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 -> 1999 -> Jan -> Re: 'Mail On Sunday'

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:51:58 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:58:06 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Mail On Sunday'


Regarding...

>Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 04:48:39 +0000
>From: Philip Mantle <el51@dial.pipex.com>
>Subject: 'Mail On Sunday'


Philip wrote:

>Does anyone have a spare copy of the 'tent footage' expose in
>last weeks Mail On Sunday.

Philip,

There's an html'd version of the article with published
photographs, including a 'tent footage' frame showing the
'security codes', on my web site at:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/mail_os.htm


It's now obvious that the 'security codes' are ridiculous and
apparently written in chalk. I understand the 'board' they are
written on was the cover from part of a drum kit.

Keith Bateman claims that when they first showed the film to
Ray, he said it should have a 'restricted notice' on it. They
then superimposed these infamous 'security codes' and returned
the film to him.

This would explain why there were two copies of the 'tent
footage', only one of which had the 'security codes'.

Interesting that the bogus 'security codes', which Nick asked
about at my request, were apparently simply made up by Elliot,
the technician who played the part of a 'doctor'.

Yet the 'notice' says "Subject 1 of 2" and Ray then produced
film of two 'autopsied aliens'. Similarly, the 'barn footage'
had 'President Truman', albeit the local farmer in a scarecrow's
coat, and the 'alien autopsy' story also featured claims of
Truman being present.

The only evidence was of course the 'Truman reel' which
allegedly couldn't be processed as the film was 'stuck
together'.


If Ray did pay them to stop promoting the 'tent footage' as
their own 'alien autopsy', then he must presumably have known
the true origins of this film.


That aside, it would be helpful if you could comment on the
following extract from an interview you with gave to Rebecca
Schatte, I believe in January of 1996:

RS: Phil, have you seen in a film canister, the presumed
celluloid copy of the tent footage, with your own eyes or were
you just told that he has it?

PM: No, I have seen it myself.

RS: O.K., have you held it up to the light, have you seen a body
or frames that look real?

PM: No, I haven't seen the one that's got the autopsy on it, but
I have seen the film that has the tent scene and also at the
same time, I removed, figuratively, I didn't cut it off, and I
noted the edge code, because Ray Santilli made a great deal
about the edge codes, so I noted it on the film and I drew it
myself and it was the proper edge code.

RS: It is my understanding that the tent footage does show a
body, is that correct?

PM: It does indeed. Do you want me to describe what it shows?

RS: Yes, but please answer this first; when you looked at the
celluloid film and you noted that it had the proper edge code
did you hold any portion of it up to the light in order to
determine that it had frames that contained the body on that
film?

PM: No, no I did not.

[...]

RS: Would you say that on this film the faces of the people
facing the camera are clear enough that they can be identified?

PM: Absolutely, if the original was released. Bear in mind that
this was the first piece of film that Ray Santilli showed to me
before the autopsy had been shown and so on. And it was on that
evidence that I tried to persuade Ray Santilli to speak at our
conference last August, which he eventually did. If I thought to
myself, "fake or genuine", I had no idea and I still don't, but
there is a slim chance that somebody, somewhere would be able to
recognize the faces and on my copy, which I said is several
generations old, the faces aren't all that clear, but on the
original material Ray Santilli has you can clearly make out
there faces and I'm sure if it was released, round the world, in
whatever format, there is a remote possibility that could be
identified. The man with his back to the camera, you don't ever
see his face, so therefore there is no possibility of that, but
the other two people most definitely.

RS: There was approximately two minutes or so of tent footage
sold to broadcasters when they purchased the other rights to the
film. It was never shown because it was in too poor of
condition, but on a videotape, that is obviously is a bootleg
that Stanton Friedman and Chuck Harder in the US are selling,
there is footage like you describe; however, there appears to be
black blobs that have been superimposed over the heads of the
people. Your tape does not have these blobs?

PM: Not at all. You can see the faces of the people. As I
pointed out, on the copy that Ray Santilli has it is... you can
make them out even clearer, very clear indeed. It is very poor
quality, I mean it looks like it is out of, uhm a gas lamp is
illuminating it or a very low watt lamp of some kind that is
perhaps generated by a gas generator outside or a petrol
generator or whatever. It is poor illuminated. You have to
remember this--it is not like the other material that has been
released. But it is clear enough to make out their faces, no
question about that.

RS: This clearer version that Ray Santilli showed you, was that
what he showed you first or how did you come about seeing the
clear footage?

PM: Yes, he showed it to me and I also saw it many, many months
later when were at a meeting with Union Pictures in London. They
made the Roswell Incident documentary here for Channel 4 and we
met with them and the commissioning editors of Channel 4 with
Ray Santilli and a colleague of his called Chris Cary. They
showed the autopsy first and everybody watched it intently and
then Ray showed them the tent footage and because it was not
graphic in detail, everybody just ignored it, but I watched it
yet again. To me it is more important than the autopsy because
you can see the people's faces, but a lot of people seemed to
have missed the point. [End]


As we now know, that point was significant and resulted in
welcome clarification about the true origins of this film.

What about the "celluloid copy of the tent footage", you
referred to.

As you noted not having actually seen any frames from the 'tent
footage' on the reel you saw, were you simply told that this
reel of film contained the 'tent footage'?



James.
E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.com