However, Hesemann can not point to anything remotely resembling "hard evidence" to back up his claim that it may be genuine. If we appraoch this footage using common sense and rational thinking, one can only "guess" that it is a hoax. The same can be said for the other side, although making the leap to ET being is, a leap of faith.
In his book "Beyond Roswell", Hesemann makes many plunders in telling what actually went on during the initial investigation. I'm told that Hesemann's manuscript was written months ago so many things have changed. I'm not persuaded of this, however, in light of this possibility I will only bring attention to examples of information which should never had been included in the "draft" version of the book (which I also have).
Why? Because this information was already "superseded" by new information, information Hesemann either had first hand knowledge of or, information he could have easily confirmed, before going public. Also, while some Alien Autopsy information in this book did happened the way stated , many of these are presented in such a way so as to posture it in a conclusive, factual, and evidentiary stance. In many cases this is just not the case.
Caption under a still from the Alien Autopsy footage:
"The end of the autopsy: Clearly visible: The telephone and the microphone (hanging from the ceiling), behind the window Prof. Dr. Detlev Bronk."
Analysis: This is very misleading caption. It has been reported that the name of Detlev Bronk "may" appear on a note book in the First Alien Autopsy footage (FAAF). Few people have seen this footage and there is nothing close to a confirmation on this rumor. Also, the cameraman allegedly told Santilli that Bronk was there with a Dr. Willies or Williams (page 185). Bronk's name also appears in the infamous MJ-12 documents. However, this information was not included in the Cameraman Statement and no coroberating evidence has been found.
Bottom line? The caption is meant to be read as fact, which it is not. This caption can not been substantiated by anyone one but the cameraman. The cameraman and his story can not be substantiated by anyone but Ray Santilli.
Caption under a still showing the Alien Autopsy: Debris Footage: Six Fingered Boxes
"Two of the boxes the entities hold in their hands. According to a government scientist they are "biofeedback computers" used to control the craft and store information."
Analysis: Another misleading caption. We have no idea what these boxes are. The cameraman makes reference to them in the Cameraman's Statement (released by Santilli in 1995), and in the Cameraman's Video Interview, (Fuji TV, December 19, 1996). He states that, "the freaks were holding these "boxes." Concerning the statement made by "a government scientist", this statement reads as fact. A fact that is not backed up with any corroborating evidence.
Bottom line? It is an opinion by the author(s), nothing more.
From page 202:
Special Effects Artist Stan Winston "...and knowing how difficult it is for us in the live-effects world to actually simulate cutting skin..."
Analysis: Winston did say during his on-air critique of the footage that he thought it would be difficult to do the autopsy footage as an effect. However, when pressed by Time Magazine for his conclusive thoughts, Stan said, "Do I think its a hoax? Absolutely!" (Time Magazine, 1995)
Bottom line? This follow-up quote does not appear in the Hesemann / Mantle book. To date no one has been able to get Winston to explaine his change of heart.
Captions under two photos (page 205)
"Two confirmations from Kodak Hollywood and London: The edge codes on the Santilli footage are either 1927 - 1947 - 1967"
From page 207:
"The 16mm original shows the code sign KODAK, with a black triangle and a black square."
Analysis: Kodak's "conformation" regards a section of clear "unexposed leader" with no image (see the response and follow up story in Kodak - Hollywood section). Kodak - London and Denmark was given a "discription over the phone" of the edge. Kodak - Hollywood did not seen 16mm film stock with an image on it. Currently, none of the "film samples" which Santilli released for "authentication" can be traced in a conclusive manner to the Alien Autopsy footage.
Bottom line? Kodak never confirmed the date of the Santilli footage, nor has anyone outside of Ray Santilli viewed the original "copy" of the film. I've heard rumors that Philip Mantle and others have seen what might be at least some of the footage in Santilli's, London office. So far (as far as I can acertain), they've never ask to veiw whatever this footage may be.
Caption under a still of Bob Shell (page 206)
"Bob Shell, editor of Shutterbug magazine, confirmed the age of the Santilli footage."
Analysis: Early on in this story, Bob Shell was given a small segment of film by Santilli. At first Shell thought that this segment might show the open autopsy room doorway and the table. Upon closer investigation it was found that the table was much to low to be the autopsy table. Later, Shell agreed with Film Archivist, Clive Tobin's remark, "This is not "camera original film, it's a copy." Consequently Shell said we'd have to go back to square one, retracting his statement, "I'm 95% sure that this film would have to have been developed very near 1947" (CompuServe September 6, 1995)
Why retract his statement? Because you can't conclusively date a print, because a print can be made on any available film stock, from any year providing it is in a satisfactory condition.(Shell's "95% statement" is in the Hesemann book, what is not in the book is Shells re-tractment of that statement, which was made in early 1996).
Bottom line? Shell never dated (i.e., confirmed the age of) or had tested, any film which can be traced in a conclusive manner to the Alien Autopsy footage.
From page 207:
"There is only one way to settle this question: one must establish the age of the original film"
Analysis: This can not be done. The only film expert involved here (Bob Shell) is in agreement that what Santilli has is a print (copy) of the original. What ever the findings are will be inconclusive at best. Without the camera original film you have nothing to base any conclusions on.
Bottom line? In my opinion, the cameraman must come forward and spill the beans, all the beans, then and only then will we come to some conclusion about this film.
From page 248:
"...Ray Santilli buys from a former U.S. Army cameraman a film..."
Analysis: Ray Santilli has released no information that would prove that there is a cameraman, retired from the Army or otherwise. The cameraman's video taped interview and the cameraman's statement prove nothing and those pieces of "evidence" is all there is to substantiate his existence.
From page 258:
"Did Bob Shell find the right man? Obviously he did."
Analysis: This comment concerns the allegation that Bob Shell has found the real cameraman and he knows where he lives (Florida). I talked to Shell about this and he does indeed think he has found the right guy. I then asked him why he doesn't contact the man? Said Shell, "I'd rather wait and have Santilli set up a meeting. I'm afraid this guy might not talk to me if I'm to forward."
Bottom line? It's Shells best guess, and not fact, as the authors obviously present it as.
From page 258:
"The tape was made from the original 16mm film...."
Analysis: This is a quote from a letter Hesemann wrote to the President of the United States on December 12, 1995. Not long after this did we learn that this is not camera original film but a print (copy) made from the original.
Bottom line? No where in this book will you find reference to this critical "film print" information.
From page 260:
"I'm going to bed."
Analysis: This line comes from a transcript of the Cameraman's Interview. It is interesting that the authors chose to include this information for the following reason. I've been told that the manuscript was done very early on and that is why it contains out dated information. The cameraman's interview was broadcast on December 19, 1996 (6 minute version, Fuji TV, Japan). The date the first video still (or frame-capture) and transcript were up loaded on to the internet was early January, 1997.
I know this to be a fact because the line, "I'm going to bed," was a mistake. It was never said in the video interview. The Japanese voice-over ( 6 minute version) made it very hard to hear the cameraman speak, so the transcriber gave it their best guess. Shortly there after the uncut (12 minute, pre-record video tape) version of the interview was released (with no Japanese voice-over) and you could now hear him very clearly.
Bottom line? It's quite clear from this information that the authors had the opportunity to up date their out dated information as late as January 1997. They could not had included the above information any time sooner than early January, 1997. Even if Mr. Hesemann viewed the Cameraman's Interview months earlier than the broadcast date, the phase, "I'm going to bed," came out of the January 1997 transcript and nowhere else.
From page 262:
"At least the analysis proves that the footage was shot on material sold by Kodak before 1956."
Analysis: Bob Shell had a "Santilli supplied" piece of film; a print (copy) with image but not with the ET on it, tested in Italy. Said Shell, "Testing this piece of film will not satisfy the skeptics because its a print, and not the original. I'm doing this because I'm tired of being told I'm covering up or that I'm hiding something."(CompuServe, 1996) The findings do show that the piece of film, which can not be traced in a conclusive manner to the Alien Autopsy footage, is Kodak film stock. Shell stated that he's waiting for Kodak to release more specific acetate batch information so a comparison can be made. This information is most likely proprietary, making its release to Shell highly unlikely.
Bottom line? No camera original negative means there's no film to test.
There are a few more very telling omissions which I can't included here. This is because I do not have the exact date Hesemann's first draft was sent to the publisher. Shell, Mantle and Hesemann have all told me that many of these discrepancies were corrected and sent to the publisher. Evidently the publisher corrected what information they thought was relevant. None the less, some of this information was so far out of date it never should have made it into the first draft. In my opinion this information was included because the authors (Hesemann and Mantle) are firm believers in the footage and they needed to utilize whatever historical information they could gather to substantiate their position.
Bottom Line? The reader (and casual UFO information observer) could conclude that the footage is real after reading this material. Even if the reader isn't 100% convinced by this material they will be swayed in that direction, which is a dubious reason for a book to written. Lastly, please bare in mind that the examples I have presented here are the foundations of the story, it will stand tall or fall flat on these examples. This book does not prove them to be factual in any stretch of the imagination. These many months later and all we have is a silent, black and white video tape, a man claiming to be the cameraman, and little else but anecdotal stories. Reader beware.
In early 1996, Hesemann participated in a (German language only) on-line conference where it was publicly announced (for the first time) that a video interview was completed by the alleged Alien Autopsy Cameraman. Researcher James Easton, had the transcript translated to English and he then asked Hesemann if he had a problem with the results. Hesemann never specifically said he did (at least in public). My response will be in italicized text. Spelling, punctuation, etc., mistakes are the writers own.
Michael,
This is a translation of statements you apparently made during last Friday's conference.
"Nun, der Kameramann ist interviewt worden, und ich habe letzte Woche das Interview in Rays B ro in London gesehen. "
Well, the cameraman has been interviewed and I have seen the interview in Ray's office last week in London.
" Das beweist, da das Argument der Kritiker: "Es gibt keinen (Original-)Film und keinen Kameramann" falsch ist."
That proves, that the argument by critics, "there is no (original-) film and no cameraman", is wrong.
Analysis: This proves nothing of the sort. Hesemann saw a video which showed a man presenting himself as the cameraman. In his video deposition, the cameraman makes the statement, "I am the person who shot the film." I assume that Hesemann regards this statement as fact and therefore there must be film, and he must be the cameraman. There is no 16 mm film shown, handled or projected during the interview and Hesemann has never seen 16mm film which can be traced in a conclusive manner to the Alien Autopsy footage.
Bottom line? 1: It can not be confirmed that any one but Santilli has seen (print) film with the autopsy body on it. 2: It can not be confirmed that any one but Santilli knows who the cameraman is.
"Es war keine Verzerrung, Schattenaufnahme oder sonstwas, ich konnte ihm direkt in die Auge nsehen, und ich war sehr beeindruckt von der offensichtlichen sincerety des alten Herren. "
There was no distortion, shadow silhouette or anything, I was able to look straight in his eyes, and I was very impressed by the obvious sincerity of this old man.
"Es wurde im Juli aufgenommen. Es wird in der n chsten Bob Kiviat Show im US-TV gezeigt. ich habe Ray versprochen, mich zum Inhalt nicht zu u ern. "
It was recorded in July. It will be shown in the next Bob Kiviat Show in the US-TV. I promised to Ray not to reveal any contents.
" Nun, ich wei nicht, ob es unzensiert gesendet wird... ich wei auch nicht wann - das h ngt davon ab, wann jemend Kiviat die Sendung f r einen guten Preis abkauft - aber ich tippe auf diesen Herbst! Ich glaube jedoch, er wird verzerrt in der Ausstrahlung."
Well, I don't know, if it will be shown without censorship... I don't know when, either - this depends on when somebody purchases Kiviat's show for a good price - but I bet it will be this autumn. I believe the cameraman will be distorted in the broadcast.
[Question: Who was a witness for the interview?]
"Sein Sohn! Er ist es. Phil Mantle hat seine Stimme wiedererkannt."
His son! It's him [the cameraman]! Phil Mantle recognised his voice. [End]
Analysis: This isn't all together true. On June 22, 1995 at 8:50 P.M. (Beyond Roswell, page 257), Philip Mantle talked on the telephone with a person claiming to be the cameraman. I (Mark Center) sent Mantle a copy of the video interview in the first part of 1997. Mantle has gone on record to state the following, "I heard the Cameraman's voice during the initial phone call and then when you (Mark Center) sent me the video tape." Mantle went on to say that, "Hesemann may have been mistaken about his information regarding myself and when I saw the video taped interview." I agree with Mantle, however, Hesemann could have easily confirmed his belief, before going public.
Bottom line? Mantle never heard the cameraman's voice again until I sent him the video interview 2 years later.
Are you happy with this translation?
James.