There seems to be further evidence which may substantiate Keith Bateman and Alan Price-Watts' claims that Ray Santilli knew the true origins of the 'tent footage'.
Researching the earliest
claims and background to this film, I have discovered an important commentary
which appeared in Colin Andrews' 'Winter 1995' issue of his 'Circles Phenomenon
Research International
Newsletter'.
As I see the newsletter mentioned in discussions during June 1995, it had presumably been published by then.
Colin wrote:
CIRCLES PHENOMENON RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL NEWSLETTER
Vol .III No.III
Winter 1995
Colin Andrews
[...]
ROSWELL FILM DISCOVERY
[...]
"During the first days
of 1995, I received a telephone call in the U.S. office from my close friend,
Reg Presley in the U.K. Many people know of Reg's interest in the crop
circle phenomenon and UFO's. He
is the lead singer of the popular 60's rock group 'The Troggs' ('Wild Thing',
'Love Is All Around', etc.). Reg told me that his manager had been talking
with a business man in London, Raymond Santilli, managing director and owner
of Merlin Productions, a mass media organization with close show biz connections.
He and Reg had business dealings some years ago and were tying up loose ends.
Santilli suggested to Reg's manager that Reg should come to London and see some
material Ray thought
he would be interested in. Ray claimed the material was the original U.S.
army film of the crashed UFO at Roswell. He claimed the film had been
offered to Stephen Speilburg (sic) for a movie a short time ago, but was turned
down. Very excited, Reg set up a meeting at the Merlin Offices in London
just after Christmas. A 15 minute segment of the film was transferred
onto video from the 16mm original
for Reg to view.
So where did this film come from and who is offering it? According to Santilli, he was offered the film in the presence of a Fox TV executive while procuring footage of Elvis Presley for a biography Santilli was then producing. The man he was purchasing footage from was an elderly ex-military intelligence photographer and camera man. Santilli was purchasing unpublished footage of Elvis as a soldier which has since been included in a video production on the life of Elvis.
The seller of the film apparently went on to offer Santilli 15 cans of undeveloped film, filmed by him while in the military, of the Roswell crash scene from the ground and air, and of the alien autopsies. He claims he was the military intelligence photographer recording events as they occurred. Because of the highly unusual nature of events, apparently proper channels were not followed and when it came time for Washington to collect the film, only two cans were developed and retrieved, the rest were left with the camera man. For the next 46 years he had hidden the film, afraid of reprisals from the government should he show it. Now, as an elderly man, he was looking for a substantial sum of money to buy a house for his niece as a wedding present and decided to sell the film. The man dragged out the old cans and permitted a small piece of film to be cut from the leader on one film to be taken to London for analyses.
According to Santilli,
Kodac (sic) in London reported that the film was of about 1948 vintage.
That was good enough for Santilli who purchased all the cans for $100,000 (he
has also mentioned $150,000).
If this is all true, the American government should be nervous about loosing (sic) material which IF authentic would prove to the world that they have instigated one of the biggest lies and deceptions to the American people and the world at large.
My involvement in these events came about through Reg Presley. By the end of the first week in January, Reg had reviewed the 15 minute segment and included me in his research efforts. Reg and I asked for a meeting with Santilli which was arranged for Friday the 3rd of February. I flew from New York to meet with Reg and Santilli in his London office, taking Synthia, my wife, as witness to the proceedings. Santilli explained how he came to purchase the film and how easy it had been to fly it out of the States. He was, however, having some difficulty developing the aged film. Some of the reels were worse than others, the greys were merging with the blacks and images were nondescript. The prestigious Royal Society in London agreed to assist with their high-tech computer enhancement facility.
Apparently results from computer enhancement were good and Santilli said they only had a few more films to complete. He said he had viewed all that had been developed and was confident of its authenticity. He stated that it showed the crash scene and the debris being inspected and removed. It also showed two autopsies with one of the autopsy films showing very clearly President Truman watching the procedures. Allegedly, Truman is standing with others behind a glass screen and his face can be seen so clearly that you can lip-read his words. All the film is in black and white and without a sound track. According to the photographer, the second autopsy was undertaken in a military hospital in Dallas. I asked Santilli what was the most impressive thing he had seen on the film. What had convinced him that it was authentic - "I had no doubts" he said, "when I saw President Truman".
The first so-called autopsy was contained on it's (sic) 15 minute film and it was this that Reg and I viewed. It showed what appeared to be two medical personnel dressed in white coats working on the left-hand side of a body which was laying horizontally on a table of some kind. The "medical" personnel were not wearing hats, gloves or masks. The alleged E.T. was draped in a white blanket with it's head, feet and right hand showing. Because of the angle of the stationary camera, positioned to the right-hand side of the table and beyond the feet, it is difficult to estimate the size of the body.
It could be as small as 4'1" or as large as 6'. My personal guess is 5'10". The feet appear slightly larger than human, as does the pear-shaped head which seems hairless. They eyes appear very large and black. It is just about possible to make out a small nose and perhaps a tiny mouth also. It is difficult to be sure how many fingers are on the right hand but I believe it has four finger and a thumb - the thumb can be clearly seen. I asked Santilli if he would permit me to take a copy of the film back to America, where I could obtain a medical opinion on the procedures being undertaken. Santilli agreed under the condition that no one else would be permitted to view it.
Bound by this agreement, I returned to the U.S. and showed it to Dr. Gale Ramsby, MD, professor of Radiology at the University of Connecticut Health Center. It is the opinion of Dr. Ramsby that the film may show a medical procedure rather than an autopsy. Santilli verified that the photographer does indeed claim that this was an emergency procedure carried out in a barn at the crash site after discovering that one of the two aliens was in fact still alive. In the film, two medical personnel appear to be removing a dressing from a wound on the left hand side of the torso or on the left arm. The exact spot is masked by the body, which is between the camera and the wound. >From time to time large wads of something assumed to be dressing or tissue is inspected closely by both men and placed away from the table.
Through-out the film there is a square marker board in the bottom right hand side of the screen, on which is marked the following:
RESTRICTED ACCESS
AO1 CLASSIFICATION
SUBJECT 1 OF 2
JULY 30th 1947
There are three or four
white flashes periodically during the film which consultants suggest may be
caused by splicing. During these flashes, and with the film playing back
frame by frame, it can be seen that the marker board remains on the screen,
while all else is whited out. This indicates that the marker board was not present
during the filming of the procedure but was superimposed afterwards, probably
during development.
[End]
The significant confirmation from Colin is of course:
"Santilli verified that the photographer does indeed claim that this was an emergency procedure carried out in a barn at the crash site after discovering that one of the two aliens was in fact still alive".
Wow...
So how could Ray Santilli have known the film setting was a barn? The default answer must be that he was fully aware of the film's true origins.
Whether that is true,
you must judge.
An alternative explanation would have to be that the 'cameraman' did confirm he had shot the film in a barn and it documented an emergency medical procedure on one of the 'aliens'.
Given what we no know about the true background, that doesn't seem plausible.
The apparent certainty of the alleged 'cameraman' is in contrast to later claims that the 'he' was unsure about the footage and didn't recognise the filming style, etc.
Perhaps the overall conclusion is the one most evident; the 'barn footage'(which apparently it should always have been designated!) was always known to be fake and originally promoted as the 'medical procedure' on an 'alien', claiming the 'cameraman' confirmed details of its authenticity.
Subsequently, the 'tent footage' was dropped as it had become surplus to requirements, became something of a problem and most importantly, detracted from the far superior 'alien autopsy' footage.
Part of the 'tent footage' which Bob Kiviat acquired and which had faces digitally masked, might have been a result of maintaining its presence as 'Roswell' evidence, whilst ensuring none of the actors were identified.
Thus the 'cameraman' subsequently became 'uncertain' about this sequence of film...and so on.
As previously noted, Keith Bateman also claims that when they first showed the film to Ray, he said it should have a 'restricted notice' on it. They then superimposed the infamous 'security codes' and produced another version of the film.
This is the origin of the 'security coded' mentioned by Colin Andrews and would explain why some reports of the 'tent footage' noted there was no such 'coding' - that editing presumably being missing from the earlier copy. There's further evidence to support the point, however, that shouldn't be necessary.
Bateman claims that they filmed the 'alien autopsy/medical procedure' in a barn and had the local farmer play the part of President Truman, as this was a story they had found in their own research into the Roswell case.
I can't recall where this was claimed in the Roswell literature - does anyone know what the probable source is?
I have no doubt that the published 'debris' footage, depicting those distinctive 'Roswell I-beams' with 'hieroglyphics', similarly owes its origins to Roswell lore.
What inspired the 'alien' in the 'autopsy footage', however, is a mystery, other than the obvious deduction that to be credible and practicable from a SFX viewpoit, any 'autopsied alien' had to be hairless and sexless, certainly devoid of any sexual 'appendages'.
Some further comments
re Colin's newsletter:
"He claimed the film had been offered to Stephen Speilburg (sic) for a movie
a short time ago, but was turned down".
There were first of all rumours that Spielberg was planning a 50th anniversary 'Roswell' film and later that he had acquired some 'Roswell footage' from an elderly ex-military cameraman. The story (apparently merely unfounded rumour and of no consequence) is briefly documented in 'The Manikin Who Fell to Earth' article on my web site, at:
"According to Santilli, he was offered the film in the presence of a Fox TV executive...".
No known substance to this at all and I suspect that Colin is in fact referring to Gary Shoefield who was in the US with Ray Santilli during the 'Elvis memorabilia' trip. Gary was at that time employed by a division of PolyGram.
"The prestigious Royal Society in London agreed to assist with their high-tech computer enhancement facility".
It can only be noted that Colin reports this and that Paul Fuller contacted the 'Royal Society', who confirmed they do not have any such facilities and had no knowledge of these claims.
"What had convinced him that it was authentic - 'I had no doubts' he said, 'when I saw President Truman'".
At the end of 1995,
Ray explained, "I mentioned this to a researcher in the early days, before we
had completed the processing of the reels. It was a mistake on my part. I repeated
what the cameraman had
told me and expected no problem with the development of the film. Unfortunately
the film on this reel was too badly damaged to retrieve an image".
"The first so-called autopsy was contained on it's (sic) 15 minute film and it was this that Reg and I viewed".
No, it was the 'barn footage', the 'first autopsy' is a film which few people were shown and has never been released.
To reiterate, there's now an html'd version of the 'Mail on Sunday' article with a 'tent footage' frame showing those 'security codes', on my web site at URL:
Images from the 'tent footage' which doesn't have the bogus, superimposed 'notice', can be seen on Neil Morris's site, at URL:
http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/tentft.htm
I anticipate there will be further developments, hopefully encompassing all of the 'alien autopsy' footage.
James.
E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk