Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Feb -> Re: Volker Spielberg

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: James Easton <100626.2242@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 20:25:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 01:14:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Volker Spielberg

Regarding...

>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Volker Spielberg
>Date: Wed, 5 Feb 97 03:46:35 -0000
>From: Bob Rickard <bob@forteana.win-uk.net>

Bob asked:

>I may be duplicating an earlier discussion but has anyone investigated
>Volker Spielberg. I view of his importance to the business of solving the
>mystery of these 'alien autopsy' tapes, what do we actually know of him?

Bob,

Apparently a business associate of Ray Santilli's for some years, Spielberg
lived in Hamburg before moving to Austria. As well as "Lollipop Records",
he was involved with another Hamburg based company called, "VS-Musik Verlag
GmbH".

In one of his earliest comments, Santilli mentioned that his own company,
"The Merlin Group", had offices in London and Hamburg.

Spielberg is now involved with an Austrian based company which, similar to
Santilli's line of business, produces CD's and audio tapes. It's a large
company, involved with distribution, imports and exports.


The only known interview with Spielberg was when the French TV channel TF1
traced his whereabouts in Austria and Jacques Pradel spoke with him. The
essence of Spielberg's comments were:

"I want to be left alone. I'm a collector, I want to be out, and I want to
have no contact with nobody regarding this matter because this is my
personal thing....Simply I'm not interested. You see, the whole matter is
of no interest to me, I have made up my mind. I have my belief and that's
it. And I got what I want. I'm happy and that's it."

"What have I to do with this? As to my knowledge, I'll keep all the cans,
yes, as to my knowledge, that's all I can tell you. Well, as to my
knowledge I am, uh, possess all the film reels. Whether this is true or
not, that's not up to me to judge, but that is my belief, yes."


>What are his motives for surpressing access?  ... can it really be the
>equivalent of an antique collector who doesn't really want to know if his
>priceless 'Matisse' is worthless crap?

I had the opportunity to discuss Spielberg's involvement with Ray Santilli
and he provided some background detail which was an interesting insight
into the story. Ray also answered some questions on other central issues,
but not all of them. In relation to a separate matter, I had extracted this
exchange from my files last weekend and passed it on to someone. I think
this extract might help you to place the story of Spielberg's involvement
and some other key issues in context. I've edited it to remove some
unrelated material:

February, 1996:

James,

Volker is one of the greatest extraverts you could ever wish to meet, he
collects anything of real value, he is wealthy and has been a business
associate and friend of mine for many years. That's how I know him. That's
why I turned to him when I needed money.

With regard to your other points, 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 cameramans name
is not Jack Barnet, I have always made it clear that the name had been
adopted to protect the cameraman's real name..

[...]


Best regards,

Ray


__________

Ray,

>Volker is one of the greatest extraverts you could ever wish to meet...

Thank you for clarifying this. If I understand correctly, what you are
saying is that Volker is not essentially a collector of archive, historic,
16mm film, but a collector per se.

If Volker financed the entire purchase, can you possibly clarify how it was
possible to sell him some of the film which he already bought!? Why, for
example, was it apparently only the "first autopsy" footage which he bought
from you and yet he seems to own most of the other film as well?

It would help to place matters in perspective if you could.


>With regard to your other points, 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....

It was obviously known that the Cleveland visit was 1992 and that any
living cameraman could not be the late Jack Barnett!

It was however no longer clear whether the initial offer was still
apparently made during that Cleveland visit and I'm sure we all appreciate
this further clarification.

The Cleveland visit took place during July 1992 and if the film wasn't
actually acquired until November 1994, this would presumably mean there was
a 2 year, 4 month interlude.


Initially, it was claimed that the cameraman from whom you acquired the
film had worked as a freelance for Universal News and that during 1955 he
had filmed some, now musically historic, high-school concerts in the
Cleveland area. This claim seems to be based on the life of the late Jack
Barnett and the "Pied Piper of Cleveland" footage which he filmed.

Is that an accurate conclusion?

Would this be an indication of your intention to protect the cameraman's
identity?


Without obviously now revealing his identity, can you clarify what the
actual circumstances were? As you may have seen, last November, Michael
Hesemann posted some further insight into the acquisition story. I'm sure
Michael won't mind if I briefly quote the relevant details:

"...today I met Ray in London (just came back) and spoke with him for about
three  hours. He told me the full story. He was in Cleveland End of
June/beginning of July 1993 looking for early Elvis /Rock n'Roll
material...he advertised in the local paper and got hundreds of replys:
People who had posters, autographs and so on.

JBs son lived in Cleveland at that time and JB visited him for the July 4th
weekend and boating on a lake near Cleveland. He saw the ad and contacted
Ray. Ray got interested and flew with him to his home town, saw the
footage, bought it. There the cameraman who liked Ray and his policy
offered him the "other footage"...."


Obviously the year is incorrect and it differs from previous versions in
that the "Elvis" footage wasn't seen by you in Cleveland (which presumably
it couldn't have been if the cameraman was there on holiday and the footage
was at his home), but is this essentially a more accurate version of the
story?

Again, it simply helps to place the whole picture in perspective.

[...]



Best wishes,

James.


__________

James,

Some answers :-

1. Anything of REAL value, that's Volker (yes per se)

2. Volker put up most of the money, on the condition he could have some
film, and we pay him a percentage from any income we can derive from it.

3. I first saw the film during my Cleveland trip and agreed to buy it.
However I didn't have the money.

4. Strangely enough if you look back at my earlier statements you will see
I stated that it took me over two years to buy the film (no one picked up
the mistake with the date)

5. The cameraman did film Elvis with his backing band live on stage in late
1955, it was a short clip of film (around ten mins) but nevertheless very
good and yes we purchased it.. He also freelanced for Universal News as
most qualified film cameramen did during that time.

6. I cannot state where I saw the film, as this would cause problems.

[...]

At present it's impossible  for me to go any further than I have above.
Not because I am being difficult, but if I do the land slide would be
formidable, and as mentioned in the past neither I, Volker or the people
I work with are in control of the situation.


Best regards,

Ray


__________

Ray,

Thank you for the detailed reply, the points which I haven't responded to
have been duly noted. There are some points which I would hope you will
consider further:

>Volker put up most of the money, on the condition he could have some film,
>and we pay him a percentage from any income we can derive from it.

In summary:

- Volker financed the entire purchase
- He wanted some of the original, 16mm archive film as it was "unique"
- You therefore gave him ("sold" him, as you put it) the "first autopsy"
footage
- He retains a financial interest in the commercial aspects of the film
(not really relevant)

Is this now an accurate summary?

The key word in your welcome reply is "some". If he only has some, where
is the rest of it!!?

This is one of the most fundamental points. We know that the following film
exists:

- tent footage
- debris footage
- first autopsy
- second autopsy

If Volker only has some of the footage, as far as we know the "first
autopsy" footage, where is the remainder and why can none of it be made
available for authentication?


>The cameraman did film Elvis with his backing band live on stage in late
>1955, it was a short clip of film (around ten mins) but nevertheless very
>good and yes we purchased it.. He also freelanced for Universal News as
>most qualified film cameramen did during that time.

That's a great help.

We therefore seem to have a situation where:

- Whilst in Cleveland you negotiated the rights on the "Pied Piper of
Cleveland" footage, shot in High Schools in Cleveland during 1955 and
featuring then up and coming stars, including Elvis Presley. The footage
was shot by a Universal News cameraman called Jack Barnett.

- Whilst in Cleveland you were offered additional footage, shot in a High
School in Cleveland during 1955 and featuring the then up and coming star,
Elvis Presley. The footage was shot by a freelance Universal News cameraman
whom you subsequently gave the pseudonym of Jack Barnett.

No wonder this has been confusing.

[...]

>At present it's impossible  for me to go any further than I have above...

Presumably this means you will not be providing evidence that any archive
film was ever actually processed. That's obviously very disappointing and
still offers no explanation why the evidence you _did_ provide to Bob
Shell, simply didn't check out. Why did that happen?


Can you give some indication whom you believe the real controllers are?

On a more general topic, has the cameraman ever spoken about the filming
which took place at Wright Field when he worked on the recovered debris
during those 3 weeks? It would obviously be very interesting to have some
insight into what happened there. One would assume that some of the most
powerful and influential people in the military and government would have
been at Wright Field during that time. Has he mentioned any names, any
discoveries made during the examination of the debris, any policy decisions
he may have heard of?



Best wishes,

James.


__________

Dear James,

A small down-payment was made in 92. I couldn't raise the rest which is why
I turned to Volker. So he didn't pay the full amount. In return a certain
amount of the footage was his to keep and he retained a financial interest
in the exploitation through the media.  With regard to your other questions
relating to footage I cannot answer them right now apart from saying that
the only film that is relevant is both Autopsys, Debris and the material
contained within the scrap reel most of which has nothing to do with the
event but will be of interest as it gives an insight to the cameraman (for
example, on the scrap reel there is approx 5mins of what appears to be a
local American football game played in a field).

Whilst in Cleveland I was offered the Elvis footage I mentioned, it was not
a high school performance but an open air one.

[...]

In time I will be providing evidence, I do not understand the Bob Shell
reference

Controllers : the cameraman, especially his family feature  here.


James, out of this recent exchange you have gained a great deal more
information than most others, I am not at liberty to go any further at
present.

I accept that I didn't handle the situation very well at the start, my
experience in this field was minimal. What has really interested me in all
this is the carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation and
debunking. The UFO community are being manipulated from the outside, and
it's not by me.

Regards,


Ray


__________

Ray,

Thank you for the additional clarification to the points discussed, I'm
sure it's greatly appreciated by everyone.

If Volker has a certain amount of the original film and doesn't wish to
have it authenticated in any way, that's obviously a great disappointment
for everyone else who _would_ like to substantiate the truth behind it's
origins.

However, it doesn't explain why not even a small sample of the remaining,
relevant 16mm film, wherever that may be, couldn't be made available.

Kodak's offer to provide the most expert opinion was a wonderful
opportunity.

[...]

I'm sure you appreciate that much of the present uncertainty is simply down
to the absence of information and you have gone some way to redressing
that, which has been a great help.

On which note, the query concerning Bob's comments was outlined in my
initial response:

"I had subsequently asked if you could possibly confirm who was responsible
for processing the entire footage and transferring it to 16mm film, clearly
a delicate and specialised operation.

Although you had not provided any such details, Bob Shell confirmed that
he had asked you in person about this and that, "Film to video transfer was
done in London by Rank." He further clarified that, "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 said something like, "yes, it was Rank.  I'm pretty sure it was
Rank.""

A simple question really; why did Rank in London confirm they had no
knowledge of any such work?



Best wishes,

James.


__________

Dear James,

Thanks for the message. For the most part I accept your points, The film
was transferred here in the UK. I will discuss your request with the
facilities House tomorrow and if they are happy for me to disclose their
name (which they haven't been) I will pass it on. Now the dust has settled
a little they may not mind.

Regards,


Ray
[End]


Ray's offer to put me in touch with the Facilities House, i.e., the people
who allegedly transferred the 16mm film to video, came to nothing, as he
declined to do so at the last moment.

All of the above correspondence with Ray was in public, on the CompuServe
MUFON forum.


>Does he exist? For all we know he may be an actor, as may the clumsy
>'cameraman'. Has he been interviewed?

I hope this helps explain the story.

We know for certain that Ray was in Cleveland during July 1992 and did
acquire a significant collection of Elvis Presley memorabilia, but that's
all we can say for sure.

It wouldn't surprise me if Volker Spielberg was a wealthy collector,
possibly of archive music film, but again, there's nothing to back up
the claims of his involvement with the "Roswell" film story.



James.
E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.com