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 -> Jan -> Re: Autopsy Cameraman photos

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Bob Rickard <bob@forteana.win-uk.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 97 06:53:02 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 11:23:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Autopsy Cameraman photos

BGBOPPER addressed the following questions to me...

>I find the copyright of the Santilli autopsy film raises some interesting
>questions.
>  1. How do you copyright stolen material? If in fact the film is real would
it not be
> the property of the U.S. Govt. ? Or does a "Finders, Keepers" rule govern
British
> copyrights?
>  2. If in fact Santilli purchased the film from a U.S. Govt. photographer,
>was that "Recieving stolen goods?"

* I believe the subject of our emails was the posting of frames taken
from the interview with 'Jack' which were prominently labelled copyright
of Orbital Media Ltd as is Santilli's right, the video tape being his
property.

         We were *not* discussing the 'alien autopsy' footage which is a
quite different issue. As you asked my opinion, for what it's worth, here
is my reply. Either the film is genuine or not. If 'not' then the claims
for its contents and ownership are fabrications and and suppositions and
cause no real legal problems if ownership can be established.

         If the film is genuine then several possibilities arise - and I
limit myself to discussion of 'ownership' and not the contents. Then the
film must be the property, in the primary instance, of the US government,
however it came to be in Santilli's hands. If that is true, the logical
consequence is that 'Jack' has committed a treasonous act by selling
secret material to a foreign country. If so, how come he is still at
liberty?

         My personal opinion is that it must be significant that the US
government or its military agents have not made a move on Santilli (I'm
sure he'd say if they did) either overtly or covertly. They don't want it
back because it was never theirs and/or they know it's bogus.

         There is a third possibility: the film was a deliberate exercise
in disinformation - created by some government agency and hawked around
(rumours of it had been reported for at least a year) before Santilli
bought it. In this case, too, the US government would have no interest in
asserting their copyright.

          A forth possibility - that the film was part of a commercial
hoax seems less likely in view of the large numbers of people who must
have been involved at various stages and who would have to be paid and
kept quiet. I say, for the record, that I do not believe Santilli was
part of this hoax, except for buying the film from the 'maker's agent and
knowing a 'good property' when he saw one. Santilli's efforts to market
his property are a separate issue.

          The only problem with all these theories is that there is no
independently confirmed (or confirmable)  evidence of who made it and
why. Once we know the true genesis of the film before it came to
Santilli, all other questions will be answered, one way or another.


                           Bob Rickard - editor
                          bob@forteana.win.uk.net
                   FORTEAN TIMES - www.forteantimes.com
     *FT - where the extraordinary is just another day at the office*
                  "All men know the use of useful things;
        but they do not know the use of useless things." Chuang Tsu