
 Debris        Tagging
 Reel No. 31   Recovery
 Reel No. 52   Truman a...
 Autopsy       Reel No. 53   Body No. 2
 Autopsy       Reel No.      Body/Leg
 Autopsy       Reel No. 56   Body/Leg No. 2
 Autopsy       Reel No. 59   Chest No. 2
 Autopsy       Reel No. 61   Chest No. 2
 Autopsy       Reel No. 62   Head/Eyes No. 2
 Autopsy       Reel No. 63   Head No. 2
 Autopsy       Reel No. 64   Head No. 2
 Autopsy       Reel No.      Brain
 We still have to account for the "first autopsy" footage. According to
 Philip Mantle, that footage is approximately a minute or two shorter than
 the "second autopsy" footage and as such, it would seem to account for most,
 if not all, of the remaining reels.
 Is this consistent with what Ray Santilli claims could be recovered from the
 It appears to be inconsistent with what was apparently recoverable.
 Ray Santilli has stated that, "A good 50% of the footage we had, we were not
 able to retrieve an image from" and has confirmed this on other occasions.
 Even making considerable allowances, this doesn't seem to agree with what
 can be documented.
 Is Ray Santilli aware of this and has he offered any explanation?
 This has been put to Ray and he commented that, " your calculation you
 have not taken into account the length of film contained within what we
 called the scrap reel".
 The scrap reel has been stated to contain "10 mins approximately" of film
 and as this apparently contains the "tent examination" footage and according
 to Bob Shell, "high school football games, and obviously unrelated stuff",
 it doesn't seem to be a relevant explanation.
 Bob apparently hasn't seen this reel himself.
 Who allegedly has the original film?
 According to Ray Santilli, "there are three of us with footage, myself, the
 cameraman and the collector".
 The "collector" is apparently Volker Spielberg.
 Has Volker Spielberg commented on his alleged financing and, at least,
 part-ownership of the claimed archive film?
 It seems Volker's only public comment was when TF1 attempted to interview
 him. He indicated he wished to be left alone, or words to that effect.
 He was a Hamburg based music producer and has possibly now moved to Austria.
 On 8 April, 1995, Ray Santilli confirmed in an interview that his company,
 "The Merlin Group", had offices in London and Hamburg.
 Is there any evidence that archive, 16mm film was transferred to video?
 I had been pursuing this aspect for some time and eventually Bob Shell
 publicly confirmed that,
 "Film to video transfer was done in London by Rank".
 He subsequently added that, "My understanding is that Rank first made a very
 high quality 16 mm film duplicate of the footage because it was damaged and
 in poor shape. The video was then made from the dupe".
 "When I asked Ray who had done the copying of the original film to a 16 mm
 dupe, he said that he wasn't sure. He told me that they had gone to one
 company who had agreed to do the work while they waited, and that this firm
 had then changed their story and said they would have to leave the film and
 come back and pick it up later, which they certainly would never have done.
 There was then a general conversation in the office as to who had ultimately
 done the work. Ray said something like "We ended up having it done by Rank,
 didn't we?" and Chris (Cary) said something like, "yes, it was Rank. I'm
 pretty sure it was Rank."
 They promised to provide me with documentation when they had a chance".
 Having established from the Rank Organisation plc that Rank Video Services
 of Brentford, would undertake any such work, I asked Graham Birdsall, editor
 of UFO Magazine (UK) if he would like to "officially" confirm this important
 and potentially significant information.
 Graham first spoke with Paul Gooderham of Rank Video Services and Paul
 confirmed he had seen the footage, but only on TV. He knew of it, but
 confirmed that Rank Video Services had not been involved with it in any
 capacity. He suggested speaking with Roy Liddiard at the main laboratory as
 he was the person with overall responsibility for such matters within the
 company and may be able to assist further.
 Roy was also very helpful and further confirmed that his company had no
 involvement in any capacity.
 Has Ray Santilli offered an explanation?
 As far as is known, no explanation has ever been offered, despite requests
 for one.
 Is there anything else of possible significance on the copies of the claimed
 reel labels?
 Yes, each of the labels bears a stamp.
 The stamp shows the emblem of either the National Military Establishment
 (NME) or the Department of Defense (DoD), the NME emblem subsequently
 becoming that of the DoD. The stamp bears writing which is not legible.
 In response to a query from researcher Robert Irving, Alfred Goldman,
 Historian at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Pentagon, confirmed
 that, "The original seal was for the National Military Establishment. It was
 changed to the Department of Defense in August 1949. The original seal could
 not have come into existence until some time in October 1947 or later".
 Although the stamp may not be an official seal, it bears the emblem of an
 organisation which did not exist at the time of the claimed filming. It
 would therefore seem it must have been applied some time afterwards.
 Has the film been proven to be a hoax?
 There is no conclusive proof that the film is a hoax.
 Is there any evidence that the film is a hoax?
 There seems to be no "creature effects" artist who believes the footage to
 be authentic. It has been pointed out that the "body" in the "autopsy" is
 very rigid, "muscley "and the skin seems to be drawn by gravity towards the
 feet, rather than down towards the autopsy table. All of these features are
 consistent with a model made from a body cast, taken in a standing position.
 The "body" is also handled very cautiously and we never see it being turned
 over, or even moved, to any significant extent.
 The filming is also consistent with a hoax. There are significant breaks in
 filming and what would be particularly challenging sequences, such as the
 opening of the body, are missing.
 The "tent examination", "autopsy" and "debris" films are all filmed in
 environments which are consistent with scenes which have been staged.
 Missing is any film showing the alleged crash site, military personnel, the
 recovery, or any footage from the three weeks the "cameraman" allegedly
 spent at "Wright Patterson" (which would have been Wright Field at that
 time), "working on the debris".
 Is there any evidence that the film might not be a hoax?
 Some of the "autopsy" footage is convincing and there's a lot of detail in it.
 The "brain removal" sequence in particular seems challenging as a special
 effect. Also, when the body is first shown with the chest area open, a "rib
 cage" is evident and the "organs" are in an arranged order. Later in the
 "organ" removal sequence, what seem to be cut or sawn ribs are apparent.
 The "skin" also appears to be actually cut into at some points.
 Some of the comments from the SFX community indicate that as a perceived
 special effect, a high degree of specialised skill is evident.
 The wall clock, telephone, telephone cord and plug points are apparently
 contemporary, but the microphone has not seemingly been conclusively dated.
 There are some frames in the film which are out of sequence, consistent with
 the story of archive film being pieced together.
 Anyone who may be interested in a detailed explanation of the special
 effects aspects and who has world wide web access, can find an excellent
 presentation by Trey Stokes, of the "Truly Dangerous Company", at:
 Would the autopsy table and equipment seen, be available from a prop company?
 Some prop companies provide a specialised service for medical props.
 What is the general consensus of the medical profession?
 Medical opinions seem to cover the entire spectrum.
 Some medical professions believe the body is that of a genetically deformed
 young girl, in some cases claimed to be suffering from progeria.
 Others are simply unsure or are dismissive of the footage.
 Some professionals, eminently qualified in pathology, believe the
 "pathologist" in the footage exhibits signs of surgical training, but is not
 a pathologist.
 Could the body be human?
 For a number of reasons, this doesn't seem possible.
 There are no apparent veins or arteries, there is no obvious subcutaneous
 layer of fat, no known record of any genetic defect which could explain all
 of the characteristics evident and neither the "organs" or "brain" can
 seemingly be explained in terms of a human body.
 A significant amount of the research undertaken on the footage, has been
 carried out by Theresa Carlson, a member of the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON).
 When Ray Santilli learned of Theresa's work, he offered a "Beta SP dub taken
 from the first generation master of the film copy".
 Using video capture equipment and having access to a superior quality copy
 of the footage, Theresa has carried out an extensive analysis of the frames
 and has been responsible for identifying many of the details present.
 Has the "cameraman" given an interview?
 Earlier this year, a person who is claimed to be the cameraman filmed
 himself answering some questions.
 The interview was apparently intended to be in "silhouette", but he was
 identifiable and the interview will not therefore be used. It is seemingly
 the intention that a further attempt will be made at some point.
 "Alien Autopsy" FAQ V1.0
 21 September 1996
 (C) James Easton.
 This document may be distributed only on the understanding that it is
 reproduced in full and not altered in any way.
 Errol Bruce-Knapp  (
 UFO UpDates - Toronto - 416-932-0031
 An E-Mail List Service for the serious student
 of UFO-Related Phenomena
 AVia 1:363/1572.1 19960922.093045.UTC gigo 099.960714+

Next: Alien Insurance