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 -> 1998 -> Dec -> Re: Santilli On Kiviat's 'Alien Autopsy Hoax'

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 22:54:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:07:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Santilli On Kiviat's 'Alien Autopsy Hoax'


>Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 05:59:08 -0500
>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: UFO UpDate: Santilli On Kiviat's 'Alien Autopsy Hoax'

>After reading the Ellen Gray article I contacted Ray and asked him
>about the Fox program. This is his reply...

>THE TENT FOOTAGE

>The Tent Footage was the first film material I collected from the
>cameraman, it was in the form of 16mm film and in very poor
>condition. I brought it back to England and asked a studio facility
>in Milton Keynes to retrieve whatever image they could from it.
>Approximately a week (maybe longer) after delivery the Studio in
>Milton Keynes presented me with the film which has become known as
>the ""Tent Footage" I was told that this was all that could be
>retrieved from the film.

>I had informed the cameraman by telephone that we were able to
>retrieve some image and indeed showed the film to Philip Mantel and
>other interested parties.


The first footage to be revealed by Ray was indeed the 'tent
footage', which Philip, Reg Presley and George Wingfield were
shown. The first of those to see that film was apparently Reg,
sometime between December 1994 and January 1995.

So far as I can see, the earliest public indication that the
'tent footage' was considered problematical came from George
Wingfield:

Santilli Alien Film :  GW Bulletin 11.   October 1st 1995

"Ray Santilli has said that he sold the first autopsy sequence
independently to a German "collector of rare 16mm film" in order
to finance other parts of his business.  Other reports say
Volker Spielberg made this sale.  Santilli has also said that,
although he was satisfied with the authenticity of the (second)
autopsy sequence, he was not satisfied with that of the tent
footage.  He implied that it made the whole thing look bad and
so he was not going to include it". [End]


Two points which should be noted for those not familiar with the
story:

1. The 'first autopsy', footage has rarely been shown - Philip
Mantle is the only person I know who has definitely seen it.

2. Ray clarified to myself that Volker Spielberg is not as such
a "collector of rare 16mm film", he collects, according to Ray,
"anything of REAL value". From research I'm aware of, Volker
Spielberg, who Ray claims financed the film's purchase, may
indeed be wealthy, although this has proved impossible to
quantify.


Ray continues:

>I returned to the States later to collect the main film and showed
>the "Tent Footage" on VHS to the cameraman.

>At this point he stated that he did not remember either the image
>being portrayed or the style in which it had been filmed. I was
>concerned but continued to collect the remaining film and returned
>to the United Kingdom.

This isn't the same sequence of events as Ray has previously
stated, however, leaving that aside, he adds:

>Upon my return I contacted the studio in Milton Keynes to find out
>more about the images from the "Tent Footage".  To my surprise Andy
>(my friend and owner of the studio) admitted to playing a joke on me.
>They were unable to retrieve anything of consequence from the film
>therefore he staged a spoof never thinking that I would want to use
>it. As a result part of the film (Tent Footage) returned was hoaxed
>by him as a practical Joke.


This is immensely significant for the 'alien autopsy' story.


For the first time, so far as I'm aware, Ray is claiming that he
knew the 'tent footage' was a hoax, before the summer of 1995.

It's understandable that the 'tent footage' was, as Ray
acknowledged on several occasions, considered to detract from
the central footage, yet this has apparently never been
disclosed before now.


For example, during September 1995, in a posting to CompuServe's
MUFON forum, Bob Shell wrote:

"The tent footage, shot at the crash site under light from
emergency lanterns,  shows technicians cutting the "space suit"
off one of the bodies because, to quote the cameraman, it was
holding in heat and hastening decomposition.  The fabric was
very tough, and they eventually had to use sheet metal cutters
to cut it".

How could the 'cameraman' - presumably Ray Santilli 'passing on'
the message - confirm this if it's now claimed the 'cameraman'
didn't recognise the 'tent footage' and by September of 1995,
Ray knew that film was a joke?


On 4 January 1996, Bob also wrote to the forum:

"Ray said to me that the complete tent footage was contained
within the "junk reel" when I was in his office in October.  He
motioned with his hands to indicate the diameter of the reel.
He also mentioned at that time about the football game, family
stuff, and other unidentifiable footage included in this reel".

By this time, although it must have been long apparent that the
'tent footage' was a joke, apparently Ray was still maintaining
that the "complete tent footage" was part of a previously
mentioned, alleged 'junk reel' of 16mm film.


Even later, on 9 April 1996, Bob, in response to my queries re
his verification that some film samples were authentic 1947 film
stock, replied on the forum:

James,

That statement was made when I still thought this was camera
original film.

Since it is not, but a release print, this does not apply.
Original film with single perf or double perf can be copied onto
single perf print film, so this does not tell us what the
perforation of the original was.  I have no reason to doubt that
the autopsy sequences were shot with a Bell & Howell Filmo 70 as
stated.

On the other hand, the "tent" footage and debris footage were
probably shot with another type of camera.  The tent footage in
particular has long unbroken segments which could not be shot
with a spring wind camera.  This was undoubtedly filmed with an
electrically driven camera.  There was an add-on electric motor
for the Filmo 70, but it was so big and heavy that it was suited
only for tripod use.  Both the tent footage and debris footage
were filmed on a tripod, so this could have been used. [End]


The 'tent footage', with no mention it had long existed as a
hoax, was announced as featuring in Philip Mantle's BUFORA
conference lecture at the University of Northumbria on 27
January, 1996 and was also scheduled to be shown by Philip at
the Greensboro MUFON conference in the summer of 1996, a full
year after it was supposedly acknowledged to be a joke.


Perhaps Bob and Philip might comment on these points.