Michael Hesemann has been around for quite a while, making a name for himself on the UFO speaker circuit, producing well made video tapes on the subject, as an early proponent of Ray Santilli and his Alien Autopsy Footage and as a Billy Meier advocate. I'm sure that most people who viewed his video tape, "Secrets of the Black World" will agree with me that it is a fascinating look into Area 51, UFO's and the alleged governmental involvement.

I'm also quite sure that anyone familiar with Michael are very aware of his inclination to be very open to suggestion, a trait that many I've talked to attribute to his "Quick to Believe" nature. Michael can also be somewhat quick tempered if challenged, and he's challenged often. However, he's ordinarily very amicable and open to critique of his work and discussion about the subject. The following are a few examples of what I consider to be inconstancies in Hesemann's work, and what I perceive to be indicative of his "Need to Believe" predisposition.

The aim of this information is to help fully inform the public on this subject and the people who report on it. This is not an exercise in mud slinging or character assassination, this is an analysis of some of his work and comments. Hesemann has helped to further along the process of getting to the truth. He has also, in my opinion, muddied the waters at times, making statements he regards as facts when at best they are his best approximations. The problem here being that he is in the public eye and thought of by many as being a dependable source of information. The truth is some where in between; Sometimes yes, sometimes times no.

Again, we all have to question everything, anybody says, at all times. The information must be told correctly and timely. Most importantly, if we make a mistake we must correct that mistake publicly and as quickly as possible. If we don't, the mistake grows legs and runs across the globe, muddying the already murky waters.

Mr. Hesemann's response to my critique of his work will follow in each case. Each response with be located in it's own frame box. Subject: HESEMANN Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 17:21:17 -0500 From: Michael Hesemann <100660.3672@compuserve.com> To: "Mark L. Center" <MarkLCenter@iname.com> Dear Mark, A friend of mine informed me about your file on my "sins and errors". Thanks for the understanding position you took in the introduction, but unfortunately your claims where I was "proven wrong" are not valid, at least not all of them. What skeptic's and debunkers claim is not always the truth but very often just their own subjective opinion and hearsay. Let me therefore reply:

The Camera Iris UFO Video from 1995 (i.e., the Diamond Shaped UFO)

Analysis: Hesemann attended the 1997 UFO Congress in Mesquite, Nevada. While there he was interviewed by the television program Strange Universe. Hesemann presented a video segment which he thinks might show a UFO. In reality what it shows is a camera anomaly. This anomaly has been explained on numerous occasion, most notably, during the television show "Where are all the UFO's." Of course Hesemann is based in Germany so he may have been unaware of this show.

Bottom line? None the less, he could (and should) have asked around a little to confirm his thoughts, before he went public.

Hesemann Response 1. Diamond shaped UFO: I KNOW that this is a lens distortion, but still the witness filmed a real UFO. I informed the representative of STRANGE UNIVERSE on that distortion effect, but, for whatever reason, they still wanted to use the footage, since it is from Russia and Russian film material is quite rare. If they used my FULL comment or just an excerpt I cannot judge, since I never saw that programme - I can´t get it here in Germany.

Beyond Roswell - The Book

Hesemann has been involved with the investigation of the Alien Autopsy since the beginning. Early on Hesemann stated that the " preponderance of the evidence points to it being the real thing, while there's no evidence of it being a hoax." (CompuServe, Encounters Forum - 1995). Two years have passed and, in fairness, his statement is still true, but only when presented in a manner unitizing 1995 1996 information. It is true that no "hard evidence" has been found to demonstrate that this footage is a hoax. However, Hesemann can not point to anything remotely resembling "hard evidence" to back up his claim that it may be genuine. If we approach 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 corroborating 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.

Hesemann Response BRONK: The Italian CUN-team which investigated the film, based on a BETACAM received by Maurizio Baiata directly from Ray Santilli, the person behind the window could be identified as Dr. Detlev Bronk, compared with actual photos of him. Therefore a claim of the Cameraman (CM) was verified by an independent comparative analysis. Furthermore, the cameraman mentioned a "Dr. Williams or Willies" whose EXISTENCE, formerly unknown, we were able to verify. He indeed was a US Army surgeon at the time in question. My Response: Hesemann bases this claim on the Italian's assertion that the exposed forehead on the person behind the observation window "seems" to be the same forehead as in photo's of Dr. Bronk.

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.

Hesemann Response BOXES: The boxes were identified as biofeedback computers not by the cameraman but by SEVERAL eyewitnesses who actually saw these boxes, including Col. Philip Corso, two US Gov.´t scientists (one from Sandia lab, one from Area 51) and a US officer handling alien hardware at Tonapah. Therefore it is not an OPINION, but an identification by serious sources and eyewitnesses independent from the CM. My Response: Hesemann found these eyewitnesses AFTER the footage was released. At no time did anyone come forward BEFORE the release of the footage and make specific reference to the boxes shown in the Debris Footage.

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 explain his change of heart.

Hesemann Response WINSTON: I quoted Stan Winston literal from the FOX Network programme "Alien Autopsy - fact or Fiction".  I do not care for his subjective OPINION (it must be a hoax because everyone says so or because he did not want to make a fool out of himself or whatever) but for his objective EXPERTISE, "knowing how difficult it is for us... to actually simulate cutting skin." My Response: What Hesemann does not mention here is that Mr. Winston was mislead (lied to) before he watched the footage for the on-camera interview. Winston was told that the film stock was "conclusively dated to around 1948." Hence, his remarks reflect that information. When he was informed that NO Alien Frames had been tested he revised his statement.

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 "description 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 ascertain), they've never ask to view whatever this footage may be.

Hesemann Response KODAK: actually confirmed the age of the leader of the AA-footage, and that´s all I claim when I write on page 207: "...after Santilli had sent them fragments of the film from the unexposed leaders." That´s clear enough, isn´t it? My Response: What Hesemann does not make clear here is that with this very inconclusive dating method as well as some chemical analyses done on these snippets of film, from this thin research he publicly states that the "Alien Autopsy footage is from at least 1958". Further, Hesemann states publicly that the snippets of film that have been tested came from the same reel (s?) that the AA film stock came from. He has no proof other than Ray's word regarding this "fact". Also, those few snippets sent out for testing were added to the Santilli released footage AFTER we at CompuServe ASKED Ray to add them to the tape. This surely helps the augment that these snippets came from the same roll of film. Maybe, maybe not. In what way these snippets came to Ray (loose or attached to a reel(s), we may never know for sure. Lastly, the stairway snippet IS NOT on the Santilli released video tape. Santilli Released Snippet Santilli Released Snippet Frame From Video

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.

Hesemann Response SHELL: Shell dated the fragments he had, which show the actual autopsy room without the being, of being pre-1957. Although it turned out to be a DUPLICATE of the original footage, the duplicate can only be made BEFORE 1958, after which the film was not usable any more. Therefore Shells analysis of the duplicate being PRE-1958 proved, of course, that the original must be pre-1958, too, since you can only copy an already existing film. Since the edge marks were copied, too, and are 1947, it is the only logical date for the original film, copied pre-1958. My Response: Hesemann's entire argument here is based upon an ASSUMPTION that the few snippets are from the same footage. An assumption he can not back up.

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.

Hesemann Response SANTILLI/CM: The cameraman went public in the meantime by giving an open interview, confirming Rays story. The film itself was seen by at least five persons I talked to, one working for a major duplicating facility in London. Unfortunately I cannot reveal the ladies name, since the company does not want to get involved in the story. My Response: This is an interesting statement. Hesemann states that an employee of a major duplicating facility in London "saw" the "film" footage. One has to assume that it was not Rank because Hesemann has no trouble using their name to back up his claims. I assume that what he's talking about here is the mass VHS duplication that took place to fulfill the orders. If not, Hesemann is holding back on very important information. For, if he does have information regarding a few people that actually saw the uncut footage, then he 's the only person on the planet that can state this. Because Hesemann, Mantle, Shell, and all the others involved he HAVE NOT SEEN FILM FOOTAGE UNROLLED AND READY FOR INSPECTION.

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.

Hesemann Response PRESIDENT: Yes, I wrote the letter to Clinton before we learned that Ray just obtained a COPY of the original 1947 footage, made before 1958. That indeed is the only real mistake I made in the book, but it does not change anything.

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.

Hesemann Response INTERVIEW: Yes, we added the information on the interview in January 1997, that´s why it is at the very end of the chapter, like a postscriptum. My Response: Again, if Hesemann had the time to ADD this information, he could have ADDED another full chapter of the corrections I've already brought to his attention.

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.

Hesemann Response BOTTOM LINE: If you carefully read the book, you will find out that the true reason why I believe in the authenticity of the AA footage is not the unsatisfying film analysis, but my own investigation into THE CAMERAMAN´s STORY, which surprisingly had nothing to do with the original Roswell event but pointed to a hitherto unknown crash near Socorro, for which, to our greatest surprise, we found lots of evidence and eyewitnesses. Furthermore, eyewitnesses confirmed they saw the very Footage released by Santilli DURING THEIR TIME AND SERVICE in the US Forces,  and some even saw the hardware visible on the film. There were many details in the footage, unknown to the public, which even convinced US Army Col. Philip Corso of its authenticity, although he, by himself, only saw the 4-fingered Roswell creatures. My Response: Hesemann found eyewitnesses after the fact in every case.

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.

Hesemann Response MANTLE/CC INTERVIEW: You are wrong when you say that the German language online conference with me was "in early 1996", since I saw the interview I refer to when I visited Rays office in August 1996, so the conference might have been by the middle of August 1996, a week later. As far as I know Phil saw the ORIGINAL cameraman's interview already in July 1996, when visiting Ray Santilli's office in London and recognized his voice. He has not seen the Japanese version, which is somewhat edited, before you sent it to him. This is how I understood him, at least. Of course I had no way to verify any detail during an online conference when suddenly someone asks me about the AA footage, since I cannot be online and call Phil at the same time. But that´s how I understood him. In the meantime, as you quoted, he confirmed also to you that the voice on the interview is the same as the one he heard when the CM called him, so I was right, one way or the other. It is always a nice technique trying to disprove a whole image by pointing to unimportant details, but the overall picture remains the same: WE HAVE A CHAIN OF EVIDENCE THAT THE AA FOOTAGE IS AUTHENTIC, when we do not have any proof for a fake. If it would ever turn out to be false, what do we make out of the many eye witnesses who even saw the film during their time in the military? What do we make out of the eyewitnesses for the crash of a "fireball" near Socorro just in the night in question, the night before the CM learned about the crash?  And what do we make out of the testimony of those who actually HANDLED the debris/"boxes" you see on the footage and identified it? Think about it. And, just for the records: I LISTEN to nay one, any story of interest, but I only accept any if I uncover evidence for its veracity. My principal assumption on the AA footage, the Billy Meier case or any other case was that it is a HOAX, and I only changed my mind when EVIDENCE surfaced. I might be the only researcher in the UFO field who searched for the truth in 42 countries of all five continents, traveling over a million kilometer's in this decade. Of course it is easy to criticize me, but... where´s the evidence? Many greetings, merry Christmas and may God bless you. Michael Hesemann My Response: Mantle never stated that the voice he heard was the same voice. He does not know it was the same voice. What we make of the military witnesses and other eyewitness's you found is, you found them after the fact. What that means, I'm not sure. Looking for eyewitness's after the fact is less than proof. Lastly, please keep this in mind. If you take away nothing else after reading my Hesemann material please beware the Mr. Hesemann will publicly pass off his assumptions, wishes and best guesses as fact and evidence. That alone calls into question his objectivity and reliability as a historian / researcher.

Newest Hesemann exchange. End of October / Novenber 1999

Another e-mail exchange with Hesemann 1998