From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 21:59:58 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 06:05:32 -0500 Subject: Re: 'Beyond Roswell' Q&A Site Regarding... >Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 07:58:40 +0000 >From: Philip Mantle <el51@dial.pipex.com> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: 'Beyond Roswell' Q&A Site Philip wrote: >If anyone is curious to know what we are talking about simply lok uo >our web site at: www.beyondroswell.com Philip, As you know, the Oct-Nov '96 issue of 'Nexus Magazine', contained the following article: The 'Alien Autopsy Film' by Michael Hesemann (C) 1996 As suggested seemed likely, despite the many fundamental flaws in that article, it nevertheless still formed the basis of the 'alien autopsy' material later published in 'Beyond Roswell'. This was of course the subject of some discussions and I note you confirmed: Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 19:43:17 +0000 From: Philip Mantle <el51@dial.pipex.com> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'Beyond Roswell' - A Book Dear James, I was as disapointed as anyone to disciver that many, if not most of the corrections that were sent to our publisher Marlowe & Co were not made. Some of these are minor errors while others are more significant. Both Michael Hesemann, myself and Bob Shell have made our feelings known to our publisher and our literary agent regarding this matter and we are doing all we can to rectify the mater before the next print run. [Cut] The 'Nexus' article was written in Hesemann's inimitable 'style', or so we might have thought. However, it now seems to have been subjected to cosmetic surgery and reappears in the December 1997 edition of the MUFON UFO Journal as: 'The Santilli Alien Autopsy Film' by Philip Mantle In editing Hesemann's original article, one can only assume you do not, for some incomprehensible reason, appreciate that the Journal's recent publication is contrary to any public concerns about the quality of the research evident in 'Beyond Roswell'. In plagiarising, presumably with approval, Hesemann's article, you have carried forward his basic errors. In one example, Hesemann wrote: According to the cameraman, four living aliens were found at the crash site. One did not survive the recovery operation, the second and third died about four weeks later, and the fourth survived until May 1949. We do not know anything about the autopsy of the first creature, and it might very well have been that it was subjected to a 'big' scientific autopsy. The cameraman filmed the second and third autopsies on 1st and 3rd July 1947, when the main concern might have been to find out the cause of their sudden deaths in order to find a way to keep alien no. 4 alive-unless they could establish communication and find out why these visitors had come to Earth. This was surely of a higher interest for the national defence forces than a scientific study of an alien life-form. Nevertheless, we assume that organs were taken for further study during the dissection. Furthermore, according to the cameraman, the fourth alien was autopsied scientifically in a medical theatre in Washington, DC, in the presence of leading scientists from the US, England and France. You amend this to read: According to the cameraman, there were originally four living creatures discovered at the crash site. One did not survive the recovery operation, the second and third died about four weeks later, and the fourth survived until May 1949. We do not know anything about the autopsy of the first creature, and it might very well be that this was a large scientific autopsy. The cameraman filmed the second and third autopsies (only one of which has been released to the public) on July 1st and July 3rd, 1947, when the main concern might have been to discover the cause of their death in order to keep the fourth creature alive. According to the cameraman the fourth creature was autopsied scientifically in a medical theatre in Washington, DC, in the presence of leading scientists from the USA, England and France. [End] After Hesemann's article was published, I wrote of these claims: Hesemann noted that one creature supposedly died at the scene, two died shortly afterwards and one lived until 1949. He therefore concluded, "The cameraman filmed the second and third autopsies on 1st and 3rd July 1947". This seemed to be in error as the photocopies of the claimed reel labels relating to the 'second autopsy' refer to 'Body No. 2' and Ray Santilli had confirmed that the other 'autopsy' footage is recorded as the first autopsy. I pointed this out and Hesemann replied, "Indeed, the cameraman calls the autopsies of July 1st and 3rd "the first and second" autopsy, but it referred to autopsies he had filmed. Since FOUR aliens had been recovered, as he said, and one was killed on the crash site, only ONE survived until 1949, it's a logical conclusion as every historian who has to reconstruct historical events would do, that IN FACT HIS first autopsy was the one of the second being". In the meantime, Shell had also told Hesemann, "This is not the information given to me by Ray, nor does it fit the info on the film labels. The autopsy we have all seen is clearly labelled as the second, and, according to Ray the other one is equally clearly labelled as the first. The cameraman gives the dates of July 1, 1947 for the first one, and July 3, 1947, for the second one. The third, according to Ray, took place in Washington, DC, in 1949 in a large operating theatre with many spectators. Ray said nothing to me about the nationality of the spectators, and my assumption was that they were all American. This clearly leaves one body not accounted for. Since the cameraman implied that at least one was not injured in his original statement, this uninjured one could have lived for some time. Perhaps it was the one autopsied in 1949, perhaps not". Enlightened that his reconstruction of historical events was missing one alien, Hesemann queried, "maybe you are right... but since FOUR beings were found and three autopsies were filmed by our cameraman and only ONE survived until 1949 when the third filmed autopsy took place... what happened to the fourth one?" In the story, one of the four 'aliens' had always been unaccounted for, although it seems to have taken Hesemann some two years to notice this. [End] Have you only just now realised this also? Hesemann also claimed: THE PATHOLOGISTS According to the cameraman the autopsy was performed by "Dr Bronk" and "Dr Williams". Prof. Dr Detlev Bronk (1897-1975) was no surprise, since his name already appeared in the controversial "Majestic 12" documents. He was Chairman of the National Research Council, America's leading biophysicist and a member of the Advisory Committee of the Army, Air Force and of the Atomic Energy Commission-certainly a person to whom the supervision of an autopsy of this relevance could have been entrusted. After his death, all his papers and documents were preserved at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, of which he was President from 1953. Dr Bronk was a very methodical person, kept detailed diaries and all his correspondence, notes and dates. But when Bob Shell wanted to look through his papers and diaries for 1947, he learnt that, mysteriously enough, this is the only year for which all the records are missing. None of the friendly librarians could tell him what had happened to them or why they are still missing. Dr Williams might have been Dr Robert Parvin Williams (1891-1967), who was Special Assistant to the Surgeon General of the Army at Fort Monroe, Virginia. He was a Lt. Col. in 1947 and was promoted to Brig. General in 1949. Alone, the naming of Dr Williams-who was the right man in the right place for the task-indicates the cameraman had some inside knowledge. [Cut] I addressed these issues: It's alleged that, according to the cameraman, the autopsy was performed by 'Dr Bronk' and 'Dr Williams'. Hesemann claims that after Bronk's death, "all his papers and documents were preserved at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research". It's further claimed that Bronk was a "very methodical person" who "kept detailed diaries and all his correspondence, notes and dates". However, when Shell made some enquiries about Bronk's "papers and diaries for 1947", he discovered that "mysteriously enough, this is the only year for which all the records are missing" and allegedly none of the librarians could explain why. This all sounds convincingly conspiratorial, but when I asked Shell about the basis of these claims, he confirmed, "I have said repeatedly that I have done nothing but PRELIMINARY research on any of this so far, but people always forget to quote that part". Shell had apparently simply telephoned the Rockefeller Archives and one other location and as Stanton Friedman explained to me, "I had been to the Rockefeller Archives many years ago and found their holdings on Bronk not very exciting...there was much classified work that really isn't reflected at the Rockefeller holdings...there are other holdings at many other places where he served". It seems to be an established fact that Bronk was involved in a number of sensitive, classified projects, however, there is no serious evidence to remotely suggest that he was involved with an 'alien autopsy' in the first place. As for Dr Williams, it's suggested this might have been "Dr Robert Parvin Williams (1891-1967), who was Special Assistant to the Surgeon General of the Army at Fort Monroe, Virginia". Despite the obvious absence of any evidence which connects this Dr Williams, or any other, with an 'alien autopsy', Hesemann astonishingly concludes, "Alone, the naming of Dr Williams-who was the right man in the right place for the task-indicates the cameraman had some inside knowledge". [End] Yet, over a year later, you publish what are effectively Hesemann's exact same comments, including his ridiculous logic, in your own words here, that: Dr Williams might have been Dr Robert Parvin Williams (1891-1967), who was Special Assistant to the Surgeon General of the Army at Fort Monroe, Virginia. He was Lt. Col. in 1947 and was promoted to Brig. General in 1949. Alone, the naming of Williams, who was the right man in the right place for the task, indicates the cameraman had some inside knowledge. [End] Some further errors and misrepresentations which, for some reason, have simply been ignored: "Careful study of stills made from the original film and high-quality Betacam copies confirmed that the film was indeed shot on 16-mm material", claimed Hesemann. Although it's common knowledge this has not been confirmed at all, you repeat, "Careful study of stills made from the original film and high-quality BETACAM copies confirmed the film indeed was shot on 16-mm material". Hesemann continued, "Two segments with three frames each, one clearly showing the autopsy room, were given to Bob Shell, editor of Shutterbug magazine.". It's now well established that these frames do not clearly show the autopsy room, but come from unrelated frames, later added to the beginning of the film. Noticeably, you have dropped this claim, merely stating, "Two segments of film, each with three frames, were given to Bob Shell, editor of Shutterbug magazine...". However, you still maintain, "In April 1996 Bob Shell was contacted by Captain James McAndrew of the United States Air Force". Never happened. And so on. Commenting on Hesemann's article, I see that I also mentioned: It was originally offered to Walt Andrus at MUFON and Hesemann believes it wasn't published, "because its content was against the MUFON partyline and the article itself maybe too scientific for the MUFON UFO Journal". As I suggested to Hesemann at the time, perhaps there were too many words and not enough pictures. [End] There's a certain irony in that Hesemann, albeit under another guise, did get his long since discredited 'research' published after all! The question is, why? James. E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.com
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