THE ALIEN AUTOPSY FILM
- Facts vs Armchair Research -
Some international researchers conclude that the Santilli
'Roswell' footage is not a hoax. They claim that the alien in the
autopsy room was retrieved not from the Roswell UFO crash site but
from another, earlier crash near Socorro.
Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 3,
#6 (Oct-Nov '96).
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia.
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
From our web page at:
by Michael Hesemann, © 1996
Worringer Strasse 1
D-40211 Düsseldorf, Germany
Fax: +49 (0)211 354893
THE 'ROSWELL FOOTAGE' RELEASE
About a year and a half ago, on 5th May
1995, the London-based film producer Ray Santilli for the first time
presented his alleged alien autopsy footage to an audience of invited
media representatives and UFO researchers at the London Museum. Even
before that date, a very emotional debate had already started. Angry
ufologists had challenged Santilli to shut up or work together with
them, while others had claimed from the very beginning that the film
is a hoax just because it doesn't fit into their concept of what
happened in New Mexico in the summer of 1947.
Santilli's marketing policy, his commercial exploitation of the film,
his ignorance in the UFO field and his violation of all the unwritten
protocols of the UFO community didn't find many friends among
ufologists, and quite soon many screamed "Hoax!" without being able
to prove anything. One researcher even concluded, "There is no [16
mm] film and no cameraman", after quoting page after page of all the
rumours, second- and third-hand information and inconsistencies among
Santilli's claims (or alleged claims), to prove that he was right
from the very beginning when he suspected a scam, because the being
on the autopsy table looked "too humanoid to be an extraterrestrial",
yet ignoring that this is exactly how most eyewitnesses describe
Unfortunately, those who searched for the truth, wherever it might
be, were few in number. Willing to listen to Santilli first, before
they judged and checked out the information they could get before
asking for more, were mainly Philip Mantle (UK), Bob Shell (USA) and
Michael Hesemann (Germany)-the International Research Team
(IRT)-joined by Maurizio Baiata and Roberto Pinotti (Italy), Johannes
Baron of Buttlar (Germany), Odd-Gunnar Roed (Norway), Hanspeter
Wachter (Switzerland), Col. Colman VonKeviczky, Dr Bruce Maccabee,
Joe Stefula, Lt. Col. W. C. Stevens, Ted Loman, Robert Morning Sky,
Llewellyan Wykel and Dennis Murphy (USA), and others.
Let me point out that we found Ray Santilli always very friendly,
helpful and cooperative although sometimes limited in his actions by
agreements with his business partners and the cameraman. I wonder if
any 'major international media corporation' would ever have been even
nearly as open to any reasonable research approach as Mr Santilli
indeed was. The following is a summary of results from the IRT's
first year of investigation.
Yes, there is a cameraman. We located people, besides Santilli,
who had spoken to him over the phone: Gary Shoefield of Polygram,
Philip Mantle, John Purdie of Channel Four (UK) and the secretary of
David Roehring of Fox Network, USA. He is American, an old man, and
lives in Florida. He was in hospital when Gary Shoefield wanted to
meet him, and was coughing when Philip Mantle had him on the phone.
According to his story he had polio as a child.2 Polio victims at
that time mostly walked with a limp. He could not have had a bad
hand, otherwise he could not have worked as a cameraman, but maybe he
had a bad leg. The movement of the cameraman in the film indicates
this, since he doesn't move smoothly. Bob Shell enquired among senior
US military cameramen if they could remember a colleague from the
1940s with a bad leg. They knew one. His name is Jack "X", and he is
exactly the age claimed for the Santilli cameraman: eighty-six.3
The cameraman is not Jack Barnett-a name used originally by
Santilli to protect the identity of the true cameraman. Jack Barnett
worked for Universal News, filmed Elvis Presley at a high-school
concert in 1955 and died in 1969. Jack X did not work for Universal,
but filmed Elvis at another concert, an open-air one, when the
Universal cameramen were on strike.4 The cameraman agreed to be
interviewed by a major US TV network.5
In April 1996 Bob Shell was contacted by the US Air Force
following an enquiry from President Clinton's scientific adviser, Dr
John Gibbons. The USAF Captain told Shell that they had located
footage from the same stock in their archives and verified that at
least part of the Santilli material is genuine, and shows no dummy
and no human. They knew the cameraman's name-Jack X-but asked Shell
to forward an address, since the military records building in St
Louis had had a fire and many records had been lost. A search would
be time-consuming and expensive.6
When we asked for details about the crash site, we became
convinced that the cameraman indeed has an excellent knowledge of the
area in question. With Ray Santilli as the intermediary-and Santilli
did not know anything about the area in question and insisted on
calling Socorro "Sorocco"-he even described a ruined bridge that we
could locate only on our third visit to the area. He knew exactly
what he was talking about.
Although some have criticised the cameraman's technique in the
autopsy film, other military cameraman think this is exactly the way
they, too, would have filmed it.
"The cameraman keeps moving to get out of the way of the surgeon
and keeps trying to get the best perspective. The job of an army
cameraman is to record a procedure on film, not to deliver beautiful
pictures. And that, here, is an adequate filmic protocol," said Dr
Roderick Ryan, US Navy cameraman during the '40s and '50s who filmed
many secret government projects including the atomic tests on Bikini
"Among these circumstances, no one could have made a better
job...he was not only a well-educated and experienced movie man, but,
additionally, in full knowledge of editing and production of
documentaries. Evidence: filming the autopsy activities from various
view angles," said Col. Colman VonKeviczky, who studied at the UFA
Film Academy in Berlin Babelsberg, was head of the audiovisual
division of the Royal Hungarian General Staff, cameraman and director
of the 3rd US Army at Heidelberg and member of the audiovisual
department of the United Nations in New York.8
THE FILM STOCK
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. The camera handling seen on the autopsy film
indicates the use of a small, lightweight camera with fixed lenses
(therefore, the out-of-focus close-ups), like the 16-mm Bell &
Howell Filmo Camera used by US military cameramen in the '40s-the
camera the cameraman claims he used.9
Leaders of 16 mm film were sent to Kodak Hollywood, London and
Copenhagen and turned out to bear the symbols (a square and a
triangle) used by Kodak either in 1947 or in 1967.10
Two segments with three frames each, one clearly showing the
autopsy room, were given to Bob Shell, editor of Shutterbug
magazine and also a phototechnical consultant for the FBI and the US
courts. After a careful physical analysis, Shell confirmed the
segments to be pre-1956 16-mm film. In 1956 Kodak changed its
film-base from acetate-propionate to triacetate, and the samples were
clearly on acetate-propionate film. The film type was Super
XX-Panchromatic Safety Film, a high-speed film used for indoor
filming but which had a life-span of no more than two years, when
cosmic radiation would cause a 'fogging' of the material. Shell is
sure the film was exposed and developed within two years. This, at
least, dates the film as pre-1958.11
THE EQUIPMENT & OBJECTS IN THE AUTOPSY ROOM
Everything in the film dates to the time in question. The
telephone is an AT& model from 1946,12 and spiral cables had been
optional since 1938 and standard for US Army telephones.13 The wall
clock is a model on the market since 1938,14 and the microphone is a
1946 Sheer Bros mike.15 The table with the instruments was standard
equipment for a pathologist, as confirmed by Prof. Cyril Wecht,
ex-President of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.16 The bone
hammer was not unusual; nor was the Bunsen burner which, in
autopsies, served the purpose of burning away body fat.
The corpse on the autopsy table has been the subject of many
disputes as to whether it is a dummy, a girl with a genetic disorder
or, indeed, an alien. Nearly all special effects (FX) experts
concluded that it is certainly possible to fake footage of a
realistic-looking autopsy. There have been many concerns about
'snuff' movies and the origin of the corpses used in them. South
America had been named as a possible origin, but reports from there
have indicated the use of very realistic dummies. However, no one has
found any evidence of special effects being used in this autopsy
film-although today, unquestionably, nearly everything can be faked
with the latest state-of-the-art FX techniques.17
On the other hand, pathologists and physicians from all over the
world who saw the film were pretty sure the body was not a dummy, but
actually a corpse-human or humanoid.
It is indisputable that some of the characteristics of different
genetic disorders can be found in the being on the autopsy
table-mostly disorders such as Turner's syndrome or progeria,
combined with polydactylism (which is not a typical element of
Turner's syndrome, although possible in combination with it) and
other anomalies. This prompted a German dermatologist, Dr T. Jansen
of the Policlinic of the University of Munich, to publish a study in
a medical journal, trying to prove that the body is that of a girl
who died from a rare form of progeria.18 On the other hand, he forgot
to explain why there could be two girls with identical symptoms
including polydactylism, when progeria is so rare that there are only
20 cases worldwide. Unfortunately, the only case of Turner's syndrome
twins, although obviously documented on film, was never published in
the medical literature.
Indeed, Dr Jansen's 'findings' do not explain the extreme
precautions taken when the autopsy was performed, i.e., why would the
team have worn bio-hazard protection suits if the body had a genetic
disorder, and why would the being have been fitted with black
eye-lenses? Although Dr Jansen diagnosed a stroke (common for
progeria patients) as the cause of death, this does not explain the
damaged right leg, the broken and swollen left leg, the cut-off right
hand and a bruise at the left temple with a possible bullet wound.
Should we assume that our creature broke its legs, cut its right hand
and shot a bullet in its head before it died from a stroke?
More than that, Jansen's explanation for the missing navel
couldn't convince us, either. To quote Dr Jansen, "It's like if you
put up an umbrella: the unevenness disappears."19
On the other hand, quite a number of pathologists concluded that
the being was not human at all, since its inner organs were like
nothing they had ever seen:
Prof. Christopher Milroy, Home Office Pathologist, University of
Sheffield, UK: "Although a close-up of the brain was shown, it was
again out of focus. However, the appearance was not that of a human
Prof. Mihatsch, University of Basle, Switzerland: "As for the organs
removed, they could not be tallied with any human organs."21
Prof. Cyril Wecht, Ex-President, American Academy of Forensic
Sciences, USA: "I can't place these structures in an abdominal
context... I find it difficult to bring in any connection with the
human body as I know it. The structure that must be the brain, if it
were a human being, does not look like a brain...it does not seem to
be a human being."22
Dr Carsten Nygren, Oslo, Norway: "This is not a human brain. It
is...much too dark."23
Prof. Pierluigi Baima Bollone, University of Turin, Italy: "When we
look at the inner organs of the body we find no single organ that in
any way resembles any human organ. The main organ, which could be the
liver, has neither the shape nor the location of a human liver. The
face of the alleged extraterrestrial shows surprising anatomical
features: very big ocular orbits, a very flat nasal pyramid, a mouth
somehow wide open...nevertheless, the face is flat, there is no
evidence of facial musculature which is present in human beings and
is responsible for the large variety of facial expressions of the
human species... My overall impression is that we are dealing with a
creature that seems to belong to our species but is so clearly
different from us that it seems absurd to speculate about the
There was not a single physician or pathologist who, after
watching the full film, concluded it was a hoax or that the being on
the table was a dummy. They all agreed the corpse was of a living,
biological entity-human or not.
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 1953.25
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.26
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 1949.27 Alone, the naming of Dr Williams-who was the right
man in the right place for the task-indicates the cameraman had some
Were the protagonists of the alien autopsy footage indeed
pathologists or surgeons-or just actors? We asked the physicians who
viewed the footage:
Prof. Dr Ch. Milroy, University of Sheffield, UK: "Whilst the
examination had features of a medically conducted examination,
aspects suggest it was not conducted by an experienced pathologist,
but rather by a surgeon."28
Prof. Dr M. J. Mihatsch, University of Basle, Switzerland: "I do
not question the capability of the pathologist or surgeon who is
working on the corpse."29
Prof. Cyril Wecht, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, USA:
"(They) are either pathologists or surgeons who have performed a
number of autopsies before."30
Prof. Pierluigi Baima Bollone, University of Turin, Italy:
"Definitely surgeons, not pathologists...well-experienced."31
Prof. Jean Pierre, University of Paris, France: "The persons who
performed the autopsy were certainly of the medical profession, if
not experienced pathologists."32
Dr Carsten Nygren, Oslo, Norway: "These were surgeons doing the work,
In fact, neither Prof. Bronk nor Dr Williams were pathologists: Bronk
was a biophysicist and Williams a surgeon. Indeed, not one physician
concluded they were actors or made any mistakes.
One point of criticism was the type of autopsy performed.
Obviously it served the purpose of determining the cause of death
rather than of learning more about an alien life-form. On the other
hand, this is explainable by the circumstances under which the
autopsy was performed.
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
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'
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.34
THE DEBRIS FOOTAGE
The Santilli footage showing metal samples was analysed by Dennis
W. Murphy, who has an Academy of Science degree in marine diving
technology and welding and has studied all types of metalwork.
He concluded: "I have never seen anything that resembles the
manufacturing techniques used in the construction of the I-beams in
the Santilli debris footage. I know of no manufacturing process that
could produce the multitude of details found on the I-beams."
Murphy refused possibilities like milling ("When I look at the
lettering I see precise rounds as part of the symbols. I do not think
that you can do this with current milling machines..."), extrusion,
rolling, casting, moulding ("against moulding...the apparent lack of
weight for all the pieces..., the acute right-angles at the roots,
the thinness of the flanges of the I-beam and the finely detailed
definition of the raised symbols...", which could only be produced
with metal of a high density which is much heavier than the indicated
weight), and the use of foam-core paperboard ("the crystalline nature
of the break in the broken beams, the reflectivity of the material in
the break, the rigidity of the I-beams..." argue against this
possibility, according to Murphy).
The nature of fractures, the flexible, light and highly reflective
appearance of the I-beams baffled Murphy and brought him to the
conclusion that, indeed, metal with an extremely fine, crystalline
structure had been used, manufactured with an unknown technique.35
The same conclusion was drawn by Prof. Dr Malanga of the University
of Pisa, Italy.36
Master Sergeant Bob Allen, USAF security coordinator at a top-secret
research facility near Tonapah, Nevada, recognised the panels on the
film: "The army came, after many years, to the conclusion that the
beings had taken the boxes out with them because they were waiting to
be picked up. Each panel was constructed for each of the ETs
individually. They could be fitted into slots in various apparatus.
The entire system-propulsion, navigation, everything-could be started
and controlled by these panels. We tried it too, but our brain
frequency was not fast enough to operate them." According to Allen,
they were presented, together with other "alien hardware", every 10
years to the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories for examination as the
basis of latest state-of-the-art science.37
This was confirmed by a USAF engineer, working for Sandia
Laboratories in Albuquerque, who identified them as some kind of
"biofeedback computers responding to neural impulses".38 "We learned
how to feed information into them, but we were not able to get
information out of them," he added.
Bill Uhouse, a mechanical design engineer who worked at the
top-secret facility at Area 51 on the Nevada test site-where he
allegedly worked with alien technology-identified them as "personal
control panels. They served to communicate with the individual member
of the crew and possibly to interact with a computer on board or,
better, the steering unit. When the craft crashed, each crew member
took his panel with him. Possibly they served as communication with a
mother ship, which could locate and rescue them."39
When I first saw the hieroglyphs on the I-beams, I immediately
recognised a similarity with the Greek and Phoenician alphabets.
Indeed, both of them have a common origin and belong to the same
'family' as the many different Semitic alphabets-Aramaic, Sabaeic,
Samaritan, Hebrew, Protocanaanitic, Nabataeic and Arabic-which all
originate from the hieroglyphic alphabet, one of the four main groups
of Egyptian hieroglyphs (the others being two- and three-syllable
signs and ideograms).40
Interestingly enough, inscriptions which clearly belong to the
same family of alphabets, but pre-date the Phoenician or even the
Egyptian culture, have been found all over the world-in Peru (Ylo),41
Ecuador (Cuenca),42 Brazil (Piedra Pintada),43 France (Glozel, Maz
d'Azil),44 on the Canary Islands,45 and elsewhere. Because of their
similarity with the Phoenician alphabet, I call them
In this context I was able to decipher both I-beams and translate
their inscriptions using languages from the same context and language
families as the alphabets. They say: "DIREQH ELE/ECE" and "OSNI".
"DIREQH" is related to the Hebrew "Derekh", meaning "way, path,
journey". "ELE" could be a plural of "El", meaning "God", like the
Hebrew "Elohim", and "ECE" is related to the Egyptian "ase", meaning
"to introduce" or "to approach". So, depending on whether we read the
second sign as a "lambda/lamed" or a "gamma/gimel", we can translate
it alternatively (since we don't know the grammar) as "the journey of
the gods", a prayer, like "Go with God", or "a journey to approach/
introduce". I translate "OSNI" as the Egyptian "asni", meaning "to
make to open",46 either philosophically, as in "to open for a
contact" or "to open the consciousness", or, in a practical sense, as
in "Open here".
But why would extraterrestrials speak and write like Phoenician,
Hebrew or Egyptian? Maybe because it's the language of the gods, who
introduced it on Earth. In fact, the ancient Egyptians believed their
hieroglyphic system had been brought to them by Thoth or Tehuti, the
God of Wisdom, one of the Neteru ("Watchers") who travelled in the
celestial barks on the celestial Nile-the Milky Way.47
Is it a coincidence that the mathematical system of both ancient
Sumer and Egypt was based on 12, when here we meet beings with 12
fingers? We find twelve-toed footprints on Anasazi petroglyphs in the
Canyonlands of Utah, USA,48 and a twelve-fingered Sky Kachina in the
tradition of the Laguna, Hopi and other Pueblo Indians.49 The
Brazilian Ugha Mongulala believe their "Ancient Fathers", who came
from the stars, had "six fingers and six toes as signs of their
ROSWELL OR SOCORRO?
Ray Santilli's claim that the film was "the Roswell footage"
caused a lot of controversy, since none of the witnesses to the July
1947 UFO crash/retrieval event had confirmed either the bodies or the
debris. Indeed, the corpses found in Roswell were smaller, more
slender, and had four or five fingers, according to eyewitnesses.51
None ever mentioned six fingers. In any case, if the film were a
fake, why did those responsible for it not care to read at least one
of the many books on this subject or see the excellent TV
mini-series, Roswell, by Paul Davies, as shown on
The very first information I got from Santilli about the source of
the film made me wonder if it actually had anything to do with
Roswell at all. Ray already insisted on 5th May 1995 that the
autopsies had been filmed on 1st and 2nd July 1947, and that the
recovery had taken place "in the beginning of June"-one month too
early for Roswell.
When I went to Roswell on 30th June 1995 to confront the eyewitnesses
(including Robert Shirkey, Glenn Dennis and Frank Kaufmann) with the
just-released stills from the film, I asked Santilli for details
about the crash site. He could only tell me it was "about
four-and-a-half hours away", "close to White Sands test site" and "an
Apache reservation", and "at the northern shore of a small dry lake
at the end of a small canyon". I asked him to call the cameraman to
obtain more detailed instructions, which, indeed, he did. He said the
crash site was "between Socorro" (Ray said "Sorocco") "and
By the end of July 1995, Santilli released the full story of the
cameraman who confirmed he had learnt of the crash on 1st June
1947-which dates the event back to the late hours of 31st May 1947.
Date, location and everything we see on the film didn't fit with
Roswell. Conclusion: it was a different event.
The fact that the cameraman had been flown into Roswell and brought
to the crash site by car, caused him to believe he'd been involved in
"the Roswell incident" that he'd heard about-and Santilli believed
THE CRASH/RETRIEVAL SITE
Following the instructions given by the cameraman, I was able to
find the small dry lake at the end of a canyon by following "the last
dirt road before the (Magdalena) mountains". It was about 15 miles
away from the White Sands Proving Grounds and the Bosque del Apache
National Wildlife Resort, a former reservation.
On the third visit to the site, Ted Loman was even able to find the
ruins of a (railway) bridge mentioned by the cameraman. After we sent
photographs to the cameraman, he was able to confirm the site.
In September 1995 Santilli released the cameraman's drawings,
enhanced by a graphic artist, showing the crash scene. Although the
scenery in our photographs looked different, we found that, coming
from the canyon, it looked exactly like it was in his drawings. Right
where he drew the craft crashed into a cliff, we found an area, 20
metres in diameter, where someone had deliberately sizzled off the
rock as if trying to remove traces.
Above the dry lake bed we located an old mine. According to the New
Mexico Office of Mining & Technology in Socorro it was a
manganese mine, called "Niggerhead Mine", which was closed in 1938,
reopened during the war when manganese was precious and needed, and
closed down again in 1945. According to the cameraman, it was again
reopened by the US Government (Department of the Interior), but with
no further mining, on the very day the retrieval began: 1st June
1947.52 Mining operations were used as cover events for the
Manhattan Project and maybe also here. Isn't the reopening of
a mine a perfect excuse for moving in heavy equipment-cranes, flatbed
trucks-and personnel, and cordoning off of an area?
An Air Accident Report, allegedly written by General Nathan
Twining of the Air Materiel Command at Wright Field and published by
the late Len Stringfield, mentions a "Flying Disc Aircraft found near
White Sands Proving Grounds" at some time before 16th July 1947, the
date of the report. Since the report covers the full technical
evaluation of the craft, we can assume the crash happened at least
one month beforehand, if not more.53
Stringfield quoted another witness, Major V. A. Postleweith of US
Army Intelligence, who had seen a classified telex mentioning a disc
crash "in the vicinity of the White Sands Proving Grounds".54
CRASH AND RETRIEVAL WITNESSES
We located several witnesses to a 'crash' that very day in
question: 31st May 1947, in the evening hours. Fred Strozzi, a local
rancher who lived just a few miles away from the crash site, claimed
to have seen a meteorite "bigger than a basketball" falling during
that time and in the area in question, according to Betty and Smoky
Pound, another local rancher couple.55 Unfortunately, Strozzi passed
away years ago, so we couldn't ask him for details.
But the same 'meteorite' had also been seen by a group of Native
American children of the Acoma tribe who went to school in Gallup,
New Mexico. That day, 31st May-which one of them remembered quite
clearly because it was just before her birthday-was a very hot day,
so they played in the evening when it had cooled down. "Suddenly the
whole sky was lit up as if it was daytime," one of them recalled. "In
less than four seconds, a big ball of fire glided silently over our
heads from left to right, i.e., northwest to southeast"-which is the
direction of Socorro. "The light was so bright that we kids held our
hands before our faces to protect our eyes."56
Two days later, most of the children had blisters on their hands and
arms-"itchies" as they called them. We received a letter from the
daughter of one of the witnesses and interviewed two others, one on
the phone, the other on camera.57 A meteorite wouldn't cause
blistering like this. According to the cameraman, when he moved in
about 24 hours later, the crashed disc was still hot and there was
the danger of a fire, so we can indeed assume that the craft was a
'fireball' when it crashed in the late hours of 31st May 1947.
Did the local newspapers cover the 'meteorite' sighting? Ted Loman
tried to find out, and visited the office of the Socorro
Chieftain. He was told that in the late 1960s a fire destroyed
some of the papers and that, in fact, some were missing-those between
10th May and 15th June 1947. At the suggestion of the editorial
assistant he spoke to, Ted tried at the library of the local mining
university, where he found microfilms of all the issues of the
paper-with the exception of those between 10th May and 15th June
1947. His attempt to find them in the Rio Grande Collection of the
New Mexico State University at Las Cruces, New Mexico, was also
Bob Shell tried at the neighbouring town of Magdalena. Again, all
papers from that period were missing. He was told, "You won't find
them. I have been looking for them for years and nobody has them." He
also tried at the Zimmerman Library of New Mexico, without
According to the cameraman, the craft was delivered on the back of a
flatbed truck to Wright Field, Ohio, by the middle of June 1947. A
witness, Howard Marston, a civilian engineer who worked at a testing
laboratory at Wright Field in the summer of 1947, claims he was
present "when they brought in a disc... It was on the trailer of a
truck, covered with tarpaulins. They unloaded it in a hangar. I saw
it from a distance when they uncovered it. It was a metallic disc,
about 30 to 40 feet in diameter," Marston told me when I interviewed
WITNESSES TO THE FILM'S ORIGIN
We located four eyewitnesses who had seen footage from the same
stock as the Santilli film in the possession of the US military and
intelligence-a fact recently confirmed by USAF Capt. John
Master Sgt Bob Allen was security coordinator at a top-secret test
site near Tonapah, Nevada. When he was briefed for his work, he was
shown films for about two-and-a-half hours. When he saw the Santilli
film on TV he immediately recognised them as part of the same stock.
"I saw three autopsies," he told me. "During one, Truman stood behind
the glass screen in the autopsy room. He wore a surgeon's face-mask,
but one could see it was Truman. After a few days the first one died,
then the second. They said, 'Damn, they are dying like flies and we
have to find out if they have any hostile intentions and what they
are doing here. We must find a way to keep the fourth alive.' That's
why the autopsies were done. The fourth extraterrestrial lived for
another two years..."60
Sgt Clifford Stone, US Army, was stationed at Fort Ley, Virginia,
in 1969. He was part of a Nuclear/Biological/Chemical Accident (NBC)
Quick Reaction Team. He said, "My mission on that was to be the NBC
NCO, the communications NCO. I had the opportunity to take our
Lieutenant to Fort Belvoir, Virginia. At Fort Belvoir, myself and
another person, a person from the Air Force, an airman, went to
gallivant around and went up the stairs in an auditorium there, and
we went into one room and sat down, and there was this plexiglass
window down into the theatre...and they were watching down there what
we believed to be trailers of science-fiction movies.
"There were these common saucer-shaped UFOs, cigar-shaped UFOs...and
you also had bodies. The airman and I went ahead and tried to figure
out what movies these came from because we had an interest in SF...
There were several types of bodies... When we did this, some people
came in and told us to follow, in no uncertain terms." Both were
arrested and underwent an "intensified debriefing" which took four
nights and five days. "When I saw the Santilli tape, I saw the
pictures first: they were haunting, because they took me back to this
day in 1969, to these movies that they were watching. There were
bodies that looked very, very, very close to that one. And there were
alive ones, also. I have knowledge that there is footage within a
tent. I have knowledge of a film with-if that is not Truman in the
film, it is a very convincing double."61
On 26th June 1995, the British researcher Colin Andrews visited
Ray Santilli in the presence of the Japanese researcher Johsen
Takano, who advises the Japanese Government in UFO matters, and Dr
Hoang-Yung Chiang of the National Research Centre for Biotechnology
in Taipeh, Taiwan. Dr Hoang-Yung teaches at the Cultural University
and the Medical University of Taipeh and, through his initiative,
ufology is now officially recognised by the Taiwanese Government as a
After a private viewing, both Takano and Hoang-Yung told Andrews they
had seen the film before: Johsen, when his government had requested
UFO information from the US Government, which was then brought to
Tokyo by a CIA courier; Hoang-Yung, when he had visited the CIA's
headquarters in Langley, Virginia.62
While nobody has been able to present any proof that the Santilli
autopsy footage was faked, we have some convincing indications that
the film might very well be genuine. If it is a hoax, it is
definitely the most ingenious fake of the century.
Instead of continuing the polemic of the last year or so, serious UFO
researchers should continue to evaluate the evidence and search for
the truth, in what might turn out to be the most provocative proof
yet that we are not alone in the Universe.
1. Jeffrey, Kent, "Santilli's Controversial Autopsy Movie",
MUFON UFO Journal, Seguin, Texas, USA, no. 335, March
2. (a) Mantle, Philip (ed.), "The Roswell Film Footage", UFO
Times, BUFORA, Batley, England, no. 36, Jul/Aug 1995;
(b) Santilli, Ray (ed.), "Operation Anvil" (press release), London,
3. Shell, Bob, personal communication, December 1995.
4. Santilli, Ray, "My Story" (press release), London, 1995.
5. Santilli, Ray, Conference on the CompuServe Encounters Forum, 25
6. Shell, Bob, personal communication, 18 April 1996.
7. Kiviat, B. and D. Roehring, Alien Autopsy: Fact or
Fiction?, TV broadcast, Fox Network, USA, 29 August 1995.
8. VonKeviczky, Colman, "Autopsy of a Human-like 'Freak' Body"
(report), New York, USA, 23 October 1995.
10. (a) Letter from Eastman Kodak Co., Hollywood, USA, June 1995
(b) Letter from Kodak Ltd., London, UK, 14 June 1995.
11. Shell, Bob, "Summary of Points in Physical Research on Film
Dating" (report), Radford, Virginia, USA, 6 September 1995.
12. (a) Personal information from Terry Blanton, 31 October 1995; (b)
Time Magazine, New York, 18 December 1995.
14. Santilli, Ray, statement published on the Internet, June
15. MUFON Section, CompuServe Encounters Forum, Library, September
16. Kiviat and Roehring, ibid.
17. Stokes, Trey, "Special Effects: The Fine Art of Fooling People",
UFO Times, BUFORA, Batley, England, January 1996.
18. Jansen, T., "Der 'Roswell-Alien': Progerie", Münch. Med.
Wschr., no. 9, Munich, Germany, 1996.
19. "Wie im Lehrbuch", in Der Spiegel, Hamburg, Germany, 23
20. Milroy, Christopher (Dr), statement, 2 June 1995.
21. Wachter, Hanspeter, "Der Roswell-Film", Magazin 2000,
Neuss, Germany, no. 110, May 1996.
22. Kiviat and Roehring, ibid.
23. Roed, Odd-Gunnar, "Norwegian pathologist views the Roswell
footage" (report), Oslo, Norway, March 1996.
24. Misterii (TV broadcast), RAI Due, Italy, 17 October
25. (a) Modern Scientists and Engineers, McGraw-Hill, New
York, vol. 1, 1980;
(b) Current Biography, New York, 1949.
26. Shell, Bob, personal communication, 25 January 1996.
27. Who was Who, p. 784 (copy without year given to Bob
28. Milroy, ibid.
29. Wachter, ibid.
30. Kiviat and Roehring, ibid.
31. Misterii, ibid.
32. Roswell footage TV broadcast, TF1, France, 23 October 1995.
33. Roed, ibid.
34. Santilli, "Operation Anvil", ibid.; personal communications.
35. Murphy, Dennis, "Discussion of Debris Details: Santilli Alien
Dissection Film" (report), published on CompuServe Encounters Forum,
1 March 1996.
36. Malanga, Corrado (Dr), lecture, Roswell Symposium of the Republic
of San Marino, 7 September 1995.
37. Allen, Bob (M.Sgt), personal communication, 24 January 1996.
38. Shell, Bob, personal communication, 18 February 1996.
39. Uhouse, Bill, statement on the Roswell footage panel,
International UFO Conference, Mesquite, Nevada, USA, 1 December
40. (a) Zauzich, Karl-Theodor, Hieroglyphs without Mystery,
University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, USA, 1992.
(b) Wallis Budge, E. A., Egyptian Language, Dover
Publications, New York, reprinted 1983.
(c) Wallis Budge, E. A., An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary,
Dover Publications, New York, vols. 1-2, reprinted 1978.
(d) Watterson, Barbara, Introducing Egyptian Hieroglyphs,
Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1993.
(e) Robinson, Andrews, Story of Writing, London, 1960.
(f) Naveh, Joseph, Die Etstehung des Alphabets ("The Origin of
the Alphabet"), Palphot, Jerusalem, Israel, 1994.
41. Charroux, Robert, Vergessene Welten, Econ,
Düsseldorf, Germany, 1974.
42. von Däniken, Erich, Meine Welt in Bildern, Econ,
43. Homet, Marcel (Dr), Die Soehne der Sonne, Walter, Olten,
44. Charroux, Robert, Das Raetsel der Anden, Econ,
45. Herrera, Salvador Lopez, The Canary Islands through
History, Gráficas Tenerife, Santa Cruz (undated).
46. Wallis Budge, An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, vol. 2,
47. Hesemann, Michael, Cosmic Connections, Gateway Books,
Bath, UK, 1995.
48. Morning Sky, Robert, personal communication, December 1995.
49. Shell, Bob, personal communication, February 1996.
50. Brugger, Karl, The Chronicle of Akakor, Delacorte Press,
New York, 1977.
51. (a) Friedman, S. and D. Berliner, UFO Crash at Corono,
Paragon, New York, 1992.
(b) Randle, K. and D. Schmitt, UFO Crash at Roswell, Avon, New
52. (a) Document in the New Mexico Institute of Mining &
Technology, Socorro, New Mexico, USA;
(b) Wykel, L. and K. Kelly, "The Six Mile Canyon Crash Site"
(report), Albuquerque, New Mexico, 24 September 1995.
53. Stringfield, Leonard, UFO Crash Retrievals: Search for Proof
in a Hall of Mirrors, Cincinatti, Ohio, USA, 1994
54. Stringfield, Leonard, UFO Crash Retrievals: Amassing the
Evidence, Cincinatti, Ohio, 1982 (self-published).
55. Wykel and Kelly, ibid.
56. Letter to Art Bell (radio talk-show host), 10 September 1995.
57. Personal interviews, 19 February 1996.
58. Marston, Howard, personal interview, 2 December 1995.
59. Shell, Bob, personal communication, 18 April 1996.
60. Allen, Bob (M.Sgt), personal communication, 24 January 1996.
61. Stone, Clifford (Sgt), as interviewed by Ted Loman, 20 February
62. Andrews, Colin, personal communication, 28 June 1995.
About the Author:
Michael Hesemann is a cultural anthropologist and historian who
studied at Göttingen University. He is a best-selling author and
award-winning film producer, with expertise in frontier sciences and
extraterrestrial phenomena. He lives in Düsseldorf, Germany.
Since 1984, Hesemann has published and edited Magazin 2000,
which comes out in German and Czech languages. His international
best-sellers, UFOs: The Evidence, A Cosmic Connection
and UFOs: A Secret Matter have been published in 14 countries,
with a distribution of more than 500,000 copies. His latest book,
Beyond Roswell (with Philip Mantle), on his investigation into
the controversial alien autopsy footage, will be published towards
the end of 1996 by Marlowe, New York. Michael Hesemann has produced
several award-winning documentaries, such as UFOs: The Secret
Evidence and UFOs: Secrets of the Black World, and has
worked for TV programmes in Germany, Japan and the US. He has spoken
at international conferences in 22 countries across five continents,
at 30 universities, and at the United Nations. He is an associate
member of the Society for Scientific Exploration.
NEXUS BOOKS, SUBS, ADS & VIDEOS