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 sceptics and debunkers claim is not always the truth but very often just their own subjective opinion and hersay. Let me therefore reply:

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.

2. Alien Autopsy/BEYOND ROSWELL:

The book was written by me and Philip Mantle. My participation is the original manuscript I wrote in German in late 1995/early 1996 and which was published in the summer of 1996 here in Germany. A translator translated it into English and we gave it to Phil for correction and updating, since the US edition was supposed to come out in Spring of 1997. Therefore the two levels of information. Before the book went into print it was possible to ADD some updates, but not to change the principal manuscript. The publisher did not let us do any changes, and they did not even allow us to correvt major typographical errors. Bob Shell himself proof-read the manuscript and faxed them his corrections, and so did we - NOTHING was accepted by the publisher. What can we do? Not even for the paperback-version they were willing to accept any changes/updates. Since the interview with the cameraman was a very significant news, and it could be added it to a pre-existing appendix, THIS was accepted by MARLOWE..

To your critiques:

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 comparitive 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.

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.

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."

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?

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 usuable 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 hithero 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.

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 cameramans interview already in July 1996, when visiting Ray Santillis 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 verfy 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 eye-witnesses 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, travelling over a million kilometres in this decade.

Of course it is easy to critizise me, but... where´s the evidence? Many greetings, merry christmas and may God bless you.

Michael Hesemann

Newest Hesemann exchange. End of October / Novenber 1999

Another e-mail exchange with Hesemann 1998

Continue with a review of some of Mr. Hesemann's work