UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 12:46:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 12:46:10 -0500
Subject: CNI News Interview with Philip Mantle
CNI News is a twice-monthly electronic newsletter addressing UFO phenomena,
claims of human-alien contact, space exploration and related issues,
including the cultural and political impacts of contact with other
intelligent life. CNI News is edited by Michael Lindemann and distributed by
the 2020 Group. Prior to October 1, 1996, CNI News was published under the
name ISCNI*Flash.
CNI News is a subscription newsletter. First-time recipients may receive two
free issues before subscribing. CNI researchers, educators and organizations
may qualify for a complimentary subscription. For more information on how to
subscribe, please see the notice at the end of this issue. Questions and
comments may be addressed to: Editor, CNINews1@aol.com.
The subject matter of CNI News is inherently controversial, and the views and
opinions reported herein are not necessarily those of the editorial staff.
==+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++==
QUOTABLE: "From an anthropological point of view, space exploration must be
undertaken not only out of simple human curiosity but also to further ensure
the survival of the species. The twentieth century has seen unprecedented
development and proliferation of magnificent technologies. Many of them,
though, through design, ignorance, or misuse, are capable of destroying life
as well as enhancing it. Space exploration alone holds the promise of
eventual escape from a dying planet, provided that we wisely manage our
resources in the meantime and actually survive that long."
-- Dr. Edgar Mitchell, "The Way of the Explorer"
==+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++==
CNI NEWS INTERVIEWS UFO RESEARCHER PHILIP MANTLE
UK Expert Says Santilli Autopsy Film May Be Authentic
[Philip Mantle has investigated UFO cases in the UK for more than 16 years as
an associate of BUFORA, the British UFO Research Association. For the past
three years he served as BUFORA's Director of Investigations, a post he
recently resigned; and he remains on BUFORA's Board of Directors. In 1994, he
co-authored with Carl Nagaitis a book on abductions in the UK titled "Without
Consent." In 1997, his next book will appear, co-authored with German
researcher Michael Hesemann, titled "Beyond Roswell." In this book, Mantle
will discuss the possibility that the controversial "Santilli Alien Autopsy
Film" may be authentic.
Mantle is 38 years of age and lives in the town of Batley, in West Yorkshire,
with his wife Sue and their two children. CNI News editor Michael Lindemann
interviewed Philip Mantle on November 16, 1996, when they met at a conference
in Blackpool, England. Thanks to Celeste for assistance in transcribing the
interview.]
ML: Apart from your UFO research, what do you do for a living?
PM: I've been employed at the same company now for the last 17 years. We
manufacture lithographic printing plates in huge quantities. That's what pays
the mortgage and feeds the children.
ML: Did you ever serve in the military?
PM: No, I've never been in the military.
ML: You've been associated with BUFORA for a long time. When and how did your
interest in UFOs begin?
PM: My interest in UFOs began in about 1978, quite by accident. I was with a
friend in Wiltshire, in the west country of England. We were actually amateur
astronomers. I've been interested in astronomy ever since the moon landings,
as a young boy. We'd gone to visit a gentleman [who'd] built himself a small
observatory. On this particular evening -- I can't remember exactly why -- we
couldn't use the telescope.
I was loaned a book on UFOs, basically dismissing them, and it mentioned the
town of Walmingston in Wiltshire. To my surprise, we were some eight or ten
miles away from this town. So, quite literally, we had nothing better to do
on that particular evening, [and] we drove to the town.
We found the local vantage point which was mentioned in the book, called
Bradle Hill, [and] perched ourselves on the hilltop. There were other people
there. We saw an orange light descend that we couldn't identify in
astronomical terms. It wasn't the stars, the planets, meteors, so on. We were
completely ignorant of the surrounding area, having never been there before.
With the benefit of hindsight, it was probably something to do with the
military -- there is a military garrison there, and they do military
maneuvers in the area. It may have been a flare, or something like that. But
at that time we didn't know that, and that sparked the interest.
I had a prior interest also in the paranormal. And I decided at that point to
find out for myself what this thing was. And it mentioned the British UFO
Research Association in the book, and even gave an address for them. So I
thought, well, I'll write to these people. That was in 1978. I eventually
joined BUFORA, and also a local organization which I happened across in
Yorkshire, just outside of Leeds. And that's how my interest started, quite
by chance. Had it not been cloudy that particular evening, the probability is
that I wouldn't be speaking to you today.
ML: Apart from that first serendipitous event, have you had any other
sightings or unusual experiences that you think were UFOs?
PM: The only thing that I would classify as a UFO that I've seen, personally,
took place on July 23, 1984, at about 9:55 p.m. At my job, I have to work
shifts. I finished early that evening, at about 9:50. I wasn't married at
that time. I was driving home to my parents' house, on a long straight road.
As I turned the car onto the main highway, I could see these lights in the
sky. It was a beautiful summer's evening; it wasn't dark, there was still a
red glow in the sky. And I knew, because of my background in astronomy, that
it wasn't Venus, etc., and that it shouldn't have been there. There was still
the possibility that it was an aircraft, because there is an airport in
Leeds.
So I drove to a vantage point where I knew I could see the whole city of
Leeds and the valley below me. It wasn't one light, it was two lights, side
by side, extremely large. They were like a pearly white, an off-white color.
They weren't bright to the eyes, they didn't hurt the eyes, but they were
bright, nevertheless; [and] something like 30 degrees above the horizon. They
were over a suburban town of Leeds called Middleton, only a couple of miles
from where I was. Completely stationary. And [they] disappeared before my
eyes -- didn't go up or down, left or right, [they] just went.
In the course of our investigations, lots of people, probably well into three
figures, eventually came forward who had observed the same thing that night,
not just around Leeds, but across the north of England, from the East Coast
from Humberside, right across Yorkshire and into parts of North Yorkshire as
well.
ML: You've probably investigated some pretty unusual cases. What do you think
is the most impressive UFO case you've ever been involved with?
PM: In the summer of 1979, I had only been involved for about a year. And not
far from where I used to live, at my parents' house, there is a town called
Normanton, basically a mining community. A lady [there] phoned me, and her
first words were, "You won't believe what I'm about to tell you. You won't
believe this." So I persuaded her to tell me the story. And colleagues and I
eventually went to see her.
She related an observation, in daylight, in the summer. The children -- she
had five children -- were outside playing a ballgame, and the ball rose into
the air, and they saw this thing that they called an aeroplane, actually land
in some fields adjacent to the houses. They ran inside. "Mum, mum, there is
an aeroplane crashed in the fields." She took a walk outside and from her
front door she could see across these fields. And she described to us a
gray-colored object -- [she said it] looked like a Mexican hat -- actually on
the ground in the field.
They decided to take a closer look. They walked across the fields. At one
point you go down a small dip, and you lose sight of this area. When they
came up the other side of the dip, not only was this thing still there, but
there were three tall men in white boiler-suits, completely covered with a
visor over their faces. They got so close, they could make out that [the
men] didn't have gloves, they were wearing mittens; and they could see the
wedge-shaped boots they were wearing, and some kind of instrument in their
hands.
The field was bordered by a fence, at which they stopped. The lady was quite
perturbed at this point, but the children were totally fearless and wanted to
climb the fence and get over into the field. It was at this point that the
three men appeared to notice the children's presence, and the lady as well.
They walked to the rear of this thing. [Then] it rose vertically, stopped in
midair, and took off at a great speed, without making a sound. And these are
just a farmer's fields, that they grew some grass in. There are electricity
pylons there. There is a power station quite nearby.
My colleagues and I tried extensively to come up with a solution to this.
The lady didn't want any publicity. She wore curlers, for example, when we
went to interview her and she wouldn't allow a photograph. She was married to
a coal miner. My father was a coal miner for 40 years, so I'm used to
associating with this type of person.
The two conclusions that I could draw were that they were either all lying,
or they had seen something quite bizarre, and I had no evidence to suggest
that they were lying.
ML: Did you talk to the children?
PM: Oh yes, we interviewed all of the children, all separately. They did
drawings for us. They never called it a flying saucer or UFO or spaceship,
just this thing and these tall men. Not spacemen, but these tall men. And,
you know, we examined the field. There were no traces, no nothing, which is
not uncommon, of course.
It made a great impression on me. Bear in mind, I had only been involved in
this subject for about a year, although colleagues who were with me had been
involved much longer, and had much more experience than I had. So we worked
together on this. But it just made a very distinct impression. She was a
very down-to-earth lady, no nonsense, the type of person that I've grown up
with all of my life. And what it was, I couldn't honestly say.
ML: How long after the event itself were you actually on the scene?
PM: We were there within about three or four days.
ML: And you went to the site but couldn't find any trace that this thing had
been there?
PM: None whatsoever. There was not even a flattened blade of grass. Nothing.
ML: Did she indicate that the thing was standing on legs?
PM: No, no. This was flat down on the ground. No legs, no wheels, no
protrusions. She also described it as looking like a military tank, but
without the gun turret. But her first impression was that it looked like a
Mexican hat, but dull gray in color. That's how she described it.
ML: Fascinating. Let's cut to a more recent case. You've had quite extensive
contact with Ray Santilli, and have had plenty of opportunity to examine the
controversy of the autopsy film. What is your current view of the film?
PM: For a long time, in private conversations with Ray, I told him in no
uncertain terms that I didn't believe a word of it. Not that I didn't believe
him -- I couldn't accept the film, for a whole variety of reasons. When I
became involved with him, it was my intention to expose the film to the
public domain, not necessarily for the ufologists, but for the members of a
variety of different professions, to see what they could make of the film.
When I first saw some of the film, which was some 18 months after my first
contact with Ray, I asked him three questions: 1) Could we have a piece of
the film to analyze? (He said "maybe"); 2) Could I speak to the cameraman?
(He said "no"); and 3) Would he show it at a conference I was planning later
that year? (To my surprise, he said "yes.") I knew from my past experience
that the film's association with the conference would release it into the
public domain; the two would go hand-in-hand. That way, if it was fake, or
genuine, or whatever, there was always the possibility that somebody out
there would know something more about it and would come forward.
What I and others have tried to do, to give you one example, is to show the
film to members of the medical community -- physicians, surgeons,
pathologists, not just in England or in the United States, but around the
world. The film has been shown at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow, for
example, to friends and colleagues of ours who are scientists with the
Academy. And a [Russian] gentleman, whose name I cannot pronounce without my
notes -- formerly the head pathologist for the Russian Army -- claims that
the creature is flesh and blood, and gives a variety of technical reasons as
to why he believes that. Other colleagues and associates showed it in Norway.
It was shown at a conference of pathologists in Switzerland, and they came to
the same conclusion: it was flesh and blood. By all means, not all surgeons
believe that, but quite a large percentage of them do.
Dr. Roger Leir [California-based podiatrist and "alien implant" researcher]
gave a number of reasons why he believes the film is genuine. For example, at
one point [in the film] they flex the damaged leg, and Dr. Leir says that if
you study it closely and slowly, you can see the thigh muscles moving. For
special effects to do that -- it's not impossible, but only the trained eye
was able to observe that. I have looked at it and I have seen something
move, but I would never recognize it as the thigh muscle, as I'm not a
physician.
Even more recently, in Japan, a pathologist there who has seen part of the
film has claimed that it is flesh and blood.
So that kind of evidence swayed my opinion that perhaps what we are looking
at is an authentic piece of film -- of what, I don't think I'm qualified to
say. I'm not sure anyone is, to be honest. But the creature has no navel, and
every human born, irrespective of genetic defects or otherwise, has a navel.
And we have to remember also that there are two autopsy films. Only one has
ever been released into the public domain. There are two, similar looking
creatures. I have seen the two -- I've seen both of them. So if it was some
kind of deformed human creature, for example, it would probably have to be
twins. And neither of them had a navel. But they would have to have had
parents, [and] doctors, to look after them for many years. You would have
expected them to have been written up in some medical literature somewhere,
because they are so unique. When the film was aired back in 1995 on
television, Professor Christopher Milroy, a pathologist in the UK , stated
that he expected to find it somewhere in the medical literature. But no one
ever has.
So, it kind of narrows it down as to what it may be, and what we are looking
at. I don't know. But it was the medical opinion that swayed me.
ML: Have you had any contact with the person you think is the cameraman?
PM: We've tried very hard to get to him, through Santilli. On June 22, I
believe, of 1995, Ray Santilli phoned me at about 7:30 [pm], and he said that
the cameraman would phone me at some point that evening. He didn't know
when, but he advised me to keep the lines clear.
Just before 9:00 pm that same evening, the telephone rang and a gentleman
introduced himself as the cameraman. We had a 15-minute conservation. He
retold the story that's been released everywhere, of how he filmed the events
and kept hold of the film. I pointed out to him [that he] could be phoning
from a call box at the end of my street. I had no way of knowing that this
was even a transatlantic call. And he appreciated that. The gentleman said,
"Have you got any more questions for me?" [I said], "I've got about a
thousand, but I would like to put them to you face-to-face. It's no good on
the telephone." Had I put questions to him, they were worthless because I
couldn't even guarantee who he was, so I would have been criticized whichever
way I went. So, in my opinion, I felt it was better to try to build a bridge
with this gentleman, whoever he may be, just in case there was the remote
chance that we might get to meet face-to-face. I put that to him, and he said
that he wouldn't rule it out at some point in the future. So, that future
hasn't arrived yet. We have never met. But I remain optimistic.
ML: Did you tape-record that conversation?
PM: I didn't. I didn't have the facilities at that time to be able to tape
record telephone conversations. And in the short notice that I had, of Ray
ringing me and saying he will phone now, I wasn't sure where I could go to
get those facilities. So, unfortunately not.
ML: You're about to release a new book. Can you describe it briefly?
PM: I co-authored a book with Michael Hesemann from Germany, called "Beyond
Roswell." We've put our arguments for the Santilli film's authenticity into
this book -- that's about four chapters of a 16-chapter book. We've also
reiterated the conventional Roswell story, and we've mentioned the
controversy around the MJ-12 and Area 51. We have tried to place the
Santilli film in what we believe is the correct context, and it will be up to
the readership to either accept [our] argument or to refute it. But we've
also put out a request for further information. Someone, somewhere, other
than Ray Santilli, knows something about this film, but they aren't saying.
[I've been] asked what my reaction would be if the film was proved to be a
fake. Well, if it was proved to be a fake, I can accept that. If someone
comes forward who can prove that it is not authentic -- one of the actors
that's in it, for example, would be a good idea -- then, fine. But until that
time comes, I remain optimistic that it is the genuine article.
ML: It's been pointed out that the story about the film doesn't seem to
square with the standard Roswell timeline. Is it your view that, if it's
authentic, it's associated with a different set of events than Roswell?
PM: On the surface it appears to be a different set of events. The cameraman
claims that it took place on May 31, [1947], in New Mexico but nearer to
Socorro, for example. And we have located a number of potential witnesses to
an event on that evening. They were Native American Indians who were
children at that time, and they used to play outside at night because it was
cooler. They observed a meteorite or a fireball, and it lit up their faces,
it was so bright. And one of the little girls remembers it for a particular
reason, because she had a coin in her mouth as she was playing, and she
actually swallowed the coin. Another of the girls -- it was her birthday, so
that's why she remembers the date. They've grown up and moved from the area.
And they have been interviewed. So there are potential witnesses to
something on that particular evening. There is also Indian folklore about
beings with six fingers and six toes, and there are even glyphs in the
canyons where the Indians lived, for example, glyphs with six-fingered and
six-toed beings. Probably irrelevant, but at least there is a folkloric,
historical precedent for that kind of thing.
So, having said that, it wouldn't surprise me that there was a connection
somewhere with the accepted events of Roswell. But it appears to be a
different event.
ML: You're undoubtedly aware that many people believe we're heading toward
some sort of official revelation, or perhaps some kind of breakthrough
discovery that will establish the reality of UFO phenomena once and for all.
On the other hand, more skeptical people, including some ufologists, point
out that such expectations have been around for decades, and nothing really
seems to change. What's your personal view? Are we getting somewhere, or are
we sort of treading water, or beating a dead horse?
PM: I think we are getting somewhere. I think the possibilities of what may
be about to happen or what the final solution may be are narrowing. And
that's for a whole variety of reasons. Public interest, [for example], which
can be changed to public pressure. More and more officials, in a variety of
capacities, are becoming involved. [Ministry of Defense official] Nick Pope
is a primary example, of course. In the past, they've just completely
pooh-poohed it. And I think there has been a great change in atmosphere,
like in the media, certainly in the UK, where they've looked at the subject
much more seriously. I think it all started with the Belgium affair in 1989
and 1990. So I think there is a general movement in the right direction. How
long that will last or whether it will continue is, you know, another
argument, but I think it's certainly to be encouraged.
ML: One more question. There is some confusion, at least in the States, about
your current status with BUFORA. Can you explain that, please?
PM: Yes. I was BUFORA's director of investigations for almost three years,
and I planned to relinquish the job in April of next year just because of
family pressures. I have two young daughters, ages four and seven. I work
rather long hours in my job, as well. And I couldn't, in my opinion, give
the [BUFORA] job enough time, so I was going to stand down. I had already
groomed my deputy, a lady by the name of Gloria Dixon, to be my replacement.
But there was a degree of confusion, so Gloria has actually taken over for me
now. But I am still on the Board of Directors of BUFORA. They have a ruling
body, the BUFORA Council, on which I am still a serving member. I also stood
down as BUFORA's conference organizer. Again, it's very time consuming. And
at work, I was also a union steward for the best part of ten years. I stood
down from that at the end of last year. So it's been a gradual relinquishing
of certain things that were extremely time-consuming. I want to spend [more]
time with my two daughters. My youngest daughter starts full-time school
next year. So rather than disappoint people, let people down, I gave up the
tasks.
ML: Thanks, Philip, for sharing your thoughts and experiences with CNI News.
Is there anything more you'd like to say in closing?
PM: Again, if anyone has any information about the Santilli autopsy film,
positive or negative -- not opinions, as they don't count for anything -- we
would like to hear from them. Somebody out there, other than Ray Santilli,
knows more about this film. And I'm determined that eventually, if it takes
the next 10 years, we'll get to the bottom of it, one way or the other. I
still pester Ray on a regular basis. I don't see him very often -- I live 200
miles north of London, and perhaps I've seen him twice this year -- but I
keep reminding him on the fax or by email, or on the telephone. And I remain
optimistic that we will get to the bottom of it. Time will tell if we are
correct.
==+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++==
Except as otherwise noted, the entire text of CNI News is copyright 1996/1997
by the 2020 Group. As a condition of receiving CNI News, all recipients agree
not to post CNI News on any Newsgroup, Web site, BBS or similar electronic
location, nor redistribute CNI News by any electronic means, except for the
express purpose of encouraging others to subscribe, or unless with prior
permission of the editor. In general, electronic posting or redistribution of
single articles or short excerpts from CNI News will be approved, provided
credit is given to the author and CNI News in every instance. Hard copy
(paper) reproduction and redistribution of CNI News, in whole or part, for
educational purposes is permitted.
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com